Talk:Chris Sherwin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Selected works[edit]

I see that editors have been disagreeing about whether or not the page should include a "Selected works" section. I think that it's best to take the issue here, to the talk page.

Personally, I do not feel strongly about it, but I would lean towards the side of leaving it out. For me, it comes down to WP:NOTRESUME as a significant consideration, as I believe that such sections tend mostly to pad the page that they are on in a sort-of resumé-like way. I turn instead to favoring such material when either we have separate standalone pages about some of the works or when the listing is likely to be useful to readers as an additional sort of "external links" section (whether or not there are actual links) for readers who would like to be able to read the works elsewhere. But that is not the case here, because all anyone has to do is to run a PubMed or Google Scholar search and they will pull up the same information. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is more or less my thinking too in that it ends up being unneeded padding, especially since the main prose gets the point across pretty well of what they worked on. I don't have problems with a selected works section when there are secondary sources basically saying something to the effect of, "Here's a list of important papers by this author." We don't have that right now though, so we as editors shouldn't be doing that ourselves looking through Google Scholar or other databases. WP:NOTBIBLIOGRAPHY is pretty clear we don't want such lists either. While that policy does say Lists of creative works in a wider context are permitted., that would seem to be pertaining more to condensed lists rather than full citations like we had. That statement also cannot violate other policies such as not performing original research (picking out what papers we think are important) and relying on secondary sources as opposed to an indiscriminate database. Similar to Typto's comment on NOTRESUME, it's actually pretty often that we remove information like this on academic BLP's in exactly this same scenario. This shouldn't be anything too controversial. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:38, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've just spent some time looking at whatever guidance we can get from guidelines, and I'll start by saying that this is a matter for editorial judgment, rather than something where there is an absolute policy to follow. I'm certain that the list is permitted, but the question is whether or not it is a good idea. For what it's worth, Wikipedia:Biography dos and don'ts discourages writing biographies in a manner that promotes the subject, and I think a case can be made that padding this page with that section has an element of that about it. More significantly, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists of works#Basic list style – examples indicates that lists of works are most appropriate for persons in the creative arts, as opposed to scientists, and I have the impression that I do not often see such lists on scientist biography pages. It also says that Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:V), are encouraged, particularly when such lists are not already freely available on the internet. Here, we are talking about works that are mostly available online, and about a "selected" list, rather than a complete list, and I think KofA has a valid point about the "selection" being somewhat OR. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The following will address some of the concerns I've seen raised in this edit summary and at the DYK nom as well:
  • WP:NOTBIBLIOGRAPHY - #7 Simple listings without context information - Lists of creative works in a wider context are permitted.
  • WP:COI - the Chris Sherwin biography is not a biography about DrChrissy who was an anonymous WP editor; rather, it is a biography about Chris Sherwin, a veterinary scientist. To my knowledge, none of the editors who worked on the Sherwin biography knew the two were one in the same until after his death. The anonymous editor, DrChrissy, appeared to be knowledgeable about animal-related articles and was considered a helpful and productive collaborator, which in itself, does not create a COI connection.
  • WP:OR - I did not see any OR in the disputed list in the section, "Selected works". To my knowledge all of the material has been published in reputable journals or other RS.
  • The AfD was closed as keep. The debate is over. Any editor who wants to help build an encyclopedia and help improve/expand this biography is certainly welcome.
  • I have no objection to trimming down the list if there is redundancy or if the topic would not be of help to our readers, particularly academics and researchers.Atsme📞📧 22:24, 28 October 2017 (UTC) Had started new section before I realized discussion above it. 22:29, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that you started this as a different section, but I think that the last bullet point is the most directly relevant here. That's good, thanks. And I think that pretty much everyone agrees with you about the point just before it. The issue about OR is not over whether the individual elements in the list exist, but over whether selecting those particular list items and not everything else he published is. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ok. That thought had not entered my mind considering the policy states, The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. If the document was published in a journal or other RS, it is not OR but to satisfy any concerns, we could rename the section to Sampling of published works, or the like. I'm not finding anything in the policy that indicates to me that the act of choosing published works for inclusion in a list is noncompliant with OR. Atsme📞📧 00:01, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the OR issue is borderline here, the distinction between a secondary source that says "this subset of his works are the most important works by this author" and editors saying it. For me, that's very much secondary. I don't much like using a header worded as "sampling". The more I think about it, the more I feel like leaving the list out entirely, but I'm not overly invested in whatever we decide. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While this comment was originally intended as a different section, some of those bullet points aren't relevant to anything with this content (the AfD) or just not brought up here at all prior (COI). The remainder such as zeroing too much on just the quoted portion of WP:NOTBIBLIOGRAPHY are discussed above for clarification. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't OR; this is editing, and the usual editorial judgement applies. It's quite standard to include a sweep of someone's work from the earliest to the latest, because it's interesting, and it shouldn't be removed repeatedly. SarahSV (talk) 05:00, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Generally when someone adds content and it is removed, the expectation is not to edit war it back in (which is policy), but gain consensus on the talk page at that point for including it (WP:BRD as an example). It has only been removed repeatedly to enforce policy because editors keep trying to reinsert it without gaining consensus at this point.
