Talk:Research fellow

Archives

Unprotected

I've unprotected the article. I suggest we settle on the text currently in the lead and put the whole doctorate thing behind us for the time being and concentrate instead on bringing up the quality of the article by focusing on sourcing. Thank you to everyone who contributed to the discussion! --RegentsPark (talk) 22:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to clarify that the version that was reverted to is not the one that consensus agreed on--everyone except for Kushsinghmd wanted no examples at all in the lead (even Mootros changed his position). However, I'm tired of arguing about it; there are other, far more critical issues to move forward on. As the article stands now, there is only one reference for quite a number of questionable claims. Prior to the current debate, were their more references? If not, did either Mootros or Kushsinghmd have any ideas on where to go to find such references? I'm most worried about all of the sentences tagged as dubious/citation needed. I feel like the two of you have first-hand knowledge about these, which is of course by itself not verifiable, but I'm guessing that knowledge makes it likely that you have some thoughts about where we can find relevant references. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify since it is not really clear for me, Do you want to continue arguing the use of examples in the lead ?! I am more than happy to do so .. I still really have more to provide. In fact, I was about to respond to your last comment, however when I saw the admin intervening, I thought that this is would be an acceptable compromise from both sides. And I clearly stated either this option, or we can continue debating, no problem at all, especially that till this point NO ONE has clearly showed: why examples should not be used in the lead ?! especially when being used similarly in other leads !!! So Please clarify this point first, thanks

About Citations, There were two other citations. For one, the link was not working, and the other was in russian, and when translated through google translation, it came out to be irrelevant to the topic. there was no verifiable translation for that link except by an editor here, therefore it was omitted.

However, On this talk page, I provided a lot of references and links, that clearly can be used, since am not familiar with how to add references.

Thanks, Kushsinghmd (talk) 23:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I personally have no interest in continuing to argue about the lead. It is an issue that may be worth returning to at a far future date. But since there are clearly problems with the article that must be changed (i.e., WP:V), let's focus on that.

You say you posted other references, but obviously those are now floating in the middle of a sea of dispute. Can you either provide links or copy-paste them to a new section? As for how to add references, full details can be found at WP:REF; the quick easy summary is that at the end of the relevant paragraph or sentence, add a <ref>details of the source</ref>. Feel free to add them, and if they don't end up being formatted properly, we can certainly change that afterward. As for the dead link, we could go to the effort to see if an archiving service has it, or better yet, just find something more current. As for the Russian source, WP:NONENG is clear on saying that translations by non-Wikipedians are "preferred," which implies that we can if necessary use a self-translation; again, it's better than nothing, at least temporarily. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first reference you can see the link in previous edits, and see if you can get archival service

as for the russian reference, which I argued above http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Research_fellow#Non-English_sources

I wouldn't mind abiding to the WP rules that it is preferred, However two things were against the user provided translation, that this certain user has lost his credibility several times when they repeatedly made false claims. Also Cause when searching different dictionaries including the google translator, the results were not relevant to RF. and when wikipedian translator been asked about this discripancy in translations, he claimed that he is a reliable source, and that google is less reliable than him. Such argument was not really convincing. thanks Kushsinghmd (talk) 00:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

some of the references provided here, from both sides, are in this section: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Research_fellow#Overwhelming_.5Bprimary.5D_evidence Kushsinghmd (talk) 00:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My initial feeling is that none of those will work as Reliable Sources--each is only about a single job. We can't combine them all together and draw general conclusions, as that would be WP:SYNTH. Furthermore, these are self-made representations, and have no verifiability. That is, an institution can say anything it wants in a job posting, and that doesn't have any necessary correlation to what actually goes on in that institution. We need secondary sources (newspaper articles, books, etc.) that document what research fellows are and do in general. Since I'm not sure, however, I asked for input at WP:RSN. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I got a few responses at RSN. While those opinions are merely advisory, they do match my original feeling that job postings themselves are not reliable sources. At best, a job posting might possibly reliably verify that a single institution intended to offer a certain type of work and position; it, however, verifies nothing in terms of actual working conditions or in terms of trans-institutional conditions. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise in the absence of consensus?

Is the version (normally requires a doctoral degree such as PhD, Doctor of Medicine) meant to be a compromise in the light of no consensus? Because everybody apart from one editor found that no example is necessary for the wikifed term is sufficient. If this is really the case should the comma between the degrees not be replaced with an "or"? Mootros (talk) 11:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mootros, if this helps move the article forward, it is a worthwhile compromise. I agree with Qwyrxian's comments about where consensus was headed and that this should be revisited again at a later date but there is no point in getting bogged down over this. -RegentsPark (talk) 13:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Regent Just couple of notes:

1: There was other editor who agreed on adding example, so the claim that just one edito is not true

2: I think WP rules claims that it is not a democraic voting system, cause if this is th case , I would be happy to let my friends know to share my opinion

3: I think I provided my reasoning above, however when every single one from the other party gave their opinion, NONE provided any valid reasoning, other than their mpressions

4: It is interesting that the version used now was agreed upon by the other party, even more it was proposed by them !!! so I really don't understand, is this a tendency just to keep saying NO, and frequently changing positions for the sake of trouble making?!!!

