Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 9

Reputable publications -> NPOV
- General issue: I'm a bit puzzled by what that section is doing on the WP:NOR page - I'd say it's mostly about the subject of WP:NPOV, and it even doesn't have a direct bearing on WP:NOR. I think that something must be done about it, but I don't know what. Suggestions are welcome!

- Particular issue: In one article referral is made to a journal called "AAPPS Bulletin". It's available on the web http://www.aapps.org/, thus it's certainly verifiable; and its editor suggests to be well-known in Asia. However, I could not find it catalogued or referenced in Web of Science, nor in Scopus. Thus I fear that it's so unknown that isn't even not reputable. What to do with references to it? Harald88 22:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It looks like a substantial website. Certainly it is attributable, it boasts have subsiderary memberships. Terryeo 04:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly: that makes it certainly NOR. However, as I pointed out first, this particular section is not really about NOR, but about reputability. Can a journal that apparently can't be found in any journals database be claimed to be reputable? Harald88 19:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Um, it says "AAPPS Bulletin" not "AAPPS Journal". You're looking for journals in all the wrong places... FeloniousMonk 20:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

More reasons for sourcing
If anyone still doubts the wisdom of requiring reliable sources, consider the problems that Wired magazine is currently having with its freelancers manufacturing quotes and information, not to mention all the other recent scandals in both print and television. If professionally edited publications are having to tighten their own practices, the world's largest freelance-edited encyclopedia's policy on sourcing looks positively progressive and ultra-responsible. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Were Wikipedia to require editors to register, as opposed to any anon editor from any IP address, anywhere, anytime; our articles would have less vandalism and we editors' efforts would be better spent. Terryeo 18:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * We're not disabling anonymous editing. This comes up every week at the Village Pump. Deco 22:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You don't have to disable anonymous editing, but vandalism is a problem. For pages with heavy traffic, it's an annoyance, but it doesn't compromise the integrity of Wikipedia, because the edits are reverted quickly.  However, for pages that are infrequently trafficked, vandalism can sit on the page for months before someone removes it.  For those pages, you shouldn't disable anonmyous editing, but you should subject it to some sort of concensus voting.  Even requiring just one additional user to "ratify" an edit would cut down on a big chunk of drive-by vandalism.  Michael (talk)  19:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Except for the fact that someone could create two accounts, and use one to 'ratify' the other's edits. --  Donald Albury ( Talk )  23:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Both funny and true. lol. Terryeo 23:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Trolling
Not sure why the warning against trolling is on this page. I don't see any sign of it, nor any indication that this page is more subject to trolling than any other discussion page. Am I missing some history here?

Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 20:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There's been some in the past. Mostly archived now. The issue is that NOR was created partly to prevent trolls and cranks from posting original theories on WP; when they do, it is removed and NOR is cited. They come here and attempt to argue the problem is with the policy and not with them. Deco 22:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems to be a popular and common motivation to sprinkly discussion pages with warnings, constraints and other such triva. Any editor can do it and many editors seem to like doing it.  I, for one, don't think they are worthy of discussion space since every discussion space falls under exactly all of and every policy and guideline.  Such warnings are drivel, distracting to the allocated discussion space and useless. Terryeo 14:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Why don't you call a spade a spade, and say 'crackpot theories'? There is nothing wrong with originality, but there is something wrong with misleading people. --Etaonsh 08:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

How about if I "off" it, then? I love deleting things. GeorgeLouis 05:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

No reason why not. If it's a problem, someone will yell at you and put it up again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.45.125.222 (talk • contribs)


 * I think it would be a good idea to leave it. The latest round wasn't that long ago. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * These templates probably mean a great deal to the people who place them. But to the people who are doing the trolling, they mean nothing at all.  The template didn't cool the hot discussion that went on and on and on.  Terryeo 07:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The templates are not aimed at the trolls, they are intended to remind contributors to be careful about feeding trolls, i.e., that the best way to deals with trolls is to ignore them. --  Donald Albury ( Talk )  12:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess it's not important enough to risk an ensuing fuss if I remove it. GeorgeLouis 04:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed... Michael 02:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: State that "no original research" has a specific meaning on Wikipedia
Emerging from the discussion 'The true meaning of Original Research'.

