This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maryland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Maryland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MarylandWikipedia:WikiProject MarylandTemplate:WikiProject MarylandMaryland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists articles
This article was created or improved during the Women currently in academics edit-a-thon hosted by the Women in Red project in September 2018. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
RFC on removal of Journal Articles
I note no clear consensus being indicated by simple vote. It is therefore necessary to consider the strength of the arguements being made.
I note and have considered the following as being significant in this close:
WP is not a CV, not indiscriminate and not a biblio service.
Wile no number of total articles published appears to be given in the discussion, nine or so would seem to fall to being a sample for a research academic of her standing and a relatively small sample/list.
Selected works should be based on noteworthiness. Journal articles may be as noteworthy or more noteworthy than books, depending on the field of endeavour. This is a compelling arguement particularly to this field and this close
WP articles are written for all.
Secondary sources indicate noteworthiness. Other journal articles are secondary sources wrt this.
Citation metrics are a "potential" measure of noteworthiness. They indicate the number of times a work has been cited but not why - in this respect, they may not be a good measure.
I am not seeing a definitive reason (citation or like?) for only listing where she is first or last authour. My experience is that there are many reasons for this "pecking order".
The substantive question is whether journal articles should be deleted (entirely) from this section of the article. I conclude that there is a compelling case (and therefore a consensus) for not doing so. I also observe that this would be the status quo.
What is not addressed by this RfC is the number of articles or which articles should be reported even though comments have touched upon these considerations. I see no justification for an arbitrary number. I would hope that those selected are justifiably noteworthy.
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.
Keep as OP. One, this is a small sample of her journal articles and mainly include articles in which she is the main author. Second, journal articles in a peer reviewed journal can and are notable. We should find a sample of the most important journal articles by citation and include them.Casprings (talk) 23:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. We are not a database for resumes. Journal articles are regularly churned out by academics; it's what we do. They are rarely reviewed like books are and thus only rarely develop independent "noteworthiness". Applying some metric like "the most cited journals" to include in a biography is fraught with complications. And once we start listing those, we might as well start listing a host of other things. Drmies (talk) 00:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (Summoned by bot) Currently there are nine articles. This RfC concerns removal of six. This is not an all-or-nothing proposition. I believe we should keepsome of these articles but not necessarily nine or six. Maybe just four, based upon the notability of the articles. But no they should not be eliminated completely. Coretheapple (talk) 14:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Remove section per WP:NOTCV. Normally we don't want lists of journal articles for an academic unless secondary sources outlining the BLP aspect of the person point out specific seminal work. Even then, it's better to have in-text descriptions instead according to the secondary sources. Simply getting published in a peer-reviewed journal is far from being a significant noteworthiness metric of an academic's work, and we have WP:MEDRS/WP:SCIRS that outline why for those not familiar. This should be a rather standard removal of an unneeded section, so I don't see any reason to let it creep in to this article. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:38, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's pretty standard to include a bibliography of some published works on articles for academics and authors, as long as it isn't too long, so while I am sympathetic and somewhat agree that this tends to add resume-like aspects to certain articles, MEDRS is a policy about whether a particular use of a source is reliable. If we were going to remove this bibliography it would have to be discussed at MOS or Village Pump so the community consensus would apply to all articles, not only this one. As it stands, I don't see any reason to deviate from the usual practice (this includes what passes ISNOT at AfD and AfC). Seraphim System(talk)23:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Seraphim System, that's not true and you know it. Editors like me have been removing these resume-style sections for years. You can't pretend there is a current consensus to include lists of articles: there isn't. Drmies (talk) 14:22, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: I have never seen you at AfC and only occasionally at AfD, I'm not active at AfC all the time so maybe we've had different experiences at different times. Please do not tell me what I "know" - it comes awfully close to an accusation that I am lying. Editors like you can maybe get away with doing that because you have been editing a lot time but it's not common practice and there's no policy justification for it. I think DGG's position explained below on ISNOT is closer to what I'm familiar with from AfC. Seraphim System(talk)21:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have struck my above keep vote. Subsequent comments by PackMecEng and E. M. Gregory have made relevant arguments about the notability and impact of these particular articles. I don't have time to follow up on these arguments further at this time, but I would support the inclusion of journal articles that meet our standards for inclusion. Seraphim System(talk)21:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some selected or representative works. Selection of which to include is an editorial decision; secondary coverage of the articles themselves is not a requirement. VQuakr (talk) 03:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
