Talk:Scientific celebrity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

IMO, the recent changes to 'bring in line with reality' detract a lot from this article. I propose to put back the last well written version and add to that the comments included in more recent versions. --Dan|(talk) 20:29, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)



from VfD:

Scilebrity[edit]

This seems to attempt to be a DicDef but I can find no trace of the usage of the word via the usual channels, thus must conclude that it is a vanity-type attempt to create the word and usage. It would be a candidate for a speedy except that a number of minor edits have been made. --[[User:VampWillow|Vamp:Willow]] 17:22, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC) Note: article was created by User:Dmb000006 aka Dan

  • Delete. Neologism. Wikipedia is not a book of neologisms. --Wikimol 17:35, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Indeed this is a very new (and not yet widely known term), but it has been used on the TV in the UK. It aptly describes the (very new) phenomenon of the scientific celebrity. --Dan 18:02, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Given that it doesn't show up on Google or other engines, and even the OED won't accept non-print usage I'm not sure we should start creating otherwise untraceable neologisms. --[[User:VampWillow|Vamp:Willow]] 18:46, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • But I don't thik wikipedia should ignore very new things / social trends. Naturally an encyclopedia has a historical bias, but not by definition
        • for info, the above unsigned comment is by User:Dmb000006, the creator of the article. I'd re-iterate that whilst I think we'd all agree that WP should ignore something new we shouldn't be creating it in the first place! --[[User:VampWillow|Vamp:Willow]] 19:14, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • Sorry I forgot to sign the info. I don't understand what you mean "WP should ignore something new we shouldn't be creating it in the first place" I get the point about the word usage, see my comment below --Dan 13:55, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete. Valid, Wikipedia should be valid. --Dan 18:03, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Put it into Wiktionary and delete from here. iMeowbot~Mw 18:37, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't think this is a dictionary term, as it is very much a cultural phenomenon --Dan 19:08, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • There is nothing new about outspoken telegenic scientists, and there is a distinct absence of popular usage (and there would be evidence of usage for an inherently populist phenomenon, if it was real). iMeowbot~Mw 22:17, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I've never heard this term, so since I'm in the same country as it is alleged to have emerged from, I'd really need to have some cite for its use that we can verify. Average Earthman 19:54, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: No evidence of the term on Google. DCEdwards1966 21:12, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

As it is not on Google it is not real. All hail Google [--82.9.92.105]

  • Delete as neologism. Jeltz talk 22:24, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)
Maybe there is a way - the phenomenon itself is not so new, what's new is only the word "scilebrity". If the article is expanded to be more than a dicdef + list opf examples (history of the phenomenon, references...), it can be than moved to a title consisting of old ordinary words and "scilebrity" kept as harmless redirect. Generally the topic of scientists who become "celebrities" even for general media is notable.
2Dan - Wikipedia is here only to reflect existing reality, not to promote new ideas, words, trends, websites or punk-metal bands. Even if it's deleted, you can save the page in your userspace and wait for while. If the word catches, it will certainly soon appear on many sites on the web and get indexed by Google. If not, there is no reason to include it in an ecyclopedia. --Wikimol 23:20, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge. The subject of scientific celebrities is encyclopedic, and this word could be mentioned in context somewhere else. Tomato 23:41, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Rewrite and move to Celebrity scientists or something. Kappa
  • Delete, neologism. --fvw* 03:24, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect to Notable scientists who have appeared on TV, or other appropriate page. Alphax (talk) 03:59, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful article. Megan1967 05:35, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete it. *sniff sniff* Smell that? Dirty sockpuppets again. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 07:50, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I just learned what this means, and I resent the accusation. You think I am that petty? I don't know who User:Megan1967 is, but it ain't me babe. Stray accusations have consequences. The atmosphere gets bad and new users get scared. People don't want to talk for fear of being shouted at. It isn't good.
  • move - Lets rename this article as scientific celebrity. "A good compromise is when both parties are dissatisfied" - Henry Clay --Dan 13:49, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just a note that the original author has now posted three first-level 'votes' on this; clearly only one will be noted... --[[User:VampWillow|Vamp:Willow]] 19:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    • Sincere apologies for voting more than once - this is all a bit confusing to me. Thanks very much for being patient with me. --[[User:Dmb000006|Dan|(talk)]] 00:21, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC) And thanks to Mgm for my new nice looking sig :)
  • After enquiry Dan posted the following on my talk: I heard the term Scilebrity on the 'late review' or whatever which is a part of news night on channel 4. It was that female presenter. --Dan 13:57, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC), and I agree that a move might work. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 19:04, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete this nonsense before some journo sees it. Wyss 22:51, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to scientific celebrity; scilebrity is, at best, a neologism. EventHorizon 19:54, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dan i have read their words and I have read your words. They have greater words I am afraid. We must continue the fight against all forms of pseudo-science especially in this newly evolved whore of the science world but Wikipedia is cannot aid us yet. --Sgt Howie 18:22, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Move After reflection and after rereading the article in question i have changed my mind and it should be keep. It is a well written article and informative, unlike some of the other ramblings from Dan this one even has historical basis. The Victorian era in many was created a modern type of self promoted celebrity in many fields especially medicine, natural sciences and engineering with great men (and great self publicists) such as Isambard_Kingdom_Brunel. This phenomenon exists and has for some time, this page would allow us collectively to identify between scientists, media presenters and the Scilebrity, who for ever drifts further away from science and the explanation of science in order to become celebrities (soon to be appearing in a jungle near you). Perhaps the only 'crime' that Dan suffers on this page is that he has identified a term before it has appears on the all knowing portal of Google. But I ask you is it crime to speak before the Oracle of Google has spoken. My scorn is instead reserved for those who consider that Wikipedia and Encyclopaedias in general can only be there to record meaning instead of creating meaning, foolish ones. This is a useful article and should be kept. Just because Wikipedia may help give a phenomenon a name in the popular consciousness must we run scared? --Sgt Howie 18:22, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Nobody is denying that the concept exists, just that the word doesn't, and it is not the place nor practice of Wikipedia to create, only to document. This word 'may' have been used the once, the details are unclear and it may have been a slip of the tongue. Encyclopedia do not create, they record. --Vamp:Willow 15:23, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Cheers Sgt.Howie, your cheque is in the post! ;) Seriously, I am glad you like the article. With your permission (and if it makes any difference) I would like to change your vote to a Move, as that seems to be the best compromise. If and when the term Scilebrity permiates the collective concience of the mass media, we can add it to an existing Scientific Celebrity article. Perhaps here you could add your musing on the victorian era and the genesis of the celebrity propper via the medium of science. --Dan|(talk) 15:41, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


