Jump to content

Talk:Andrew J. Stofan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 22:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Andy Stofan studying fluid sloshing
Andy Stofan studying fluid sloshing
  • ... that Andrew J. Stofan (pictured) was an expert on sloshing? Source: "In 1960 Stofan became a member of the new Rocket and Aerodynamics Divisions’ Chemical Rocket Systems Branch. There he studied the phenomenon of fluid sloshing inside propellant tanks. Sloshing could be caused by adjustments in the vehicle’s control system, launch vibrations and coasting in space. It was essential to understand and mitigate these occurrences so that the fuel remained in the proper position to be pumped out to the engine." ([1])

Created by Hawkeye7 (talk). Self-nominated at 20:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Notability not adequately established. Not includable. Needs deletion.

[edit]

Seems like an ordinary dude who happened to work for NASA and did well at his job. I'm pleased he did what he did, but the article gives no secondary sources establishing the required notability.

There are primary sources supporting facts in the article. BUT, there are no secondary sources which are required to establish notability of the subject, which is required for inclusion.

The only sources are from NASA public affairs and from Alumni Relations. The NASA stuff is primary. The Alum office stuff is not reliable as a source to establish notability because it's in their interest to promote alumni. Both the NASA and Alum sources are not independent.

Secondary sources need to be found and added soon that aren't so close to the subject. If that can't be done, the article needs to be deleted.

