- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Chris Sherwin
edit,_2009.jpg)
Sherwin in 2009
- ... that while insects may bug you, Chris Sherwin, an animal welfare and behavior scientist, surmised that insects have a mind of their own and could experience "negative mental states"?
- ALT1: ... that animal behavior scientist and Wikipedian Chris Sherwin believed that insects have minds and could experience "negative mental states"?
5x expanded by Atsme (talk), SlimVirgin (talk), and Montanabw (talk). Nominated by Atsme (talk) at 13:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC).
- ALT2 ... that animal behavior scientist Chris Sherwin asked: "If it is a chimp we say it feels pain, if a fly we don't. Why?" (EEng 14:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC))
- To be brutally honest, I don't think the image adds anything. EEng 17:57, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
- The promoter can decide to promote with our without the image. Usually there are more articles with photos than there is room in the sets, and not all images are used. Montanabw(talk) 18:13, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
- Hey, we're missing Montanabw as a co-nom. Agree re: the image. I added it because Atsme said she hadn't intended to leave it out. But the promoter will decide whether to include it. SarahSV (talk) 18:26, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
- Same: the image would add attention, - pictured hooks always get more clicks that the same without one. Guess what, I have the image slot today ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
- The promoter can decide to promote with our without the image. Usually there are more articles with photos than there is room in the sets, and not all images are used. Montanabw(talk) 18:13, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
- Of course images get more clicks. But some images add to the reader's experience way more than others, and modern headshots are, IMHO, near the bottom of that list. Works of art, historic locations, scientific wonders -- that's what we should have images of, in general. (Unrelated matter: pining FourViolas on general principle, since he has an interest in animal welfare etc.) EEng 19:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
- EEng and others - what about using a white lab mouse instead of his head shot?
- Of course images get more clicks. But some images add to the reader's experience way more than others, and modern headshots are, IMHO, near the bottom of that list. Works of art, historic locations, scientific wonders -- that's what we should have images of, in general. (Unrelated matter: pining FourViolas on general principle, since he has an interest in animal welfare etc.) EEng 19:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
- SV, it only gave me 2 slots to add names - article creator, and 1 other author. I am neophyte here, so if you know how to add Montanabw, please do! Atsme📞📧 18:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
- I added her to the make-list, so she will get credit. Please fix if I misunderstood. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:52, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
- SV, it only gave me 2 slots to add names - article creator, and 1 other author. I am neophyte here, so if you know how to add Montanabw, please do! Atsme📞📧 18:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Sherwin, though looks like it'll end a keep. Also, why is every single post in this discussion preceded by a bullet? EEng 20:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- I would recommend against this DYK given the WP:RIP aspect and some of the editors involved in the article having somewhat close connections with the subject when they edited Wikipedia. Especially given the article creator's stated push to also make this new BLP a DYK and GA[1], the personal connection aspect is getting more concerning. It's a bit of an odd case of WP:COI in terms of editing about friends with the editors being too close to the subject. If someone finds this subject of interest "organically" at a later date rather than from buddies on Wikipedia, there shouldn't be any problem considering a DYK at that time. For now though, there's too many people too close to the editor. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
- I disagree with your recommendation, because the motivations for article creation have nothing to do with notability or anything else. In theory, editors can create superb articles for bad reasons, and the articles remain superb nonetheless. The community will decide about keeping or deleting the page at the ongoing AfD, and if the consensus is "keep", then there is nothing stopping this page from satisfying the DYK requirements. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
- My comment wasn't relating to notability or AFD at all, but simply that COI is a factor here where such editors are expected to not make direct edits to the page or otherwise try to promote it through DYK, GA, etc. Let someone who isn't close to the subject do these things. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:03, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
- Simply having edited with another user is not a COI. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