OR has been discussed a bit above already in that we as editors are not supposed to use "editorial judgement" to pick out information from indiscriminate lists (also WP:WEIGHT policy). We'll need a secondary sources to do that for us. WP:NOTRESUME etc. generally discourage doing this too as well as this information usually being removed from academic BLPs. Without the section, we'll also have a pretty clean and concise BLP. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The OR thing seems to me to be a minor sideline to the main issues of this discussion, and has probably gotten more pixels than it is worth. But – do we have consensus to remove the "Selected works", or not? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the totality matters more at this point rather than which one thing stands out the most with respect to OR or otherwise. At this point though, we'll need to consensus to keep it in (as opposed to needing consensus to remove it as it is a relatively new edit). It doesn't look like there's consensus to keep it, and various policies are at the least leaning towards not keeping it as is. I'm good with deleting it and moving on as it's the only problematic area I found in the article. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer to let everyone have their say. But it looks to me like consensus is leaning towards removal. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tryp, I'm not supporting complete removal, I think those published in journals should remain. It doesn't appear that SV supports removal either = 2 against removal (full or partial) VS 2 for it. Montanabw hasn't weighed-in and she edited a good portion of the Selected works section. Perhaps we should call an RfC to get a wider ranging, uninvolved consensus? Atsme📞📧 21:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)   [reply]
  • Keep. The bulk of the Selected works section was in place by the end of August, so anyone wanting to remove it should seek consensus. I'm puzzled that anyone would want to do so. It's not particularly long; it's interesting; it's there for the reader; and it isn't at all unusual to include such a section. Readers who don't want to read it will ignore it. SarahSV (talk) 04:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like at the least there is no consensus for keeping then, but I'm also not seeing anything in the above discussion that would counter WP:NOTRESUME policy in order to keep it (what's needed for WP:CONSENSUS, not just vote counting in Atsme's post above). I also don't think an RfC is needed for something this uncontroversial as a policy-based removal of resume/CV like content. Whether it's "standard" to include it (it's also standard to remove these sections outright) or interesting is more of a personal editor preference thing at that point with that policy in mind. I've gone ahead and removed the section along with the reminder that editors need to gain consensus in order to restore it rather than try to reinsert it by revert (more of that is likely to trigger page protection). At this point, the article looks to be in pretty good shape otherwise.
As always, if a secondary source does put out something like a mini-CV of important works, I'm entirely open to using that in such a section. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The kind of falls into other stuff exists.
  • Keep but trim. I generally think selected works are a good idea, to give a representative idea of what an academic has done (other than students, this is the main recorded output of their careers). But the one in this article is way too long. In general I think aiming for a half dozen is appropriate. Works should be selected only when (1) they are particularly substantial (i.e. books, not papers or edited volumes), (2) they have been specifically called out in the independently-and-reliably-sourced text of the article (e.g. someone writing about the subject called this work significant, or it won a significant award), or (3) they are particularly well cited (both for their field and among the subject's publications). —David Eppstein (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's generally my standpoint that the list was too long, but that we want independent sources to pick out the important stuff like you mentioned. That becomes more important when this is the BLP of a recently deceased editor too. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:50, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
David Eppstein, as I do not have access to the databases that can indicate how often an article has been cited by others, I would view you as a neutral party to make that call. I think the books and book chapters should all go back in now, though. Perhaps if the above editor can restore that piece in a gesture of goodwill and remove his request for full page protection, that might be the best way to handle this matter. Montanabw(talk) 18:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Editors have been unable to stop reinserting the disputed content from the very start of this discussion, so as previously warned, protection has been requested until editors can avoid edit warring while attempting discussion. The reverting (especially with your last one even though you were warned) is reaching nonsense levels.
On article citations, that was one of the criticisms at the AfD that we're wandering into WP:OR territory doing that ourselves using metrics that are already shaky at best. The best thing to do is rely on independent sources directly pointing out that X,Y,Z, are important works. We do have to remember that WP:NOTCV is policy and this is blowing up much more than it should be. Normally in academic BLPs when these sections are removed with that in mind, that's accepted without anything like what's going on here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Google Scholar is such a database, and is publicly available. The one that stands out in a search for "author:cm-sherwin" is "Voluntary wheel running", and then the next highest are "Refining rodent husbandry", "Comparison of the welfare of layer hens", and "Can invertebrates suffer?". I would definitely include "Voluntary wheel running" (as by far the highest cited) and "Can invertebrates suffer?" (as something we discuss in detail in the article text); the rest are judgement calls. