Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Science and academia/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

New template for ISIHighlyCited researchers

I've just created {{ISIHighlyCited}} to make it easier to add links to ISIHighlyCited.com for ISI highly cited researchers. I thought about adding it to this WikiProject's main page rather than this Talk page, but I couldn't spot a suitable place to put it. --Qwfp (talk) 19:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly what should we be doing with this template?Chrisvanlang (talk) 09:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
The question is moot: If you click on it, you'll see that the template has been deleted a while ago. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Golding Bird

Golding Bird has been nominated for FA. You are welcome to add your comments there. SpinningSpark 13:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Peter Hancock

Would anyone care to write about Peter A. Hancock, a human factors researcher? He is a Provost's Distinguished Research Professor and Pegasus Professor at the University of Central Florida. He previously founded and directed the Human Factors Research Laboratory (HFRL) at the University of Minnesota. User talk:Mit2lab has been trying to but has just been pasting in text from his own website. He seems to have an academic record to pass WP:PROF and might pass the GNG for his press coverage.[1] I would give it a go but I'm not feeling inspired. Fences&Windows 21:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Stephen Hawking

The Stephan Hawking article has been put up for Peer review as part of a long-term plan to push it in the direction of FA. We'd appreciate any comments from you guys in your capacity as Biography experts... :) Fayedizard (talk) 11:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Michael F. Holick's biography should be categorized as "high-importance"

Dear WikiProject Biography/Science and academia-Team,

I've written main parts of the article Michael F. Holick and saw that his biography was categorized as "low-importance" which is absolutely inappropriate in my opinion. So I changed it to "high-importance" - I hope that's ok and I'd like to clearify my rationale for this:

Dr. Holick's discoveries laid the foundation for new diagnostic tests and therapies for vitamin D-related diseases, such as diseases affecting the bone metabolism, dermatological and nephrological pathologies. At least several hundrets of millions of people suffer from vitamin D deficiency, what could for the first time been meassured and quantified due to the diagnostic test vitamin D-test he developed. These discoveries are of great importance. There was a Nobel prize awarded for the isolation of Vitamin D in 1928 for Adolf Windaus, Niels Ryberg Finsen also received a Nobel prize for the discovery of the beneficial effects of photo therapy (due to vitamin D production). So the isolation of the 2 other major vitamin D forms (25-OH-Vitamin D and 1,25-OH2-Vitamin D + the chemical synthesis of the latter one) should not be considered as low-importance, but high-importance! His contributions to the field of medicine are outstanding. That's why his biography is a high-importance biography!

PS: As a medical doctor who has been studying the effects of vitamin D scientifically I strongly believe his scientific achievements are priceless and laid the foundation for a diagnosis and therapy of vitamin d deficiency which affects huge parts of the population.

PPS: On a side note: Those who will read this are most likely very active Wikipedians who don't get too much sun exposure. I'm convinced the majority of you is vitamin D deficient. Anyways... The article should be categorized "high-important". Thank you!--Matthias3110 (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The article has a solid foundation but still needs to be improved in quality. I appreciate all help to perfectionize the article and thank you in advance.--Matthias3110 (talk) 17:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Rajagopal (professor)

Hello. Could someone please cast a critical eye over the article Rajagopal (professor)? There is a suggestion on the talk page that the article is overly promotional and that the individual may not warrant inclusion. Dr. Rajogopal has apparently published 40 papers, which have been cited only 40 times. On the other hand, the page asserts that he is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts. I'm not familiar with that society, and don't know whether it might satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability (academics) criteria, "The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society" etc. Thanks, Cnilep (talk) 01:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Faculty and Alumni Categories

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this. How do we should we treat categories for various academics. What counts as a faculty member and when should the category be applied. In particular, how do we consider the place where a person did their postdoc? --Chrisvanlang (talk) 18:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

  • "Postdoc" is a position and even though it's considered part of a person's training, this does not make them an alumnus of the institution where they did their postdoc. Neither is postdoc considered a faculty position, so they don't fall in that category, either. However, the place where they did their postdoc can be listed under "workplaces" in an infobox or mentioned in a bio, for example. Hope this helps. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Project scope

I assume the project covers biologist, physicist, historians etc. but what about engineers, architects and medical professionals? --Traveler100 (talk) 18:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Ariel Fernandez

Ariel Fernandez has been tagged by two different editors for conflict of interest and inadequate sourcing of a biography of a living person, and both times the tags were removed quickly. The subject appears to be notable, but there is some self-promotion. The concerns behind the tags are discussed at Talk:Ariel Fernandez and User talk:Arifer. Some more eyes should probably be on this article. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Barbara McClintock for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dana boomer (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

New WikiProject

Hi! I just wanted to let you all know that Sarah Stierch and I have started a new WikiProject, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women scientists. We thought some of you may be interested. Thanks for your time! If you have any questions, feel free to ask one of us on our talk page. All the best, Keilana|Parlez ici 06:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at RSN about Robert Almeder

There is a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard about whether an article on reincarnation by Robert Almeder, professor emeritus of philosophy at Georgia State University, is a reliable source for the article on Ian Stevenson (1918–2007). Several editors have objected to it because Almeder published it in Journal of Scientific Exploration, a journal that deals with anomalies (fringe issues). Uninvolved input would be very helpful. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Robert_Almeder. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 19:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

R.M. Grant

The article concerning Robert M. Grant (academic economic analyst) has apparently been merged (incorrectly) with Robert McQueen Grant (biblical scholar). There is a note to this effect on the Robert McQueen Grant talk page. Someone more skilled than I might care to look into this.Mannanan51 (talk) 05:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)Mannanan51

