Talk:Chuck Easttom

Comments by 2605:6000:1526:4538:f872:e4e2:cbe5:cb7e

This page was rejected originally. It has been cleaned up quite a bit. There is only neutral language, there are 70 citations all from neutral third parties that should at least satisfy the Wikipedia verifiability requirement. The only question that seems to remain is: is the subject notable. I would think authoring 26 books would be notable, but I know not all book authors warrant a Wiki page. Same issue with the 15 patents. One could argue the work on industry certifications is minor notability, but that is certainly debatable. The most notable thing to me seems to be the Distinguished Speaker of the ACM. That seems at least moderately notable.

The original admin indicated this was an 'autobiography' and even referenced Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. I checked every IP address. From what I can find on Google the subject lives in North Texas. There is one of the IP addresses in North Texas, but most are not. None of the sources are from the subject, they are all (now over 70) independent sources. So I don't know the basis for the allegations regarding this article.

Some editor removed the section on being a reviewer saying it was meaningless. I think that depends on the journal. I would agree that some of the journals listed for the subject are indeed meaningless, but IEEE is not. That is the gold standard for computer science and engineering. And while I don't have direct experience as a reviewer for any journal, I suspect the IEEE does not pick their reviewers out of a hat. I did some looking into what makes an IEEE reviewer and I saw https://www.ieee.org/content/dam/ieee-org/ieee/web/org/members/students/reviewer_guidelines_final.pdf and Wikipedia itself states "IEEE produces over 30% of the world's literature in the electrical and electronics engineering and computer science fields, publishing well over 100 peer-reviewed journals[18][19] and magazines; it also sponsors over 1800 conferences and events. " So I would argue that being a reviewer for IEEE is important. By itself it would not be noteworthy but it is a part of the subject's bio. I would also argue that while a subject must be noteworthy for a wikipedia article, not every detail of their biography must be noteworthy. Einstien's biography mentions he worked in as a patent clerk...being a patent clerk is not important or noteworthy, but it is part of his bio. John Forbes Nash's bio mentions his mother was a school teacher, not particularly noteworthy. Once a subject has been deemed noteworthy enough to have a Wikipedia article, factual unbiased issues on their bio should be included, even if those particular items are not impressive, as they are in all Wikipedia bios.

There is a tag on the main page stating "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page" I think this is important and should be discussed. the main early contributor was DGG, then some minor edits by Katharineamy, I dream of horses , Edmund T, and Graeme Bartlett . And a smattering of unsigned IP addresses (about 8) including 51.252.11.231 (traces to Saudi), 178.80.96.182 (also Saudi), 12.27.99.194 (New Jersey), 216.54.76.164 (virginia), Which of these are being suspected of being connected to the subject? And what in the article is biased or inaccurate? I agree this should be discussed, and the article cleaned up if needed. BTW I am not signing my discussion either, I do everything on the internet, including Wikipedia anonymously.

Going to ping @DGG, Katharineamy, I dream of horses, EdmundT, and Graeme Bartlett: on this, but the crux of the matter is that being a reviewer is a completely routine thing to be, regardless of where it is. I've reviewed articles for Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, and I'm certainly no part of the IMechE, nor am I even an engineer. This is not a 'feat' in anyway, and simply being acknowledged by a journal to have reviewed for them alongside 50 others is nothing special. It's no more special for an IEEE journal, than for Journal of Information Warfare, International Journal of Cyber Warfare and Terrorism, International Journal of Computer Science and Security, some of those from predatory publishers (Computer Science Journals) and vanity presses (IGI). A Wikipedia entry is not a CV. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:33, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your discussion, but I disagree that the IEEE is not more prestigious, it is. Also you miss the point: I don't think this subject was considered notable for being a reviewer, it is just a part of his bio and thus appropriate. It would be like having personal details such as where he was born, where he lives, if he is married (oddly enough, none of that is in this article and I cannot find any references for such information). Those things don't make a subject notable, but they are part of a complete and accurate bio.

Headbomb has it right. I've been a reviewer i several fields; I've been an editor selecting reviewers.Reviewing journal articles in the sciences for a high quality journal is normally a part of the development of a beginning scientist. I've done it as a graduate student, post-doc,and assistant professor. When I became an associate professor, I was no longer asked. Reviewing is work. A proper review takes many hours, and requires expertise very close to the subject of the proposed article. .The benefit to the reviewer, who is never paid in cash, is integration into the professional community, detailed famliarity with the work of other colleagues in their exact field, andt he development of an ability to judge others' work. All of these are essential to career development. The editor, normally a senior person in the field sees the quality of your analysis; you get an early inside look in what your colleagues are doing (tho there are ethical limitations on using the specifics), and you learn how to evaluate which you will need to do in selecting your own students and post-docs and acting on appointment & promotion committees. It's important, but it's part of the educational routine.

I should however note that in low quality scientific journals, reviewing is sometimes a mere formality, and the editor normally selects reviewers who will give the desired result. (I do disagree with Headbomb here--there is a difference--and I know it because I have also reviewed for one or two distinctly lower quality journals. )

Much more important (but irrelevant here), in the humanities, reviewing, especially reviewing books for academic publishers, is often the responsibility of more senior people, who are sometimes paid. The much lower publication density in these fields makes it practical, and the very high cost of committing to publish an academic book makes it necessary. This is even more the case in creative literature, where some reviewers for major publishers are notable in their own right, and a very few are notable specifically for their reviewing of major literature for the most important publishers.

