Talk:Chris Sherwin

j'accuse

I have seen this community, the people that get joy from writing their narrative, compose articles like these after a fellow Wikipedian dies. I can understand some people experience feelings and miss their comrades and that's fine. However, I'd like to remind everyone that we have agreed-upon notability criteria and I'm not the guy to give you a pass. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Nobody is asking for a pass, Chris. The man's work was significant in his academic field. You might want to do a quickie refresh of WP:ACADEMIC. He wasn't a fly by night, ho-hum academic - his research was highly significant and is cited by other academics and researchers. He studied animal behavior for decades, his research helped turkey farmers, and he contributed greatly to the husbandry and welfare of laboratory animals. I think he easily meets #4 & #7 but only one is needed. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:28, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. I see insufficient WP:BEFORE done on this AfD, but that's for the discussion there. Montanabw^(talk) 22:30, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Just did a citation search for C.M. Sherwin - 2526, h-31, i10-54 ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Found this interesting article about H-index which states: The top 25% of Professors had a H-index of 30 or greater. There is discipline variation... and it provides a list. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm skeptical about that source, because it comes from a ResearchGate Q&A page, which can often be unreliable. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

This entire circle-jerk is proof that once the fans get involved in writing their narrative, there's no thought to the logic of it. Apparently, we don't need independent sources, anymore. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Gee, Chris, please don't hold back. Do tell us what you really think. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Tryptofish - the author of it is Ray Iles, his WP article sucks but this article appears legitimate. He is the one who wrote the H-index article and why I believed it had merit. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

It's no big deal to me one way or the other, because I'm not a fan of those kinds of metrics and it's becoming very clear that the AfD is going to be "keep", but the circle jerker has a point in respect to WP:RS/SPS. A published peer-reviewed paper by him would be far better to use, if you actually want to cite it on the page. Our page on ResearchGate does a pretty good job of explaining why scientists regard it with caution. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing

@Adam9007: please indicate where and from what source the close paraphrasing is. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:52, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: The Earwig Copyvio tool reveals some similarities to this, this, and this. It probably doesn't rise to a copyright infringement, but I can't be certain. Adam9007 (talk) 00:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I used Earwig - the 36.7% comprised titles of his work, names of committees, and a single quote with in-text attribution - no copyvio. I avoid close paraphrasing and I'm very careful not to infringe on the copyrights of others. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you. It's not an issue when one is simply reporting those kinds of facts. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

In-use tag

Atsme, I expanded this yesterday and also rewrote and copy-edited bits of it. I was about to add it to the page, but you have the in-use tag up, so I thought I'd let you know that I have more material. SarahSV ^(talk) 14:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I've posted it at User:SlimVirgin/draft, minus the tags at the top and the categories. SarahSV ^(talk) 14:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm about to go offline, so I'm going to add my version to the page. I've incorporated some of the changes you made, but not all (e.g. not RSPCA, which seemed a bit lame). You're welcome to revert, of course, but I've added some secondary sources, so I think it's an improvement. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about that, Atsme. I really dislike editing through an in-use tag, but I have to go offline, and I wanted to comment in the AfD beforehand and refer to the secondary sources I added. I also fixed the date formats (British, so dmy), filled in some of the refs, and rewrote one of the bits someone said was close paraphrasing. Feel free to play around with it. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Great work, SlimVirgin. Thank you for your collaboration. Take a look at the RSPCA bit I added back for the wrap. If you still think it's a bit much, feel free to revert. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:34, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for being so gracious! I hope I didn't mess anything up that you were doing/had planned. Please edit it as you see fit.

