Talk:Randy Wayne (biologist)

Note: Wikipedia has rules

IF you would like a decent article on Randy Wayne, I know how to write one -- please write something on my user talk page and I'll see what I can do. In the meantime, wikipedia's rules are paramount and we must all abide by what the community has decided.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the subject does not satisfy any of the criteria at WP:PROF. a13ean (talk) 22:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Noted.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the current version of this article -- it doesn't read like a Wikipedia article; it seems like a CV or academic resume. Wikipedia is not a repository of resumes. In the current version, almost all of the current references are primary ones -- Wayne's own research. But what we are really looking for is WP:SECONDARY sources -- objective neutral unconnected analysts who can look impartially at a subject, such as the subject of "Randy Wayne", and enlighten us about this subject, perhaps by showing how the biological research that Wayne has done is notable, what its impact is, and so forth. Right now, this article is a summary of Wayne's papers. Wikipedia takes some time to learn how to do it -- if people would like to invest the time and learn the rules, that will suffice. Again, if somebody would like me to rewrite this article, I can do it in a way that is neutral and fair and will probably stick around -- but this current version is unacceptable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 07:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

On User talk:Tomwsulcer, BinaryPhoton wrote,

I have removed all the references to Wayne's work in physics. I have added many secondary references to work that is based on Wayne's cell biological work. I removed the 'deleted' box. I hope that the changes I have made have been substantial enough to keep this wikipedia page.

However, even after these changes, the only claim of notability which is supported by an independent source is that prior to the molecular identification of aquaporins in plant cells, Wayne "presented most of the now classical arguments favoring membrane water channels and clearly demonstrated their major contribution to osmotic water transport". The rest of the article is still largely a summary of Wayne's research, which relies almost entirely on primary sources, and does not use secondary sources to show the significance of this research. As I am not a plant biologist I am in no position to judge whether the aforementioned work on membrane water channels represents a significant discovery in the field. (It is possible to present "classical arguments" on a relatively obscure and insignificant subject.) If it does, then perhaps the article could be trimmed to a brief biographical summary and mention of the membrane water channel work. If it doesn't, and no other claims of notability are forthcoming, then the article should be deleted. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 07:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Revamp coming

Hopefully by Sunday or within a week.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I still don't see anything that satisfies WP:PROF, and will probably nominate for AfD later if no one finds anything. a13ean (talk) 14:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll see what I can find and if I can get good material, I will revamp it and we can get a look at it then. I'll copy the current article to my talk page, so you can do with this current version as you wish. Probably won't be until Sunday or later.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Kk, I will wait until then. a13ean (talk) 13:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Best I could do at this point with what I found. There may be more references elsewhere that I haven't chanced upon yet. I kept one primary source in (regarding graduation dates from schools) but the others are secondary. See what you fine people think.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tom, thanks for all the hard work. I appreciate you taking the time to hunt down all these sources, but I'm worried several of them won't be very useful. I'm uncomfortable relying that much on the book review since it was written by a staff writer at the journal and not actually peer reviewed. Similarly I don't think the controversies section is notable -- the American Institute for Technology and Science Education is, despite the fancy sounding name is not a neutral source of information and in some sense is just reporting his claims. The two mentions in the Chronicle are OK, but frankly everyone gets quoted in there all the time and I'm not sure how much it really contributes. Frankly, it seems to me that the only reasonable information to include is the first half of the first sentence and the first two lines in the career section. a13ean (talk) 05:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks for your good judgment and balanced edits. I think what you're saying makes sense.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Keeping some of the plant biology material

Thanks to Tomwsulcer for his improvements. When considering further steps, take a look at the Google Scholar results for Randy Wayne. This 1985 article by Hepler and Wayne, "Calcium and plant development," gets 901 citations in Google Scholar so I think this part of his work is highly notable. The trimming of his speculative physics work is about right, but some of the plant biology stuff might be considered for restoration. He has three papers in the African Review of Physics that are freely available online but I'm not sure if due weight would justify including mention of them. He apparently has not been successful in getting his physics work accepted in widely recognized journals. Wayne quotes one of his rejection letters in this forum discussion. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I see that the version of the article prior to Tom's improvements actually is not very good. So it seems that someone would have to take the trouble of writing up Wayne's work on calcium and on membrane permeability from the sources, which would take time. It seems that with 901 citations at least one of these topics ought to have been commented on in a review article somewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 00:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for this idea, I used it in the revamp.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Section on relativity

It appears that RW may meet WP:PROF based on some of his plant sciences work. Actually despite the well-cited review article, I still don't see any clear evidence that RW meets "1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources" although the review articles are a good lead.

