The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union
I had only 2 publications with Rusalov, out of his 200+ publications with others, and out of my 70 publications. He developed several other tests, and the STQ is just one of them. Surely, one should know the content of the page, and I am sure that other biography-related pages are created by followers of the subjects of these pages. I live on the other side of the planet from him and only hear about him from my colleagues in Russia, we don't have "close relationships". Institute of Psychology, Russian Academy of Sciences just sent me email inviting to the special session devoted to Rusalov's 80. I only did PhD in his lab and then had one of the versions of the STQ developed, mostly via email, not in face to face interactions. I am sure others had much more intractions than I did. He is the example of an exceptionally hard-working scientist. Even while having legal blindness and severe diabetes he continues coming to the Institute of Psychology and working on other tests and publications, unrelated to the STQ, for pennies. The activity-specific approach that he offered in temperament research is fundamental, so the author of this approach should be known. The COI tag should be removed. Iratrofimov (talk) 00:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Languages-versions section was deleted by Ozzie10aaaa at 09:53, 3 October 2019, and Additional-References section was deleted at 15:54, 4 October 2019 by Doc James, right at the middle of the COI discussion. Perhaps, we should restore these sections, to make the matter of "who are the players" more transparent? Other users, similarly to WhatamIdoing, might want to look for this info, and PubMed can't deliver it as it doesn't keep the history of all publications from 30 years ago. Otherwise, the STQ page and derivatives really sound that it is only me who initiated the whole thing Iratrofimov (talk) 00:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whether they're in English is not the problem. The problem is that WP is not for CVs. (see WP:NOTCV) . For scientists and othe people with extensive publications, we normally include all the books, and only the few most important of the journal articles. It seems those journal articles are already cited in the article, as are the books, so they need not be listed. DGG ( talk ) 03:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, would you please take another look? By my count, Doc James blanked a list of 29 publications (out of approximately 200 things he published). There are currently 12 inline citations, and only five of those are by the subject of the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:45, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remember about WP:EINSTEIN: Childe and Feynman are very much better known; even allowing for the great number of publications necessarily written by any notable taxonomist, I consider the bibliography at Stern excessive. But I wasn't asked about whether WP has proportionate coverage of different scientists, I was asked about this particular article.
My opinion remains that the current article as Doc James revised it is in my opinion preferable to the previous one; it is possible that some intermediate form is better yet. But if we aregoing to list Russian language articles, the readers of the enWP are not well served by a list of articles in Russian academic journals. If some of them are particular important enough to include, the title of the journal and of the article should be both transliterated and translated. Compare the ruWP article; there if anywhere is the place for a fuller list, because there's no point listing Russian articles if someone can't read Russian enough to use the ruWP. They don't include as many articles as the version here. If you know enough to work at the ruWP, that would be the place to expand the list. (I had 1 year of college Russian; I can read Russian a little, but I'd never try to write it)
In terms of organization, I think there should generally be a separate list of the books. The most important articles can be either listed separately or incorporated into the article-when I write or revise a scientific bio, I usually make a separate list of the 5 or so most significant, but only because it's easier than incorporating them into prose. DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that Iratrofimov could translate the titles of the books and any particularly important journal articles. A "top five" list sounds good to me. Short lists help people find the things that are most important. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
