Talk:Nepotism/Archives/2013
Latest comment: 11 years ago by MartinPoulter in topic Narcisism
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Nepotism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
What justifies the hugne narcissism template at the bottom of this article? (See below). Narcissism isn't mentioned in the article - I tried to add it but was reverted. Farrajak (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
| Similar personality concepts | |
|---|---|
| In society | |
| Pathological narcissism | |
| Related psychology concepts | |
- Yes see this http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=nepotism+narcissism&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp= including quotes like "Narcissists hate contest mobility for they know that survival depends on creating a system of nepotism and cronyism".--Penbat (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- That isn't enough to justify the template, when it isn't even mentioned in the article. If you plug anything into google, you'll find something. Most of the time, if you actually read what google comes up with, you'll find google isn't very reliable for such "sources". That method is irresponsible. You haven't read those sources to see if the connection is legitimate, else you would have created a section in the article to justify the template. Farrajak (talk) 20:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- Farrajak has a good point here. You can find Google Scholar results for many pairs of terms, that doesn't show that they are linked topics, or that one is a sub-topic of another. Narcissists breathe air, but we don't add a narcissism navigation template to articles about the atmosphere. There has to be a more concrete relation. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- That isn't enough to justify the template, when it isn't even mentioned in the article. If you plug anything into google, you'll find something. Most of the time, if you actually read what google comes up with, you'll find google isn't very reliable for such "sources". That method is irresponsible. You haven't read those sources to see if the connection is legitimate, else you would have created a section in the article to justify the template. Farrajak (talk) 20:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)