I wouldn't have added the RSPCA myself, but I won't remove it again. I think I'd rather find a source that discussed that research, then write a couple of sentences about it, and perhaps at that point say it was cited by the RSPCA. But I must go now. Good luck with the rest of it, and sorry again. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources

SarahSV - do you see any benefit to using this link? I also found this, and when its Googled, a bunch more science journals show up.^{Atsme📞📧} 17:42, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

You might try reading WP:42. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:46, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

You really need to read WP:ACADEMICS, Chris. I just hope that your work at NPR isn't representative of the AfD you filed here, and that you are actually understanding how to properly assess N for articles that clearly pass, such as this biography. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Atsme, the first link could be added after the Bristol obit, although there's no additional information in it. Your second link could lead to an RS if we can find the report. Here are the secondary sources in the article so far, by the way, in order of use:

• Mendl, Mike (16 August 2017). "Dr Christopher Sherwin, 1962–2017". University of Bristol.
• "Tribute Paid to Dr. Sherwin". MRCVSonline.com. 17 August 2017. Retrieved 21 October 2017.
• Nicol, Christine J. (2015). The Behavioural Biology of Chickens. Wallingford: CABI, p. 164.
• "Light and behaviour", in D. S. Mills, Jeremy N. Marchant-Forde (eds.) (2010). The Encyclopedia of Applied Animal Behaviour and Welfare. Wallingford: CABI, p. 387.
• Friend, Ted (2005). "Book reviews", Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 43(4), July 1995, p. 304.
• Fagerlund, Richard; Lachnit, Johnna (2002). Ask The Bugman: Environmentally Safe Ways To Control Household Pests. University of New Mexico Press. p. 153. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
• Balcombe, Jonathan (2006). Pleasurable Kingdom: Animals and the Nature of Feeling Good. New York: St. Martin's Press, p. 193.
• Highfield, Roger (11 May 2000). "Cockroach capable of feeling pain, says study", The Daily Telegraph.
• Nelson, Laura (11 February 2004). "Curious Mice Need Room To Run". Nature. doi:10.1038/news040209-6.
• Fraser, David (2013) [2008]. Understanding Animal Welfare: The Science in its Cultural Context. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, p. 199.
• "Behavioural need", in D. S. Mills and Jeremy N. Marchant-Forde (eds.) (2010). The Encyclopedia of Applied Animal Behaviour and Welfare. Wallingford: CABI, p. 52.

SarahSV ^(talk) 21:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

You were right, SV - it did lead to more, such as this report, but you have a much better grasp on the science and how to best present it than I do for inclusion in the article. The RSPCA site would be the secondary source mentioning the report, and the actual report is here. There is also this BBC report wherein they've quoted Sherwin rather significantly. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:02, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

These are good finds, Atsme. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Just to add: the elephant report is already in the article, but the RSPCA and BBC are good RS for reaction and commentary on that. The first link you posted above was about a report on birds. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:23, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

SV, regarding the bird link, the report is here. Sherwin was a member of the 8 member team comprising the Council's Working Group for Birds. Based on the citations, he played a significant role in that report that was presented in 2003 to the EUROPEAN CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF VERTEBRATE ANIMALS USED FOR EXPERIMENTAL AND OTHER SCIENTIFIC PURPOSES. It's rather obvious to me that the impact Sherwin made in his academic field was on a global scale. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Sourcing issue

We have a clash of the RS. Roger Highfield reported the following in The Daily Telegraph on 11 May 2000 (courtesy link):

The meeting at the Zoological Society will be told by Dr Chris Sherwin, of the University of Bristol, that the criterion used to assess the mental state of vertebrates, whether dogs, cats or chimpanzees, often produced similar results among insects.

Dr Sherwin said: "If a chimp pulls its hand away after an electric shock, we say she presumably must have felt an analogous subjective experience to what we call pain. But cockroaches, slugs and snails—which are not protected by legislation—also reacted in the same way, while tests on flies showed they could associate a smell with receiving an electric shock.

"If it is a chimp we say it feels pain, if a fly we don't. Why? Slugs will perform in some of these tests the same way as dogs, chimps and cats. They show far more complex patterns of behaviour than we had thought. And if they do feel pain, isn't that a welfare issue?"

