User talk:Galical

Galical, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Galical! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like ChamithN (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Yeh hypothesis (March 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Justlettersandnumbers was:

This submission is about a theory that's not yet been shown to meet our notability guidelines. The only Yeh hypothesis I can find on Google Scholar is one from 1991 (Zhang and Yeh) relating to cells in rat retinae.

What's needed here, for our purposes, is to show that there is substantial in-depth coverage of the hypothesis in WP:independent reliable sources. The sources written by Yeh himself do not contribute in any way to establishing that the hypothesis has been taken up and discussed in depth by other academics. Of course, it would be helpful if at least some of those third-party sources were accessible, even if only through subscription-access databases, but this is not a requirement.

I do note that Stuart S. Yeh is surely notable by our standards – his h-index seems to be around 23 – but it seems (at a quick glance) that many of his most highly-cited articles are on topics other than this one.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Yeh hypothesis and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Justlettersandnumbers wrote:

"This submission is about a theory that's not yet been shown to meet our notability guidelines. The only Yeh hypothesis I can find on Google Scholar is one from 1991 (Zhang and Yeh) relating to cells in rat retinae. What's needed here, for our purposes, is to show that there is substantial in-depth coverage of the hypothesis in WP:independent reliable sources. The sources written by Yeh himself do not contribute in any way to establishing that the hypothesis has been taken up and discussed in depth by other academics. Of course, it would be helpful if at least some of those third-party sources were accessible, even if only through subscription-access databases, but this is not a requirement."

The link that you provided takes me to the page titled “Wikipedia:Identifying and using independent sources”. Under the heading “Identifying independent sources”, Wikipedia states:

“A scholar might write about literacy in developing countries, and he may personally strongly favor teaching all children how to read, regardless of gender or socioeconomic status. Yet if the author gains no personal benefit from the education of these children, then the publication is an independent source on the topic.” In his publications, Yeh writes about the hypothesis that “the achievement gap that exists between students from low socioeconomic backgrounds and their more advantaged peers is mainly caused by the practice of awarding low grades and test scores to students who struggle with math and reading”. Yeh gains no personal benefit from the education of these students. Therefore, according to Wikipedia, his publications are independent sources on the topic.

Regarding notability, Wikipedia’s criteria do not require “that the hypothesis has been taken up and discussed in depth by other academics”. Instead, Wikipedia’s notability criteria state:

“Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources.”

“A topic is presumed to merit an article if: 1. It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and 2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.”

The general notability guideline is: “If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.”

The “Yeh hypothesis” received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Therefore, it meets the general notability guideline.

Under section 2.2, the “What Wikipedia is not” policy states that the results of original research “should be published in other venues, such as peer reviewed journals”, prior to publication in Wikipedia. Wikipedia explicitly permits the publication of Wikipedia articles reporting this work “after it is published and becomes part of accepted knowledge”, with the proviso that “citations of reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that material is verifiable, and not merely the editor's opinion”.

Under section 2.1 of “Identifying reliable sources”, Wikipedia explicitly includes publication of results in peer-reviewed journals and books as reliable sources of accepted knowledge: “Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.”

Peer review aims to insure that the information contained in a publication has been vetted by expert academics who have no allegiance to the author. The peer review process requires authors to correct all errors and omissions prior to publication. This sets peer-reviewed publications apart from other publications.

Note that Wikipedia published an article regarding the “Alvarez hypothesis”. This is not much different than an article regarding the “Yeh hypothesis”. Galical (talk) 19:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if you want to argue about this you'd probably get more input if you took it to a forum such as the Teahouse – it's not likely that many people are watching this page. Just on your last sentence: Virgil L. Sharpton wrote in 1990: "The wealth of multidisciplinary research that has resulted from testing and extending the "Alvarez hypothesis" is staggering, and perhaps more than any other scientiﬁc debate during this decade, has shaped the course of human activity".^[1]^: x The main and very obvious difference between these two hypotheses is that one is patently extremely notable, and the other is not. Compare these two Scholar searches:

over 300 hits for "Alvarez hypothesis"
exactly 3 hits for "Yeh hypothesis", none of which appears to be about the topic of the draft.

You might like to read WP:other stuff exists. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Virgil L. Sharpton, Peter D. Ward (editors) (1990). Global Catastrophes in Earth History; An Interdisciplinary Conference on Impacts, Volcanism, and Mass Mortality. Boulder, Colorado: Geological Society of America, 1990. ISBN 9780813722474.

Wikipedia’s notability criteria state:

“Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources.”

Please respond to my direct quotes from Wikipedia's policy guidelines. All parties are obligated to conform to those guidelines, including article reviewers.Galical (talk) 15:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm sorry, if you can't understand why a paper by Yeh is not independent of Yeh then I think there's little I can say that will persuade you. As I suggested to you above, if you want to argue the toss, take this to a wider forum. Meanwhile, here's a question: do you have some personal or professional connection to Stuart S. Yeh? If so, you must declare it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your assumption is that the topic of the draft Wikipedia article is Yeh. But the topic is not Yeh. The topic is a particular hypothesis that was authored by Yeh.

An analogy may be helpful. Dr. Elizabeth Cohen invented the concept of complex small group instruction with regard to the teaching of academic subjects to children. Dr. Cohen authored many peer-reviewed publications about complex instruction. Suppose that an article is submitted to Wikipedia describing complex instruction, citing Dr. Cohen's peer-reviewed publications about complex instruction. Since Dr. Cohen gained no personal benefit from this particular method of educating children, Dr. Cohen's peer-reviewed publications are, according to Wikipedia's stated criterion, independent sources of information about complex instruction. They are reliable sources because they were peer-reviewed.

Similarly, a peer-reviewed publication by Yeh that reports an analysis of data regarding a hypothesis authored by Yeh is, according to Wikipedia's stated criterion, an independent source of information about that hypothesis because there was no personal benefit obtained by Yeh. It is a reliable source because it was peer-reviewed. The analysis was vetted by expert academics and errors and omissions were corrected.Galical (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is whether a scholar who writes about X and strongly favors X can be an independent source of information about X. This issue is directly addressed by Wikipedia. The Wikipedia guidelines regarding the identification of independent sources state:

"A scholar might write about literacy in developing countries, and he may personally strongly favor teaching all children how to read, regardless of gender or socioeconomic status. Yet if the author gains no personal benefit from the education of these children, then the publication is an independent source on the topic.”

In his publications, Yeh writes about the hypothesis that “the achievement gap that exists between students from low socioeconomic backgrounds and their more advantaged peers is mainly caused by the practice of awarding low grades and test scores to students who struggle with math and reading”. Yeh gains no personal benefit from writing about this hypothesis. Therefore, according to Wikipedia's guidelines, his publications are independent sources on the topic.Galical (talk) 15:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Yeh hypothesis concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Yeh hypothesis, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Yeh hypothesis

Hello, Galical. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Yeh hypothesis".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 01:13, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[virgil-1] Virgil L. Sharpton, Peter D. Ward (editors) (1990). Global Catastrophes in Earth History; An Interdisciplinary Conference on Impacts, Volcanism, and Mass Mortality. Boulder, Colorado: Geological Society of America, 1990. ISBN 9780813722474.

[1]