VQuakr, nothing is "required" here, but whose editorial decision, and based on what? There isn't a single word on this talk page dedicated to her academic career, besides a few generalities in "NPR says, "Widely published in her field"" and a brief note about which discipline in the section with the abortive GA nomination. I have seen no one discuss, intelligently and with knowledge of academia in general and her discipline(s) in specific, what her academic strengths are, or which of her articles should be mentioned (and which left out). In other words, editorial discretion for this particular point is not to be found among this cadre. Drmies (talk) 14:22, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We need not "discuss, intelligently and with knowledge of academia in general and her discipline(s) in specific, what her academic strengths are". We are compiling material relevant to a particular article. She is noted for her intellectual accomplishments. We as editors are not tasked with evaluating those accomplishments. We are only compiling relevant material. "Relevant" has to do with a particular article. Claims of sexual assault dating back 36 years are taken seriously and accorded considerable weight in part because of the accomplishments she has made in the intervening 36 years. Consequently in this particular article I think indications of the intellectual substance of the subject of the article are important. Bus stop (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bus stop are you listening? We're discussing the journal articles here, and it is argued that "editorial discretion" should be used to select articles. I don't know why you are talking about the accusations etc., and the moment someone says, against practice, that we'll use "editorial discretion", we are indeed tasked with evaluating what goes in and what goes out. That she has published articles is pretty much a given, and as "indications of the intellectual substance of the subject of the article" they are unnecessary especially since, I suspect, most of the editors here don't know how to read those indications. Drmies (talk) 15:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is probably correct, that "most of the editors here don't know how to read those indications". Then please tell me—what is the argument for removing any of the "indications"? Bus stop (talk) 15:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Her academic accomplishments are part of the reason her testimony has the weight that it does in the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination hearings. I think the average reader is interested in some semblance of knowledge of the depth of her intellectual accomplishments. Bus stop (talk) 03:30, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The average reader probably doesn't know what goes into peer-reviewed, academic publishing. The average reader is probably satisfied with what the text says---and the reader who wants more can always go to her website or faculty page. Drmies (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We write for all readers—average and not-so-average. Furthermore I am not so sure it matters enormously whether or not some readers can or cannot appreciate certain subject matter that may be beyond their ability to grasp fully. All articles are not understood fully by all readers. I don't think we make calculations of that nature. We compile information from reliable sources. Obviously such information must be relevant. An important question is whether or not the material we are discussing is verifiable. Why be concerned that some cannot grasp the full significance of something? An article is written, in this case a biography, because every fact has been checked and has been found to be substantially applicable to the person who is the subject of the article. As you correctly point out we are not "a database for resumes". I doubt this article will ever serve as a resume. I think all of our considerations are with the reader in mind. We don't expect the subject to use this article as a resume. Bus stop (talk) 15:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Not needed, this is not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of everything she has done. The same can apply with WP:NOTRESUME. Also from what I can tell most seem to list her a secondary author, so they are not major works by her. Finally the articles themselves seem to have little impact anywhere, so the weight or notability of the articles is suspects in general. This seems more of an example of it is verifiable, but not notable. With all the, the main reason for inclusion I am seeing is that we list them in other articles. That is an easy example of WP:OTHERSTUFF and has no bearing on the situation here. Just because other articles do things wrong does not mean we need to repeat them here. Especially given the policy reasons not to list them. PackMecEng (talk) 12:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Remove ordinarily we list a handful of articles that have demonstrable impact. A glance at gScholar [2], shows her name on only 4 such articles. And fails to turn up any widely cited articles where she is first or last author (last author is a position often given to a notable scholar who is leading the group that produced an article,) but, given that she's in the middle of long lists of co-authors, I STRONGLY support deleting them all. She's on these lists exactly where you expect to find the consulting statistician on such articles. What she hasn't done is be first author on such articles. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
note that the articles I discuss above are under her initials and surname. and note that the first hit in the search User:Thsmi002 suggests is on a textbook she wrote, not on an impactful paper, and it is already listed among her books.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. Her work, sadly, is not what she's notable for. Few readers of the article will be here to learn about designing statistical models. Maproom (talk) 06:33, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Remove We don't usually include these in scientist bios unless they are of special note or importance in the public reception/discussion of the subject. I don't see that case made here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We are writing an article here that is a biography of someone whose notability is unique or at least unusual. Standards concerning the inclusion of journal articles should not necessarily be identical to the standards found in other scientist bios. Bus stop (talk) 14:29, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I hardly thought this was an op-ed. Each article has its own particulars that determine the form it takes. (We even have an essay, WP:OTHER.) This article was created in September of 2018 not because the subject of the article was a scientist but because the subject of the article came forward with a sexual assault allegation against a supreme court nominee. I don't think this article should be compared in every respect to other articles on scientists. The role that her identity as a scientist plays is not so much in shedding light (for the average reader) on "statistical models" but rather in bolstering her credibility and the weight that her testimony carried when she spoke before the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing regarding a Supreme Court nominee. Bus stop (talk) 19:31, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
