Talk:Beatrice de Graaf

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Beatrice de Graaf rechtenvrij.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Edit war?

You just don't throw the child along with the badwater out. If you have issues with certain edits that has been made you can adress them here, because not everything that has been edited today is removal under the umbrella of promotional language. Mathijsloo (talk) 20:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Please do not accuse me of edit warring, especially when you're the one who started the revert-cycle. Please read WP:EDITWAR. Evenmore, the whole account of Thickwax was almost certainly created with the purpose of improving De Graaf's reputation, rather than improving the quality of the article. This calls for an extreme prejudice, so to speak, against all its edits. Leontrooper (talk) 20:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@Mathijsloo@Leontrooper. I'm pleased to see a discussion has been started though it has perhaps not got off to the best of starts. Perhaps you can examine the text line by line and come to some common ground as to what should be included?

A comment on the plagiarism text in our article. Generally, allegations are not by themselves noteworthy, what matters is the outcome of any investigation. In a similiar vein, per WP:BLPCRIME, we seriously consider not including material in any article that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime unless a conviction has been secured. Obviously, plagiarism is not a crime and no conviction is involved but it can be no less damaging to an academic's reputation.

A reading of the Dutch text suggests that the matter is rather more nuanced than described in our article, that De Graff gave the student (and other students) access to her research, which the student used for his thesis and which De Graff used for her book. (eg "Ik [Dommering] kom tot de conclusie dat er nooit sprake is geweest van een schending van de wetenschappelijke integriteit, omdat het duidelijk was dat de hele opzet van het onderzoek, het onderwijs daarover, de aantekeningen en het boek zelf afkomstig zijn van De Graaf. En dat ze daar al jaren voor het geven van de cursus mee bezig was." ["I [Dommering] have come to the conclusion that there has never been a violation of scientific integrity, because it was clear that the entire design of the research, the teaching about it, the notes and the book itself came from De Graaf. And that she had been working on this for years before giving the course.")

The thrust of the Dutch text seems to be that the issue should have been referred to the University's integrity committee ("Het bestuur van de Universiteit Utrecht had een vermeende plagiaatkwestie rond hoogleraar Beatrice de Graaf aan moeten kaarten bij de eigen integriteitscommissie" ["The board of Utrecht University should have raised an alleged plagiarism issue concerning professor Beatrice de Graaf with its own integrity committee"]). I note also that our article does not mention that she was exonerated ("Kummeling en De Graaf herhaaldelijk dat zij reeds lang is vrijgepleit, na bestudering van de kwestie door de universiteit zelf" ["Kummeling and De Graaf repeatedly state that she has long since been exonerated, after the university itself examined the matter"] and there was no plagiarism ("De eindconclusie was dat er geen sprake was van plagiaat" ["The final conclusion was that there was no plagiarism"]).

More high quality sources on this matter would be helpful. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation, it should be left out, per WP:BLPPUBLIC, "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out."

If you are unable to find common ground, then it may be worth taking this to the WP:BLPN. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Malcolmxl5, thank you for research on this issue. I have looked if I could find other reliable third-party sources on this matter, but it seems to be that Argos was the only Dutch media who reported on this matter. In that light I think it's wise to resolve this that we leave this incident out of the page, as you suggested, and that the edits made by @Thickwax and me will be reinstated minus the section about the plagiarism. I hope that @Leontrooper can find himself in this solution. Mathijsloo (talk) 07:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I certainly cannot.

• Argos is a reliable third-party. It's an independent investigative platform. De Graaf (and her employer) are the first party, the accusing student is the second. Moreover, Argos's journalists did not draw their conclusion themselves, instead they consulted multiple independent scientists and scientific integrity experts.
• Dommering is thus only one of the many people consulted by Argos, and has changed his mind throughout the process.
• Any more third-party sources would be nothing more than "Argos has reported that...", since the student apparently did not seek the attention from other media. The fact that other Dutch media did not expect to gain clicks or views by relaying Argos's reporting does not mean its findings are irrelevant to this article.
• As I have said, the edits by Thickwax were clearly promotional in its language and used primary sources, including removing Argos's article by her employer's statement. Restoring his/her edits while not even mentioning the accusation would turn this article in to De Graaf's personal website. Leontrooper (talk) 08:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree with you on several points. First of all, Malcolmxl5 points out that more high quality sources in this matter would be helpful. I agree on that Argos is reliable source and because of the complexity of the case more sources coulc be helpful to clear some things up. Like I said, those source's aren't out there. That brings the case back to only accusations. No one is convicted in this case which mades it nothing more than accusations. That still leaves the suggestion of Malcolmxl5 open and I think it's wise to follow that.

Secondly, I don't agree either on the point of that the edits from Thickwax were all that promotional. Yes, they rely on primary sources, but that doesn't make it promotional. I expanded myself last year the article about Remieg Aerts, using primary sources. Besides that, Thickwax created the bibliography section of the article which is a good expansion of the article. After the edits of Thickwax I made some edits myself on this article that improved it and also those edits have been undone.