I added part of the quote to the article, but then I noticed that other RS report that someone else (Stephen Wickens) said this, e.g. Copeland 2004, p. 130, and The Register (12 May 2000). So I've made it invisible for now. It's particularly odd because the Register appears to be quoting from the Telegraph. I think what may have happened is that the Register misquoted the Telegraph, and other sources used the Register because it was easier to access at that time. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Looking around some more, that is almost certainly what happened. I see other sources (W/Times, ABC) report that the study existed, and quoting Wickens for another point. So the question is whether to trust the science editor of the Telegraph, who was the first reporter. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I also think that the Telegraph is the correct version. Stephen Wickens is mentioned just before Chris Sherwin, so it would be a fairly easy mistake to make. I also found this [1], which seems to suggest that both Reuters and CNN mirrored the Telegraph version, and I tend to think they wouldn't both get it wrong (assuming the webpage I linked to is right). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I found this which further confirms but can't find the original Reuters article. There is also a CNN report that I can't find but it does list it here. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:59, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I've restored the quote. Would be interesting to find out more about that meeting. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Also see page 90 - "For Sherwin this indicates that ‘we should either be more cautious when using argument by analogy or remain open minded to the possibility that invertebrates are capable of suffering in a similar way to vertebrates’." (cite: Tiffin, Helen, Do Insects Feel Pain?, Animal Studies Journal, 5(1), 2016, 80-96. Available at:http://ro.uow.edu.au/asj/vol5/iss1/6). He is paraphrased here which cites this paper. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Another good find, Atsme. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

By the way, Atsme, if you want to take this to DYK, it has been expanded fivefold since 21 October, so it meets the criteria. On 21st, it had 184 words "readable prose size", and as of now 973, according to User:Dr pda/prosesize.js. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:58, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

It can't actually go live on DYK until the AfD closes (assuming it closes as keep) but it would nevertheless be a good idea to get the nomination in now rather than waiting, to make it in time for the nomination deadline. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:41, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

✅ Done. Finding more info online but not sure if we even need anymore, or if any of it would prove helpful so I'm throwing it out to see what sticks:

• AIW Discussion with Sherwin on panel "Collecting Blood from Rodents";
• operated by Authority Sciences LLC - evidence based source on dog health;
• [2] - Sherwin on what cured animals (turkeys) of stereotypical behavior;
• bringing together leading authorities from around the world;
• in Science Direct - article - Acknowledgement: We thank Dr Chris Sherwin and Dr Peter Lewis for supplying turkeys and useful discussions, and Dr Andrew Dorey for advice on optics;
• team awarded a 1,904,537(£) research grant;
• Dept of Applied Zoology and Veterinary Medicine, University of Kuopioy showing global recognition, cited and included in the Acknowledgement We also thank Dr. Chris M. Sherwin for his willing and valuable help with the English and for his helpful comments on the manuscript;

I'm of the mind we have plenty as it is without really needing to add anymore. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Description

Hi Atsme, I restored veterinary biologist only because of the repetition of "animal welfare". SarahSV ^(talk) 17:13, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Veterinary biologist was his BS, but his PhD+ was in Veterinary Science and Animal welfare science which is far more advanced than biologist. He worked in the Dept. of Clinical Veterinary Science at Bristol. I think the lead should mention his highest degrees - perhaps English veterinary scientist? ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Atsme, I've changed the lead to say "veterinary scientist", and added that he specialized in applied ethology. I've also added his involvement in the two ethics committees. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Perfect. Thank you, SV. It has been an absolute pleasure to work with you on this biography. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for saying that, Atsme, and it has likewise been a pleasure for me to work with you. I'm so glad that you created the article and defended it. I've added the European Council Working Party on Birds article you found, and I'm currently looking around for other sources on it. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

SV, which category is a duplicate of Ethologists? Just wondering if you were looking at Ecologist thinking it was the same. I don't think he was "officially" an ecologist. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:54, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Atsme, sorry, my mistake! I hadn't realized that I'd added "English ecologists". :) Will fix it now. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

English

It may be a little early to make everything consistent, but I noticed uses of behavior and behaviour and wondered if the article should be tagged for an English variant, like Australian English? Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 20:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm guilty - I would not object to it being British-Australian English (they're the same, aren't they?). Paleo, rather than tag it, let's just make the changes - I'm sure we have an editor active in one of the projects who is from AU or the UK? Calling all proper English speaking bloats (is that the right word?), HELP with spelling. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I was likely unclear but I meant tagging the talk page of course, not the article (which is often done non-controversially to let editors know that the language was standardized, I agree that it shouldn't be done until consistency was improved). —PaleoNeonate – 20:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Given that he spent his adult career at Bristol, I think English-English is fine, and I just put the template at the top of this talkpage. We can certainly copyedit as appropriate as we go along. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Atsme, I think you meant "blokes". Best, Gandy Gandydancer (talk) 01:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Rug burns from rotflmao - yes, Gandydancer, that's the word I couldn't recall. I was feeling a bit bloated when I posted that comment - it was the best I could do. ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Selected works