142.105.159.178 (talk) 09:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 I see you removed the tag with "rm drive-by tag" but in actuality, the IP had directed discussion to this very talk page and had even mentioned it in their edit summary. I think summarily removing it and not responding to this discussion is poor form. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite right; I should have assumed good faith. The IP asserted that no secondary sources exist to establish notability. The subject's retirement warranted mention in the New York Times [2] and by UPI [3]; he is mentioned in multiple works about the space program; and has published a plethora of academic papers on sloshing. The template says: If you find an article that is tagged as having notability concerns, and you are certain that enough in-depth, independent sources have been published about the subject to overcome any notability issues, then you may remove this tag. It is highly desirable, but not technically required, for you to add a list of good sources to the article or its talk page, so that other editors will know about the existence of these sources. The last sentence draws attention to a common misunderstanding; an article does not need to be sourced from the secondary sources that establish it notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You interpret your template excerpt incorrectly. It only says that you may list some sources on the talk pages if you like. It does not excuse a lack of evidence of notability in the article itself. 142.105.159.178 (talk) 02:13, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at the sources you give above. The papers are nice, but they are primary. Gathering a bunch of primary sources and making an article based on them is a very definition of original research. The NYT link is broken. The UPI link is a weak singleton. Both the NYT and UPI links appear suspiciously like they may have been instigated by a NASA press release, which would make them not really independent. 142.105.159.178 (talk) 02:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have corrected the NYT link. While the UPI story might have been instigated by the news that Stofan had been fired. it is hard to believe that such a critical article was drafted by a NASA flack (and it carries the byline of a well-known science journalist). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He was fired? I guess I hadn't looked close enough at the UPI article. I got the impression that it was more of a "I'm tired, please let me go" kind of thing. Still though, being fired would make the only notable (and supported so) thing about him be just the fact that "he was once fired for X". While that would be a thing notable enough to include in an article whose subject's notability is already well established, that small fact by itself isn't enough to establish notability of the subject, IMO. Lots of people get fired, right?
Maybe be was renowned for for being "outspoken"? If that's so, would there be a bunch of secondary sources out there saying "NASA deputy speaks out about Y" or something like that? Maybe he's well cited for that, I don't know. I do know that listing "outspoken" as one of someone's personal qualities in his retirement announcement probably doesn't make a person notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Also, simply complaining that one's program isn't funded enough (as in the NYT article) seems like just an ordinary part of one's duty.
The rest of the article is 99% WP:OR you did with all those primary sources. Great job. Indeed, I now have more reverence for the art and engineering of sloshing (I'm an aeronautical engineer, so yeah, I get it, it is pretty cool to me). Yet still, the question jumps out as to "Why is there an article about this dude?". Gotta start loading up on them independent secondary sources, or really the article should be deleted. 142.105.159.178 (talk) 09:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but I cannot say that in the article when it is not explicitly stated in the sources. (see below). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Government employees in the United States are not supposed to openly criticise the administration. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources are original documents. So, for example, the primary source of someone's date of birth is their birth certificate, driver's license or passport. A newspaper article may be a primary source, but only if the author is reporting on an event that they personally witnessed. None of the sources used in the article qualifies as a primary source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. So the NASA offices, being witness to the fellow's career that they are publishing about, are primary sources in addition to being non-independent. Just what I thought. It's like a mother publishing the dates her son took his first steps, rode a bike, and graduated. If she witnessed and published the fact that he flew to Venus at age 16, even if he actually had, the publication would be still be primary as well as non-independent, and would not help establish notability.
His papers on slosh dynamics would help establish notability of slosh dynamics, but not of the author himself.
There needs to be (or have been) some kind of hubbub, as evidenced by independent people writing and speaking about the subject. Where's the hubbub?
In the very first sentences the article cries out that notability is dubious by saying "So-and-so is an engineer who did important work for such and such". Boring! I know a ton of those guys! If a subject isn't obviously notable, you need to talk about why it's notable right off the bat (with reliable independent secondary sources too of course). 142.105.159.178 (talk) 04:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NASA publications are independent, secondary sources. By independent, we mean biographical information not authored by the subject himself. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have to back up your assertion that he did so with evidence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, because they are primary sources on slosh dynamics. But citations of his papers in other works help establish notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How many of them were in charge of the project that sent spacecraft to the farthest reaches of the cosmos? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You don't get to make the assessment of how notable something is. A preponderance of independent secondary sources does. Where are they? NASA sources about a NASA career aren't independent or secondary. NASA-published papers authored by him give support for the notability of the subject of the paper, but they give no support for the notability of the author.
Also, we're talking about notability of the dude not the notability of "spacecraft to far reaches". Trying so hard to generate an impression of notability when it's not backed up is weaselly and just made up -- it's WP:synth or WP:OR or some other prohibited whatnot. 142.105.159.178 (talk) 04:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkey7, I just noticed some of your responses that had been interjected within my own comments. This breaks up the flow and intended meaning of an original commentor's comment, and is normally considered aggressive (although I'm sure you did it in good faith). Also, because of it, I didn't (until now) even see the interjections, so my responses were only based on your non-interjected comments. Anyway, no I can't tolerate them remaining there and disrupting what I said. To try to solve the problem, I did the best I could to move them to where they might have otherwise been put, but you might want to adjust them so they don't make you look like you're speaking out of context. 142.105.159.178 (talk) 06:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added "Primary Sources" tag.

[edit]

I added the "Primary sources" tag. I couldn't figure out whether I should add the "Primary Sources" tag or the "Original Research" tag, or both. Almost by definition, an article based mostly on primary sources is original research, so the two kinda go together. But also, some of the sources I'm calling "primary" might instead be called "secondary, but not independent" because they're too close to the subject. I didn't want to over-tag so I made just the one ("primary sources") tag. Regardless, the article needs more independent secondary sources to make it at least look like it's not original research (which it actually is of course). (That's if it can first establish notability as mentioned above). 142.105.159.178 (talk) 09:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, original research means drawing conclusions from the sources that are not explicitly stated in the sources. So an article can be sourced entirely from primary sources, and not contain any original research so long as it sticks to the facts presented in the sources. Conversely, an article can be sourced entirely from secondary sources, but contain original research if it draws conclusions that are not stated in the sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:51, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. 142.105.159.178 (talk) 03:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is, it's a fair argument, but incorrect. Article suffers from ho-hum what-of-it? notability of the actual subject while trying to obfuscate that problem by emphasizing all the cool subjects surrounding the subject. 142.105.159.178 (talk) 01:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:weasel cover-up of unsupported notability.

