Template:Did you know nominations/Ideasthesia

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: rejected by Allen3 ^talk 09:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Insufficient progress toward resolving outstanding issues

Ideasthesia

(

)

... that according to ideasthesia, the mystery of human conscious experience may be grounded in how we activate concepts?

Improved to Good Article status by Dankonikolic (talk). Self nominated at 10:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC).

No need for QPQ since it is the first DYK attempt of the nominator. Article promoted to GA on Janaury 4. Article length and date are OK. All paragraph has atleast a citation. But, I cannot find the hook on the article itself. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 09:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I would add the "hook on the article itself" but I don't know what this is. I though that the above link to the page ideasthesia is that hook. Please advise.(Danko (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC))

I think "I cannot find the hook on the article itself." was meant to read "I cannot find the hook in the article". hook reads ok but we need a ref on the sentence in the article which mentions why it "may be grounded in how we activate concepts". HTH Victuallers (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for clarification. This is the the section "Ideasthesia and the hard problem of consciousness". To make it clearer, I changed the starting sentence: "The concept of ideasthesia bears implications for understanding how phenomenal experiences ..." into: "The concept of ideasthesia bears implications for the mystery of how conscious experiences ... ". Moreover, three sentences down, I added: "That is, experience is created by the process of activating the concept of that stimulus." Does this fix the issue? Note that the very first paragraph of the page states also: "Research on ideasthesia bears important implications for understanding the origin of human conscious experiences." (Danko (talk) 07:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC))

New reviewer needed; previous reviewers have not returned. Note that original review did not address the "within policy" issues of neutrality and close paraphrasing, and should be checked as part of the DYK review. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

New Reviewer
Article

Criteria 1) Passed GA on 4 January. Pass
Criteria 2) Article at the time of its GA promotion was 6760 characters. Pass
Criteria 3) Hook provided by nominator does not appear to be in the article with a direct inline citation as required. Fail Source to published source provided on 12 March. Pass
Criteria 4) ~~Having passed GA it should meet all applicable policies.~~ Concerns have been raised as to whether the article meets WP:MOS. Please correct this. Hold
Criteria 5) As stated by Carlojoseph14, at the time when this was submitted the submitting editor had under 5 DYK credits, and therefore does not need to meet QPQ requirements. Not applicable

Hook

Criteria 1) Hook link is 116 characters, follows formatting requirement. Pass
Criteria 2) Hook is neutral, has no BLP issues. Pass

Images - No image provided. Not applicable

Summary. I am placing this nomination on hold until the nominator, Dankonikolic, can show me or another reviewer where the hook submitted above is directly cited with an inline citation in the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

This hook is a great illustration of the old saying (variously attributed) that "Philosophy is the systematic abuse of a terminology specifically designed for that very purpose." (I'm not saying it shouldn't run.) EEng (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

If I understood the problem correctly, then the following edit fixes it: I changed the ending sentence of the first paragraph: "Research on ideasthesia bears important implications for understanding the origin of human conscious experiences." into a sentence: "Research on ideasthesia bears important implications for solving the mystery of human conscious experience, which according to ideasthesia, is grounded in how we activate concepts".

Does that fix the problem? (Danko Nikolic) — Preceding undated comment added 08:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Danko, no it doesn't. Here's the actual problem: for DYK, a hook fact needs to have a reliable source citation by the end of the sentence in which the fact appear that supports said fact. That sentence you modified in the intro is unsourced, and related sentences in the article's body (which is where the sourcing truly belongs) are similarly unreferenced as required. Without the direct inline source citation(s) in one place or the other, this nomination cannot be approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

- Ok. Now, this is fixed.(Danko Nikolic)

OK, I see this change ("diff") here does add a source. However, I am now worried that the page has now been tagged twice, once for relying on sources by the primary editor, and again recently by the same editor, U3964057, in relation to this dyk. Therefore while now verifiable concerns have been met new concerns have arisen (see above).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

- I see! Apparently, the editor U3964057 is punishing me for my previous links to my own web site. The editor got into a kind of "revenge" mode. Hence, I don't think that any edit to the contents of the page would make him accept that edit as sufficient to revert the tags. Perhaps, he would just add more tags. I have no idea what to do. I cannot win against his experience and power. So, maybe I just have to give up. (Danko (talk) 21:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC))

@Dankonikolic: I must assume good faith of this editor regarding the tags, and while there is a co-author of the paper cited, there is an individual with a similar name to Dankonikolic in the authors line. Therefore, I kindly ask U3964057 to come here and inform us of their concerns. Also if BlueMoonset can let us know their opinion on the tags, that might be helpful as well.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree that the primary sources tag is appropriate, and that the COI issue is a little too strong here. If this were a term or subject which was not originated by the individual who appears to have written the article (i.e. if someone else had first come up with the concept of ideasthesia, and Nikolic had expanded somewhat on it, or clarified/provided examples of it) then a little bit of COI (one or two cited papers) would probably be acceptable, for the sake of comprehensiveness. When the Wikipedia article writer is the originator, and five of sixteen sources are papers written by the article's author, then the COI is less acceptable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi all. I am happy to contribute, and thanks Crisco 1492 for your thoughts on the merit of the primary sources tag that I put in place. My only addition to that topic at this that I think that primary sources are a concern here even in the complete absence of conflict of interest concerns. More specifically, the critical issue isn't that five of the sixteen sources share an author, but that as far as I can tell all but one of the five sources that actually make a case for Ideasthesia (and that are not just supporting ancillary points) share an author. This raises serious questions about whether this perspective is notable and not a fringe theory. What is missing is strong evidence of independent verification for this very recent research. Yes, these ideas have been published in peer reviewed journals, but this isn't the measure of veracity. Really, peer review begins scientific inquiry, it does not conclude it.

Moving on to the topic of the my clarity concerns, I have tried to summaries my thoughts on the talk page. Is there a more specific question that people would like to ask? And I am open to the idea that the section is actually clear and I am just not "getting it". Cheers Andrew (talk) 09:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

@U3964057: Will this be taken up @ WP:GAR?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi RightCowLeftCoast. I didn't have any intention of instigating a review of this article's good article status. This is because I am not really versed on the GA standards and had no reason to think that the possible original research and promotion problems, as well as occasional clarity issues, would be a deal breaker. After all, it did get through the review process largely in its current form. Does that answer the question? And why do you ask? Do you think one is warranted? Cheers Andrew (talk) 22:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Criteria #2 of WP:GACR:

Verifiable with no original research

As some sources are primary sources to the lead contributor of the article, does this count as original research of the lead contributor. Furthermore, per Criteria #2, does it meet WP:SCG?

Criteria #4 of WP:GACR:

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

can it be said that all viewpoints are fairly represented without bias?

The reason why this is up for DYK is because it passed GA review. However, if there are basic problems with that review, that the reviewer (in good faith) may have accidentally overlooked, than that calls into question its GA status, and thus whether it can actually be up for DYK.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi RightCowLeftCoast. I will take that as a 'yes' you think one is warranted, or at least may be warranted. As such, I will initiation one sometime soon. I can't promise to get to it within this week though as 'real life' might get in the way. I'll mentioned it here when it does happen. Unless someone else wants to tee one up before then. Cheers Andrew (talk) 01:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The primary sources template has been attached to the article for two months now, which would be enough to prevent a DYK's promotion even without the possibility of a good article reassessment due to this and other issues not brought up during the initial GA review. The nomination is now over three months old; under the circumstances, I'm marking this nomination for closure as unsuccessful. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)