> You do not have to cite every paper under a specific topic
Strawman.
> nor do you have to cite the first paper that introduces a paper.
Did you mean "first paper that introduces a concept."? In any event, also a strawman.
> Maybe those papers are not well written.
Hypothetical. (Have you read the papers? I've read some and I would say they are well-written.)
> Maybe a recent paper covers the idea better, etc.
Wonderful! Should still cite prior work.
> So no, he does not have to be cited just because.
Strawman.
If you're going to argue at least do it well.
The options are: cite him, slight him, or prove him wrong.
I think he's made it clear that he won't accepts slights without a fight, so one can either show him where he's wrong, cite him as he plainly makes clear one should, or admit that he's being shut out for unscientific reasons.
I'm not sure you know what Strawman means. Are you a researcher? Have you published research papers?
>> The options are: cite him, slight him, or prove him wrong.
Again, are you a researcher? These are not the options. Also what even is "slight him" or "prove him wrong"? My comments above are about citation practices not this one researcher in particular.
>> I think he's made it clear that he won't accepts slights without a fight, so one can either show him where he's wrong, cite him as he plainly makes clear one should, or admit that he's being shut out for unscientific reasons.
There is nothing to fight about nor nothing to "prove". There are many reasons to cite an author and being the first to publish a paper many years ago about a topic does not automatically deem citation. That's not how science works. It's how (unfortunately) the academic churn of paper writing works at times.
FYI: it's not "unscientific" to not cite a paper. It's almost impossible to cite all relevant works, so the author of a paper selects the most relevant. Obviously this is biased and can become political (e.g., Schmidhuber), but flamming online about not being cited doesn't mean you must cite an author.
> A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one.
That's my point. I didn't replace the argument with any other. My original comment concerned citation practices whereas you're arguing about something else.
So it's not a straw man, but rather that we're having different discussions.
Strawman.
> nor do you have to cite the first paper that introduces a paper.
Did you mean "first paper that introduces a concept."? In any event, also a strawman.
> Maybe those papers are not well written.
Hypothetical. (Have you read the papers? I've read some and I would say they are well-written.)
> Maybe a recent paper covers the idea better, etc.
Wonderful! Should still cite prior work.
> So no, he does not have to be cited just because.
Strawman.
If you're going to argue at least do it well.
The options are: cite him, slight him, or prove him wrong.
I think he's made it clear that he won't accepts slights without a fight, so one can either show him where he's wrong, cite him as he plainly makes clear one should, or admit that he's being shut out for unscientific reasons.