To put it short, I remain on my stance in my message from earlier today and that we improve the edits made by Thickwax and cut the story about the plagiarism, because accusations only aren't noteworthy, like Malcolmxl5 pointed out. Mathijsloo (talk) 08:45, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not just an accusation. It's also a number of independent experts judging that the similarities between her and the student's text were too large to be a coincidence. The fact there was no investigation is exactly the main point of Argos's article. When it comes to De Graaf's counter-accusation, Argos has actually done reporting on that also. Again, Wikipedia should reflect sources, not draw its own conclusion or leave out something when it cannot. Leontrooper (talk) 10:58, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I am very surprised by the discussion that has arisen from the additions I made to Beatrice de Graaf’s page. I’m afraid that Leontrooper is mistaken in suggesting that my edits were designed to improve De Graaf’s reputation. I am a UK based academic historian, familiar with De Graaf’s publications, and noted that the details on her page were out of date. I therefore updated them and expanded upon the work, including details about publications, recent awards and wider work. These were all extensively backed up by verifiable information. I find it perplexing that verifiable facts can be removed from a page because someone wishes to construe them as an effort to improve someone’s reputation. That is a subjective judgement which in itself alludes to a particular perspective on de Graaf clouding judgement and impartiality. I would therefore be grateful if @mathijs could reinstate my original edits. These are more in line with the Dutch version of the page, which is far more detailed. Thickwax (talk) 09:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Your text read like it could have come from De Graaf's personal website. "De Graaf is commited to" etc. Wikipedia should use neutral language. You used primary sources, which are probably not neutral. This included the subsection on the accusation of plagiarism. Your sentence preceded by the ref to the UU's statement was not accurate either. As Malcomxl5 stated, the university did not order an investigation. With all due respect, but you seem to be unfamiliar with Wikipedia's workings and policies, which is also suggested by the fact this is the only article you have ever edited. I suggest you read WP:RESUME, WP:PRIMARY and WP:CONSENSUS. Leontrooper (talk) 10:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Leontrooper, again, I’m sorry to have to point out to you that these are subjective judgements that you are making here, and do not explain why you have taken the course of action you chose.

To clear up the confusion in the short quote you highlighted, it is important to consider the snippet within its proper context. What I actually wrote was ‘De Graaf is committed to increasing investment in research and science, and to increasing the impact of science in state and society. On 23 January 2015, Beatrice de Graaf was appointed chair of the National Science Agenda together with Alexander Rinnooy Kan. In 2022, together with KNAW colleagues, she published the guide 'Science with the windows open.’

As a result, I made a statement which was then supported by multiple examples. That isn’t a case of language lacking neutrality, that is a statement that can be verified, and I provided that verification. Drawing attention to something which people may be considered positive is not the same as demonstrating bias. Again, I worry that your assessment seems to be clouded by a negative view of de Graaf. If the issue is simply a question of tone, why not make further edits to the language used, as opposed to deleting everything that was added to the biography?

To delve further into what you say here, you claim that I used primary sources ‘which are probably not neutral’. Whilst, as a professional historian, I always applaud people showing a healthy scepticism towards source material, the fact that you say they ‘probably aren’t neutral’ strongly suggests that you haven’t taken the time to verify them yourself. In light of this, simply rolling back an edit is uncalled for, and demonstrates a heavy handed approach, which further leads me to question your intentions here. As a fellow contributors to Wikipedia, it is incumbent on all of us to verify our material before posting it, and by extension we should verify the nature of source material before deciding to delete the work. Just deciding that you have a feeling a source might not be legitimate is not sufficient grounds for removing all the edits I made.

You claim that @malcolmxI5 stated that the university did not order an investigation. Actually looking back over this, I do not believe he/she/they did state this, and would recommend a careful re-red of what has been said, as the feeling amongst those in this discussion is that the plagiarism allegations have been found to be untrue and should in any case be removed. You may find this section helpful: “The thrust of the Dutch text seems to be that the issue should have been referred to the University's integrity committee ("Het bestuur van de Universiteit Utrecht had een vermeende plagiaatkwestie rond hoogleraar Beatrice de Graaf aan moeten kaarten bij de eigen integriteitscommissie" ["The board of Utrecht University should have raised an alleged plagiarism issue concerning professor Beatrice de Graaf with its own integrity committee"]). I note also that our article does not mention that she was exonerated ("Kummeling en De Graaf herhaaldelijk dat zij reeds lang is vrijgepleit, na bestudering van de kwestie door de universiteit zelf" ["Kummeling and De Graaf repeatedly state that she has long since been exonerated, after the university itself examined the matter"] and there was no plagiarism ("De eindconclusie was dat er geen sprake was van plagiaat" ["The final conclusion was that there was no plagiarism"]). More high quality sources on this matter would be helpful. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation, it should be left out, per WP:BLPPUBLIC, "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out."

So what seems to be emerging here is a picture of you taking issue with any updates being made to this page that people might cause people to think positively about de Graaf, a reluctance to check sources before dismissing them as ‘probably not neutral’, and an insistence on putting an unproven allegation in the public domain, in direct conflict with Wikipedia policy. I’m afraid I struggle to view you as an unbiased commentator on de Graaf’s page.

I think the only sensible way forward at this point is to reinstate the edits that I made. If you have issues with specific turns of phrase these can be addressed on an individual basis, rather than axing the whole page. As the section on alleged plagiarism is clearly a contravention of Wikipedia policy, that entire section should be removed. Thickwax (talk) 15:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Not even going to acknowledge your rubbish allegations against me with a reply.

You and Mathijslo have next-to-zero experience on the English Wikipedia, but you think you know better.

OK.

PS. Maybe just one more point: Either you're very naive or your reading comprehension skills are subpar if you really believe De Graaf was """exonerated""". Leontrooper (talk) 18:33, 15 September 2022 (UTC)