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)

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)

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)

(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)}

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)   

• 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)

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)

• Keep: A "selected works" section is standard. Ann T. Bowling was passed for GA by David Eppstein with such a list. It is entirely appropriate. Montanabw^(talk) 18:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• • 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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

I don't think anyone here is arguing that MEDRS applies. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I think I was the only one that mentioned MEDRS/SCIRS,[3] 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)

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)

• 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: [4], [5]. 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)
  • 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)
    • 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 ([6]), 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)

(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)

BLP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

BLP (WP:BDP) applies to this page and states, at WP:BLPCOI:

Wikipedia is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities. Experience has shown that misusing Wikipedia to perpetuate legal, political, social, literary, scholarly, or other disputes is harmful to the subjects of biographical articles, to other parties in the dispute, and to Wikipedia itself.

Therefore, an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography ...

In this case the disputes were on-wiki, not off, but the principle remains. I was surprised to see people who had been in dispute with Chris arrive to express views and even edit the article. I very much hope that this does not continue. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:09, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Please refrain from interjecting the subject's editor disputes into discussion here. We really should avoid that on this page at least as it is a BLP (and I sincerely hope the editor's behavior never becomes a sourced content-based discussion here). Since you've brought it up though, the number of sanctions the editor had in dispute areas (though unfortunate) somewhat invalidates a COI claim for those dealing with those problems unless interactions between two editors were so bad that an interaction ban towards the BLP was seriously considered or needed. Outside those sanctioned areas, I edited rather collegially with the editor. Given my mixed history with the subject as an editor, I fall more under More generally, editors who have a strongly negative or positive view of the subject of a biographical article should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally, if they choose to edit it at all. of WP:BLPCOI (my view is very mixed), hence why my only edit here was on the basic thing of editor selected works. Aside from that, I didn't want to edit this article very much or see the need to fix anything in other sections since they seemed fine anyways.

I do have to say thanks for reminding me about BLPCOI as opposed to just WP:COI. Regardless of which, that COI concept also applies to editors who have been extremely supportive of DrChrissy as a Wikipedia editor in major sanctioned disputes, considered on-Wiki friends, etc. That can apply to quite a few editors that were here before my edits, but in other forums I've been trying to have people be mindful of being too close (the idea of BLPCOI I quoted above) rather than enforce no edits by COI editors to keep potential tensions low. All editors here need to take care of this to varying degrees. That's as much as I'm going to discuss COI on this page since it's not really focusing on content, so I'm closing this as it's likely to not include further content based discussion. If we need to discuss limiting editors' ability to edit here, that will be done at COIN, but I've been more keen on keeping things calm at this page rather than escalating the situation. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:14, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Selected works redux

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

Selected works

Sherwin published over 62 works, including:

References

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

Book and book chapters

• Sherwin, Chris (2012) [1993]. "Farm Animals", in Stephen D. Wratten (ed.). Video Techniques in Animal Ecology and Behaviour. Springer Science & Business Media, pp. 125–144.
• Sherwin, Chris (2010). "The Husbandry and Welfare of Non-Traditional Laboratory Rodents", in R. Hubrecht and J. Kirkwood (eds.). The UFAW Handbook on the Care and Management of Laboratory and Other Research Animals, 8th edition. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 359–369. ISBN 9781405175234 doi:10.1002/9781444318777.ch25
• Sherwin, Chris M. (2010). "The Welfare and Ethical Assessment of Housing for Egg Production". In Duncan, Ian J. H.; Hawkins, Penny (eds.). The Welfare of Domestic Fowl and Other Captive Birds. Dordrecht: Springer. pp. 237–258. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-3650-6_10. ISBN 9789048136506.
• Sherwin, C. M. (2005). "Turkeys: Behaviour, Management and Well-Being", in Wilson G. Pond and Alan W. Bell (eds.). Encyclopedia of Animal Science. New York: Marcel Dekker, pp. 847–852. ISBN 0-8247-5496-4
• Sherwin, Chris M. (2002). "Comfortable quarters for mice in research institutions". In V. Reinhardt & A. Reinhardt (eds.). Comfortable Quarters for Laboratory Animals, 9th edition. Washington, DC: Animal Welfare Institute, pp. 6–7. ISBN 978-0-9384-1402-5
• Sherwin, C. M. (ed.) (1994). Modified Cages for Laying Hens. Proceedings of a Symposium Held at Nobel House. London: Universities Federation for Animal Welfare. ISBN 978-0-9007-6785-2