Problem: There are types of contribution which are permitted under the NOR policy but which would be categorised as 'original research' in certain contexts outside Wikipedia. This is confusing to some users.

Discussion: See 'The true meaning of Original Research' discussion. Some concerns about NOR appear to come from misunderstandings of the policy. Within Wikipedia, "no original research" should be understood as set out on WP:NOR and not with reference to other usages of the phrase. In particular, the act of collation of published material, without any novel analysis, would be regarded as 'original research' in some contexts. An example would be the compilation of a catalogue of manuscripts on a particular topic, collated from the published catalogues of multiple archives. Novel collations are an important aspect of Wikipedia activity and are not inappropriate provided they include only factual and analytical information already available in reputable published sources.

Proposed solution: To be added either to the 'Expert Editors' section or elsewhere as desired:

'Note that the Wikipedia definition of original research is specific to Wikipedia and may differ from usages of the phrase in other contexts. Wikipedia articles may, and sometimes must, bring together information which is not collated elsewhere. Provided that all analytical as well as all factual statements made could, if requested, be referenced to reputable published sources, a contribution meets the criterion of "no original research".' Happydemic 17:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me, I know it confused me when I first started here coming from a Master's Degree in Heritage Preservation as it meant something different to me before I got here. plange 17:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz... --Etaonsh 19:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure. It's jargon, that deserves clarification. Deco 19:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks fairly good, but as a historian who works on historical articles, I'd like a somewhat stronger sense that the information is not selected or brought together in such a way as to present a novel narrative or interpretation, as mentioned in Delirium's discussion with Jimbo. --SteveMcCluskey 01:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Utopian, that. --Etaonsh 02:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Happydemic, with all due respect to a newbie, I would suggest you get some experience contributing to Wikipedia before you start making suggestions about how to improve its policies. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 20:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * In order not to bite the newcomers, I would say rather that while anyone can make suggestions on anything, or edit anything, this article makes up one of the core policies of wikipedia, and therefore will likely take a lot of wikipedia experience to really understand. (and, his suggestion did not seem unreasonable to me) --Xyzzyplugh 23:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Just because someone's new doesn't mean they don't have something valuable to add. On the contrary, sometimes new people are still able to see the forest while we're all mired down in the trees. They can have a fresh take on things and be able to see how policies are actually presented without all the "baggage" of knowing what it really means. Does that make sense? plange 02:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. Something I said myself the previous day in the field of Irish spelling[]. --Etaonsh 08:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Non negotiable
I don't buy into the claim that the last act of a democratic system is to vote out democracy. I equally don't buy into the claim that the last act of a consensus system is to refute consensus. Wording removed.

See also: Verifiability.

In addition, no original research has been negotiated and eventually discarded in the case of wikinews, another wikimedia project. Stating that this guideline would be non-negotiable is therefore empirically false, and extremely misleading.

Kim Bruning 12:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:V just applies to Wikipedia as far as I know, so that last bit is not relevent. Anyway since when is Wikipedia a democratic system? It specifically isn't. We operate on consensus for the most part... but sometimes consensus is wrong. If there were a consensus to put unsourced libel into an article, would we have no choice but to go ahead and do it? Consensus is not a suicide pact. --W.marsh 14:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Consensus is not a suicide pact, but neither should we walk all over it. It's a very bad day when people trod on consensus. Kim Bruning 15:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: Please see WP:Is Not. Jon Awbrey 15:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Huh? Kim Bruning 15:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: WP is not a democracy. It is a proprietary software system that you use under what amounts to a contractual agreement to comply with certain rules, otherwise you can be prevented from using the software. Period. Jon Awbrey 16:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