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:11, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added in response to Kingofaces43: choosing which publications to include in an article is no more original research than choosing which details from the sourced biography to skim over and which to elaborate on, or choosing which awards are significant and which too minor to mention. They are editorial judgements, yes, but necessary ones, and also routine ones, of a type that most Wikipedia editors make in most edits. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is indeed a spectrum in editorial judgement, but the problem is that we are pulling this current information from a indiscriminate database, not a source that has picked that information out for us already. Books are an idea I'm a little more open to because that is a little more similar to creative works for literary authors rather than journal articles (though still different since it's scientific work often acting as an editor with multiple authors). Caution would be needed though before adding anything. If we can get a list of books on this talk page being considered and ideally supporting sources discussing them to some degree, that can be worth discussing. It may be redundant with the references section, but that may just be a matter of presentation. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:23, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • For that reason, David, it would probably be best if someone other than myself and the above editor made that decision. Neutrality is best, given the contentious AfD discussion and other talkpage discussion. Montanabw(talk) 19:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Montanabw, re: your post above about access to databases, if you look at "Sherwin, Christopher M.", ResearcherID (run by the Web of Science/Clarivate Analytics), it lists 62 publications, with the number of times cited for some (go to "sort by: times cited"), beginning with 272 for "Voluntary wheel running: a review and novel interpretation". It gives him an h-index of 23 (go to "citation metrics" on the left to see that). SarahSV (talk) 19:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the thing to do here is just copy the list over here and we can workshop it. So I did so below. Given that I am in a field where the h-index is meaningless (I think the h-index is lowest for law out of all areas of study as we seldom cite each other's analysis -- it's all citations back to caselaw), I am not really certain how one would assess the h-index for veterinary science topics, or even which h-index average is appropriate for this field. My feeling is to be cited at all or a study (or list thereof) that was reported on in the mainstream press is the place to start. Montanabw(talk) 19:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We don't assess the h-index, etc. as editors. WP:PROF cautions against their use in terms of assessing notability much less including it as content if you haven't seen that part of it (and it doens't pertain to individual articles). When assessing WP:WEIGHT of a scientific study though, we rely on other scientific secondary sources. We usually don't want newspaper sources to establish that as journals typically put out press releases for their publications. What we need are other scientists outlining the work in some fashion, which is more in line with the concepts behind WP:MEDRS/WP:SCIRS and what David was alluding to to some degree. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:52, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still think it's probably best to leave it out entirely, but I don't feel strongly about that. It looks to me now like there is no consensus yet, either way, and I disagree with the idea that there must be consensus to include it but not to remove it. I'm glad that editors are workshopping it in the talk section below, but if that doesn't work, we may want to have an RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but trim - I support David's suggestion. We are not dealing with human medical conditions/treatment which requires MEDRS and strict adherence. We are dealing with Sherwin's research in published journals which focuses on animal behavior and response. Documented clinical trials, systematic reviews and FDA approval are not required. We are not stating anything in Wiki voice. We are simply providing our readers with highly cited, published research about animal behavior as observed, authored and published by the subject of this biography (and his colleagues if applicable). Readers who have an interest in animal behavior research can make their own decisions. We are simply making it available. Atsme📞📧 21:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone here is arguing that MEDRS applies. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think I was the only one that mentioned MEDRS/SCIRS,[1] but only as an explanation of what the scientific community finds to be important work (i.e., independent mention by other scientists, not so much just newspaper coverage). Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then I will be more specific. I don't think anyone here is arguing that we can only include publications in the list of selected works if they pass MEDRS. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel like editors are treating this like a vote, by just stating their opinions, without responding to earlier comments. Here are my earlier comments, stating my reasons for the views that I expressed: [2], [3]. I'd appreciate it if anyone who disagrees with what I said there would explain specifically what they think is incorrect in my reasoning. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tryptofish, my position is in part because other articles I have worked on about scientists have had these lists, and as I noted, one passed GAN with one. Given how hard it can be to track down these works at times, I think it is relevant to have at least a sampling of major works, not unlike what we might have for, say, a writer of history, philosophy, and so on. In science, many times a published work in a peer-reviewed journal may be more groundbreaking or significant than something that made its way into book form. So that's my general viewpoint on these biographies in general, and hence my reason for supporting it here. Montanabw(talk) 23:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks very much for the reply. So here we have me observing that many scientist bios I have seen omit the lists, and you observing the opposite in your experience. Obviously, we are not dealing with hard-and-fast rules here, and there is a lot of room for subjective opinions. But in my earlier comment ([4]), I pointed out that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists of works#Basic list style – examples, which is about as close to a guideline about this as anything we have, actually makes an explicit distinction about just those other fields that you cite (history, philosophy, creative arts), as opposed to the experimental sciences. (It also says that full lists of works are preferable to selected lists.) It is often not possible to pull up the major works of an historian or philosopher online, which makes such lists particularly helpful to our readers. In contrast, anyone who can access Wikipedia can also access Google Scholar and PubMed, where it's trivially easy to put C. Sherwin in the search field and get direct access to the same links that we have on the list here. So, for me, the question then becomes in part a matter of what we are accomplishing with the list here. We aren't using the works as cited references. We already discuss the most important work in the text. So it seems to me that by listing selected works again, after the text, we are going a bit in the direction of "promoting" how important Sherwin is, something that we need not and should not do. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Tryptofish, my reason for keeping his most cited works is, in essence, supported by WP:Manual of Style/Lists of works#Basic list style .E2.80.93 examples which you previously cited for the opposite reason. I've underlined the applicable parts that support my position: Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:V), are encouraged, particularly when such lists are not already freely available on the internet. If the list has a separate article, a simplified version should also be provided in the main article. I think listing the most cited research actually creates a complete list of works that satisfies "sourced to reliable scholarship". WP:NOTBIBLIOGRAPHY further supports my argument per #7 Simple listings without context information - Lists of creative works in a wider context are permitted. To quote in part what DGG answered when, on Oct 26th, I asked for clarification for a different policy, "WP policy and guidelines get added to piece by piece, and WP is not a place where complete consistency can be expected." That tells me it's pretty much up to us to decide. I'm not seeing any compelling reason to exclude the section aside from DONTLIKEIT and in fact, see potential for more articles being created as a result of keeping it. Providing links to work that is available online serves a benefit to both WP and our readers in that it helps keep readers on the WP site for its links, and if we can get past this debate, we can actually spend time creating more wikilinks and improve the networking to other articles we can cite to the research. Atsme📞📧 18:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • We've beat this horse to death, folks. The question of a "selected works" section is clearly a decision that is made on an article-by-article basis with no hard and fast rules, but definitely no prohibition. It is not OTHERSTUFF to note that there are many, many biographies that include such lists, particularly where there might not be a curriculum vitae online anywhere (if there is such a list for Sherwin, we could link to it instead, but I haven't found one yet). While consensus is not a "vote" (it's a !vote) we do have four people stating that a list in some form is helpful here, one person still questioning it and one vehemently opposed. So, that is, to me, adequate consensus for SOMETHING. To that end, I restored the intro and the books, with the articles in hidden text for now. The reason I opened the thread below is to continue the real discussion, which is what works to include. I see no real need to continue discussing the "yes or no" issue, as we've all said our bit, and further input is apt to just be more of the same. Montanabw(talk) 18:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Well, what we have here is me citing a guideline to mean one thing and another editor citing the same section to mean the opposite. Go figure. And we have one "side" claiming that the other is engaging in ILIKEIT and the other "side" claiming that the first is engaging in IDONTLIKEIT. I hope everyone realizes that. We even had someone who wanted to delete the page claim that those who defend it are some sort of cabal of horse-lovers, and now we have a horse beaten to death. Poor horse. Poor Chris Sherwin. One thing that we all agree on (I think!) is that we are dealing with a matter of local editorial judgment. If we are at the point where the most committed editors feel strongly that we should move on from "yes or no" to deciding in the talk section below about how to trim the list, I'm at the point where I'm not going to fight it. @David Eppstein: as an editor who favors "keep but trim", I think that you are someone more or less at the middle of the views here, and I would welcome your opinions about specifically how to trim the list, as the discussion about that continues below. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:02, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll clarify that while I did discuss the idea of trimming previously, I'm still more in agreement with your previous comments that the current list of books is entirely redundant currently because they are already cited in the references. I'm concerned that section was inserted immediately after the premature request to unprotect the page given it was apparent there was clear opposition to it at the time on the talk page. However, especially considering the behavior issues being interjected above and not focusing on discussion, I'm more of the opinion that no editor should be unilaterally trying to insert their preferred version after the page protection was lifted (which is why I'm not editing the section with the expectation other editors would have done the same).
You've mentioned that issues are not being addressed by other editors, so that's more of a matter of some discussion running circles around the horse without touching it. If WP:CON were to be assessed at this point, consensus would be to remove the section even though multiple editors have said they want to keep it, which is why I think both of us have been asking editors wanting the section to address areas you've addressed instead of just asking for a "close". That's the basis for my comment on ILIKEIT relating to content (being careful not to make it appear as a false equivalence of it being just a case of one side just saying ILIKEIT and another IDONTLIKEIT) because some comments here do not contribute to WP:CON (e.g., it looks useful) and policy and guideline-based points also were not addressed that would further weight consensus towards removal. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should have an RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've been considering it more now, but my hope was that we'd at least get editors to address the various points as you mentioned. Normally that's the point where comments are weighed and you can assess local consensus rather than needing larger community input. Maybe that's not going to happen in this case though, so skipping ahead to an RfC may be the way to go. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Selected works redux[edit]