[edit]

I removed a bunch of WP:weasel efforts to hand-wave around unsupported notability. Basically, a lot of off-topic technical detail was sprinkled in to fluff up the article size, and to give the appearance of importance/notability when notability isn't actually supported by reliable independent secondary sources. Much of it was fluff taken directly from NASA public affairs bios (primary, non-independent). I'm not quite done (too tired to finish), so there's more to come on that. 142.105.159.178 (talk) 05:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the edit warring here is unbecoming now. I would suggest this is taken to WP:AFD so the community can make a decision as right now, the primary author and the IP are not able to resolve this between one another. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure there's an edit war. An incipient one maybe, but mostly it's ordinary BRD. I think you're being a little rash to presume "the primary author and the IP are not able to resolve this between one another". I don't think we've gotten there quite yet and I haven't felt any ill will, just ordinary reasonably friendly-enough discussion of an interesting subject. True, I made the matter "real" when I made the "weasel" arguments and removals, but hey, it's BRD. We're still doing the "BRD thing" as far as I can tell.  :-) 142.105.159.178 (talk) 08:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think when one party resorts to statements like "a bunch of WP:weasel efforts to hand-wave around unsupported notability", good faith has expired. But I'll leave you two to slug it out if you so insist. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You might be right about my poor wording. My wording was directed at what WP:weasel generally does -- which is to try to paper-over deficiencies in support. Usually it's just one statement in an article with a long history, so it's not clear as to which particular editor wrote it, so the chance of someone taking offense is low. In that situation, my words would be taken clearly as an indictment of WP:weasel in general. But here, the history is short and the writer of a large amount of WP:weasel is easier to figure out, so yes, that writer is more likely to take offense. Good point. I remember kind of subconsciously thinking about that possibility when I wrote the words, but I ultimately didn't modify them accordingly, so my bad there. The offense was not intended toward the original writer of the WP:weasel, just toward wretched weaseling generally. 142.105.159.178 (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There you go again. As I noted before, go slug it out. This is a genuine waste of energy. If you (IP) have a real beef, AFD it. If you are just arguing ad infinitum about sources you don't like, fine, but don't expect the rest of the community to do anything about it other than remove your edits and then eventually stop you contributing. I broke my word, but this time, I mean it, I'm out. Please don't continue to consume/waste time here. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:49, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe in the first place you shouldn't have tried try to invent a nutty melodrama where it didn't exist. Trumping up an edit war where there hasn't (yet) even been a single revert is disruptive. Talk about a "waste of energy". If all you want to do is provoke a fight between others then I suggest you don't. Instead, do back off (like you claim you want to). Then, maybe examine the (real) issues here, and/or try to find some of the needed references, or something productive. 142.105.159.178 (talk) 02:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stop unjustified mass reverts. Stop "ownership and control".

[edit]

Hawkeye7, you need to play nicer. Unjustified mass reverts back to your own particular wording. Fake and misleading edit summaries. Re-writing other peoples words on the talk page. Buddy, you've got to let go. You started this article and you've been its primary editor, but you don't own it. You obviously think you do, but you don't.

If you really don't like where it's gone and you want to make changes, I suggest you try small individual edits that can be easily discussed and parsed. These continuing mass reverts straight back to only your own wording are aggressive and uncivil. 142.105.159.178 (talk) 06:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. I have put the article back the way it was and we can discuss any proposed changes. @The Rambling Man: for his input. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't got long to spend on this but it appears to me the big change by the IP has introduced tone and POV issues which don't belong in an encyclopedia. Also not clear that some of the claims being added are referenced either. So all in all, not keen on these changes at all. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye7's version is much better than 142.105.159.178's version. --StellarNerd (talk) 18:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Andrew_J._Stofan&oldid=1209354120"