Talk:Obliteration by incorporation

Poor examples

Looking at the list of examples given in the article, it seems to me Merton introduced this concept merely to complain that he was not well-known as the inventor of 'self-fulfilling prophecy' and 'role model'!! The other examples are pretty weak - I'd say for example that Crick and Watson are no more unknown as the discoverers of DNA's structure than are most other scientific pioneers - e.g. Fleming as the discoverer of penicillin, or Faraday on electricity. None of these are quite household names (and this is hardly surprising - there are thousands of important inventions & discoveries in the world). Ben Finn 10:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

First, Merton introduced his concepts long before his other concepts become widely popular. Second, I listed examples that I could find citations for in a brief search, but from personal expeirence I could just name some great sociologists - Durkheim, Marx, Weber, etc. - whose ideas (for exampel, respectively: anomie, class conflict, ideal type) are used often, yet are rarely attributed in text and even rarely in citations.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to second Ben Finn's view. I didn't know Gunther Stent invented "premature discovery", but that's because far from being "common use", I'd never heard of it. For the other two non-Merton science examples, the discoverers are not only very well known, but the subjects are rarely taught without giving them extensive -- even excessive! -- credit. The new examples you cite above are also pretty weak. I'm not a sociologist, but I was well aware that "anomie" is associated with Durkheim and "class conflict" with Marx. (I wouldn't have been confident to say they were the original inventors, but it would have been my first guess.) I had never heard of "ideal type", but I did know that Weber was an influential and respected sociologist and political theorist. Frankly, there just isn't a lot of obliteration going on here. -- 202.63.39.58 (talk) 10:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree we need better examples, and better references. But the concept itself is notable, and if you want to criticize it, well, cite your sources :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

OBI in Politics

Though this doesn't use the phrase "obliteration by incorporation", it seems to be the same thing:

"Republicans... will use [the word "liberal"] as a pejorative.... But it’s worth remembering that today’s moderate values were the liberal notions of yesteryear. Social Security. Integrated schools. A war on poverty.... We liberals have been shamed into thinking our vision has failed, when in fact it has simply been absorbed into the national self-portrait. From the idea that a woman ought to have the same legal rights as her male counterparts to the belief that workers should count on being safe from hazardous conditions, formerly liberal principles have become bedrock democracy."

from Anna Quindlen's column Newsweek magazine

I don't know if this could go into the article as an example of this kind of phenomenon.

Jefs 14:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a different phenomena: the meaning of the word has changed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge from obliteration phenomenon

I stumbled across obliteration phenomenon, and only realised after copy editing that obliteration by incorporation already exists. I don't know much about the topic, but it seems there is very little information on the obliteration phenomenon article that isn't already on this article, apart from an external link to an article by Eugene Garfield.

So, I think obliteration phenomenon should be merged into this article. What do you think? ~Inkington 01:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep it as "Obliteration by Incorporation"

This phenomenon is amazingly obvious in citation studies. I say keep it, either as Garfield mentions it (I suppose it could even be called "Uncitedness III") but I think the term "Obliteration by Incorporation " is better -- it comes from a bunch of people instead of just one sourrce, which makes it more univerally acknowledged (which I find very fitting for this particualr article). -karen medina — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.17.228.234 (talk • contribs) May 9, 2007

Which of Einstein's papers?

For example, Albert Einstein's paper on the theory of relativity is rarely cited in modern research papers on physical cosmology, despite its direct relevance.

Since Einstein wrote more than one paper on the theory of relativity, this statement needs to be clarified. --Liberatus (talk) 10:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)