Talk:Stefan Georg

Notability

• The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

This stage of the Altaic controversy isn’t over yet, and we cannot exactly predict its outcome. Anyway, one could maybe link all those academics that hold that Altaic hasn’t been demonstrated yet to Georg’s work - think of the articles in the widely circulated Diachronica. Next to Vovin, Georg is probably the most vocal anti-altaist.

• The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.

Mongolian or Central Asian studies rarely do. Janhunen’s Mongolic languages and all of its contributions have quasi-lexical function for linguists, though, and two of the other cited publications may have similar lexicon-like status. On the other hand, due to the lack of money in Mongolian universities and bibs to buy the expensive western scientific publications, more recent authors have a hard time in making any impact on general higher education in Mongolia.

• The person is or has been an editor-in-chief of a major well-established journal in their subject area.

Dunno, but wouldn’t know of which.

If I'm not in error, the remaining criteria for academics don't apply. G Purevdorj (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It is incorrect to say that the "criteria ... don't apply" when in fact the criteria are not met. This individual patently fails to meet the clear criteria for notability. Strongly suggest removal of this article. Saparagus Jul 13 23:28:52 UTC 2012

Personally, I think Georg almost certainly meets the criteria for notability (not to mention I think he's cited a couple times in the document I e-mailed you a while back ;) ). But the article doesn't really indicate that yet (it says what he's done, but not necessarily what impact he's had), so I felt it would be best to leave the tag there until the article is improved. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, this is not about "personal" beliefs -- there are objective criteria laid out for determining notability, which this individual does not meet. He is a minor player in the field at best, presenting no notable achievements. If you disagree, please present the required criteria that he does meet. This article will be proposed for removal; please consider removing it voluntarily. Saparagus Jul 13 23:28:52 UTC 2012

your edit (cur) (prev) 11:22, 10 August 2009 Rjanag (talk | contribs) (5,454 bytes) (→Publications: remove entries that are not books or book chapters (ie, remove journal publication) because Wikipedia articles are not CVs.) (undo):

It is well understood that Wikipedia articles are not CVs and that journal publications should be kept to a minimum, but some of the deleted pubs are important contributions to the controversial Altaic debate and should therefore remain. Not all important scholarship always comes in book form, so please reconsider reinserting some of these, at least those mentioned in the references section. I chose not to undo the edit, since it is basically reasonable, of course). Nasomagister (talk) 11:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I meant to write a longer explanation, but the edit summary was limited. anyway, I don't mind including journal sources, but someone needs to indicate which ones (and why), are particularly significant—using reliable sources to show that a certain article had a major influence on the field. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rjanag! I won't argue that your last edit wasn't basically justified, but you must edit in a way that preserves the consistency of the article. Several of the articles you deleted were cited in the Wikipedia article, and you also failed to correct running letters (such as 2003a, 2003b etc.). G Purevdorj (talk) 11:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The notability warning should probably be removed, see the following link: http://www.ling.hawaii.edu/news/item/2011100410 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.90.157.85 (talk) 09:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'll have to oppose your position, Saparagus, on the basis of the very first point I made concerning notablity: notable impact on the field. Even though noted Turkologists such as Johanson see some merit in the Altaic hypothesis, it is due to the quality of the reviews by Georg that the data on Turkic, Mongolic and Tungusic that Altaicists have produced is understood as weak by a majority within the linguistic community - which combines with Vovin’s expertise on Tungusic, Korean and Japonic to show that Altaic has no merits. A statement such as “He is a minor player in the field at best” is unnecessarily disparaging. I would not even go so far as to say that Starostin “presents no notable achievements”, but given the state of the Altaic hypothesis in the linguistic community at large, it is Georg and not Starostin who has more weight. “please consider removing it voluntarily.” - Interaction on Wikipedia, even given diverging opinions and your justifiable (if not necessarily correct) doubts about the notability of Georg, should retain a certain level of respect both for living persons and your fellow editors. If that craves too much from you, please consider retiring from Wikipedia. Best, G Purevdorj (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Dablink

One more word on the "Stefan George" redirect. As a user, I'd feel 'nannied' by this link. If I land, due to some typo, on the wrong one of these two entries, I will find out in a split-second and correct myself. It is a bit like the nannying on Google ("did you mean...?"), which grown-up users find annyoing and which probably should be avoided here.

It's not just a typo that could get someone here. It would be quite easy to forget the spelling of one or the other of these guys' names, and think this guy is spelled George or the other Georg; I think a dablink is appropriate on each article. If the wording is a problem, I would suggest {{Distinguish|Stefan George, the German poet}}:

Not to be confused with Stefan George, the German poet.

rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I do think that the names are very easy to confuse, given that "George" is a somewhat unusual spelling (for a German), while "Georg" is conventional. The "not to be confused" wording appears more appropriate to be, by the way. G Purevdorj (talk) 07:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this sounds more appropriate (Nasomagister).