Talk:Gregory Retallack

CoI?

What is the relationship between the submitter and the subject here? Basket _Feudalist 14:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

== Retallack == The submitter is the subject.

Greg Retallack article

Note: This discussion was copied from Mark Arsten's talk page, as partly noted by Xxanthippe below. Flyer22 (talk) 03:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Mark, I see that you very recently closed the WP:AfD for this article as delete keep. I'm dropping by your talk page about this article because I don't know what kind of improvement this (the edit I reverted) is supposed to be. I hope that it is not typical of Xxanthippe to "improve" articles that way. Flyer22 (talk) 00:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I closed it as keep actually, not delete. But several people in the Afd supported the idea of stubbing the article, so culling a decent amount of text may be in order. So Xxanthippe probably had the right general idea, but I think he went a bit overboard with that edit. It would be good to leave in some claim of importance, or someone might tag it for A7. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I meant "keep" (the article still exists, after all, LOL) and (as seen) I have struck the word delete/replaced it with keep above. Indeed, Xxanthippe's stubbing the article signaled to me that the article was worth deleting as that version far more than its previous version could be argued as being worth deletion. I am aware of the "absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable" factor with regard to the Wikipedia:Notability#Notability requires verifiable evidence guideline, but many Wikipedia editors (including very experienced ones) are not aware of it; they see a stub with no or barely any sources and often immediately think "deletion" or seek deletion with regard to the article. Sure, I often think "deletion" when I see such an article, but I at least know to first look for WP:Reliable sources/try to determine if the stub needs to be merged. Flyer22 (talk) 01:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose that is one of the problems with stubbing. It would be good to leave some citations as a further reading section at least, if it is stubbed. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree about the need to stub. The article could be gone over sentence by sentence with a scalpel not TNT. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 01:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's getting to the heart of a philosophical issue. Is it better to eventually improve things even if that means problems will persist in the short term or immediately do away with flawed content? I don't really have the answer. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. I have taken the liberty of copying this exchange to Talk:Greg Retallack. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC).
• Comment. This talk page has been nominated for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talk:Gregory Retallack. Xxanthippe (talk) 12:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC).
  • The nomination was closed because deletion of talk pages should go to WP:MFD. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Recent revert

Re: this recent revert [1] in response to this recent edit [2]

1. Has the paper been checked to see when Retallack made the discovery? The paper published in 1977 but he may have been a teenager when he made the discovery. I don't know just asking if verification was made of the provided source.
2. Do the two sources (by the same person B.M. Waggoner) actually support the statement: "this hypothesis of Retallack is not generally accepted by the paleontological community," or would it be more accurate to say "this hypothesis has both supporters and detractors" with links to both supporters and detractors? It seems as if that has already been done in the appropriate critical response section of the article. It reads punitive to take up one person's sources (B.M. Waggoner) as the voice of the entire paleontological community, ignore other POVs, and doing so outside the criticism section.

-- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree on point 1, I haven't checked the paper -I took the publication date as official discovery date. Didn't think that the paper could actually talk about that. As for 2, as far as I know the Retallack hypothesis on Ediacaran lifeforms is definitely not mainstream at all. He is basically alone in that, even if he managed to pull a Nature out of it, so it's surely worth considering. This is the commentary he received on Nature:

“ Guy Narbonne, a palaeobiologist at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, says that the new paper is little more than a summary of Retallack’s “long-standing views” on Ediacaran life. He adds: "Most of us appreciated that Retallack's lichen hypothesis was innovative thinking and tested his ideas critically, but it quickly became clear that there are simpler explanations for the features Retallack had validly noted, and most of us moved on to more promising explanations." ”

Another example: of the few papers that bother to cite the last Nature, basically all the ones that tackle the issue directly are either refuting it, or are by Retallack himself. However if we're unsure we could ask Wikiproject Paleontology. --cyclopia^speak! 23:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Added the quote to the article. The 5-minute NPR piece seems to sum up the situation among his peers pretty well, in layman's terms. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 08:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Should this BLP be deleted?

The consensus of the recent Afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Retallack was that the article should be kept but stubbified. I did this here [3] with the proviso that a few sources could usefully be added. My stubbification was fully reverted [4] by an editor who admitted that he didn't know the full story of the matter. Since then, the article has been used as a WP:Coatrack for self-promotion, the promotion of scientific views that have been rejected by mainstream science, and creationist debatery. These are completely out of place in a BLP.

If, by the persistence of editors with various POVs, it proves impossible to make the BLP consistent with the consensus of the first AfD, I will advocate that the article be AfDed a second time, and I will vote to delete it. Although the subject himself passes WP:Prof#C1 because of his high cites, the article is of only minor importance in the greater scheme of things and it would be better not to have it at all than to have a BLP in Wikipedia that was so inconsistent with its standards. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC).

I feel you went a bit far with the stubbing. Independent references, at least, need to be kept. However, I share your concern over the addition of self-promotional material. If the worst came to the worst, the creator could be prevented from editing the article about himself, which I feel would be a better solution then deleting it. Deb (talk) 07:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I would be happy for refs and categories to be added to my stub. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC).

Xxanthippe, that an article has problems is not a reason to delete: AfD is not cleanup, and our deletion policy says explicitly that, if you can fix by editing, it has to be fixed by editing. And among problematic BLPs, I'd say this is one of the least problematic: at least it's not a negative BLP (it's too positive, in fact), it is usually decently sourced, the subject is clearly notable, etc. It just needs to be depuffed a bit here and there. --cyclopia^speak! 08:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

You are correct to say that if an article can be fixed by editing this should be done. I am raising the question of what should be done if an article cannot be fixed by editing, which looks like the case here. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC).

What? Of course it can. The problem is not with the article subject, is with the content. Content is fixable by editing by definition, here. --cyclopia^speak! 13:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I've left a message at User:Retallack about WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY since nobody has done so. He is clearly uninformed about our conventions. Let's see if communicating with him nicely helps, ok? I've also started work on the article but honestly the science is over my head so we'll need expert help in that area, in particular the first paragraph of the Work section. His controversial theory about life originating on soil is just one aspect of his career - he obviously is a proponent of it and has some supporters even though it challenges the current paradigm. Listen to this NPR interview (5-minutes). The hypothesis is not a case of WP:FRINGE rather a "sharp academic debate". The rest of it is standard bio go through it line by line there is nothing egregious, he had a wide ranging career and significant in a multitude of ways (textbook author, major institution awards, fellow, noted expert). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 08:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I am opposed to a major removal of information from this article. My voice of "keep" in the AfD was to preserve the article largely as it is – there may be some lines that I would remove or tone down, but on the whole the article seems to meet WP standards. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 15:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, per my statements in the #Greg Retallack article section above, I reverted Xxanthippe's stubbing of this article. Other than that, I won't be participating in matters regarding this article. But before leaving this talk page, I note that I'm female. Flyer22 (talk) 03:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)