See what Jimbo said today about this. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 15:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * And I am in complete agreement with Jimbo. My problem is only with the specific way it's been worded, which precludes future maintenance... That might be just a bit of a problem if we want to keep the wiki around for over 100 years (which I do) ;-) See also: Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, for discussion about the phrasing there. Kim Bruning 16:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Jim Wales says, in the link, 'we are not qualified to evaluate such things,' surely a direct contradiction of his key earlier assertion that NOR was introduced because of 'physics cranks' []? --Etaonsh 18:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I see no contradiction. Some physics articles, filled with lots of long words and impressive-looking equations, are true. Others are nonsense. Many Wikipedia editors are incabable of telling the difference, and Wikipedia has no mechanism to distinguish the qualified from the unqualified editors. The solution is to remove the responsibility from WP editors and place it on reputable publishers. --Gerry Ashton 19:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * So, because some people are capable of seeing that other poor folx just ain't, the one-eyed Jimbo is king? --Etaonsh 20:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I enjoy reading this page, but some of the edit summaries are getting a little smarmy, viz: do try to read it for yourself sometime. Can't we all just get along?

Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 18:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: Apparently not without having a LAugh Riot first. But seriously, folks, people who have not made the acquaintance of basic WP policies should not be truckin' wit dis page. Jon Awbrey 18:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It used to be that the only non-negotiable policy was WP:NPOV. Then someone introduced that all three policies are non-negotiable.  Well, I just don't think that is the intent of our founder.  I think that leads to arguements on this page, based on the false assertion that WP:NOR is absolute and non-negotiable. Smarminess results from misunderstandings Terryeo 20:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Citation indexes
The use of citation indexes, databases which count the number of citations of academic articles (e.g. Google Scholar), seems to be permitable under this policy. Citation indexes are an important tool used in the academic community to gauge the influence of topics, authors, and papers. In the context of NOR, since citations of citation indexes are immediately verifiable (per WP:V), they seem to be categorically no different from normal citations. Any opposition to mentioning them in this policy?--Nectar 10:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The purpose of policy is to present the philosophy which can be followed by editors. Editors understand the concepts and then create guidelines which are How to's.  This isn't the place to mention that. WP:CITE might be.  Various help pages might be. Terryeo 20:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Fascinating theory. Do you have a reference for that?  Wait! This is NOR... heh, there's some amount of irony there :-) 


 * Nectarflowed: If you think it'll improve what's being said, I'd say go ahead, this is a wiki. Unfortunately, there's some people who seem to want to lock this page down, however. I'm not sure what they're going to say. Kim Bruning 20:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Nectar, citing the results of Google Scholar for specific criteria seems acceptable so long as the criteria are either stated directly, or if all the editors agree that the criteria is acceptable. What I think isn't allowed is asserting that something is or isn't notable by an arbitrary measure - for example, deciding that an author is only notable if they have 1,000 hits in Google Scholar, versus 999.  Or deciding that the term to be chosen for the search should be "apples" or "granny smiths", if there is any particular disagreement regarding what criteria should be used for the measure. --JereKrischel 00:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * For context, JereKrischel is referring to an argument he's made that there's no categorical distinction between general journals that publish 1% of their articles on a certain subject and specialist journals in the discipline that publish a majority of their articles on that subject. (A search for apples is indeed appropriate if someone is looking for articles on apples.) That's a good example of the kind of problem that citation indexes can solve. --Nectar 02:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Nectar, what were you proposing to add about these databases exactly? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Normally, authors of a review of a topic, such as found in Encyclopedia Britannica, would have the professional experience necessary to evaluate which contributions within the subject are prominent and which shouldn't be given undue weight (in the sense of WP:NPOV). Wikipedia articles also must do this, and in this context citation indexes offer a verifiable and quantifiable measurement to inform these editorial decisions. For example, citation indexes can be one tool in identifying an academic's most prominent papers, or can be relevant in considerations of whether an argument has significant presence in the literature. The proposal is that citations of these direct measurements of the literature be permittable in footnotes in relation to summaries of the literature. I think this article is actually already pretty clear on these matters and an addition probably isn't necessary.--Nectar 00:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Editors citing themselves
I have made a change to the policy which now refers to how editors should cite themselves.

