Talk:Katrina Karkazis

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Anthropology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Medicine: Society Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Society and Medicine task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Women scientists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	It is requested that an image(s) be included in this article to improve its quality.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Katrina Karkazis. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131226191601/http://bioethics.stanford.edu/people/resumes/karkazispubs.html to http://bioethics.stanford.edu/people/resumes/karkazispubs.html
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://m.sciencemag.org/content/348/6237/858.full

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 09:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Publications[edit]

@Seemplez: and @85.131.127.116:, don't you think it might be condign to come up with an amended list of publications and include that in the article, rather than reverting each other between a comically large list of publications and none whatsoever? jp×g 07:28, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacob Gotts: I really couldn't care less what happens to the page, as long as it isn't the unnecessary blanking of the IP. Seem plez 07:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed a few of the publications. Seem plez 07:35, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me like there were an excessive amount of publications -- every work published by a researcher is typically not appropriate for inclusion. Perhaps it would be best to pick maybe four or five with the highest citation count on Gscholar or some other resource? jp×g 07:49, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacob Gotts: other Wikipedia articles about researchers typically do not include a list of publications by the researcher in sections such as "peer-reviewed articles" or "edited books" -- this format is common, however in an academic CV. It seems to me that Katrina Karkazis has simply copy-pasted her CV into the article, although of course it may have been some one else. All of her publications are on her webpage, which is prominently linked in the article. There is no need to list all of her specialist publications.

Should a list of the subect's publications be included in the article at all, and if so, how many of them? Two editors, Seemplez (talk · contribs) and 85.131.127.116 (talk · contribs), are in disagreement about this issue. 85 wants to remove them all, whereas Seemplez has been open to including an amended list with the most relevant (or most highly-cited) publications. The original removal of the list can be seen at Special:Diff/980380715. I originally saw these edits and reversions while patrolling Special:RecentChanges, and made one revert (when WP:3RR was exceeded) but have subsequently observed a lack of consensus (there are points to be made on either side). I haven't got much to say besides the vague and noncommittal suggestion of a reduced bibliography -- both parties have been going at it on Seemplez's user talk page and it doesn't seem like they're going to reach consensus without assistance. jp×g 09:08, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Me and 127.116 are in agreement about one thing; there were too many works in the bibliography and it was definitely a breach of WP:NOTCV as Jacob rightly pointed out above. But I feel that removing the whole thing is a tad extreme. 127.116 seems to be of the persuasion that it was Katrina Karkazis who put all the works in, and to be honest, that could have happened. Maybe the top 10 from Google Scholar as Jacob suggested? I'm happy to put it in if 127.116 agrees. Seem plez 09:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added in 5 of the top articles from here apart from "Hyperandrogenism controversy in elite women's sport: an examination and critique of recent evidence", as she is a minor writer in that paper. Is this acceptable? Seem plez 09:40, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After leaving this comment, you went immediately back to the article and did another revert, bringing both of you to five each -- I have reported the conflict at WP:AN3. jp×g 10:10, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacob Gotts: Did I? Could you provide the diff link for the revert? What you have linked at AN3 isn't a revert. Seem plez 11:34, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was invited by Yapperbot. Earlier I had raised a similar question in another article and I was told that "Not sure if there are any guidelines on this via WP:BLP". Now I looked at articles about several Nobel laureates and it seems to me that the section with their "Publications" or "Works" is usually absent. More often, there is only the "Awards and honors" section or something like that. However, there are also few opposite examples. Now the section "Works" should be reduced rather than enlarged, I think. You might also want to find out the community consensus on this issue.--Nicoljaus (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Invited by Yapperbot. I suggest to keep the works that have been subject of independent coverage in "layman" publications; this means both books and the Out of bounds article in the AJB. I would remove the rest (going by the sources in the article, this means scrapping out the "selected bibliography" section and most of the "peer-reviewed publications".) My (admittedly weak) justification for that cutoff criterion is based on WP:NOR: an exhaustive list of publications is not really useful (that's what Google Scholar is for), so we should only mention those for which we can write stuff, which means stuff for which there are independent sources. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]