Talk:Anatole Klyosov/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
LEAD
Per WP:LEAD, the lead needs to summarize the article. Completely removing "DNA geneaology" from the lead as was done here is not valid; I restored and reduced the WEIGHT as you can see in these diffs. Jytdog (talk) 20:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- I disagree with telling "pseudoscientist" or "pseudoscience" in lede because he is mostly known as researcher in the field of enzymology - see Google books search for example [1]. 99% of his publications were in international press and represent mainstream science; he is highly cited. Yes, a couple of his publications on population genetics (one with Eran Elhaik, another in Russian "Biochemistry") were strongly criticized to the degree that critics called them "pseudoscience" in a few sources. Yes, we tell about it in the body of the page. But I do not think that's important enough to be emphasized in lede and included as as separate section - that was meaning of my edit. Well, if you guys disagree and I am in minority here, that's fine. Then this is your responsibility. My very best wishes (talk) 22:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- You are not addressing LEAD - the lead needs to summarize the body. The content about pseudoscience is well-sourced as you have already acknowledged here. You formerly opposed using the term "pseudoscience" but here you struck that. His pseudoscientific work on "DNA geneaology" is (unfortunately) noteworthy with regard to him - and content about that is DUE in this article - but per WP:ONEWAY it should not be discussed anywhere else in WP (for example in the article about human evolutionary genetics) due to its low citation count. That is how we handle this kind of thing, generally. Jytdog (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- In the diff above I tell: "We now have three secondary sources in this thread that describe at least some part of his work in this area as pseudoscience". Yes, sure, "they describe". That's why I agreed that it can appear in the body of the page. However, is that enough to include in lede "pseudoscience", essentially as a matter of fact, even though it was about a negligible part of his work? I do not think so. My very best wishes (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- As near as I can tell, for the past 8 years of his life this is what he has focused on; figuring that his career started roughly in 1980 this is roughly a quarter of his career, so the WEIGHT in the body of the article is about right. We have literally one sentence on DNA geneaology in the lead, and per PSCI if we mention it we need to also say it is pseudoscience. The lead could use more content on what he did in the other 3/4 of his career - I added content to the lead to add WEIGHT to that, here. Please have a look and let me know if that satisfies your concerns about WEIGHT in the lead. Jytdog (talk) 22:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- No, that was not an improvement. This is providing excessive details in lede. As an additional argument, please consider someone like Anatoly Fomenko. Well, despite being a mathematician, he is actually a person mostly known for creating a pseudoscientific theory, and we have a page about this theory. Therefore, telling about it in lede of his BLP page was fine. No so with Klyosov. Can we create a page DNA Genealogy (Klyosov)? No, we can't. There is no such theory, and there are no sources to justify creating such page. My very best wishes (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- No one has proposed creating a separate article. Please stay on topic. The only valid concern I could see in your original post with regard to LEAD was WEIGHT. I addressed that; the LEAD now gives WEIGHT in the same proportion as the body. Nothing else you are writing here has any basis in policy and guideline and I will remind you that discretionary sanctions with regard to pseudoscience are in place here. Jytdog (talk) 23:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- No, I think the intro must be much shorter. Sorry to tell this, but I think you included uninformative materials in lede to have an excuse ("the balance") for including the phrase you want to be included. My very best wishes (talk) 13:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- No, i gave WEIGHT in the lead as WEIGHT is given in the body which is exactly what WP:LEAD says we should do. And I strongly suggest you avoid commenting on anyone's motives; you aware of the discretionary sanctions -- you commented on the JoyceWoods case. Jytdog (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Klyosov published 11 scientific books and 11 pseudoscientific ones. Number of his articles (including web) is also roughly equal between science and pseudo. --Q Valda (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- "Web of science" database retrieves 90 scientific publications by Klysov. Among them, only 5 are on population genetics. Among these 5 only 1 (possibly 2) publications were strongly criticized. But what actually matters is citation of his papers. The number of citations of his population genetics papers (and books) is significantly less than 1% of the overall number of all his citations. More than 99% percent of his work belongs to science, not pseudoscience. My very best wishes (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- relying on citations of his work is not really helpful. of course his pseudoscience work isn't cited that much. he has also published a lot of that in books and on internet forums. You continue to ignore WP:LEAD's call to give WEIGHT in the lead as it is given in the article. This is not OK. Jytdog (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- RSs confirm that "Klyosov's DNA genealogy" is very important for his bio. According to WP guideline, LEAD must summarize most important contents of the article. So I think DNA genealogy must be in the lead. Pseudoscience (like religion, arts etc) is different area from science, its weight could be mistakenly underestimated if relying only on scientific databases. --Q Valda (talk) 04:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- You are telling that art and religion are pseudoscience?? I am not sure you are sufficiently familiar with the subject.My very best wishes (talk) 13:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Pseudoscience, religion and arts are all belong to "not-a-science" area, and it does not mean that these sets are equivalent. [although sometimes they can overlap.] --Q Valda (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- My very best wishes, here you wrote "Well, if you guys disagree and I am in minority here, that's