I have made these changes as a result of a discussion with on his eagerness to cite himself.

I believe that basic humility and Wikiquette essentially forbids one from talking about one's own work, as even if in good faith it may be taken the wrong way. I also believe that there are fairly well established principles on such vanity editing. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 17:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure where this policy exists. Can you enlighten — maybe provide a link? Anyway, the idea that all good work has to be published by somebody else really falls short of the mark. For example, I could not have done the editing and rewrite of the Inglewood, California article had I not used a self-published history of that town by Gladys Waddingham. It is thoroughly cited within the body of the article and can be examined by anybody who cares to cast a doubt on any of the facts or theories she presented.


 * There are plenty of other small-town histories that have been self-published, and what about the printed histories of large companies or organizations like the BBC or Ford Motor Company? They weren't published by any third party, yet they are cited as sources.


 * The operative feature under which I operate i: "Cite what I consider to be a reputable source and let the reader prove that it is disreputable." (Sometimes, as an editor, that is exactly what I do: I check the source given in an article to verify that it says exactly what the author of the article is claiming; quite often it does not.)


 * Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 18:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

George, thankyou for your comments. I think you misunderstand though. Citing something written by someone else is obviously desirable. Citing yourself (Reflexively) is bad Wikiquette. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 19:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Citing yourself is not forbidden, although often viewed with suspicion. It's a matter of citing authoritative and reliable sources. If Stephen Hawking were a Wikipedia editor, we certainly wouldn't complain about him making contributions citing his own papers. We would complain about him making new, unpublished statements. Deco 20:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't. It seems in some ways a superior way of disseminating new knowledge than via the route of priveleged access media. --Etaonsh 12:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to change this paragraph: If an editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, Wikipedia can cite that source while writing in the  third person and complying with our  NPOV policy. However, vanity guidelines must be borne in mind and it may be better for the expert to suggest on the talk page of the article that his/her own references are added so that other editors can make the suggested changes. so that it read as follows: If an expert has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, the expert may add the results to a new or existing article, and cite that source. The expert should write in the third person and comply with our  NPOV policy. However, vanity guidelines must be borne in mind and it may be better for the expert to suggest on the talk page of the article that his/her own results and references be added so that other editors can make the suggested changes. My purpose is to
 * use the active voice, so it is clear who is acting
 * phrase the policy so that results and references are always considered together, and avoid any implication that one should be added without the other
 * clarify in the last sentence that the expert editor is asking that something be done, and the sentence is not talking about something that already occured.

--Gerry Ashton 20:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good rewording to me. This merely clarifies the original intent. Deco 08:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Editors citing themselves rule change
I am the origin of all this fuss. I got into a tangle with Dunc|&#9786; over on Raymond Damadian. As he has done before and been censored for,  he engaged in all sorts of specifically-forbidden behavior,  doing reverts,  deleting "disputed section" tags, etc. All without discussion in the Talk page. For some previous history of Dunc's shenangans and a series of editor complaints, see Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-08 Acupuncture.

I've been touching here since Nupedia. After posting here anonymously for years without incident, I made the horrible mistake of registering and then actually revealing who I am.

Following this, Dunc proceeded to track down and revert/delete as many of my entries as he could find under the excuse of "Vanity", citing the fact that I had refered to my own published works. This sure looks like cyberstalking to me. The lesson I learned-- Cross Dunc|&#9786; and you will surely pay for it. If anyone but an adminstrator did this, they would be quickly banned.

Keeping calm after all this vandalism, I then pointed out that the rules specifically-allow "experts" to cite their own work, as long as they treat it no differently from any other cite. Having been caught red-handed again breaking the rules, Dunc|&#9786; now apparently wants to change them to cover his tracks. Good for him, perhaps, but bad for Wikipedia.