I still disagree, Encyclopaedias create, despite the fact that is the aim of an encyclopaedia just to record I do not believe it is possible. Even if the encyclopaedia does create a new word it at least takes an assumption as to what it is and then attempts to fix it in time. You cannot just observe because the action of observing alters the subject. I do not wish to rubbish the concept of an encyclopaedia just accept its limitations. But as it is the considered opinion of the people out there that Scilebrity has not entered the common lexicon then i flip flop my position like a Democratic Presidential candidate and go for the move to Scientific Celebrity motion.--Sgt Howie 18:22, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree Sgt Howie (at least I think I do). People say - that is POV, but all encyclopedia entries are POV. Please show me the entry which isn't POV? Encyclopedia is about documenting, and documenting is done by documenters, and they are human with ideas, beleifs, prejudice, preconception and failings. Just because a certain 'truth' is the most widely beleived version of events does not qualify that truth above other versions of events, it is a quantative scale. We have dicussed enough here, but I would like to compose an article called an open letter to wikipedia. Any comments in the discussion tab of that page. --Dan|(talk) 13:21, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Note re above: There is a possibility that Sgt Howie is a sockpuppet of Dan aka User:Dmb000006 (or vice-versa) as [1] shows that one user has edited entries supposedly by both in the one visit. --Vamp:Willow 13:27, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Note re above: I am no ones sockpuppet I can tell you (is a sockpuppet like a ringer then. Why have you people come up with this stupid term?). Although I may have made the acquaintance of the boy-faced-man-called-Dan I can swear to exist separately from him. If you look over my discussion you could tell that started out by disagreeing with him (unless this is part of my super sockpuppet plan). I changed my story from delete to move, after meditating on the toilet over the nature of Wiki and Encyclopaedias NOT because of my knowledge of the Dan Troll. --Sgt Howie 16:37, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)Sgt Howie

Note re above: Now I see what sockpupet means :) Sorry for the confusion (and I know this makes me sound guilty as hell), but I shifted around Sgt Howies reply to keep the discussion style indenting more consistent after he had replied to you after I had replied to him. This way we could keep all talking along different 'threads' indented appropriatly. I have done some sick things in my time let me tell you, sick sick things that I am not proud of. Pretending to be my own best friend (in public) isn't one of them. I swear on my print copy of wikipedia. --Dan|(talk) 13:47, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
nods however (as I found out to my cost once) except on your own talk and user pages to edit someone else's comments, no matter how much their spelling, grammar or content may offend you is an *absolute* no-no on wp. (and, uh, there isn't yet a print copy...) Adding a ':' to manage an indentation is even frowned upon by some (though I did it to your reply just now to ensure threading, it is really the maximum you can do) --Vamp:Willow 13:53, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Cheers VampWillow, I am making mistakes all over the place... Can I ask is it bad form to disguise you username in your sig as I do? I just did it without thinking.
I felt the issue over your sig (which you forgot above, btw) wasn't that you've 'covered it up' per se, but that you use both the 'uncovered' and 'covered' versions at the same time (at least in this discussion you have) which means that if someone doesn't look at the wiki text they might think you are two people (and when they do note it that you have something to hide). imho/opmmv --Vamp:Willow 14:06, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Sorry dude, please see above "thanks to Mgm for my new nice looking sig". You must think me a troll, but I am trying to learn :) --Dan|(talk) 18:21, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism. Jayjg | Talk 23:30, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Source[edit]

A possible source for this article is: Hyunsung D. Kang, Jeongsik J. Lee: Scientific celebrity, competition, and knowledge creation: The case of stem cell research in South Korea. In: Journal of Engineering and Technology Management. Vol. 39, 2016, p. 26–44, doi:10.1016/j.jengtecman.2016.01.001 (englisch, sciencedirect.com). The article focuses on the impact of Hwang Woo-suk on stem cell research. Especially chapter 2 "What is a scientific celebrity?" can be used as a base. --Christian140 (talk) 11:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Scientific celebrity. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 23:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Suggested removal of refimprov tag[edit]

This article is undergoing significant upgrades and most of the article is supported by suitable references. I suggest removal of the refimprov tag. Nolabob (talk) 13:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I removed the refimprove tag, since the article is now well-supported with references. Nolabob (talk) 22:22, 16 December 2019 (UTC)