Here's the list. We can perhaps edit it here. I'll add some asides for structure:

Selected works

Sherwin published over 62 works,[1] including:

References

  1. ^ "Sherwin, Christopher M." ResearcherID. Retrieved 31 August 2017.

This is a sourced intro, presumably non-controversial--Montanabw

Book and book chapters[edit]

This is a relatively short list, anything that requires removal? Seems non-controversial. Discuss --Montanabw

I also can't see the problem. They're interesting to read. SarahSV (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Articles[edit]

The above seems the major bone of contention, but is still far less than 62 total items, I think... discuss --Montanabw

  • Thanks very much for starting this section. My first choice continues to be leaving it out, for the reasons that I already stated, and see no reason to repeat, especially since no one has really refuted them. I can also see a case for just having the books, but leaving the journal articles out. For those articles, is there a criterion for selecting those particular ones, such as number of times they were cited? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • One way of partly culling the lists would be to look at author order...if he's in a middle position, he's probably not the main author of a paper, and it shouldn't be listed without some strong reason. (This only applies to fields where author order is relevant, but in this case it looks like it is.) —David Eppstein (talk) 21:30, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've listed above the most cited and those discussed by secondary sources, which gives us 16 articles. Montanabw, if you want to revert to the version you posted, please do. SarahSV (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting that the wheel running review was cited 272 times, whereas all of the others are well below 100. Being cited 30 or 40 times is not really that big a deal in the scientific literature. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:55, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tryp - see this link as it shows:
  1. Voluntary Wheel Running was cited 379 times,
  2. Refining Rodent Husbandry 111 times,
  3. Comparison of the welfare of layer hens 102 times,
  4. Can Invertebrates Suffer 98 times,
  5. Comparison of the behaviour of broiler chickens in indoor and free-range environments 83 times,
  6. Understanding behaviour: the relevance of ethological approaches in laboratory animal science 80 times,
  7. Guidelines for the ethical use of animals in applied ethology studies 76 times,
  8. Reorganization of behaviour in laboratory mice, Mus musculus, with varying cost of access to resources 75 times,
  9. Behavioural demand functions of caged laboratory mice for additional space 72 times and so on. Atsme📞📧 22:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'm confused about which numbers to use. I'll let you and SV sort that out. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keeping in mind that we have farmers, exotic game ranchers, and readers in various agricultural industries (poultry, sheep, etc.) who may find such knowledge beneficial, and it may not be as readily available to them elsewhere. Chickens are the rage now. High school level ag students are also a consideration. I think we need to focus on getting viable information to the public, if that means utilizing IAR if we have to. Tryp - if you were looking for information about raising fish in aquariums, wouldn't you be interested in reading some of the research, and wouldn't you rather be the one to choose what best fits your agenda from a list? When my daughter asked me about improving the color of eggs laid by her easter eggers, the first place I looked was WP. I was hungry for as much information as I could find. I truly don't think we benefit anyone by limiting information, or what we include as long as it meets our basic criteria. If we run out of space, we can always make room by deleting articles like the Burger King Whopper, Red Bull, McDonald's Quarter Pounder, lists of one-time soccer athletes, one-hit music wonders, movie lists, and porn stars. 😆 Atsme📞📧 22:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since you asked, no I never use Wikipedia to find research about fishkeeping. Anyone who can access Wikipedia can also access Google Scholar and PubMed. So we are not "limiting information", just duplicating it, and WP:NOTPAPER has nothing to do with it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And it occurs to me that it is more to the point that, if I were to seek such information on-wiki, I would not be looking at bio pages for it. If the goal here is, for example, to provide information about chickens, then we should cite Chris' papers on chickens on pages about chickens. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually what I asked was "wouldn't you be interested in reading some of the research, and wouldn't you rather be the one to choose what best fits your agenda from a list?" You conflated it with me saying the first place I looked was WP, but that's ok. You brought up a good point about wikilinks and citations. We also used to have suggestions for related articles popping-up at the bottom of the page but I'm not sure what happened to that feature. Atsme📞📧 22:31, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I wasn't talking about the first place to look, but rather about looking at all. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For me, I know that people are not supposed to use WP for research, but it IS an effective way to locate sources -- we spend the hours and hours doing searches to locate articles and sources so the rest of the world doesn't have to. The beauty of wikilinks is that we could add a link to Sherwin's research in the article on chickens if we wished to, or wherever else it might be needed. And yes, ordinary people DO use these sorts of things out in the real world, rather routinely. Just as a small example, I'm thinking about a kid's 4-H poster project I once judged where all their source content was from Wikipedia. They were 12 or 13 ... I wasn't going to scold them and send them to Google Scholar...) Montanabw(talk) 23:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And I would not want you to have scolded them! But if readers are coming here to research chickens or elephants or mice, they will go to pages about those. And I'm fine with citing Sherwin's papers there. But here, it comes across more as WP:NOTRESUME. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Without objection, per the comments of SV above, I'll put the works content back in now. Montanabw(talk) 23:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No objection from me. Atsme📞📧 00:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, we have full protection. Oshwah, can you kindly assess the consensus above and see if we can either remove full protection from the article or at least restore some or all of the "selected works" section? Montanabw(talk) 15:07, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I trust everyone here enough to go ahead and remove the full protection. Please keep disputes here; don't tear up the article history like I was seeing before ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is done. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:16, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oshwah, you may want to consider restoring the page protection given this recent comment (though I'm open to hoping we can leave it unprotected). As had been mentioned here by Tryptofish as well, we were having issues with editors not addressing issues in discussion, and that basically continued during page protection. It's concerning that undoing page protection was requested in that context, but it may have been difficult for you to see that coming in since the discussion was split up into a few sections. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)What? No attempt was even made at addressing the issues discussed in the above section such as what Tryptofish or myself included. Page protection was meant to prevent that kind of situation, so I was hoping that time would have been used productively. As has been mentioned a few times now, the concerns about including the section have largely gone unaddressed. Most of the recent conversation in this section goes against the spirit of WP:NOTCV policy. We've talked a bit about this off-article pages in the past, but failing to address policy-based issues in discussion and coming back later claiming there is now not opposition is not WP:CONSENSUS. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just adding on for clarification that when I saw the question about "objections" that seemed really odd considering we had page protection, so Montana seemed to indicating that the talk page section here would be restored to their original version as some had discussed. Had I realized that comment was thinking the issues had been resolved, I would have commented yesterday before turning in yesterday. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This has been reiterated a few times, but this seems to be a good point in the thread to remind editors that a major issue left largely unaddressed is NOTCV/NOTRESUME policy. So far, much of the discussion above hasn't really addressed that, but been more of a WP:ILIKEIT argument that goes against the spirit of NOTCV policy. I had personally been hanging back yesterday (and a long day at work) hoping editors would address those issues. Adding in times cited seems to be more padding issues discussed earlier. As mentioned before, we really need secondary sources outlining things like important books (rather than just citing them) if anything was going to be included, but I'm still in a similar boat as Tryptofish that my first preference is to just leave the section out in absence of such sources. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the opposition presented by Kingofaces regarding our local consensus, I have asked Winged Blades of Godric to provide a WP:3O. Atsme📞📧 16:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First, please read WP:CONSENSUS. Having policy issues brought up and not be addressed (while trying to claim consensus shortly after) is not in line with consensus policy, nor is vote counting as you erroneously implied earlier. We have more than two editors here already, so 3O isn't really applicable here. If you want to reach a consensus, you need to address the issues regarding inclusion that have been brought up sufficiently. That really hasn't even been done yet as I and others have said. If that's been done, then that's the time for further dispute resolution. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think what is most important is for you to stop the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. In the event you haven't noticed, you are the one making a fuss with absolutely no grounds that support your position other than WP:DONTLIKEIT. Atsme📞📧 16:28, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, please remember to WP:FOC (which is policy) especially since this is a BLP, and do not misrepresent my comments. So far, I have mentioned policy-based issues (the opposite of WP:DONTLIKEIT) that others have said are not being addressed in discussion, but instead we have comments that editors basically like having such a section, using Wikipedia for "research", they've found some articles that have such a section etc. above that are personal preference arguments not in line WP:NOTCV and other policies and guidelines. I have addressed points you and others have brought up already as part of that consensus-building process. If editors really feel strongly about including the section, that discussion needs to be based in policies and guidelines. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Oshwah: @Winged Blades of Godric: please do be aware that I, for one, am not yet comfortable with having the list. So I feel like it's a little unfair to me to claim that KofA is the only editor who is supposedly presenting opposition "regarding our local consensus". At this stage, we have a local "no consensus". And I have a very specific concern at this time. Above, one editor presented one set of numbers for how many times each paper has been cited, and another presented completely different numbers. We were discussing using the frequency of citation as a way to select which works to include. But how can we do that, if we don't really know how many times that was? I asked above for the two editors to figure out the discrepancy, and I wish that they would do so, instead of prematurely claiming a "local consensus". (I said originally that I did not feel strongly about the issue, but the more that I feel that other editors are not really responding to what I say, the less willing I feel to just walk away.) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tryptofish, your "not yet comfortable" comment is being heard, but I am unclear what else you need to hear beyond the above arguments -- some piece we are not addressing? Also, would you agree that the wheel-running article is the most-cited work, by any metric? If so, would you object to a sentence to that effect being added to the selected works intro, as in, "his most widely cited work in scientific literature was [title and citation]? Montanabw(talk) 19:01, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, some sort of focus on the most widely cited work is very much what I want to see. I'm not wild about "by any metric", and am having trouble with the way that no one appears able to explain the differences between the metrics, and I do think there is a WP:BURDEN for those wanting to add that to the page to explain that. But, yes, such a focus in some form is definitely something I think we can work with. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that there is a distinction to be made between "I wonder if we need it" and "hell no IDONTLIKEIT." What I am going to do is to restore the completely non-controversial intro and the list of books that appears to be relatively non-controversial. We can sort out the article list some more. Montanabw(talk) 18:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added my two cents to the above section, but that horse really HAS been beaten to death, poor thing. I created this section to discuss the details, which I think is the more relevant discussion. We can create a new section for "round two" if necessary. Montanabw(talk) 18:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Well, to begin, I already explained to WBG that he was off the hook, and I was going to take it to DRN but have since had second thoughts about that, too. Jiminy Cricket, we're all veteran editors here, and shouldn't need others to resolve such a petty dispute for us. Secondly, you misrepresented my comment - I said Kingofaces43 was "the one making a fuss" not that he was the only one "supposedly presenting opposition". Thirdly, you stated: "Personally, I do not feel strongly about it, but I would lean towards the side of leaving it out." So have you changed your position? Do we now have two "making a fuss"? BTW - I just provided my response to your question for keeping the list. I don't think fretting over different citation numbers is reason to exclude it - it should not have been removed in the first place without consensus. The material was there for 2+/- months before he decided to remove it. His consistent reverts constitute edit warring but we've let it slide for now...not sure if that was the right move considering the disruption he caused at the AfD and also at DYK. This is beginning to smell a lot like stonewalling, and I don't understand why it has become such a big ordeal. Atsme📞📧 19:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that I am understood as being "I wonder if we need it" as opposed to "hell no IDONTLIKEIT". But if I am not an editor who is "making a fuss", does that mean that my arguments would get more traction if I did make a fuss? As I already explained, I came into this discussion not feeling strongly, but the more that editors seem to avoid answering my arguments the more strongly I feel. The fact that some of you don't like what KofA did does not constitute a rebuttal of what I said. I'm not "fretting" over citation numbers. I'm asking for a reasonable explanation, and pointedly not getting it. I'm not stonewalling, and I don't smell like I'm stonewalling.
That said, we are now at the stage where we should be discussing including the section, but in a trimmed form. I would like the editors who most want the section – Montanabw and Atsme – to provide some specific criteria for determining what to include and what to exclude. And not just saying that we should keep all of it just because. There is no reason that this should be a difficult or unreasonable request. There should be some objective and expressed criteria by which to partially shorten the list. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, you don't smell like stonewalling, you smell like Trypto-fishy. [FBDB] Leave the books/book chapters as is, and let's say for articles we don't include anything below 50 - I counted 12 articles above 50. Atsme📞📧 00:37, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Such a citation count would be entirely arbitrary and getting into issues previously discussed trying to judge what is noteworthy and what is not in the field by citation count. Not to mention we would still have the redundancy issues mentioned earlier and WP:NOTCV. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of articles for inclusion[edit]