For example, if Dunc's revision sticks, it gives free reign for people like him to stalk Wikipedia reverting any expert who quite legally cited his own work under the present rule. Just like Dunc did to me. And, just like me,  these experts will quite reasonably believe they have been vandalized. But this time, under "Color of Law". And, as  Wikipedia cofounder Larry Sanger has noted, you won't see them here any more.

Similarly, the rule change is unworkable. Experts are few relative to the pages. We only wander through occasionally. Posting anything that just happens to contain a cite to ones own published work on the talk page and then waiting for permission to post it to the main page is just not going to happen. It also sets experts up as unequal-- anybody can cite our work but ourselves. All that will happen is more sock-puppets and anonymous posters. Why register when you can avoid the problem by staying anonymous? I never had any problems until I actually registered.

So what, You say--"Experts" are all just stuck up elitist A$$holes full of themselves and ready to tell you about their degrees and stuff in a way guaranteed to make you feel inadequate. Certainly arguable, but irrelevant. In fact, "Experts" provide the check that keeps Wikipedia credible. If we have to tiptoe around the likes of Dunc and his ex-post-facto rule change, we can find much better things to do. Pproctor 21:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Back to before
In line with the reasoning above, I did a revert to before with the additional note that the "Experts can cite their own works" provision is to equalize their second-class status in not being able to cite their own works,  even if these otherwise meet the criteria. Pproctor 23:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That is a better, more compact version. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 00:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's always a question of 'experts' as such. If one happens to be at the boundaries of knowledge in an under-researched subject, it is quite possible to be innovative without laying claim to priveleged status. I, for example, coined the acronyms 'SS' and 'SR' ('simplified spelling' and 'spelling reform' respectively) in a field in which ongoing discussion seemed to be crying out for such abbreviation: but I don't feel that these, or my other coinings, make me an 'expert.' Or am I being too humble? --Etaonsh 16:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I for one am firmly opposed to this policy in any way discouraging expert editors from citing their own peer-reviewed works. This would pretty much cut out all of the leading experts in each field, as these experts would be neither capable nor desirous of posting reviews of their field that ignore their own work. We need to be more welcoming to experts, not less. Snottygobble 11:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, giving up on rational discourse,  some editors do everything they can to drive off experts who differ with them.  In my personal experience, this can include frank acts of vandalism and sabotage.   Something should be done about such "fools and trolls" in Larry Sanger's apt phrase.  But it probably will not be. Pproctor 14:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a general encyclopaedia, for a general audience, and we are non-expert editors. We cannot be expected to judge the difference between an expert original synthesis and an eccentric one.  Jimbo has specifically clarified that even original syntheses from secondary sources are forbidden.  Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance, I for one am comfortable with that.  Expert or not, if it's not verifiable from cited secondary sources it's not for Wikipedia.


 * There is a quite seperate problem with excessive emphasis on certain areas within an article, which represent a significant minority (but still a minority) view. Here I have seen subject experts driven off by trolls promoting minority views. Just zis Guy you know? 14:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Your first point is not an issue. Incidentally, I personally believe "stating the obvious" is not original research and intend to propose this for discussion.  Nor is there a particular problem with experts operating under the same rules as everybody else.   Bring it on,  just as long as the playing field is level.  The rule at issue just establishes this.   At present it merely removes expert's second class citizen status under the "vanity publication" prohibition  and allows them to cite their own published works at arms length,  just like everyone else can.