that was snarky, and I apologize. But "bolstering her credibility" is not our job. Attempting to maintain encyclopedic standards is. And exaggerating her professional accomplishments is not the way to do that, imho.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bus stop there isn't a single thing you're saying that makes any sense. "Each article has its own particulars"--sure, whatever, but this nonsense about "bolstering her credibility" is just that--nonsense. She doesn't need a resume to be credible in front of a committee, and it's not up to the reader to decide anything anyway because this is not an op-ed. No one needs to exaggerate anything, and you don't "create" a scientific identity by dropping in a bunch of articles. Drmies (talk) 21:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak remove - I've never seen a similar list and don't find it particularly useful; however, I could be wrong. L293D (☎ • ✎)18:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is perfectly reasonable material for an article on a notable person's career. It is not as though it will penalise readers who don't care (half a page for Pete's sake) and it would be of interest to some readers. An encyclopaedia is not there only to gratify the lowest common denominator of material that absolutely everyone will want to read, but to present a rounded article on everything that any reasonable reader might want to refer to, even if many do not. In the case of an academic it is thoroughly plausible that some readers might want to see that material. I am not American, and did not at first realise who the subject was, so I was puzzled about the point of all this, and frankly, having checked, I am shocked at what the foregoing exchanges show to be a politically partisan slant to a WP debate in a product that, politically significant or not, is supposed to be politically neutral. Of all the nutty topics! A woman gets embroiled in a sordid fight over a political appointment, and this means that her article should be pruned in case it... in case it what?? Influences the outcome? Let's not allow an inflated sense of our influence on American politics, to influence our own editing preferences, but instead concentrate on our role as encyclopaedists first and last, and let the gutter press deal with the dirt dishing. We have work to do. JonRichfield (talk) 19:21, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Remove section - this is a Wikipedia-wide standard. Make no ad hoc policy exceptions for political cases. The subject is not even first author!. XavierItzm (talk) 15:49, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The books, and her first and last author articles are notable to her reputation. It's at least as notable as Brett Kavanaugh's article information that he ran "the Boston Marathon in 2010 and 2015".Ward20 (talk) 03:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Remove I don't think we generally keep them and for that reason this article should not have any special treatment. These articles[4][5] are probably not most articles for starting an argument either. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 16:32, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: several of the comments above reference completely fictional standards without bothering to even link them, so they can be safely ignored unless replaced with actual arguments. --Nemo19:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since this article is asserted to pass WP:NPROF. 19:31, 8 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs)
Keep some per DGG (Summoned by bot) Regardless of whether or not she is most known for these or not, we shoudl keep some. Forgive the ad absurdum, but most people are not known for having a birthday or being born in a place or attending university, yet we include* those things. *conditions apply, not valid in Ohio and Cuba Thanks, L3X1◊distænt write◊02:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least 10. I think at least 10 journal articles would give the reader an overview of journal activities. In fact, with Civil War author "Margaret Mitchell" where I was hoping to see a list of a dozen various newspaper articles which she had written (beyond book Gone with the Wind), at least her articles were mentioned under "Margaret Mitchell #Reporter for The Atlanta Journal". As for people guideline-thumping to obey standards to insta-delete all articles, I say I am even sick of policy-shoving to rabidly force other users and shove them to remove journal articles from pages. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bus stop: Hi, sorry for the late reply. I don't believe that the subject of the article is personally attempting to use Wikipedia as a CV; however, one's publications are typically listed on a CV, which makes the inclusion of publications make the article feel like a CV. Nevertheless, I took the time to check out some psychologists' Wikipedia pages (e.g. Hans-Werner Gessmann, Albert Bandura, Geoffrey Beattie) and they appear to list publications (this is actually different from most Wikipedia pages on researchers). In consideration of this, I will retract my comment about WP:NOTCV. However, I will maintain my position that the section should be removed; in contrast to the aforementioned researchers, the publications have not had major effects or repercussions in the field of psychology (from what I can tell from a cursory Google search) and the person is not known for their publications, so I believe that the inclusion of the subject's publications is irrelevant and distracting for the average reader. Hickland (talk) 04:08, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You write "I believe that the inclusion of the subject's publications is irrelevant and distracting for the average reader." Her journal articles should be included because her reason for notability is not her accomplishments in the field of psychology but rather the claim that she made of sexual assault. Though she is a psychologist the standard for this article should not be that of WP:ACADEMIC but rather the more broad WP:PERSON. A recurring question concerning the subject of this article is her ability to recall the particulars of an alleged sexual assault of years ago. Therefore I think that the reader