This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Halfhat (talk | contribs) at 09:30, 28 January 2015 (→I think this would be a good addition to him for the research section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 09:30, 28 January 2015 by Halfhat (talk | contribs) (→I think this would be a good addition to him for the research section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Biography Unassessed | ||||||
| |||||||
 | This article was nominated for deletion on May 31 2012. The result of the discussion was delete. |
Some parts of this arcticle leads to references which do not in any way point the points being pointed out. Have been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeiiNine (talk • contribs) 16:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Contested deletion
Writing 32 scientific papers does not notability make. This page was clearly written by some deluded fanboy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.106.111.2 (talk) 03:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because while Mason may not meet the notability guideline as a result of his YouTube activities, he does meet the guideline for academics, as he has published a number of highly cited papers, which include, in addition to those already in the article, the following: and Jinkinson talk to me 03:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- May I ask how he meets the notability guideline for academics since that was one of the reasons for deletion last time? Because it does say "Having published does not, in itself, make an academic notable, no matter how many publications there are." Plus the sourcing issue that was a problem last time still remains. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- Right, well as someone who remembers the old version of this article, I feel that his notability as a scientist was not established in the old version of this article, but that it is now. Specifically, one person said that "there is no evidence Mr. Mason meets Misplaced Pages's academic notability guideline." However, it seems that Mr. Mason is frequently cited for his research by other scientists; his PNAS paper alone has 153 citations on Google Scholar. Additionally, here is a source that can be incorporated into the article that isn't a blog: Jinkinson talk to me 12:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- OK, I would prefer to see more reliable sources in it and less of the unreliable sources and youtube (which should really be removed but since there is a lack of reliable ones, there wouldn't be much to cite everything). Just another question, The citation metrics subsection does say that Google Scholar isn't accurate for measuring the number of citations, could a more accurate verification technique be used to alleviate my concerns? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps the American Chemical Society's website is more to your liking--one of Mason's papers has been cited 100 times , another 66 times , and another 31 times . Is this sufficient to establish notability, in your view? Jinkinson talk to me 17:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- That's better. I have no problems with notability with that but the sourcing is still an issue and does need work. Ie. Richard dawkins.net and youtube are hardly reliable sources. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- Plus I would direct you towards WP:BLOGS regarding the new addition of the ftb section. The sourcing really urgently needs work. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- This seems to have come up when his page was put up for AFD last time. Noting that you participated in that discussion, and that your userpage identifies you as a creationist, I can't help but wonder if you have something personal against Mason, given that he is an outspoken critic of your views, and if this is why you don't seem to want him to have a Misplaced Pages page. Anyway, Vera said that "the notability of the blogs that talk about him is quite high." However, WP:BLOGS states that anything not affiliated with a newspaper or magazine are "largely" not considered a reliable source, but largely doesn't mean always. Pharyngula the blog is not just any ordinary blog--it actually has independent notability and therefore, I would argue, is a reliable source. The same goes for Patheos, in my opinion. Jinkinson talk to me 16:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- What my views are is irrelevant to this. Please don't go onto argumentum ad hominum just because I have concerns about the sourcing. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- That's not ad hominum. If your actions are motivated by your religious views, and not for the good of wikipedia, that is a serious issue.Halfhat (talk) 13:05, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- What my views are is irrelevant to this. Please don't go onto argumentum ad hominum just because I have concerns about the sourcing. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- This seems to have come up when his page was put up for AFD last time. Noting that you participated in that discussion, and that your userpage identifies you as a creationist, I can't help but wonder if you have something personal against Mason, given that he is an outspoken critic of your views, and if this is why you don't seem to want him to have a Misplaced Pages page. Anyway, Vera said that "the notability of the blogs that talk about him is quite high." However, WP:BLOGS states that anything not affiliated with a newspaper or magazine are "largely" not considered a reliable source, but largely doesn't mean always. Pharyngula the blog is not just any ordinary blog--it actually has independent notability and therefore, I would argue, is a reliable source. The same goes for Patheos, in my opinion. Jinkinson talk to me 16:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- Plus I would direct you towards WP:BLOGS regarding the new addition of the ftb section. The sourcing really urgently needs work. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- That's better. I have no problems with notability with that but the sourcing is still an issue and does need work. Ie. Richard dawkins.net and youtube are hardly reliable sources. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps the American Chemical Society's website is more to your liking--one of Mason's papers has been cited 100 times , another 66 times , and another 31 times . Is this sufficient to establish notability, in your view? Jinkinson talk to me 17:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- OK, I would prefer to see more reliable sources in it and less of the unreliable sources and youtube (which should really be removed but since there is a lack of reliable ones, there wouldn't be much to cite everything). Just another question, The citation metrics subsection does say that Google Scholar isn't accurate for measuring the number of citations, could a more accurate verification technique be used to alleviate my concerns? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- Right, well as someone who remembers the old version of this article, I feel that his notability as a scientist was not established in the old version of this article, but that it is now. Specifically, one person said that "there is no evidence Mr. Mason meets Misplaced Pages's academic notability guideline." However, it seems that Mr. Mason is frequently cited for his research by other scientists; his PNAS paper alone has 153 citations on Google Scholar. Additionally, here is a source that can be incorporated into the article that isn't a blog: Jinkinson talk to me 12:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Third opinion request
The Third Opinion request made in respect to this edit has been removed because the 3O project (like all forms of mediated dispute resolution here at WP) requires substantial talk page discussion before requesting assistance. While I would ordinarily suggest following my recommendations here when an editor will not discuss, this really seems more like a case for a page protection request. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Wrong emphasis
This seems too focussed on his internet activities to me. There should atleast be more on his research, talk about his notable findings. Don't get me wrong I do think a summary, atleast, of his internet activities is necessary. I think it should be a section instead of being thrown in.Halfhat (talk) 13:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'd contest this since his internet activities are what made him notable in the first place. Zero Serenity (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- But he meets acedemic guidelines for notability. So there should be more on it.Halfhat (talk) 17:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC) Can we atleast agree to separate internet activities into one section, with a basic summary at the start. And add some info on his research.Halfhat (talk) 17:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- We agree. Zero Serenity (talk) 17:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- But he meets acedemic guidelines for notability. So there should be more on it.Halfhat (talk) 17:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC) Can we atleast agree to separate internet activities into one section, with a basic summary at the start. And add some info on his research.Halfhat (talk) 17:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
'Anti feminist'
Are there any sources describing him as such or is this all WP:OR? Tutelary (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- I suppose this New Statesman article describes him as anti-feminist. —ajf (talk) 00:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps anti-feminist isn't the best word to use as you'll find few reputable sources using that specific phrasing, but given the majority of the videos has makes now are about (and against) feminism, it would be reasonable to mention this in the opening paragraph somehow. He would seem to fit Misplaced Pages's definition of anti-feminist, too. —ajf (talk) 00:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- I am of the opinion Ajfweb is correct with his information. I would like a second RS to nail it down before we include said language. Zero Serenity 21:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- I admit this is just my opinion and not directly backed up by sources. But my impression is that Thunderf00t attacks everyone he sees as making dishonest claims — be it media hype about technologies, hoaxes on Kickstarter, religion, or in this case, the claims and actions of certain feminist persons. It does not seem fair to stick the "anti-feminist" label in the lead if he's not actually arguing against the rights for women. Compare that to his stances on religion, for instance, where he's clearly attacking the ideology.
- I think it's more accurate to describe him as "critic of prominent feminists" rather than "anti-feminist". -- intgr 23:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- I can't say I'd agree with you there. While he claims not to be against feminism, only "feminism" as he calls people, it's not clear what parts of feminism he does support, if any, that are actually in any way not mainstream, commonly-accepted views. Even if he's not against "all" feminism, he seems to be against a lot of it. For those reasons, I'd say it's a fitting descriptor. —ajf (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- I boldly went and changed the lead to how I would phrase it: "He has produced numerous videos, some about science and others criticising religion, certain feminists and technology hype.", edit it into oblivion if you disagree. :)
- Just curious: "he claims not to be against feminism" — did he say that anywhere publicly? -- intgr 22:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm trying to ignore this debate, but descriptions of his online activities should be cited to a reliable source rather than dependent on original analysis. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- True enough. I had a look at the sources and so far we have two relevant sources that seem reliable. This one only says "Popular YouTuber and Anita Sarkeesian critic Thunderf00t" whithout mentioning feminism at all.