fine. Then this is your responsibility". Both Q Valda and I are fine with "pseudoscience" mentioned in the lead, and I have done my best to address your concerns. So we do disagree. Are you then "fine", or are you going to keep pursuing this? If you are going to pursue this, please amend your comment above, and reconsider your approach. Your arguments here, are not convincing anybody here. You will need to pursue some other form of WP:DR if you want to pursue this. Jytdog (talk) 19:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- No, I am not going waste anyone's time on this. I only explained why this page is not consistent with WP:BLP in my opinion. The problem is very easy to fix by making this edit. We are not loosing a single bit of sourced information in this edit, hence I am not sure why others disagree about it. The comments by Q Valda in the previous archived thread are also telling. He quotes the source: "Without a careful consideration and quantification of this uncertainty, it is inappropriate to over-interpret such trees." OK, then considering that the criticism was true, it does not mean that the criticized publication was pseudocience. The criticisms and exchanges like that belong to normal scientific discourse. My very best wishes (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Please make up your mind. Are you disputing this or not? Jytdog (talk) 01:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- I disagree with placing the phrase into lead and making a separate subsection about "DNA genealogy (Klysov)" which does not exist. My very best wishes (talk) 13:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- I wouldn't object to removing the section break there. but unless you want to completely remove the content about DNA geneaology, it needs to stay in the lead per the widely accepted guideline, WP:LEAD. You have not addressed the issue with WP:LEAD once in this entire thread. Continually ignoring guidelines is disruptive behavior and I will remind you again that Discretionary Sanctions and AE exist in order to prevent disruption; you have already seen them implemented once with respect to this article. Jytdog (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- No, I have addressed the LEAD issue above. I think it must be shorter and with one phrase excluded as in this version. That would keep correct balance. However, giving the off-wiki attention to this page, I would rather not edit it at all, at least for the time being. My very best wishes (talk) 18:55, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- I wouldn't object to removing the section break there. but unless you want to completely remove the content about DNA geneaology, it needs to stay in the lead per the widely accepted guideline, WP:LEAD. You have not addressed the issue with WP:LEAD once in this entire thread. Continually ignoring guidelines is disruptive behavior and I will remind you again that Discretionary Sanctions and AE exist in order to prevent disruption; you have already seen them implemented once with respect to this article. Jytdog (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- I disagree with placing the phrase into lead and making a separate subsection about "DNA genealogy (Klysov)" which does not exist. My very best wishes (talk) 13:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Please make up your mind. Are you disputing this or not? Jytdog (talk) 01:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- relying on citations of his work is not really helpful. of course his pseudoscience work isn't cited that much. he has also published a lot of that in books and on internet forums. You continue to ignore WP:LEAD's call to give WEIGHT in the lead as it is given in the article. This is not OK. Jytdog (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- "Web of science" database retrieves 90 scientific publications by Klysov. Among them, only 5 are on population genetics. Among these 5 only 1 (possibly 2) publications were strongly criticized. But what actually matters is citation of his papers. The number of citations of his population genetics papers (and books) is significantly less than 1% of the overall number of all his citations. More than 99% percent of his work belongs to science, not pseudoscience. My very best wishes (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- No, I think the intro must be much shorter. Sorry to tell this, but I think you included uninformative materials in lede to have an excuse ("the balance") for including the phrase you want to be included. My very best wishes (talk) 13:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- No one has proposed creating a separate article. Please stay on topic. The only valid concern I could see in your original post with regard to LEAD was WEIGHT. I addressed that; the LEAD now gives WEIGHT in the same proportion as the body. Nothing else you are writing here has any basis in policy and guideline and I will remind you that discretionary sanctions with regard to pseudoscience are in place here. Jytdog (talk) 23:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- No, that was not an improvement. This is providing excessive details in lede. As an additional argument, please consider someone like Anatoly Fomenko. Well, despite being a mathematician, he is actually a person mostly known for creating a pseudoscientific theory, and we have a page about this theory. Therefore, telling about it in lede of his BLP page was fine. No so with Klyosov. Can we create a page DNA Genealogy (Klyosov)? No, we can't. There is no such theory, and there are no sources to justify creating such page. My very best wishes (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- As near as I can tell, for the past 8 years of his life this is what he has focused on; figuring that his career started roughly in 1980 this is roughly a quarter of his career, so the WEIGHT in the body of the article is about right. We have literally one sentence on DNA geneaology in the lead, and per PSCI if we mention it we need to also say it is pseudoscience. The lead could use more content on what he did in the other 3/4 of his career - I added content to the lead to add WEIGHT to that, here. Please have a look and let me know if that satisfies your concerns about WEIGHT in the lead. Jytdog (talk) 22:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- In the diff above I tell: "We now have three secondary sources in this thread that describe at least some part of his work in this area as pseudoscience". Yes, sure, "they describe". That's why I agreed that it can appear in the body of the page. However, is that enough to include in lede "pseudoscience", essentially as a matter of fact, even though