is interested in accomplishments of a cerebral nature. You speak about the "average reader". The average reader is not so much interested in her published work in the field of psychology. The average reader is using very limited educational abilities to evaluate a far more educated person's mental capacity. The average reader would not understand any of the publications included in the "Selected works" section of the article. I don't know why we are making a distinction between "Books" and "Journal articles". Is the average reader going to get hold of her 2015 book "Statistical Power Analysis in Research" by Sage Publishing? Not a chance. Yes, she is an academic, but I think we adjust our guidelines to write an article that takes into account the subject's reason for notability. Bus stop (talk) 15:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would actually argue that the subject's publications should not be included "because her reason for notability is not her accomplishments in the field of psychology but rather the claim that she made of sexual assault". Also as you say, "The average reader is not so much interested in her published work in the field of psychology", so why keep the publications in? I think the "Career" section already gives sufficient credibility to the subject's "mental capacity" to not require another list of their publications at the end of the article. Hickland (talk) 05:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need to be stingy with information. Information must be relevant and verifiable. And information must not unjustifiably portray someone in an unflattering light. But we are not harming the subject of this article by a thorough documenting of her published works. Therefore I fail to see the big impetus to omit this relevant and verifiable information. Bus stop (talk) 15:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Remove as books by an academic with an article are notable, while articles are not notable (particularly middle-authored ones) unless it can be demonstrated that they have had a significant impact in the field (something exceedingly rare), or even the culture at large, which they clearly have not. Sorry I'm late to the party, I did not receive the ping. @Bus stop, applicable policies have been cited by editors up the yin-yang, and not every editor is inclined to repeat them ad nauseum; some merely state their position, or comment, as is their wont. It is not for you to chastise them for expressing their opinion in the RfC. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 05:17, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Combine? Why not combine the Book chapters and Journal articles to 1 smaller section? Both seem small enough together to keep and will take up less with combining the headline. Maybe a middle ground between delete and keep? ContentEditman (talk) 17:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Articles are the primary work of a research psychologist, but prioritize those that demonstrate the variety and renown of her work.--Carwil (talk) 18:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You'd think so, but I'm not sure. I've previously raised the issue on such talk pages here and here, with little movement. I'm leery of firm rules, but feel at least a framework of recommended practices is in order. Addendum:WP:BIBLIOGRAPHIES is a very broad style guideline, and WikiProject Bibliographies has additional notes, but both seem more applicable to conventional author bibliographies than academics. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"journal articles in a peer reviewed journal can and are notable"--I suppose the "can" is an error of some sort. That journal articles "are notable" is an odd notion--maybe you mean noteworthy. Well, they can be noteworthy--if secondary sources have noticed them. Drmies (talk) 00:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
the meaning is not that the articles are notable ,but that the articles can show notability. However, that's not exactly right: if they are sufficiently well cited to show theyhave an impact, then they show notability . (I usually includes the citation figures for that purpose. DGG ( talk ) 23:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Normal practice is keep the 3 or 4 most heavily cited journal articles (plus any others for which a good case can be made. I've removed or restored to this level on probably a few thousand articles by now, and almost never been challenged, except by a COI editor trying to keep them all. We do not list them all, because of NOT CV. We do not eliminate them all, because that's the way notability under WP:PROF is usually met for scientists. (see's also notable independent of the GNG, of course). . DGG ( talk ) 05:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why having 12 publications in total (as is the case now) would be a big deal in itself, but I agree it's trivial to reduce them, e.g. by removing the titles which don't list her as first author (or first-equivalent). --Nemo07:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, and I've probably removed all journal articles a few thousand times--as I have removed editorials published by politicians, book reviews by writers, poems by poets, etc. Notability for scientists, well, journal articles are one way to determine that, but not the only way, and it kind of begs the question of how that is going to be done. It suggests that we can't a. determine notability or b. edit an article without running the resume through a check. And my future notability as a scholar is not likely to be based on anything related to journal articles; it'll be a book, as it is for many. And you know, of course, that resume-wise (and tenure-wise) journal articles are important, but monographs are everything. Ordinary editors, and I count myself among them (and I mean those of us who are not look Randykitty or you), will have a really hard time deciding what the "3 or 4 most heavily cited journal articles" are. You mentioned "a good case"--I pointed out many times that we should obviously include journal articles which have secondary sourcing. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I too remove all journal articles in many cases: 1 /when the person is an academic in a field where one becomes notable by publishing books. 2/ when the person is not an academic, and the journal articles are irrelevant to notability,; I also remove all journal articles that are not peer-reviewed, all book chapters (except in some esoteric fields l where they are the major form of publication) and all conference proceedings (except in those fields of engineering where some conference articles do count as on a par with or even superior to journal articles.