The following journal articles are not cited in the biography:

  1. Sherwin, CM (July 1998). "Voluntary wheel running: a review and novel interpretation". Animal Behaviour. 56 (1): 11–27. doi:10.1006/anbe.1998.0836. - c379
  2. Jennings*, M; Hubrecht*, RC; Morton*, DB; Batchelor, GR; Brain, PF; Dick, A; Elliott, H; Francis, RJ; Hurst, JL; Peters, AG; Raymond, R; Sales, GD; Sherwin, CM; West, C (1998). "Refining rodent husbandry: the mouse, Report of the Rodent Refinement Working Party". Laboratory Animals. 32: 233–259. - c111
  3. Sherwin, CM; Richards, GJ; Nicol, CJ (September 2010). "Comparison of the welfare of layer hens in 4 housing systems in the UK". British Poultry Science. 51 (4): 488–499. doi:10.1080/00071668.2010.502518. - c103
  4. Weeks, CA; Nicol, CJ; Sherwin, CM; Kestin, SC (August 1994). "Comparison of the Behaviour of Broiler Chickens in Indoor and Free-Range Environments". Animal Welfare. 3 (3): 179–192. - c83
  5. Sherwin, CM; Nicol, CJ (May 1996). "Reorganization of Behaviour in Laboratory Mice, Mus Musculus, with Varying Cost of Access to Resources". Animal Behaviour. 51 (5): 1087–1093. doi:10.1006/anbe.1996.0110. - c76
  6. Sherwin, CM; Nicol, CJ (January 1997). "Behavioural Demand Functions of Caged Laboratory Mice for Additional Space". Animal Behavior. 53 (1): 67–74. doi:10.1006/anbe.1996.0278. - c72
  7. Sherwin, CM; Heyes, CM; Nicol, CJ (May 2002). "Social Learning Influences the Preferences of Domestic Hens for Novel Food". Animal Behavior. 63 (5): 933–942. doi:10.1006/anbe.2002.2000. - c54
  8. Sherwin, CM (April 1997). "Observations on the Prevalence of Nest-Building in Non-Breeding TO Strain Mice and Their Use of Two Nesting Materials". Laboratory Animals. 31 (2): 125–132. doi:10.1258/002367797780600134. - c52

