Talk:Hyman G. Rickover: Difference between revisions

Resources section

What's the point of this section? It looks like a dumping ground for someone's research project listing a boat-load of articles either written by Rickover or about Rickover and not very useful or conventional. Toddst1 (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

It's unique, but so was Rickover, who continues to have articles and papers and books written about him in 2019...119 years after his birth. It's a comprehensive, encyclopedic list of resources for current and future students of Rickover and nuclear power, both military and civilian. Assume good faith, please. --67.48.200.162 (talk) 16:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Toddst1 (talk) that the article shouldn't function as a "dumping ground" for a big long list of articles that aren't directly relevant to the article in question. Andrew Englehart (talk) 21:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Andrew Englehart:. I don't see any reason to deviate from WP:NOTREPOSITORY, so I'm removing the section. Toddst1 (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I performed extensive cleans to this page a few years ago, as it had become riddled with hagiographical and rambling material, and faced opposition from a user in a very similar fashion to what is occurring now. I support continued attempts at cleans here, removing absurd sections like "Words of wisdom", or else this is going to just turn into a giant overly-detailed puff piece again. Palindromedairy (talk) 23:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Restored & expanded per citation. Two people do not form a "consensus" to delete this very encyclopedic section. Moreover, using pejoratives like "dumping ground" does not indicate clear & unbiased thinking. --104.15.130.191 (talk) 15:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Yep, it's consensus and I have an opinion - hence I am biased. You did not have any support for its restoration and has been removed.

I'll assert that my thinking is clear and we can do without the ad-hominem attacks.

Note that 104.15.130.191 and 67.48.200.162 appear to be the same IP hopper from Austin Texas. Toddst1 (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Culled the "Resources" section for its apparently offending material (Rickover-referencing PhD dissertations, presidential library references, etc.), and limited this content to Rickover's authored, published works and notable, published biographics. As a sidebar, I do not control my IP address (does anyone?). --104.15.130.191 (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I see three editors (myself now included) specifically objecting to this inclusion, and a fourth editor opining that the article regularly attracts such editing. WP:ONUS requires achieving consensus for the inclusion of disputed material; repeatedly adding it back in over objections is textbook edit warring. Grandpallama (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

You're mischaracterizing the circumstances, Grandpallama. I've edited the section to make it acceptable. HOW can we *possibly* otherwise reach consensus unless people see what's being proposed? In a vacuum...consensus...on what? --104.15.130.191 (talk) 15:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Your additions were discussed and rejected as recently as June. Instead of reinserting them repeatedly, make a case for their inclusion on the talkpage. That's how consensus works. Right now, consensus is against their inclusion, which is in no way a mischaracterization. Change folks' minds, or build a new consensus, but you cannot simply edit war them back in. Grandpallama (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

You're again mischaracterizing the situation. The information posted has been culled for miscellaneous info such as PhD dissertations and presidential library contents regarding the subject of the article. The information NOW posted is the bonafide, authored and published works by the subject of this biographic article. Tell me: What is your line of reasoning against including this? Moreover, why is it that I'm even having to spend one minute of my time justifying the inclusion of bonafide, authored, published works in a biographic article...? Is this anything close to common practice regarding biographies...? Deleting all of the well-formed citations for Rickover's publications is okay...on "consensus??" Where's the justice in that...? --104.15.130.191 (talk) 16:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The information posted has been culled for miscellaneous info such as PhD dissertations and presidential library contents regarding the subject of the article. Please point to the part of the discussion where you achieved consensus to re-include information that other editors previously objected to, or where there was a call for a select "culling". You've simply restored repeatedly deleted information, in violation of consensus, and you are continuing to misrepresent the previous discussion instead of using this as an opportunity to make the case for why the material should be included.

What is your line of reasoning against including this? My line of reasoning for its removal is very clear: consensus was established against its inclusion, and you have not engaged in a discussion to persuade editors to change that consensus.

Moreover, why is it that I'm even having to spend one minute of my time justifying the inclusion of bonafide, authored, published works in a biographic article...? WP:ONUS. Grandpallama (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Toddst1, Andrew Englehart, and Palindromedairy in case they have thoughts about whether or not this "culling" is in line with the established consensus from last summer. Grandpallama (talk) 16:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Looking at what is proposed to be kept, I think a lot of it is hopelessly redundant. The idea of an encyclopedia is not that it has every possible linkable reference to the subject that one can find, and items like most of the magazine articles should simply have their relevant parts cited directly in the article and otherwise tossed. The Authorship section seems mostly fine since writing professionally published books goes towards notability, except for the interviews, which a subject does not "author". Rather than attempting to go into everything in detail here while referencing the various article edits, I'm going to make a "compromise edit" of the article, understanding that it does not have consensus but attempting to give a concrete example of middle ground. Palindromedairy (talk) 19:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

By all means, let's please focus on the content...and the rationale for not including it, if any. Rather than easily fancied notion of "consensus" (of two people), it'll be far more insightful to hear why we're all wasting our time here discussing the deep, deep thinking behind not allowing for a list of a notable individual's published material, and related biographics for the same. Perhaps we'll all learn something. --104.15.130.191 (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Jeez. Really IP?? You've got 3 people (me, @Andrew Englehart: and @Grandpallama: saying that content is inappropriate. Nobody believes your edit should be included. Drop the damn WP:STICK, move on and stop wasting folks' time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddst1 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Make that 4. I don't see a need for this content either. - wolf 00:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

(1) Wolf is only here because we've picked at an issue before. He has zero subject expertise. (2) Grandpallama hasn't said that the content is inappropriate. He's only here because I reverted his reversion of my added content. He saw that there'd been an issue and jumped in feet first before even reading the changes/content. (3) Actually no one is saying the content I'm proposing -- i.e., and specifically, a list of Rickover's published words -- is "inappropriate" because that would be silly, given that this article is a biographic of him. What people are saying is that they can abuse the "consensus" structure of Wikipedia, a flaw which no doubt causes it to lose its individual members with true domain expertise daily. (4) That said, I'm done here...too. I have no time for this nonsense. Adios. --104.15.130.191 (talk) 02:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)