In science, in the 20th/21st century, monograph articles are not everything. far from it, they're irrelevant. The (imaginary) anecdote I gave my library school classes is : "Professor X in English comes up for tenure review, and the Dean of Faculty says, why are you publishing these journal articles? You need 2 good substantial books from first-rate academic publishers. Write them, get tenure, and then you can do these little topics in little journal articles. Professor Y in biology comes up for tenure review, and the Dean of Faculty says, why are you publishing these books? That won't impress the granting agencies. You need at least 5 substantial journal articles in absolutely first-rate journals. Publish them, get tenure, and then you can go writing these miscellaneous books." Look at full CVs of any of the holders major professorships in science at major universities. You will find most of them have never written a book. The ones that have, have sometimes written, late in their career, a philosophical or historical or autobiographical book very late in their career, or --essentially as a service -- a semi-popular book explaining their field, or, usually after their name gets recognized as enough of an authority to be a selling-point, a textbook.
the fields that go by journal articles are all the sciences, and those social sciences using quantitative methods. There's overlap in some areas. Before the mid=-20th century, most social science publication was books.
There's a general rule here, applying to all WP bios. We include those accomplishments that contribute to notability as WP perceives it, or importance as the field perceives it, and remove minor things that do not. We include national level awards, not in-house or local awards. We include editorship of magazines or journals, but not being one of many assistant editors. We include being presidents of professional societies, but not routine memberships. We include being chairman of a charitable board, but not just being a member.
Here's the analogy. Musicians are notable by their music, so we always include the musical works. Novelists by their novels, even not the individually notable ones. Sportspeople, their results in all profession or international competitions, but not back when they were on the jv. Artists, by their art works in museums--we include them, but not their others. The reason for us is that we do not do OR or synthesis. We may decide inclusion on the basis of our rules for notability , but we give the reader the opportunity to judge the actual worth for themselves. DGG ( talk ) 08:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
and as I should have mentioned, we give not just articles, but at least the highest citation figures in GS or WoS or Scopus. (and any reader can find the others also, if they know to look in GScholar. That's why I prefer to use it, though in some respects it is less exact--the others are very unfortunately only available in large university libraries. DGG ( talk ) 23:28, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK,so some of us remove article refs routinely, and some remove or prune them occasionally, and some add or conserve them. No big deal as long as there is no controversy, or as long as there is no doubt about some explicit rule. But as soon as there really is a significant difference of opinion, I say that constitutes adequate grounds to include rather than exclude. It implies that some people might be looking for material. If not, half a page of bibliography is unlikely to break WP or topple the US government, so we don't need edit wars or walls of text. JonRichfield (talk) 19:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.