I checked the citations in the bio and the books/chapters, and did not find any duplicates. You are welcome to double-check to be sure. The bold number preceded by "c" are the citation numbers per GS. Atsme📞📧 03:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting this, much appreciated. I have a couple of concerns. First of all, as noted by David Eppstein in an earlier comment, it makes sense to focus on those papers where Sherwin was either the primary author (listed first in the list of authors), or the senior author (listed last). When he is listed in the middle, that indicates that most of the work was actually done by other authors. On this basis, I would definitely remove #4, and perhaps remove #2. Also, #7 and #8 are barely above the rather arbitrary cut-off of c50. I would also ask about [5], the Nature commentary that was an important consideration at the AfD: why not list instead the 2 other sources that were cited there?
More broadly, I also ask why we really need to subdivide the list into a section about books and chapters, and one about articles. As long as we are going to make a "selected" list instead of a complete one, why not combine the most important works into a single group? Of the books, I think the last one (dated 1994) is just a symposium proceedings that he edited, and could easily be omitted. (Symposia are pretty routine in the biological sciences.) --Tryptofish (talk) 14:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for shorter list[edit]

It sure looks like my previous comment put a damper on this discussion! Anyway, absent any rapid rebuttal, I'll make a suggestion at this point. I hope that we can find a sort of middle-ground that, even if it isn't anyone's first choice, is sufficiently non-objectionable that nobody ends up feeling like we need to have an RfC. I suggest that we have a single list, with no subheadings, in the "Selected works" section, as follows:

Selected works

Sherwin published over 62 works,[1] including:

References

  1. ^ "Sherwin, Christopher M." ResearcherID. Retrieved 31 August 2017.

Per Atsme, I've omitted any works that are already cited as sources on the page. I've put everything in chronological order, from earliest to latest. Per my previous comment, I've omitted the symposium proceedings and anything where he isn't either the first or last author (in every case, he's the first). From the journal articles, I've taken the top four (by numbers of cites) that remain from Atsme's list. I think that's a reasonable list, plenty comprehensive without overly dominating the page as a whole. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Atsme📞📧 00:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What do others think? Montanabw, Sarah, David Eppstein, Kingofaces43?? Atsme📞📧 14:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm OK with a shorter list. I think that we CAN include works also cited in the footnotes, if they meet the criteria for both lists. My reasoning there is that it is to the benefit of the reader.Seriously, the casual reader is not going to parse the footnotes and the person seeking sources is going to wonder why a major study isn't on the list if it's footnoted... I want to assure Tryptofish that my "IDONTLIKEIT" remarks were not directed at you. Beyond that comment, I'm fine with a shorter list, though I do wish there existed a curriculum vitae out there for Sherwin that had them all; digging all these up for scientists in general can take hours of searching (as I have discovered firsthand in other articles). Montanabw(talk) 16:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks on all counts. Actually, when I drafted this list, I thought seriously about including the works that are in the citation list here as well. My thinking about it is that, when I actually looked at what that would entail, it would no longer be a significantly shorter list. Also, I think the list above covers each of the areas of his research that are covered by the other sources that we might add, so adding the others would just result in multiple works about the same topics. And finally, but significantly, I'm trying hard here to find a middle-ground, and I think that does make a case for keeping this list short. Indeed, I feel like I am compromising a lot, relative to what I really wanted to do, just with what is here. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that this is a big compromise compared to what we've discussed previously because of issues you've mentioned not addressed in terms of WP:CON that would result in an RfC been closed as remove (as a reminder to all here that consensus is determined by weighing what has been discussed and properly addressed). This does take care of the padding issue you mentioned previously at least for the most part, and I agree already cited material should not be reincluded. I'm still in the normally uncontroversial remove camp for academic BLPs, but where this is going is an ok second choice for me.
The one thing I would suggest is removing the book chapters or 4, 5, and 7. These were not books written or edited by Sherwin, but rather just chapters written by him. Normally, chapters don't get that much attention when being discussed in book reviews, etc., but rather the overall book. If we're temporarily suspending the OR concerns I have about selection process for a bit, book chapters usually only get as much attention on a CV as any other journal article. Being an editor of a well-received book where you have set up the general topics all authors are covering, written the intro and some chapters yourself, etc. is a higher bar that gets attention in terms of life's work from other faculty, scientists, etc. A chapter would need some pretty glowing direct reviews (rather than the book) to be considered something that stands out. I did briefly mention I was potentially open to books in the past, so hopefully that clarifies what I was looking for. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given a few days of quiet, I figure that further discussion is dying down, and that there isn't a clear consensus for going either shorter or longer than this version. So I'm about to implement it, but of course that doesn't have to be final if anyone objects. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph[edit]

I see that the image file has been deleted at Commons because they did not have a permission on file. I'm fairly sure that the file actually was obtained with the proper permissions, but I'm not the editor who actually did it. Perhaps it would be a good idea to upload it again, and make sure this time that the proper information gets emailed to Commons. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chris_Sherwin&oldid=1208597694"