 * As for your last point. I just got driven off from Raymond Damadian by trollish behavior.   ( Yes,  Dunc, you win, FWIW.)  This includes searching out and reverting everything he could find I had posted on Wikipedia.  As part of  Dunc's pattern of harassment, he also submitted for deletion a bio I had just put up and had not finished.  As noted in his post above,  Dunch's excuse was that I cited my own publications.  When I pointed out that under the rule he proposes to change,  this is perfectly OK,  he comes here and proposes to change the rule.  It is such kinds of "arguement" that I object too. Pproctor 16:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Stating the obvious is rarely an issue. If it truly is the obvious, it is trivial to verify; most of the listed sources for the article will surely support statements of the obvious (we do not have to have every source linked as footnotes to individual statements, after all, we can also include sources in the References section which support the article as a whole).  Citing your own work as a source is likely to cause problems per WP:VAIN, but if there are good quality syntheses which also cite your material you can cite them without trouble.  As Dunc said, If you want to make a change that in any way might be interpreted as self-promotion, you need to discuss it on the talk page of the article first. If your edit is valid, someone else will do it for you.  Like I said, we cannot tell the difference, as non-specialists, between an expert and a POV-pusher.  I happen to think that Robert Hooke is unjustly under-recognised, and I have Robert Gunther's books on Hooke as a source, but Gunther was a huge fan of Hooke's and you have to treat what he says with a little scepticism, just as you must take Hooke's own statements with a grain of salt.  Just zis Guy you know? 16:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The Line?
I'm new around here, or at least my account is new. But I've been using Wikipedia anonymously long enough to have learned about some of its policies beforehand. And I had a question about this, one of the holy trinity of Wiki policies.

Let's say we have John. John decides to make the article List of Fictional Characters with Widow's Peaks. Ignoring the fact that this is flgarant listcruft, on the surface is seems to violate WP:NOR, since I doubt there is a compendium of the sort John has made in any (reputable) source. However, since one of the things the NOR article says is that synthesis in the context of the article is okay, John could simply cite a source for every character in the list which proves said character has a widow's peak. This seems agreeable.

Now we have Scott. Scott has used prior scientific knowledge to craft a grand unified theory. Instead of doing what a sane person would do -- publish the article in a peer-reviewed journal and reap in the mountains of acclaim within the scientific community and without, he instead makes the Wikipedia article Scott's Theory of Everything. Obviously, despite its status as nobel-level science, it cannot be accepted in Wikipedia until an outside source has verified it. But if all John did was synthesize previous verified knowledge and used it in the context of the article, what's wrong with it in the first place? It doesn't seem to be outright original research. Where is the line between synthesis of a secondary source and the creation of a primary one? And how much does WP:Verifiability weigh into situations such as these? Thank you for your time. --The Sultan of Surreal. 13:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * To answer one idiosyncratic posting with another: the only problem I have with 'Scott' arriving at a valid Theory of Everything and democratically posting it here, first, rather than some exclusive scientific journal, is not his claim to have unravelled the underlying theory behind the cosmos, but the suggestion that said theory is somehow his ('Scott's...'). --Etaonsh 17:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, well, the title of the article was only to elucidate a point (and for humor), but I am absolutely sure that Scott's GUT would be deleted as per WP:NOR. Should it, though? --The Sultan of Surreal. 19:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Failure to Communicate
What we have here is a failure to communicate. Unfortunately, many non-scientist Wiki editors are clearly not aquainted with how consensus is reached in science or the way scientific review articles ( Which are fancy versions of what Wikipedia does ) operate. As Larry Sanger notes, this "mismatch" between their expectations and the training and experience of a typical "expert" can be a source of much friction and some bad feeling. Been there done that-- As an "expert" I have to keep reminding myself that the audience here has not been brought up in my particular (but not exclusive) tradition of intellectual discourse and quell my frustration. In a review, a researcher surveys the literature, doing, as the Wikipedia rules require, "no original research" and backing all assertions by proper references to literature sources. As the Wikipedia rule under consideration now allows, he will quote his own research at arms length. Nobody blinks at this and it is not "vanity". Imagine the response if some scientific journal editor had a rule that experts could not cite their own work becasue this is somehow a "vanity publication". First, such a review would completely lack credibility. Second, nobody would ever submit such an article. Pproctor 14:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you give a specific example of where someone deleted your including a citation to a çn article you published in a peer-reviewed journal? 200.110.89.159 17:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * One example, among several--Look on the history page of melanins for any changes made by Dunc Pproctor 17:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Pproctor, people are allowed to cite their own published work, so long as it's specifically about the topic and is what we regard as a reliable source, and provided it's written in a disinterested tone and in accordance with NOR and NPOV. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolutely true and precisely my point. Systematically deleting/reverting anything posted by an expert under the excuse that he cites his own published work is an abuse.   First,  it is doubtful that you could find a single "expert" here who does not do it in good faith.   What are you going to do,  hunt down their postings and delete them?  Think it can't happen-- I just had it happen to me for stuff I posted in perfectly good faith and entirly in accord with the rules. Pproctor 17:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I can see part of the problem. Namechecking yourself always looks a bit off, and redlinking your own name looks very much like vanity, an implicit invitation to create an article on you (well done for not clicking the redlink, though).  Also, text like Though published in a major journal, these findings were likely ignored until similar devices were developed about 20 years later looks like the writing of the disgruntled rather than the disinterested. But this Talk page is not the place to air one editor's grievances with one admin, that is a job for the dispute resolution processe. Just zis Guy you know? 20:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The issue here is that an admin broke the rules to commit acts of vandalism over a personal conflict. When called upon it, he tried to change the rule he broke to cover his tracks.  Clearly,  this is a viable issue for the talk page of the rule he is attempting to change.  For one thing,  I can tell you from personal experience what would happen should this rule change go thru.


