Jump to content

Talk:Richard Gisser

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

Sources needed

[edit]

The recent addition of http://derstandard.at/840627/Demographie-im-Aufwind is not bad, it supports the statement for which it is cited. However, it has only a single one-sentence mention of Gisser, plus a one-sentence quote from him. This is not "significant coverage" and so does not contribute to notability . Lets examine the current sources used"

In short, none of the cited sources make any significant contribution to establishing the notability of the subject, where usually three or four citations to sources with significant coverage of the subject are required as a minimum.

WernR, if several better sources are not found and cited soon, this article is IMO likely to be deleted. DES (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of your criticism, although I think your criteria are pretty tough (quite a few of those citations do provide notability IMHO, but if you say so...) In that case, please give me some more time to check a number of legacy sources in this case, as the biography covers a timespan which might be out of the online range. And another thing: I really don't know why "this article may require copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling", and what "this article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia". What does this mean? --WernR (talk) 23:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following is copied and slightly refactored from User talk:DESiegel#article on Richard Gisser (demographer) (bullets changed to numbers for later reference) DES (talk) 22:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I was about to continue our discussion on the talk page but that seemed a bit indiscrete to me, so I am taking it here although I am not entirely sure about conventions in this case:
Meanwhile I made some additions, but in general I am questioning your main point of contention, i.e. that staff pages and lists of employees/board members of organisations are "non-independent sources"---this may be correct if we are dealing with commercial enterprises but academic institutions should be expected not to boast (or even lie) when giving an overview of their staff members.
May I add my own view of the "current sources used"?
  1. http://www.oeaw.ac.at/vid/staff/staff_richard_gisser.shtml
    Non-Independent source, does not help establish notability
    maybe not independent but trustworthy, and lists the gist of RG's biography
  2. http://www.osg.or.at/main.asp?VID=&kat1=11&kat2=331&kat3=
    Non-Independent source, and only a passing mention there; does not help establish notability
    again, an official (not commercial) site, confirming my statement (that RG is still active there)
  3. http://derstandard.at/840627/Demographie-im-Aufwind
    Passing mention, does not help establish notability
    independent news article, confirms what I cite it for
  4. http://www.oeaw.ac.at/wic/index.php?id=58
    Non-Independent source, does not help establish notability
    academic staff page, confirms statement (VID became partner of Wittgenstein Centre, and RG works as a researcher there as well)
  5. http://www.oeaw.ac.at/wic/index.php?id=2/
    Non-Independent source, no actual mention of Gisser; does not help establish notability
    was not meant to be about RG himself but about the research project
  6. https://www.czso.cz/csu/czso/redakcni_rada_demografie
    Non-Independent source, and only a passing mention there; does not help establish notability
    again, an academic site listing the members of the editorial board (confirming precisely my statement)
  7. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf96316/contacts.htm
    Directory entry, possibly a non-Independent source, but in any case does not help establish notability
  8. http://cas.umn.edu/assets/pdf/ASNWIN03.PDF
    Only mention of Gisser is in a photo caption; does not help establish notability
  9. http://www.share-project.org/uploads/tx_sharepublications/SHARE_BOOK_METHODOLOGY_Wave1.pdf
    Only mention of Gisser is in a list of Team members; does not help establish notability
    all three were intended as examples for the cited research collaborations, I agree that the third one might as well be omitted
    I added a source here, a book on "People, Demography and Social Exclusion" (https://books.google.at/books?isbn=9287150958) where RG both wrote an extensive foreword and is acknowledged in the preface:
  10. http://www.aeiou.at/aeiou.encyclop.g/g420308.htm
    Tertiary source, directory entry; does not help establish notability
    this is of course a compendium but at least one of notable Austrians, and it confirms what the article says (invited expert)
  11. http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/18/2/178
    Only mention of Gissere is in a list of members of the project; does not help establish notability
    no big deal, I agree, but again confirmation of what I wrote
  12. http://www.demographic-research.org/authors/1126.htm
    list of publications by Gisser, but nothing about Gisser; does not help establish notability
    correct but that's what it is there to confirm: RG published in relevant journals
    Added another source here: http://noe.familienpass.at/files_cms/pdf/meineFamily/2004/MF_2_2004.pdf (report on a symposion about childbearing intentions, as a confirmation for the sentence)
  13. http://www.demographie-online.de/index.php?id=218
    Notes that Gissig served as session chair at a conference, but says nothing about him at all; does not help establish notability
    I agree, this one could just as well go
... but the majority of my sources are IMHO adequate insofar as they give evidence of what the article says, and notability is also established by Criterion 6 of the Specific Criteria Notes, "the person has held the post of [...] director of a highly regarded, notable academic independent research institute or center (which is not a part of a university)"--RG was director of the Vienna Institute of Demography for more than a dozen years (no Wikipedia entry, I know)

