Talk:Joseph Carvalko Jr.

COI tag (December 2021)

Written in promotional tone by single purpose editor MrOllie (talk) 20:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the place for a continuation of the talk. In any case the presentation has been considerably referenced to include reliable sources, and material for which a reference could not be found of if found not readily accessible, it has been deleted, material has been added where a reference exists and it's pertinent. In due respect, I found no evidence, which can be relied upon, either specified in the remark or readily found in any record, to further the discussion or substantiate the claim of "close connection" or that "it lacks a neutral POV". It stands now that each statement is reliably reference (third party sourced) in the public domain. General notability guideline appears met and when compared against several dozen similar bios from what appears as individuals having similar affiliations. 18:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)~~[User: Vigilsuse] 13:10 10 Jan. 2022 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vigilsuse (talk • contribs)

Many of the cited sources are primary sources, which is its own problem. That's why this article looks like a CV and not an encyclopedia article. To solve notability issues, there must be multiple sources that provide significant coverage, are independent, and are reliable - all at the same time. I still don't see sourcing to that standard in this article. The single purpose editor was Christopherdiogenes, 100% of their editing activity was to add mentions of Carvalko in various places on Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Mr. Ollie, as I understand a secondary source relates to information originally presented elsewhere. A primary source is an original source of the information or document being referenced, and if about a person, I agree may be a document created by that person. But, unless I’m mistaken, of the 55 references provided, not one appears to be attributed to the authorship of the person about whom it relates. The references point to institutional data bases, academic journals, news organizations (newspapers, AP), independent film makers, magazines, court cases, etc. Perhaps I am interpreting your definition of primary wrongly and if so please help me understand your interpretation or point me please to what you are referring to or perhaps a few. As to the individual who may have contributed to single sources, I cannot comment. Although it appears from a quick survey through Wikipedia that contributors are often of a kind that contribute to a very narrow subject matter. Insofar as notability is concerned, there appears many indications as to this individuals recognition by news organizations, film, and notable professional accomplishment (Google scholar for example) and newsworthy activity over several decades. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vigilsuse (talk • contribs) 18:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Again, sources need to fulfill all three criteria *at the same time*. Citations such as patent search links and over government records, google scholar profiles, the website of the department he chairs, and so on are all definitely primary sources. Several of the cites are clearly authored by Carvalko himself - so yes, you are mistaken. - MrOllie (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Respectfully - Flags and Objections to Carvalko Page Should be Removed

Mr. Ollie: I point out that it appears that since your initial critique in December 2021, the bio has ben extensively edited. It seems to indicate a rich assortment of credible sources.

Addressing your latest point where you indicate that a bio must fulfill all 3 criteria *at the same time*. Respectfully however, each criterion you have laid out requires to be dealt with separately. There are several reasons for dealing with issues of this nature separately, but one in particular comes to mind is that depending on the strength of an argument in one area, it may well determine the weight one gives to another area. Hypothetically, if during Albert Einstein’s life a bio of his life were posted, and it could be criticized as potentially not objective, because it was written by his daughter, I hardly believe that it would be taken down. The strength of his notability would dimmish the importance of the bio’s provenance. Therefore, one needs to consider each point you have raised separately, because among other analytical reasons (which are several in the field of rhetorical analysis), one disaggregates to reduce the mistakes in reasoning that arise from the mishandling of the content of each of the propositions, which bear on the main argument.

Let me address one having to do with your distinction between primary and secondary sources. It’s unclear what you are claiming by the statement: “Citations such as patent search links and over government records, google scholar profiles, the website of the department he chairs, and so on are all definitely primary sources. Several of the cites are clearly authored by Carvalko himself.” I agree that what you cited as primary sources. Patent search links, etc. are indeed primary sources. It has been well established for centuries that primary sources provide raw information and first-hand evidence. Examples include interview transcripts, statistical data, and works of art. A primary source gives us direct access to the subject of one’s contribution e.g., research. On the other hand, secondary sources provide second-hand information and commentary from other researchers. Examples include journal articles, reviews, and academic books. A secondary source describes, interprets, or synthesizes primary sources. Both types of resources are used in providing evidence to the existence of a situation, in academia, science and law. Primary sources are more credible as evidence, but good research uses both primary and secondary sources. As to references which the individual whom the bio is about actually wrote, the writings pertain to books, which have been published by well-known publishers, such as Palgrave/McMillian, or the ABA. When this bio is compared to countless others, I find it impossible to distinguish the quality of the sources. Having a doctorate, myself, I am perplexed by the point raised by the reference to a primary source and/or secondary source in this instance. Please be more specific as I do not understand your criticism. Given the quality of the sources provided during the editing process since December, I am inclined to remove the flag pertaining to “potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral. Each of the sources is credible and verifiable.” There has been a flag relating to notability, however I have found practically no bios on technologists that have prolifically patented to the extent of at least 18 US patents. The is especially true when combined with the Google scholar citation of being cited over 1384 times, garnering an h-index of 14 and an i10-index rating of 15. In my own research I discovered that the subject of the bio is listed by https://www.ranker.com/list/famous-fairfield-university-alumni-and-students/reference as among the most prominent graduates from Fairfield University which include celebrities, politicians, business people, athletes, lawyers, technologists and academics.SeahorseEM (talk) 18:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The above is a flagrant misunderstanding of WP:N, WP:PRIMARY and of my comments. I suggest you read them again. Sources used to establish notability indeed must be independent, reliable, and in-depth, all at the same time. 'Ranker.com' is user-generated content and proves precisely nothing. And while it is true that this article has been edited since the tags were applied, those edits came from a brand-new single purpose editor who apparently does not understand the underlying issues, or Wikipedia's content policies, well enough to fix the problems. MrOllie (talk) 19:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Respectfully - Flags and Objections to Carvalko Page Should be Removed; Further Requesting Adherence to Wikipedia's Code of Conduct - Civility

Mr.Ollie,

 One of the Five Pillars Wikipedia ethic requires is to “Respect your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree.” Although new as an editor, I understand that Wikipedia etiquette requires that we do not engage in personal attacks. See, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility. The remainder of this comment refers to the principles expressed under Wikipedia's code of conduct.

  You seem to depreciate the editors engaged here on the basis that they have not engaged in other editing of articles. It would seem that even newly engaged editors, those who are trying to be helpful, and in fact have been invited by Wikipedia to assist in improving the article, should be accorded respect and not discouraged from helping by directing slings because they are new to the process. In a similar vein, it appears that your use of the word “flagrant” ascribes a hostile or disrespectful motivation on the part of one of the editors, one who merely appears to have sought a clarification from you as to your interpretation of the difference between primary and secondary sourcing of references. Your attribution of an improper motivation in the original posting of the article, by alluding to “self-interest,” falls along similar lines, unless you have some provable facts, which have not yet emerged.  

 I suggest that we seek to achieve consensus, all acting in good faith, and assuming good faith on the part of others. As I read the Five Pillars, it expresses that we be “open and welcoming to newcomers.” I am new to this, but also I understand that several processes are available within Wikipedia's dispute resolution system. See, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution

 I would rather not invoke the DSR, hoping this can be resolved among the editors who have taken an interest in this article, but it may be that since consensus is stalled, we might have little alternative. If you don't think consensus is possible, perhaps one of the alternative processes, can be invoked, such as a third opinion, reliable sources noticeboard, or neutral point of view noticeboard. Others watching this Talk page might be interested in your opinion on this as well.

Respectfully, SeahorseEM (talk) 16:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)