Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human ethology

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Human ethology

Marked as a speedy for original research, which however is not a ground for speedy. Appears original research and a copy of [1] (uncertain copyright status). No vote. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 17:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• The work on Human Ethology, belongs to me and I am fine with the inclusion of the article here. I am a logged in user. You may email me for further information -- Lorlarson (Lorlarson (talk · contribs) 17:47, 15 November 2005)
• Comment; thanks for the information about the copyright. The problem is explained in WP:NOR. Please let us know if you think this article fits. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 17:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete clearly original research. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 19:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• The work is established neo-Piagetian cognitive developmental theory, recast in the only way possible if one wants to take an ethological view of learning. It really is as simple as that. It should cause no controversy. If you just want to hear what you already know, there may be a problem. Otherwise no rational ethologist who takes an ethological perspective on Piagetian theory and on learning could have any problem with it. Nothing contradicts the perspective. It may help you to know that this paper was published in the official EDITED newsletter of the International Society for Human Ethology. The point of view is scientific and is testable. Human Ethology is a relatively new area and you really cannot expect much better than this if you really want an overview of a major aspect of this field.

Please provide a citation (volume/number/pages), and please indicate what you mean by "edited." Is this "edited newsletter" a peer-reviewed journal? WP:NOR means that Wikipedia articles must be summaries of well-established, generally accepted knowledge.

I am troubled by your statement that "If you just want to hear what you already know, there may be a problem." From an encyclopedia, I do not necessarily want to hear what I already know, but I very definitely want to hear what is generally known and accepted. Wikipedia is not suitable for publishing essay that presents fresh, original ideas on a topic, even if they are sensible, valid, likely to become generally adopted, well founded in established knowledge and buttressed by references. Wikipedia is not for dissemination of original ideas. We have nothing against original ideas, but the mission of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia, not a journal.

The style and content of the article also suggest original research. In fact the phrase "This outlook, I believe..." suggests that the whole point of the article is to present a point of view. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Provisionally: delete The topic itself is definitely encyclopedic. The style and presentation are not; encyclopedia articles are supposed to teach and at least the introductory paragraphs should be accessible to the general reader. It is not appropriate for them to be written in the first person. However, there's no point in worrying yet about style. As nearly as I can tell so far, this is in fact a personal essay. It's said that it has been published, but no citation has yet been provided, and it's not clear to me whether the newsletter of the International Society for Human Ethology is peer-reviewed journal. I'm prepared to change my vote if I'm convinced that this does not fall under our no original research policy. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• The Newsletter for the International Society for Human Ethology is edited, meaning the editor selects from a range of essays and articles which to publish. The editor at the time the essay under discussion was published was Frans X. PLOOIJ You can email him at fplooij@kiddygroup.com . Ask him about this very article -- which was very well-received. I also am a colleague of I. Eibl-Ebesfeldt and reviewed his book on Human Ethology is that same Newsletter. I am also published (in a rare FIRST "Letter to the Editor") in the journal, Ethology and Sociobiology. That article was on classical ethology and its application to human study and was well reviewed. Anyhow, you can consult with any authoritative writer in the Human Ethology area and get an authoritative opinion. Otherwise, my opinion may well be the most authoritative opinion you have. Go ahead and have nothing instead or some amateur write some off-the-mark simplistic and inaccurate piece.

I am also a student and colleague of William Charlesworth (now a retired professor, University of MN). You may contact him for an opinion on my paper. He was one of the founders of the International Society for Human Ethology. I can argue no more for my article except to say that it is appropriately general and basic to be indeed be an appropriate opening article on human ethology. By the way, my real name is B.L. Jesness (Lorlarson is just my 'handle') -- Lorlarson

I'm impressed that you're a colleague of Iräneus Eibl-Eibesfeldt. You may well be an authority, but no Wikipedia article stands on the authority of its contributor, so it's still necessary to cite sources, and still necessary to help non-authorities verify things. The article is still a problem, though. It would be better if it were an overview of human ethology, history, relation to animal ethology, etc. Will be doing some more checking and will email F. Plooij as you suggest.

We could also use an article on Eibl-Eibesfeldt, which apparently we don't have (unless I'm not spelling the name the same way the article does...) Dpbsmith (talk) 00:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The point is not whether you are an authority, because Wikipedia is intended to stand or fall without appeal to the authority of its contributors, but whether you can convince us that the material present in this article is generally accepted current knowledge. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• Copyright status of the article is resolved, but still the article appears to be original research. Summarizing, WP:NOR says that regardless of the quality and importance of the contribution, wikipedia is not the appropriate place for publishing original research. Delete. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 14:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I basically agree. However, if someone could show Dr. Jesness' publication in the Newsletter for the International Society for Human Ethology has been cited somewhere important, in a book by Eibl-Eibesfeldt for example, then I'd consider keep-and-cleanup.
• delete I'm surprised we don't have a WP entry for human ethology the topic certainly ought to be covered. While the title of this piece is human ethology, the topic of the article is actually Human Cognitive-Developmental Ethology: an ethological theory of human learning: a cognitive-developmental, neo-Piagetian, ethological theory -- based on the methods of classical ethology. I remain to be convinced that the thesis of this essay constitutes a tradition of thought which exists apart from this essay. If this piece is influential enough to establish the topic for inclusion in an encyclopedia, then I would like to see confirmation (eg. entry in the Science Citation Index demonstrating action). The piece as it is is entirely inappropriate for WP. The ALL CAPS for emphasis, the lack of structure (headings subheadings wikilinks) could all be fixed, but this is clearly the work of a single author and intended to remain unedited by others (note use of first person eg. " I will try to outline what I see as the basic types of processes..." and this footer "For MUCH MORE on this method, perspective and approach see my larger papers Click THIS LINK http://cyberper.cnc.net/myLargePapers.htm to find out how to obtain them. (This web page is my page, as is all the content on http://cyberper.cnc.net) All works above and linked to are mine." raises a bunch of WP compatibility problems. In summary, I vote delete for OR reasons, and I see little hope for remedy of topic a cognitive-developmental, neo-Piagetian, ethological theory -- based on the methods of classical ethology Pete.Hurd 19:29, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Status update After some considerable work scrolling through slow-scrolling bitmapped PDF files, I've found the paper, which can be downloaded from the HEB 1986-1987 link on [this page], and the citation would appear to be:

Jesness, Bradley (1987): An ethological conceptualization of learning: Learning in terms of the interrelated development of basic capacities, Human Ethology Newsletter (ISSN 0739-2036), 5(3) pp. 4-6.

It is described as a "Mini Communication" and the author is identified as "Bradley Jesness" with a Minneapolis street address (no institutional affiliation mentioned).

The PDF consists of bitmapped images and is unsearchable and very unpleasant to scroll through; scroll just about halfway down to get to volume 5 number 3.

Not that it matters, as there would seem to be no copyright problem, but interestingly enough the journal does not seem to have a copyright notice anywhere. The use of ALL CAPS emphasis is a faithful copy of the paper as originally published.

I continue to agree with Pete.Hurd and others that this article falls under the no original research policy but that could change if it were to turn out that it has been widely cited and generally accepted. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOR. Edwardian 21:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.