This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Ecology, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve ecology-related articles.EcologyWikipedia:WikiProject EcologyTemplate:WikiProject EcologyEcology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics 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.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biophysics, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BiophysicsWikipedia:WikiProject BiophysicsTemplate:WikiProject BiophysicsBiophysics articles
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 articles
Hi Ldm1954. Thank you for your feedback on the Pankaj Mehta article. I saw that you reinstated the BLP label that I removed. I removed the BLP label because I believed that although some sources are published by the subject's institutions or from ORCID, much of the information is corroborated by external sources and because of the guidelines outlined in WP:ABOUTSELF. I additionally added the subject's personal website as a source so that the WP:ABOUTSELF policy is, in my perception, strictly satisfied. My understanding is that self-published sources are ok if the subject is itself and a few other reasonable criteria are met. The policy states:
Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they are established experts in the field, so long as:
The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
It does not involve claims about third parties;
It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and
The article is not based primarily on such sources.
Do you believe this policy does not apply because any of these above criteria are not met? If so, which one and why? I would like to note that I believe criterion 5 is satisfied because of the references to articles from independent sources like a professional society, grant-providing organizations, and multiple popular science magazines. Could you please guide me in how to make the WP:ABOUTSELF policy consistent with the WP:SPS policy for this page?
I responded to a comment by User4edits on my own talk page about this if you would like to involve them in this discussion. Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your response. Magenta.lily (talk) 21:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstood why @User4edits reinstated it, and I reinstated it a second time. You should try not to use someone's personal website as it is the least reliable source; anything can be added without oversight. An official university website is one step up, but many consider it tainted as well. (Often universities have a curated page for faculty which I consider secondary as there could be legal consequences to misleading information.)
Use ORCID, Google Scholar, Research Gate etc. Don't use ones such as 11-13 which has no useful information, 10 is obsolete, 9&24 are the same, 6&7 are the same (and have little info), 19 is irrelevant.
I greatly appreciate your specific feedback. I think I understand how the article might be improved, but I still do not fully understand why information from a personal website or university page is unacceptable given the policy specified in WP:ABOUTSELF. I would appreciate any thoughts you might have about the validity or applicability of this policy. In the meantime, I will clean up the references you suggest. This is my first biographical article I have created (all others have been about science topics), and I hope to create more about other biophysicists in the future, so your constructive criticism is very helpful, and your time is appreciated.
The reasoning is the same as why Blogs are not used -- they have not been checked for accuracy. It is similar with newspapers; some are considered reputable as they check information, others dont. You need to try and stick with curated (checked) pages.
That makes sense. I have attempted to improve the page a bit by relying more on the university/departmental pages which are controlled by Boston University and relying more on ORCID and Google Scholar. Additionally, I have converted some lists into prose. Please let me know what you think. Again, your feedback is greatly appreciated.
It looks OK from a quick check. I am pinging @User4edits here as he reinstated the BLP first, so pro-forma should have a chance to comment. (Plus I am busy today so can check in detail.) Ldm1954 (talk) 22:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Magenta.lily Not using self-published and self-written sources from personal web pages is COMMONSENSE. Given your understanding of other WP policies and guidelines, and given your presumed relationship with academia, the hesitancy to understand the aforementioned commonsense gives an impression in which you might appear gaming the system. Also see the COI and ownership messages I have left on your talk page. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 05:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but this is a standard you are making up. It is not "common sense" that we never use self-published sources in regards to statements about themselves. While we have limits on what can be used from such sources, it is common practice supported by policy that such sources can be used. You seem to be wanting a different set of standards than what Wikipedia actually uses. If you would like to see self-published sources barred, you can of course start an effort to have a policy changed, but this is not the way to do that. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@NatGertler: Thank you for your message and input in this discussion.
.jpg){kind=small}