it was about a negligible part of his work? I do not think so. My very best wishes (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- You are not addressing LEAD - the lead needs to summarize the body. The content about pseudoscience is well-sourced as you have already acknowledged here. You formerly opposed using the term "pseudoscience" but here you struck that. His pseudoscientific work on "DNA geneaology" is (unfortunately) noteworthy with regard to him - and content about that is DUE in this article - but per WP:ONEWAY it should not be discussed anywhere else in WP (for example in the article about human evolutionary genetics) due to its low citation count. That is how we handle this kind of thing, generally. Jytdog (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Nope - and this is my last response here. Please read this carefully. Per WP:LEAD, we summarize the body. We must mention the DNA genealogy in the lead. Per WP:PSCI (which is policy) if we mention something that is pseudoscientific we must characterize it as such, so we must also mention "pseudoscience" in the lead. That is 100% grounded in the policies and guidelines. I will not respond here further so if you respond, neither I nor anyone else will reply per WP:SHUN. If you try to make the change, you will be reverted, and if you continue to disrupt the article, I will bring you to AE. So that's all for now. Jytdog (talk) 19:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I never "disrupted the article". And no, I think WP:PSCI would be fully satisfied in my version; sorry for having a difference in opinion here. My very best wishes (talk) 20:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
This source does not mention Klyosov and would be WP:SYNTH, but I'm just briefly noting that what this article calls pseudoscience is the same what University of Cambridge is talking about on their recent findings news article: Baltic hunter-gatherers adopted farming without influence of mass migration, ancient DNA suggests . --Pudeo (talk) 23:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Pseudoscience allegations
The cite for this feels weak to me, and particularly if this claim is going to be part of the lead paragraph. Does the cite actually fit WP standards? I think WP needs to be sensitive to the tendency to want to preemptively discredit potentially science that might be politically unpalatable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.67.118 (talk) 21:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Debated to death. Please see the archives. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Proceedings of the Academy of DNA Genealogy
So here is the fancy sounding "Proceedings of the Academy of DNA Genealogy: Moscow-Boston-Tsukuba. Volume 10, No. 2. February 2017", which on page 1258 has a section called "Как делают статьи в англоязычную Википедию" (How to make an article on English Wikipedia) by the subject of this article, which goes into great detail on the past discussions here. How... unserious. This so clearly shows what a thin tool of Klyosav that whole "academy" is. Could you imagine a true scientific society publishing something like that in a proceedings? I had been entertaining some sliver of thought that his DNA geneaology work was potentially ... substantial. Not anymore. Jytdog (talk) 10:58, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- What makes you think this is a "true scientific society"?--Ymblanter (talk) 11:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for digging this up. I'm not surprised. Ymblanter, Jytdog thinks this is not a true scientific society. As I've pointed out before, this is published by Lulu.com - he can't even get a publisher, has to publish it himelf. Doug Weller talk 11:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Pseudoscience
See above. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Pseudohistorian
The article says he's a pseudoscientist. I see "Category:Pseudohistorians" on article too. Which one of his works are related to pseudohistory topic? --Wario-Man (talk) 03:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- Please read the article with respect to the history of human evolution. Please also read the archives of this Talk page. This has all been discussed. The horse is beat to smithereens. Jytdog (talk) 06:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Anatole Klyosov. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://letopis.msu.ru/peoples/4652
- Corrected formatting/usage for https://scholarlyoa.com/2014/12/16/the-chinese-publisher-scirp-scientific-research-publishing-a-publishing-empire-built-on-junk-science/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160605072833/https://scholarlyoa.com/2014/10/02/an-editorial-board-mass-resignation-from-an-open-access-journal/ to https://scholarlyoa.com/2014/10/02/an-editorial-board-mass-resignation-from-an-open-access-journal
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Is DNA Genealogy pseudoscience?
Who keeps putting that it is?? DNA genealogy is the opposite of pseudoscience... History may lie, DNA doesn't.
- Read the contents of the article, please. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:47, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
So because some Russians decide to take a bad crack at the field, the whole of it is a pseudoscience? Are you also willing to remove this line (Members of the growing genetic genealogy community have been credited with making useful contributions to knowledge in the field.) from the Genetic genealogy page? Because you're certainly implying that the field as a whole is useless to science. Also, all your sources are in Russian. Yes, it does seem that the Russian scientific community had a backlash towards a handful of citizen scientists trying to push certain agendas about human history, but that doesn't mean that the rest of the world considers it such a nasty pseudoscience. What I am trying to say is that although Klyosov's published papers may fall in the realm of pseudoscience, that does not justify calling DNA genealogy as a whole a pseudoscience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeraticXYZ (talk • contribs) 17:24, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
IP complaining about a source they didn't read
Maria Antonova (whose politically motivated article is used as source "20") is a "scientist from various fields"? In which particular field, please?69.181.205.184 (talk) 08:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- If you'd bother to read the source you would know she was writing about an open letter from "scientists in various fields". I've improved that section. Doug Weller talk 12:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)