However, his physics work in physics is fringe (and plainly violates several well-tested physical laws) and it's not notable here. I'm paring it down to a one-liner. a13ean (talk) 04:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed -- a much better way to handle it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I did some looking around on the calcium stuff, and I haven't found anything that would really establish point 1 of WP:PROF, so I'm nominating for AfD. I would appreciate others input on this in case I'm interpreting the guidelines too strictly. a13ean (talk) 04:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand your concerns and I had somewhat the same sense as you, but coming across the following, as well as other references, has tugged me into the "keep" column. It was reviewers explaining why the Hepler & Wayne's 1985 article has been so highly revered:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

We think the review, by pulling together a loosely knit body of information, synthesized a cohesive and novel argument that is important for understanding stimulus/response coupling in plants. These qualities, together with its projection of excitement, have been appreciated by readers who favored its citation. Both of us have been repeatedly flattered by researchers who have praised the review, finding it easy to read and informative, even several years after publication.

— This Week's Citation Classic

Current article

While it is true there was a COI contributor in the past, the article in its current version as of July 6 2016 is non-COI content; it was substantially revamped by me a while back along with added references plus I watch it and the material is good, although I agree that there have been some minor dubious additions from time to time. That said, it is urged that the COI contributor should please leave the article alone.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

pseudoscience

I request that 73.38.255.229 (talk)‎ list the reasons (published or otherwise) why he/she described the theory of light as pseudoscientific. Without any reasons the remark could be taken as name calling and should be removed. Thank you BinaryPhoton (talk) 13:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. From the Wikipedia article about pseudoscience, it says "The term pseudoscience is often considered pejorative[5] because it suggests something is being inaccurately or even deceptively portrayed as science" but in this case, Wayne's theory is not something masquerading as science, but simply an alternative theory put forward about the nature of light. Clearly it is not a mainstream view among scientists but the rest of the sentence says that.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

The term Fringe science is similarly pejorative. From the wikipedia article: The term "fringe science" covers everything from novel hypotheses which can be tested by means of the scientific method to wild ad hoc hypotheses and mumbo jumbo. This has resulted in a tendency to dismiss all fringe science as the domain of pseudoscientists, hobbyists, and cranks. Other terms for the questionable types science are pathological science, voodoo science, and cargo cult science. Wayne is an academic, a scientist at a prestigious university (Cornell) and simply because his theory is at odds with the mainstream theory is not grounds to label him as a 'fringe scientist'.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Labeling a respected academic with the pejorative fringe science is essentially a personal attack, such as here -- this is not allowed in biography articles. It is sufficient to state that Wayne's view of light is inconsistent with relativity (the mainstream view).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Please read this guideline: When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:57, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Theory of light

Can someone provide a brief summary of the essentials? Fringe or not, it is certainly a curiosity and quite WP:DUE for the bio article (if not overblown). Staszek Lem (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Related discussion can be found here, where Wayne also weighs in: [1]. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I meant adding content to this article. I am not sure that physicsforums.com satisfies WP:RS. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Explaining his theory is not really necessary, and likely a waste of time. Doing a google scholar search on his publications on this subject (mostly published in Turkish and African journals) shows that they are mostly just cited by himself. His theory is essentially being ignored by the mainstream scientific community. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes it is being ignored by the mainstream. So it deserves a mention, at best, and not much more as per this guideline as contributors have suggested above, and my sense is the current version reflects a reasonable balance.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

COI editing

BinaryPhoton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has claimed on his user page to be Randy Wayne. BinaryPhoton created and has extensively edited this article. I recommend that he refrain from further edits to the page (per WP:COI and WP:AUTO) and instead indicate any required changes here on this talk page. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)