- Your statement is true, but doesn't apply here as much as editors had close associations with the editor either by supporting them in behavior disputes (more so talking about defending actions that got them sanctioned as opposed to trying to supportively help them deal with the behavior as you and I tried to). This kind of COI is just a plain messy thing to deal with in this situation, especially as I do not like bringing up related behavior issues, disputes, etc. of a deceased editor and would rather let them be forgotten. That's why I haven't been very keen on bringing it up, but that's the caution I feel that needs to be brought up given the current drive to promote the article. Just too many people too close to the editor in some fashion or another. At this point though, I'd rather further COI discussion be dealt with at COIN or editor talk pages rather than the BLP page or here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:35, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
- At this point, continuing this part of the discussion is not really helpful to the DYK process, but I will just observe that whether any editor comments about this page could, in the eye of the beholder, be a function of their earlier editor-to-editor interactions, regardless of which "side" that editor is on. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
- Your statement is true, but doesn't apply here as much as editors had close associations with the editor either by supporting them in behavior disputes (more so talking about defending actions that got them sanctioned as opposed to trying to supportively help them deal with the behavior as you and I tried to). This kind of COI is just a plain messy thing to deal with in this situation, especially as I do not like bringing up related behavior issues, disputes, etc. of a deceased editor and would rather let them be forgotten. That's why I haven't been very keen on bringing it up, but that's the caution I feel that needs to be brought up given the current drive to promote the article. Just too many people too close to the editor in some fashion or another. At this point though, I'd rather further COI discussion be dealt with at COIN or editor talk pages rather than the BLP page or here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:35, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
- Simply having edited with another user is not a COI. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
- My comment wasn't relating to notability or AFD at all, but simply that COI is a factor here where such editors are expected to not make direct edits to the page or otherwise try to promote it through DYK, GA, etc. Let someone who isn't close to the subject do these things. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:03, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Note: the AfD has closed as "keep", so there is no longer any need to wait on that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
- ALT3 ... that animal behavior scientist Chris Sherwin wrote that insects can experience "negative mental states"?
- I think that this one does not go beyond the cited source. I'll also provide my opinion that the photo is a low priority. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
- Tryp, wouldn't it be better to add your Alt 3 suggestion at the top of the page under Alt 2? It's a great alt. Atsme📞📧 21:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, but it doesn't matter where it is. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
- Tryp, wouldn't it be better to add your Alt 3 suggestion at the top of the page under Alt 2? It's a great alt. Atsme📞📧 21:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
- I actually like the photo -- he looks like someone you'd like to have a beer or coffee with, maybe tell him about how sad you were when your dog died, etc., because he'd understand...
It would hook me into reading his entry. Gandydancer (talk) 00:56, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
- Mike Mendl, head of Chris's department at Bristol, wrote that Chris's paper on invertebrate suffering had "preceded current interests in insect emotion and consciousness by well over a decade". Perhaps that should be worked into the hook:
- ALT4 ... that in 2001 ethologist Chris Sherwin anticipated current research into insect consciousness when he argued that insects can experience "negative mental states"?
- 196 characters. Sources:
- Mendl, Mike (16 August 2017). "Dr Christopher Sherwin, 1962–2017". University of Bristol.
- Balcombe, Jonathan (2006). Pleasurable Kingdom: Animals and the Nature of Feeling Good. New York: St. Martin's Press, p. 193.
- Sherwin, C. M. (1 February 2001). "Can Invertebrates Suffer? Or, How Robust is Argument-by-Analogy?". Animal Welfare. 10 (1): 103–118.
- Any of the ALTs are OK with me, my preferred are the original hook and ALT3. Montanabw(talk) 18:12, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
- Any of the hooks are fine with me too. SarahSV (talk) 18:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
- I like ALT2, ALT3, and ALT4, and I think any of them would be great. I oppose ALT0 because I think the "bugs" thing is too jokey, and ALT1 because I think the reference to "minds" is inadequately sourced. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note to proofreaders and closer — a stray quote character that was previously elided as a copy edit ("the 3Rs"._"_)[2] was mistakenly added back in a subsequent reversion.[3]
This article is a five-fold expansion under the rules of DYK and is new enough and long enough. Approving ALT1, ALT2 and ALT3, which all have inline citations, and leaving the promoter to choose. The image is appropriately licensed but as has been mentioned, does not add much to the hook. The article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues (Earwig's 59.7% proved to be some lengthy quotes). Good to go. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