I don't know quite how to say this—and I wouldn't dream of reverting @MelanieN:—but isn't this…well, just a tad trivial? For one private club to have named a single conference room after Ford somehow doesn't seem noteworthy enough to warrant an entire new section headed Recognition. I hope other editors will weigh in on this. KalHolmann (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed "we" were hoping to fill out the section before this issue fades completely from the public consciousness. Gotta start somewhere. If that doesn't materialize, then you would have a better case for removing the section. Alternatively, you could accumulate candidate items in a section on this page pending "critical mass" (using {{DNAU}} to prevent archival), but I've never seen it done that way. Whether the Christine Blasey Ford Conference Room would merit a place in such a section anyway is a different question, and I'm neutral on that. ―Mandruss☎22:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By itself, as sole occupant of our new Recognition section, the Christine Blasey Ford Conference Room seems almost comically desperate, like Wikipedia editors are stretching mightily to dredge up noteworthy tributes to Dr. Ford. What's next—a booth at McDonald's? KalHolmann (talk) 22:57, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input. Your concerns are valid. I will wait to see how others feel but if there is consensus to remove it I will. --MelanieN (talk) 04:47, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Include, obviously. It is not at all problematic. We are not at all "stretching mightily to dredge up noteworthy tributes to Dr. Ford". The subject of the article was recognized by a "women's co-working network"[6]. That sort of recognition is part and parcel of Blasey Ford's reason for notability. Blasey Ford represents feminist principles as does The Wing (workspace). Of course we want to tie these disparate points on our encyclopedia together. This information is not trivial; it is entirely appropriate. Bus stop (talk) 15:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Include - it's been the subject of a reliable source. If she's received enough recognition to warrant her own article, I don't see a reason to exclude it as she's being recognized for a major aspect of her notability.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:38, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On October 22, it was announced that the Palo Alto City Council plans to honor Ford ([7]). Once the 29th approaches and it's reported that it actually happened, should this be included in the article? I think so because the allegations against Kavanaugh are a huge reason why she's notable.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The article claims the following: " Following Justice Anthony Kennedy's retirement from the Supreme Court in June 2018, Ford considered relocating her family to another democracy, such as New Zealand " 'another' seems to imply that the current country she lives in, the United States of America, is a democracy. The USA is a Republic:
Suggest editing to state "relocating her family to a democracy like New Zealand" or "relocating her family to New Zealand".
US CONSTITUTION ARTICLE IV SECTION 4 - Republican Government:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Not done - The U.S. is both a federal republic and a representative democracy. They are not mutually exclusive. Also, the current content agrees with the cited source: "She went online to research other democracies where her family might settle, including New Zealand." ―Mandruss☎16:44, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As the article is nominated for GA, and the recent RfC did not result in any consensus with regards to the exact content of the journal articles section, I'd ask: are there any specific objections to the current section with journal articles? It's better to generate consensus before the GA review than during the review. I might do the review myself, but not before consensus is reached on multiple areas in the article that I feel need consensus. wumbolo^^^20:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
^Arnow, BA; Blasey, C; Williams, LM; Palmer, DM; Rekshan, W; Schatzberg, AF; Etkin, A; Kulkarni, J; Luther, JF; Rush, AJ (1 August 2015). "Depression Subtypes in Predicting Antidepressant Response: A Report From the iSPOT-D Trial". The American journal of psychiatry. 172 (8): 743–50. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2015.14020181. PMID25815419.
^Elliott, GR; Blasey, C; Rekshan, W; Rush, AJ; Palmer, DM; Clarke, S; Kohn, M; Kaplan, C; Gordon, E (December 2017). "Cognitive Testing to Identify Children With ADHD Who Do and Do Not Respond to Methylphenidate". Journal of attention disorders. 21 (14): 1151–1160. doi:10.1177/1087054714543924. PMID25122732.
^Kraemer, HC; Blasey, CM (2004). "Centring in regression analyses: a strategy to prevent errors in statistical inference". International journal of methods in psychiatric research. 13 (3): 141–51. PMID15297898.
"Again, psychologists who study memory noted that it is not unexpected that this party would not stand out for others who had attended but did not experience an event "particularly worth remembering.” Is it the role of the writer to arbitrate the hearings? Orthotox (talk) 01:35, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Flying
WikiHogan654 really seems to want this article to say something about the subject's seemingly inconsistent statements about flying. I don't think it merits inclusion, but I'm opening this section so that WikiHogan654 can seek consensus for the material. - MrX 🖋 00:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The source is about what this means for the nomination, as this was one of the inconsistencies according to Mitchell. It does not belong to the personal life section almost certainly. wumbolo^^^00:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
People's disabilities and interests are almost always included in the Personal Life sections. Go to just about any other Wikipedia biography, and you'll see countless mentions of personal habits, preferences, daily routines, etc. I don't see why this shouldn't be included here. I'm not trying to insert inaccurate information. This information is relevant, notable, and accurately cited.WikiHogan654 (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
Done Thanks for the suggestion. --MelanieN (talk) 19:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Not done - The U.S. is both a federal republic and a representative democracy. They are not mutually exclusive. Also, the current content agrees with the cited source: "She went online to research other democracies where her family might settle, including New Zealand." ―Mandruss ☎ 16:44, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
