Talk:Selfish brain theory

The tone and style of this article doesn't seem to fit with Wikipedia, and I also question its neutrality.

One-sided-one-author-article

This article was mainly written by just one author and appeared mainly in one step: see frist version. For an article about a medical topic that should be viewed with some suspicion. And the article doesn't contain any opposing viewpoints. That downside can't be redeemed by the mere annexation of the word "theory" in the headline. --Nov3rd17 (talk) 13:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC) It doesn't diminish the main content when an article mentions contrary viewpoints.--Nov3rd17 (talk) 13:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to call the article biased because of your gut feeling. Just because it's written by "one author" doesn't mean it's bad. Your argumentation is flawed. Please provide specific evidence that there are notable "different/opposing viewpoints" which are indeed missing in the article. --TheRandomIP (talk) 13:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Don't you know the Wikipedia article about the war that never existed? Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Bicholim conflict This isn't a hoax as Achim Peters and his theory exist. But one author articles are prone to one-sidedness and that's a critical in medical articles. So the cleanup / please-enhance-the-article notice is justified. I know that this only a formal argument. But you haven't argued with factual (i.e. medical) arguments in favor and so the formal argument still stands. And in all accessible articles A. Peters is one of the authors. (At least the top Google hits I've opened. You have time and like to disprove me? Then there is quite a challenge: Find an accessible (i.e. not only the abstract) primary scientific article about selfish-brain theory without A. Peters and include it here! Then the (until now senseless) feud has had at least a positive outcome in the end. --Nov3rd17 (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

P.S. You seem to ignore that the article was controversial from the beginning as it was nominated for deletion. English Wikipedia is much more inclusive than German Wikipedia, what's better on the long run. But it requires a different attitude from the editors. As you brought "it" up in the edit summary here again, the English editors would be astonished what I've experienced in German Wikipedia recently.--Nov3rd17 (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

The abstract from Wang, P; Mariman, EC (May 2008). "Insulin resistance in an energy-centered perspective". Physiol. Behav. 94 (2): 198–205 contains "Here we review four different hypotheses dealing with insulin resistance: the glucose-fatty acid cycle, the ER and oxidative stress response, the selfish brain, and the thrifty/not-so-thrifty genotype." So there could be connections to other theories but this Wikiepdia article doesn't mention them. That's a drawback, isn't it?! --Nov3rd17 (talk) 21:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

It seems that you do not understand basic concepts of logic. Lets take a closer look.

1) You say "Some articles in the Wikipedia written by one author are bad" ==> Every article written by one author is bad. Wrong! I mean, do you really believe this kind of reasoning is valid? "One man did a crime" ==> "All men are evil" would be valid under your understanding of logic...

2) It's okay if there is only one primary source as long as there are enough reliable secondary sources. In fact, this is quite common. For every theory there was one who first discovered / described this theory, then his work is the primary source. Other sources are then by definition secondary sources. And there are plenty of secondary sources in this articles justifying the notability of this theory.

3) You say "The article was nominated for deletion" ==> It's a controversial topic ==> The article is biased. Again, wrong! The nominated for deletion was because of notability, not quality...

4) You say "There is a book which summarizes several theories including the theory in this article" ==> The complete summary must be included in this article. No. A Wikipedia article is not an essay. Every article explains exactly one topic and there is no need to describe other topics.

Finally: I now officially warn you to stop this edit war, otherwise I have to report you as a vandal. --TheRandomIP (talk) 22:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

As I wrote in the AFD discussion, there are stylistic problems with the article. I cleaned up a few of them in edits during that discussion.

No, the fact that one person wrote most of an article does not mean that the article is problematic. And no, "the top Google hits" is not the way to do research on a subject. Research involves looking for sources properly, and reading them properly. At the very least, one could observe the timeline between the 2008 source that you cited and the 2009 and 2010 sources that I cited in the AFD discussion, and what I wrote there about things happening in the years since.

But equally no, TheRandomIP, you should not be reporting another editor for vandalism when clearly this is not vandalism, as all that the other person who disagrees with you is doing is asserting that the article should sport a cleanup notice. Please do not waste the time of the volunteers who deal with actual vandals with an editorial dispute over a notice. Nov3rd17, equally, stop mischaracterizing things as "feuds"; you are not feuding, this is not combat, and you should not be approaching Wikipedia in those terms.

If there are equally good sources disputing this concept — and note that this article is about this idea specifically, not about insulin resistance for which we have an article — and they are not superseded by sources that demonstrate the adoption of the idea in the years since, then take them in hand and improve the article. Tagging is not actually writing. We claim to be writers.

Uncle G (talk) 07:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@Uncle G: If an edit is inserted multiple times without consent we call this an edit war and users who initiate an edit war are seen as (and often reported as) vandals. I'm sorry if this is not the case in the english Wikipedia, I'm a novice when it comes to the english Wikipedia, too. Since you are more familiar with all the procedures here, can you oversight this article and do whatever it's usually done in a case of an edit war? I am not sure if user Nov3rd17 will stop inserting this tag into the article. I know him, he can be very passionate about particular things (to say it in a positive way). Thanks! --TheRandomIP (talk) 08:03, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@Uncle G: But unfortunately for me it feels like a feud, but a very one-sided one. Proof: User talk:Nov3rd17#Misusing meta sites. --Nov3rd17 (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

It is more than obvious that you have a huge problem with respecting the rules here in Wikipedia. This is the reason why you are close to an infinite ban in the german Wikipedia and now you continue this dubious behavior in the english Wikipedia. This is not ok. In Wikipedia:Third opinion it clearly says that the issue should be thoroughly discussed before making an inquiry. But you made one with exactly three posts on the discussion page. Repeatedly.

So why don't you answer on the arguments here? Uncle G and I made very good statements you could discuss. --TheRandomIP (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't have indefinite time for Wikipedia. Please stop averting 3rd opinion. --Nov3rd17 (talk) 18:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@Uncle G: The selfish brain theory is an article about a medical topic and it features a therapy concept: "Train the brain": a therapy of obesity based on the "Selfish Brain" theory. So it requires more scrutiny. For example the article Insulin resistance has the notice "This article needs more medical references for verification or relies too heavily on primary sources. Please review the contents of the article and add the appropriate references if you can. (...)" --Nov3rd17 (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

All the evidence in section "Experimental evidence─ the theory’s scope of validity" points to one article: The principle of homeostasis in the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal system: new insight from positive feedback --Nov3rd17 (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I see at least three other sources. Ref. 13, 14 and 15... --TheRandomIP (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Lack of references in the most important section

But the most important important section Selfish brain theory#Experimental evidence─ the theory’s scope of validity has only one reference and without specified pages. --Nov3rd17 (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)