Thanks for any feedback! --WernR (talk) 14:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WernR, I don't see why it would be "indiscrete" to have this discussion on the article talk page, indeed this sort of thing is precisely what article talk pages are for. It should not be between just the two of us as if we owned the article. I expressed views in an earlier discussion, but I have no veto authority. I will probably copy the above section to the article talk page later today, and then start to respond substantively. In the mean time, please read Wikipedia:Independent sources, where you will see that an employer (and therefore a site maintained by an employer) is generally not considered independent of the employee. I have seen this principle applied to academics and the institutions that they are affiliated with many times. DES (talk) 17:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

end refactored content copied from User talk:DESiegel DES (talk) 22:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, while I do see the reason for being suspicious of biased sources who may present somebody in a favorable light, academic research institutions IMO qualify in a different league than commercial enterprises. At any rate, I added an independent think tank source that lists RG's current posts (if only briefly---the contribution in question is Austria: Stable and Low Fertility --WernR (talk) 10:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Added a reference to RG's early work at the VID (then: Institut für Demographie), cited in a journal. Please someone check the "issues" issue again. --WernR (talk) 09:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't verify that source, as it is behind a paywall. Can you provide a quote of the relevant section? The online summary does not mention Gisser at all, but that doesn't prove anything one way or another. DES (talk) 13:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, you mean right here? See below please, 2nd para. But in general, JStor links are okay, right? And should be accessible via WP's own link.
Here is the article in the EDIB:
Author(s): G. Beyer and E. H.
Source: European Demographic Information Bulletin, Vol. 10, No. 4 (1979), pp. 158-164
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/29734814
The Institute of Demography
Vienna, Austria
A few years ago the Austrian Academy of Sciences has established an Institute for Demography in order to meet the growing demand for demographic research in Austria. The Institute's work started in 1977.
There are strong personal and local ties between the Institute and the Central Statistical Office. The president of the Austrian Central Statistical Office,Prof.Dr. Lothar Bosse, is the managing director of the Institute. There are two divisions at the Institute, one for the theoretical demography (headed by Prof.Dr.Gustav Feichtinger) and one for applied demography(headed by Dr. Richard Gisser). The Institute is a member of the "Committee for International Coordination on National Research in Demography"(CICRED) in Paris. Demography"(CICRED) in Paris.
Up to now the primary field of research was the study of the development of fertility in Austria, especially the consequences of declining . An analysis of the Austrian microcensus (June 1976) showed the intensity and timing of fertility of marriage cohorts from 1936 to 1975. In consideration of the disadvantages of retrospective surveys it was decided to conduct a longitudinal study in order to investigate the influence of socio-economic variables on fertility and to get an insight into the motives for or against parenthood. Thus a sample of approximately 2,700 women of the two marriage cohorts 1974 and 1977 was interviewed at the end of 1978 to get information on the desire for children,the number of born children, the method of contraception etc. An analysis of the data is now in progress. The same sample is expected to be re-interviewed at regular intervals.
In order to make projections of the development of households, the Institute analyses at the moment the demographic pattern of the Austrian household structure and the influence of non-demographic factors on this structure. In addition there are several investigations on the educational standard of the Austrian population and the development of the school system.
The results of the inquiries are published in a series called "Schriftenreihe des Instituts für Demographie der Österreichischen Akademie für Wissenschaften". Up to now have been published:
No.1 P.Findl/H.Helczmanovski, The population of Austria,in English, out of print, EDIB,78,4006.
No.2 G.Feichtinger, Aussichten für das Erwerbspotential und den Anteil wirtschaftlich abhängiger Personen in europäischen Bevölkerungen (An outlook upon the proportions of employed and economically dependent persons in European populations), in German,EDIB,78,4162.
No.3 J.Muzicant/G.Feichtinger,Bevölkerungsschrumpfung in Oesterreich, (Population decline in Austria),in German,EDIB,78,4044. 163
No.4 G.Feichtinger/H.Vogelsang,Pseudostabile Bevölkerungen:Populationsdynamik bei gleichmässig sinkender Fertilität (Pseudostable populations: population dynamics with fertility that declines at a constant rate), in German, EDIB,79, 4989.
No.5 A.Haslinger/G.Feichtinger, Analyse der Fertilitätsentwicklung in Oesterreich nach Heiratsjahrgängen (Analysis of the development of fertility in Austria by marriage cohorts), in German, EDIB,79i4914. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WernR (talk • contribs) 09:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Multiple issues"

[edit]

DES DESiegel, please consider the changes made (described above) and take out the "multiple issues" flag. Best --WernR (talk) 10:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_Gisser&oldid=1202302796"