User talk:Tarnold777
If what you say [1] is true, then you'll have no trouble adding reliable sources establishing the notability of this subject. Please do so. EEng (talk) 02:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- I added a reference to the 2,792 times this article has been cited. Hopefully, this is sufficient to establish the notability. 04:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm afraid it's not. A citing paper might say something like, "Numerous papers have used the Foo statistical approach" with cites to Moffitt's paper and 10 others, and this would not be coverage of Moffitt's theory. I'm not saying this is what's going on -- I'm saying I don't know. What you need to find are cites which specifically discuss Moffitt's theory as itself something worth talking about -- saying things like, "Moffit's theory was the first to etcetc , and has been used extensively in etcetc." or "Along with the those of Smith and Jones, Moffítt's was one of the important theories to appear in the 1990s which etcetc. Unlike it's predecessors, Moffitt's theory approached etc etc" -- and there's going to need to be more than one or two of these, plus they have to be reliable and independent. The foregoing is re establishing notability.
- There's another problem as the article stands right now, and that has to do with the sources for its content. A great deal of the article is sourced to Moffitt's paper itself. But I gather that paper is a primary source for Moffitt's theory, and with limited exceptions primary sources are to be avoided. Discussion of what Moffitt's theory says needs to be based on secondary sources, independent of Moffitt (or her collaborators, generally), talking about the theory. (These may very well the be same sources as those establishing notability, thoung not necessarily).
- From what you say such sources are probably out there, though ironically when a paper is cited so many times it may be that the few cites that are really needed are buried like a needle in a haystack. I;ll be interested to see what you come up with.
- Will if be OK with you if we move this discussion to the article's talk page?
- EEng (talk) 15:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I am OK with moving the discussion. First, let me state for the record that this paper really is one of the more important criminological treatises. I will agree that the way that this page is written is poorly done. Whoever wrote it is not using the right citations. They are citing Moffitt (1993) for evidence that she presented in her paper. Those citations should go to the original sources. It also appears that most of the page has been devoted to the idea that brain injury is a cause of crime. While I support this notion, it does not really focus on the followup research that was done on her specific claims. Some theorists would support her theory and others would not. I am a Ph.D. doctoral student at the University of Cincinnati. I will be studying Terrie Moffit as part of my Comprehensive examination and could spend some time trying to clean this up.
I have a limited amount of time, but it will be possible to do a better job than has already been done. I have not really done any major work on a Wikipedia page so I might need some coaching. Suggestions?
16:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
OK this is making more sense. Tarnold777 (talk) 16:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)