Talk:Mitchell Green

discussing the draft

@Asdrubalissimo, let's discuss here rather than on the draft, which is confusing to other editors. valereee (talk) 15:45, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Creator's comments

Moving from draft:

Response to comments

In response to comments above: I have added references where appropriate, and offered clearer evidence that Green meets the standards for Wikipedia:NACADEMICS (promently, links to Scholar and Web of Science). The citation counts demonstrate that the impact of Green's work is among the highest in his field, much higher than many other academics for which the English-language Wikipedia has a dedicated page. As a helpful comparison, consider the page for Dorit Bar-On, a philosopher who works in the same Department as Green. Bar-On has only published half as many articles as Green, and her work has received less than half of the citations that Green's work has. Given that Bar-On can advance no other claim to notoriety (she worked for tv, but merely as an employee), I believe that she is an excellent comparison point to show that Green's research impact far exceeds what is usually required for a dedicated Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asdrubalissimo (talk • contribs)

---

valereee (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Required edits

So, a few thought on where to start. The selected publications section needs to include his works that have over 200 citations. Only the least controversial facts about him can come from affiliated sources. Like, we can get his alma maters, majors, etc. from his UCONN faculty page. We cannot get his research expertise from that; that needs to have been said/written by someone else somewhere independent of him -- not his publisher, not his employer, not info included in a provided bio from a speaking engagement.

What you're going to need to do is strip this draft down to that. Ping me when you think you've done so and I'll come back and take a look. I highly recommend not resubmitting the draft until we've completely rewritten it. valereee (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Valereee, thanks for your comments. I have tried to follow your advice, together with the directions offered by @DGG. I have stripped down references following the criteria that you stated, and adding links to more appropriate ones. I have not found references of the kind you request for the last claim (he has held fellowships from the National Science Foundation, the National Humanities Center, the Center for Contemplative Mind in Society, and the American Council of Learned Societies). If you think that this means that I should remove the claim, please let me know.

Re "selected publications": I have left articles that have more than 60 citaitons. I don't know if 200 is an official requirement for Wikipedia, but I would like to note two things about this requirement. First, and most importantly, the baseline citation rate dramatically changes between disciplines: 200 is a rather unimpressive number in the medical sciences, and barely evidence of notability, but it is a very high bar for fields where single-authored works are the standard and in particular the humanities, especially fields like philosophy or theology. Second, citations are accumulated through time. An article with 120 citations from 2020 is certainly a much higher-impact article than one with 224 citations from 1992 (the first has 50 citations per year, the second 7 citations per year). That said, I can always remove the articles cited less than 200 times, if this is what the Wikipedia guidelines mandate (but in that case I'd like to ask you if there is a way for me to suggest that they should be revised, e.g. a forum where these issues are debated).

Apologies for the digression, at any rate. I am very grateful for your comments, and please let me know if you have any further suggestions for improving the article, and whether you think that it is now acceptable for resubmission. Asdrubalissimo (talk) 11:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, @Asdrubalissimo! Number of citations to be included in an article isn't any kind of rule, and if you ask ten editors you might get ten different answers for the rule of thumb they use, and as you say, it can vary by field. Sometimes I just decide to include the five most-cited articles for which they're lead author, for instance. What we're trying to do is avoid ending up with a complete bibliography, which of course could have hundreds of entries, but including their most-influential works. Yes, we can take into account that a 2020 article with 120 citations is likely more influential than a 224-cites one from 1992, but what we want to avoid (and what article subjects tend to want) is to include 'current research' that hasn't yet become highly influential. That's for their CV or LinkedIn, not for WP.

For purposes of improvement (this is not a requirement for getting it out of draft, just my recommendation) you might want to present all the articles in citation format like you have the second, if you can, so that readers can link to the doi.

If you can't find a cit for his fellowships, that's something that is likely uncontroversial that we can include from a provided bio or even from his CV, although for preference I'd like to see it in at minimum a provided bio from some speech he gave or something, as that at least provides some evidence someone else took this as stated, if you see what I mean. If someone came in with an accusation printed in a RS that he was lying about these, they'd then become 'controversial' info. Although of course then the article has bigger problems. :D valereee (talk) 11:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks again @Valereee! I see what you mean about citations, and it makes sense. I think the slimmed-down version of "highly cited" work should meet your considerations (I included a selected few works, taking into account the considerations I made above about age). I also did the last revisions you suggested. At this point I will try again to submit, hoping that the referees will agree with @DGG concerning the article meets the standards for publication. Asdrubalissimo (talk) 01:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

another view

Asdrubalissimo. Myself, I think it needs only minor adjustments, which I shall make and then accept. His areas of expertise are implied by his works, -- it's easily possible to word the text so it doesn't need specific formal referencing, and I shall show how. As for papers, we normally include the 5 or so most cited papers formal peer reviewed papers in journals, and include the number of citations.

I think there is no possible question about notability . I'm copying this to the article page as a comment, where other reviewers are likely to find it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)