 * As for "dispute resolution"-- The admin was recently censored for similar erratic behavior, drawing a lot of ancillary complaints in the process. See: Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-08 Acupuncture. He clearly did not change his behavior because of this. Pproctor 23:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC}


 * Until Pproctor starts writing his own article, or describing his cited publications in fulsome terms, I fail to see how WP:VAIN applies. If he is citing items that have been published by reliable sources in a balanced way that does not ignore or dismiss other equally or more prominent published sources, then what is the problem? And even if he does fail to present a balanced view, that would be an NPOV problem, and should be handled as such, not as a vanity problem. If you don't like him red-linking his own name, unlink it. If someone did start an article on him, I suspect it would be quickly put on AfD, and the question of whether WP needs an article about him would be settled there. --  Donald Albury ( Talk )  12:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * In off moments, I have prowled Wikipedia anonymously with a green-shaded squity eye and virtual editor's pencil in crabbed hand almost since Neupedia. I spiffed technical articles in my areas of expertise when I found something wrong.  Interestingly, this was practically never-- just the occasional difference in personal opinion, not worth changing.   I interpret this to indicate somebody like me had been there before, from the technical polish,  probably lots of times.   Forget all this other stuff-- there is a hidden legion of technical experts here that make sure stuff is right.   You do not want to scare them off. Pproctor 15:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Donald, what he is doing is inserting text crediting himself for something, and citing his own work in support of that. WP:VAIN applies/ Just zis Guy you know? 21:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The preponderance of trolls pushing their own agendas has led to a knee-jerk reaction to researchers who cite their own works. Nevertheless, I would not object to anyone citing any work published in an authoritative and reputable journal or conference, and would in fact vehemently oppose a motion to remove such content on the basis of "vanity", which is not a policy. Deco 20:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have reverted the rule back to its original form. This includes reverting the modest addition I made to it.  There is no consensus here for changing such a long-standing rule. Pproctor 01:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps is are unaware of the long-standing principles on vanity guidelines.  Whilst most editors can be trusted to behave themselves, those trolls that cite themselves and violate WP:NPOV and WP:VAIN (e.g. by citing your own whine about the "shocking injustice" you were served by the Nobel Prize Committee) are usually easy to spot.  The guidelines were contradictory, so they must be amended to be non-contradictory.  The only one whining about them is  who happens to like inflating his own ego.  &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 13:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Nothing contradictory about the rules. They are long-standing and not to be changed just because you got caught out violating one for the nth time.  A modest suggestion-- While you are at it,  why not do a complete job and also try to change the rules you were cited for violating here :Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-08 Acupuncture</I>.  Ad hominems aside--  Any fundamental rule changes ought to have a pretty good concensus.  I even reverted the modest change I had made. Pproctor 15:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)