On another issue, the detail appropriate to an encyclopedia article is proportional to the importance of the subject. -- see WP:EINSTEIN. The specific family background of someone so extraordinarily important as Nash is relevant, because people in general want to know about the development of famous people; only their family cares about those merely notable. Indeed, the details of Einstein's work as a patent clerk have been covered in his biographies--as this is the period where his most famous early publications were written, it's of very special importance; almost unique special importance. (the post was equivalent to a current-day Patent Examiner, not a clerk.) In trying to understand how a human could have done the work he did, every detail is significant. For understanding the development of someone who is just ordinarily notable , there's no special interest in it for anyone but himself and his supervisors.

It is the current academic practice for a CV to include everything--every review, every talk, every lecture, every possible university and public service. Personally, I think it's pathological , and I doubt it's relevance even in the appointment and promotions sense. Foran encyclopedia, inclusion of details such as this indicate one of several possibilities--the article was written by copying the CV, the article was written by a paid editor or PR staff member who doesn't know what actually matters, the article was written by the subject -- tho that is almost equally likely to lead to over-brief articles, or it was written by a family member or student who thinks everything about hte person of great public importance to the world, or that the minor material is included because there is too little major material to fill an article because the subject is not actual notable, or not yet notable.

I also know from many years experience here that protests over matters like this indicates the work of a COI editor--sometimes the subject who is all too aware of his own perceived importance to the world , or , much more usually, a paid editor who will not get paid unless the article is accepted. DGG ( talk ) 19:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@DGG and 2605:6000:1526:4538:f872:e4e2:cbe5:cb7e: 'there is a difference/prestigious', here I was specifically talking about the specialness as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Not about the legitimacy of the reviewing process. Reviewing for IEEE is valid work, but it is no more special than reviewing for any other legitimate journal (e.g. Canadian Journal of Physics, Thin Solid Films, Médecin de Famille Canadien, etc...) and is a standard activity expected of any scientist. It is grunt work. Reviewing for OMICS and the like is participating in a sham (not that they would even bother reading your referee report if they even bothered to ask for one). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I should add that basic bio of birth and family and education is considered part of the framework of an article--it's logical for a reader to at least know who the person is., and people generally think such matters important parts of identity. There are also cases where some particular detail, such as being a refugee, has a similar significance. (We also try to always adde ducation and birthplace because the articles on universities and localities include a list of notable people from that place or school)

And there is a special case: if the parent is in the same field, or has some special importance to the career, we usually do mention it; we also give names of children if they become notable in their own right. In some case of families where multiple members are notable in a significant way, as some families of musicians, this is of great interest and importance. But in almost allcases, we just give the bare minimum.

The basic rule is very simple: Wikipedia articles are written for the general public.. DGG ( talk ) 19:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for that addition to the conversation DGG. I really don't know enough about reviewing to comment any more than I have. I just know IEEE is prestigious and it stands to reason that reviewing for them is a bit more than lesser journals. But that aside, I don't think there is any disagreement that this is an accurate part of the subjects bio? I really think there ought to be some basic personal information such as where the subject lives, but I don't have that information and have not found it searching with Google. I think you and I agree that basic bio is relevant, but I just don't have that information do add. I did find he did some volunteer work for a non profit, I put that in. I don't think volunteering for an NGO is particularly noteworthy, but I added it as part of my own belief that any bio on Wikipedia should be as complete as possible. Obviously you are correct that someone like Einstein, not only are even trivial items interesting, but it is easier to find sources. With a lesser known person (such as the subject of this article) as much detail is not only not needed, but probably not possible to find and verify. But I have a general belief that is a subject is noteworthy enough to get a Wikipedia article (even if they are on the lower side of noteworthy individuals) then the article should be as detailed and complete as well sourced citations will support.

Also DGG, since you seem to know a lot about Wikipedia and I believe you were the person who first got this article published, can you educate me a bit on something. I see the notice on the page stating this appears to be from a non neutral point of view. I don't see any such indications. None of the puffery like "leading scientist", "renowned", "accomplished", etc. In fact it reads a bit bland to me (and perhaps that is what an article should be, I don't know), just a recitation of basic facts. What am I missing?

including minor material is puffery. DGG ( talk ) 19:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

and, btw, including the nonprofit is relevant because it is in his field. As for where he was born and where he lives, it is probably possible to find it. I may give it a look. As a librarian, I'm good at that. DGG ( talk ) 19:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I have remove the COI tag, as this seems to have now been closely examined and pruned. My contribution was only to fix some spacing errors with reference position, and I probably came across it because of its listing in new work. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

material to add

As important as it is to eliminate unimportant material, it is even more important to add some of the basic material here that is missing. First, and most important, is links to substantial reviews of the books in third-party independent reliable sources, not local newspapers. These should just be links, not quotations. (I should mention to avoid misunderstanding that the use of thetextbooks is in fact significant and should be retained; it's one of the qualifications at WP:PROF)

The other is more complete references so the reader can see what the sources are, to get some idea of their reliability and whether they are worth finding. The reference should include as a minimum the title of the item, the name of the site, the date of publication, and--if relevant--the author. The best way to make sure to include these is to use the WP:CITE templates. DGG ( talk ) 19:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

DGG thank you for answering my questions. I have only been doing this a couple of months, and there is quite a bit I don't know. I appreciate you taking the time to explain these things to me.