- The second one is titled "on passing off anti-feminist nonsense as critique", but it seems he's not directly referring to Thunderf00t. It talks about lots of different avenues of criticism and only mentions Thunderf00t in the second half of the article, starting out with someone's "hate email that cites the work of thunderf00t". Direct descriptions of Thunderf00t don't go any further than "He's a prominent YouTube capital-A Atheist, who mainly focuses on Dawkins- or Hitchens-type criticism of organised religion, but with a sideshow channel devoted also to debunking prominent feminists." -- intgr 19:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- This is starting to get annoying, and now I'm beginning to wish that I had continued to ignore this debate. However, the New Statesman source does not state anything of the kind (ie, "certain feminists, but not all feminists"). The word "certain" does not even appear in the article. I'm thinking maybe we should just go back to the old consensus version before the bold change, which is nothing but original research. I don't know how we got from "prominent feminists" to "certain feminists". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- "we should just go back to the old consensus version" - Fine by me. :) -- intgr 01:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- If you go to Phil's YouTube page, the intro video, the purpose of which is to provide a brief description to your channel, is titled "How Feminism Poisons EVERYTHING" (emphasis his). So yes, I think "anti-feminist" is a fair description. Maybe I'm being naive; the standard here seems to be "unless someone else says it about you, it isn't verifiable." The tamale (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- I notice the article lacks an obvious and quick way to get to the thunderf00t channel, despite referring to it multiple times. That seems intentional. In any case, I did go to his channel and note that you misquoted it. That video puts "feminism" in single quotes (and it has been that way since original posting) and he has stated that his reason for doing that is that he is attacking a particular ideology that calls itself feminism, but which does not represent all feminists. Thunderf00t supports gender equality, and feminists who support that view. 24.57.218.21 (talk) 19:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- To continue, regarding the use of quotes around feminism, "Yeah, 'Feminism' is in quotes there for good reason." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKKQdJR7F_I 24.57.218.21 (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- This is starting to get annoying, and now I'm beginning to wish that I had continued to ignore this debate. However, the New Statesman source does not state anything of the kind (ie, "certain feminists, but not all feminists"). The word "certain" does not even appear in the article. I'm thinking maybe we should just go back to the old consensus version before the bold change, which is nothing but original research. I don't know how we got from "prominent feminists" to "certain feminists". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm trying to ignore this debate, but descriptions of his online activities should be cited to a reliable source rather than dependent on original analysis. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- I can't say I'd agree with you there. While he claims not to be against feminism, only "feminism" as he calls people, it's not clear what parts of feminism he does support, if any, that are actually in any way not mainstream, commonly-accepted views. Even if he's not against "all" feminism, he seems to be against a lot of it. For those reasons, I'd say it's a fitting descriptor. —ajf (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
External links have been added and in no way was this intentionally left out. Zero Serenity 19:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for your correction. The omission was not intentional, but I suppose it was symptomatic of bias. I apologize for the error and appreciate the input.The tamale (talk) 14:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I think this would be a good addition to him for the research section
http://www.nature.com/news/sodium-s-explosive-secrets-revealed-1.16771 I'd write something myself but I don't think I'd do a particularly good job. I'll have a go if no one else is willing. HalfHat 21:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- This seems like the better choice of source. http://www.nature.com/articles/nchem.2161.epdf?referrer_access_token=q4tryh-QAlfJzOrSLMEBa9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PivizcYhbeEeedGtf_JDb9_jGU2Nb3sPLqPi0hS5MQCPNp1Wf9RJT6EkH6_lVuHP2ypP9e2lwsTYn6QLm7CLxA HalfHat 09:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)