Thanks Regents Kushsinghmd (talk) 13:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be perfectly honest, in a situation which is mostly stylistic, vote counting may be the only way to judge consensus. There is, after all, no particular external reason to include or exclude examples of doctoral degrees, it is, at best a judgement call. However, that said, the degrees are currently included so let's all of us just agree to drop the matter for the time being and focus on the article instead. --RegentsPark (talk) 14:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I already agreed to the current positioning to save times and efforts of everyone. And also Qwyrxian preferred no to continue arguing the matter, until very far (according to his words), and you as an admin took the action accordingly. And we already started discussing citations, previous ones, and the ones in the pages. Also Qwyrxian made a request for materials. So it was very special to see this section; we are in now, been started today, after compromise been reached. What is the aim of this section ?! what should we do now ? is this section calling both parties to continue arguing , and thefore keep the article with no improvement ?! And As I said it is very interesting as I said, that this section is coming from the same editor who proposed the current situation, so for them to change position in this particular time, is saying something. Thanks Kushsinghmd (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And if voting is considered for this matter, why don't you start a poll here ?!Kushsinghmd (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed up the grammar on the lead; the comma between PhD * Doctor of Medicine is correct, because it's the second term in the list (PhD, MD, or other). I personally would like to take out the second-to-last line of the lead ("Research fellow positions vary in different countries and academic institutions.") because that's basically true for any job; but I don't particularly care too much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwyrxian (talk • contribs) 12:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying to fix the grammar issue. I think, there might be some slight confusion. I think the sentence should say normally requires a doctoral degree, such as example A or example B, or an equivalent work. "Equivalent equivalent work" here means for example significant experience in industry at senior level. (This is one of the reasons why examples tend not to useful in the lead, because one ends up with clumsy constructions. Mootros (talk) 14:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. You're saying that the equivalent work is not necessarily a doctoral degree while the current construction makes it seem so. How about requires a doctoral degree (such as a PhD or Doctor of Medicine) or equivalent work?--RegentsPark (talk) 14:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I agree Kushsinghmd (talk) 15:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, considerably better with the use of brackets (under the current circumstances[!]). How about adding this too: (such as significant experience in industry at senior level)? Mootros (talk) 15:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too detailed too specific cause: significant and senior level . However if necessary, and if it can be proven, then requires a doctoral degree (such as a PhD or Doctor of Medicine) or equivalent work (for instance in industry) Kushsinghmd (talk) 15:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

I just archived a lot of the old discussion, particularly the debate about whether to include examples, and, if so, what examples to include. This is the first time I've archived talk page discussions, so please let me know if I missed something or didn't get it set up right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwyrxian (talk • contribs) 01:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Ugh...why did the Table of Contents go away? Help?~~ Qwyrxian (talk) 01:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, it came back after I added new sections. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re Archiving: That's one way to do it. It looks OK. Mootros (talk) 06:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Sources

Continuing from the discussion above in Unprotected, the big thing this article needs is reliable sources. I checked for some info at U.S. government sites; unfortunately, the U.S. Occupational Outlook Handbook, which is usually the go-to guide for info on U.S. jobs, doesn't clearly distinguish between a Research Fellow and other types of research jobs. We can't use job postings. Anyone else have suggestions on where to go next? Qwyrxian (talk) 01:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Former Section Concept

This section contains mostly irrelevant material and should be removed. It does not add any value; it repeats the lead, embellished with generic statements such as "Medical research is often performed by research fellow". It also conflates the position of a RF with research fellowships as a mode of funding. Mootros (talk) 14:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we actually want to cut all of that...presumably there is some sort of general statements that can be made about the RF position across country boundaries. I think the reason much of it doesn't seem to have value is that it isn't sourced. We can always recover later whatever remains useful, although starting fresh may be the best choice. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A fresh start sounds good, although I am not sure what general statements we can make that is not already in the lead. I think we really need some good sources here. Mootros (talk) 08:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Translation issues

Hi, folks. Could someone unprotect this page and add some info regarding subj status in Russia? Russian scientific institutes have five formal jobs, as seen in [Russian Wiki]. They are:

Младший научный сотрудник
Научный сотрудник
Старший научный сотрудник
Ведущий научный сотрудник
Главный научный сотрудник

They translate to:

Junior Research Fellow
Reseach Fellow
Senior Research Fellow
Leading Research Fellow
Chief Research Fellow

The info is verifiable, since that classification wasn't changed since Soviet era and exists by default for any scientific institution nowadays. In Russian Wiki page is verified by providing documents from Ministry of Labor. I myself am a translator for one of the institutes and just want to settle the standard. The Russian variant translates correctly as "Fellow Scientific Employee", so it's pretty much the same thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.Italic text252.131.205 (talk) 10:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page isn't protected now; feel free to make the edits. You can site them to the same Russian Ministry of Labor documents (it's fine if the source isn't in English, just provide full details on the source). Qwyrxian (talk) 12:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization of 'F'

This is an edit request: can someone please capitalize f in the article title? Research Fellow is a job title and both R and F should be in capital letters just like Associate Professor.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Research fellow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Translation issue - German

The Deutsch language link for this page goes to the German wiki entry for wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiter (and that page links back to there). However, that is inaccurate. I have added a paragraph under "Germany" describing what a WiMi is to deal a bit with this. But, while sometimes, "research fellow" is a good translation, more often "teaching assistant" (at a uni, in the American sense) or "research assistant" or "graduate fellow" would work better. It's hard to translate between nodes in entire adminstrative structures in different culture, so would it be less misleading not to have the cross-link at all? Wohz (talk) 13:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]