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)

Articles

• Sherwin, C. M.; Richards, G. J.; Nicol, C. J. (August 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. Times cited 52
• Sherwin, C. M. (2004). "The influences of standard laboratory cages on rodents and the validity of research data". Animal Welfare, 13: 9-15. Times cited 24
• Sherwin, C. M.; Olsson, I. A. S. (1 February 2004). "Housing conditions affect self-administration of anxiolytic by laboratory mice". Animal Welfare. 13 (1): 33–38. Times cited 25
• Sherwin, Chris M.; Christiansen, Stine B; Duncan, Ian J.; Erhard, Hans W; Lay, Don C.; Mench, Joy A; O'Connor, Cheryl E; Petherick, J.Carol (May 2003). "Guidelines for the ethical use of animals in applied ethology studies". Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 81 (3): 291–305. doi:10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00288-5. Times cited 82
• Olsson, I.Anna S; Nevison, Charlotte M.; Patterson-Kane, Emily G.; Sherwin, Chris M; Van de Weerd, Heleen A.; Würbel, Hanno (May 2003). "Understanding behaviour: the relevance of ethological approaches in laboratory animal science". Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 81 (3): 245–264. doi:10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00285-X. Times cited 48
• Sherwin, C. M. (2003). "Social context affects the motivation of laboratory mice, Mus musculus, to gain access to resources". Animal Behaviour. 66: 649–655. doi:10.1006/anbe.2003.223. Times cited 26
• Sherwin, C. M.; Heyes, C. M.; Nicol, C. J. (May 2002). "Social learning influences the preferences of domestic hens for novel food". Animal Behaviour. 63 (5): 933–942. doi:10.1006/anbe.2002.2000. Times cited 36
• Sherwin, C. M. (1 February 2001). "Can Invertebrates Suffer? Or, How Robust is Argument-by-Analogy?". Animal Welfare. 10 (1): 103–118. Times cited 43
• Maddocks, Sam A.; Cuthill, Innes C.; Goldsmith, Arthur R.; Sherwin, Chris M. (November 2001). "Behavioural and physiological effects of absence of ultraviolet wavelengths for domestic chicks". Animal Behaviour. 62 (5): 1013–1019. doi:10.1006/anbe.2001.1842. Times cited 30
• Sherwin, C. M. (July 1998). "Voluntary wheel running: a review and novel interpretation". Animal Behaviour. 56 (1): 11–27. doi:10.1006/anbe.1998.0836. Times cited 272
• Sherwin, C. M. (January 1998). "The use and perceived importance of three resources which provide caged laboratory mice the opportunity for extended locomotion". Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 55: 353–367. doi:10.1016/S0168-1591(97)00049-X Times cited 36
• Sherwin, C. M (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. Times cited 38
• Sherwin, C. M.; Nicol, C. J. (January 1997). "Behavioural demand functions of caged laboratory mice for additional space". Animal Behaviour. 53 (1): 67–74. doi:10.1006/anbe.1996.0278. Times cited 54
• Sherwin, C. M. (July 1996). "Laboratory mice persist in gaining access to resources: a method of assessing the importance of environmental features". Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 48 (3–4): 203–213. Times cited 39
• Sherwin, C. M.; Nicol, C. J. (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. Retrieved 22 October 2017. Times cited 63
• Sherwin, C. M. (1995). "Changes in meal patterning by mice measure the cost imposed by natural obstacles". Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 43 (4): 291–300. doi:10.1016/0168-1591(95)00568-d. Times cited 32

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)
  • 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

No objection from me. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

It is done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:16, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)