Caroline Hoxby

I'd be grateful if other editors could have a look at Talk:Caroline Hoxby, where there is a discussion about whether to include a brief passage about critique of Hoxby's work, critique that received significant coverage/discussion by other scholars and in a number of journalism outlets. At this point the discussion has only two participants (including myself) and would benefit from outside input. thanks. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Help with Lore Alford Rogers and User:Maineshepp

Hi guys, I need help with Lore Alford Rogers and User:Maineshepp. She created the article through WP:AFC with a conspicuous amount of reliable sources. I'm pretty sure that we can bring this article up to WP:GOODARTICLE standard with the vast amount of references it has. However, I'm not a member of this project nor I'm interested on this subject. Could someone please help with both the article and User:Maineshepp? Please remember she is a newcomer and to WP:NOBITE. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 19:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Edouard Ducpétiaux

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Edouard Ducpétiaux#Requested move, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Tyrol5 [Talk] 00:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Meteorite people

Over at WikiProject Geology/Meteorites we're having a month long focus to eliminate red links either by starting new articles or by finding appropriate link targets within existing articles. We'd be very glad of WikiProject Biography/Science and academia's help with any of the following:

Most requested
The rest

GA review

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elizabeth_Warren/GA2#GA_Reassessment - Youreallycan 21:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Hermann Stieve

Hermann Stieve is in the news today: specifically, reports of his anatomical investigations into recently-executed women under the Nazi regime. Wikipedia's article on him reads very oddly indeed: it reads like a machine translation, and seems to be at pains to portray him and his research in a favourable light. Can editors here please review the article? -- Gigacephalus (talk) 08:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Infobox engineer

{{Infobox engineer}} has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

John Hagelin

I have put the article John Hagelin up for reassessment Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/John_Hagelin/1. More input is welcome, IRWolfie- (talk) 21:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should the section title for Academic freedom controversy be changed?

There is an RfC here Talk:Hans-Hermann_Hoppe#RfC:_Should_the_section_title_for_Academic_freedom_controversy_be_changed.3F concerning the article on Hans-Hermann Hoppe. There is extensive background discussion elsewhere on the talk page there. SPECIFICO talk 02:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: I have revised the section heading here to reflect what the RfC title is and modified the link to create a Wikilink. – S. Rich (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

ORCID identifiers

ORCID, the Open Research Contributor ID is an identifier for contributors to academic journals, and other such publications, including Wikipedia. It's the equivalent for such people of an ISBN for a book. I would encourage all editors, but especially those who also contribute to such journals, to register for an ORCID. If you know any scientists or academics who are the subject of a Wikipedia article, please ask them to do so, too. ORCIDs can be added to articles, or user pages, using the {{Authority control}} template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit-a-thon Invitation

CHF small logo
 Please join the Chemical Heritage Foundation Edit-a-Thon, June 20, 2013.
Build content relating to women in science, chemistry and the history of science.
Use the hashtag #GlamCHF and write your favorite scientist or chemist into Wikipedian history!

Many of the articles of interest to us are biographical articles, particularly about women chemists and scientists, so your input would be very valuable. Many thanks, Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 20:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join a discussion

Through this way, I inform there is a discussion at WT:Disambiguation about partially disambiguated titles, known as "PDABs". This subguide of WP:D affects articles in this WikiProject. There you can give ideas or thoughts about what to do with this guideline. Note this discussion is not to modify any aspect the naming conventions of this WikiProject. Thanks. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

FAR notification

I have nominated Sylvanus Morley for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dana boomer (talk) 19:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

ThatCampPhilly Edit-a-thon Invitation

CHF small logo
 Please join the Wikipedia Edit-a-thon at THATCamp Philly, September 27, 2013, held at the Chemical Heritage Foundation. Bring your own content to work on, or get an early start on Ada Lovelace Day with our resources about women in science, chemistry and the history of science. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Science and academia biography pages at Articles for creation

There are a number of rejected Wikipedia:Articles for creation submissions at Special:AllPages/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Professor and Special:AllPages/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Prof. Some of the submissions may be worth salvaging. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Notification: Featured Article Review for Stephen Hawking

There are some serious deficiencies which several users have identified in the Stephen Hawking article which was promoted to FA status earlier this year after an FAC that wasn't rigorous. Please feel free to comment and contribute to the debate at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Stephen Hawking/archive1 on whether this article should be delisted and what work needs to be done.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Wonder Women of Natural History: Wikipedia editathon at London Zoo, January 18th

Hi All

I'm organising a Wikipedia editathon at London Zoo on January the 18th, please have a look and come or join in online if you'd like. More info here.

Thanks

Mrjohncummings (talk) 10:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Human height

Just seeking a wider range of input from informed persons at Template_talk:Height#rfc_97AACED.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 01:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Learned minds and extra eyes requested at Brian Leiter

Hello WikiProject!

Brian Leiter, a BLP article within your scope needs help in establishing a neutral criticism section. There have been concerns that the article's subject and his contemporaries may be editing the article to conform criticism to a specific POV, and that this has been going on for a few years. Anyhow, your expertise is welcome. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Total free access to Royal Society History of Science journals for 2 days on March 4th and 5th !!!

As Wikipedian in Residence at the Royal Society, the National Academy for the sciences of the UK, I am pleased to say that the two Royal Society History of Science journals will be fully accessible for free for 2 days on March 4th and 5th. This is in conjunction with the Women in Science Edit-a-thon on 4 March, slightly in advance of International Women's Day, on Saturday March 8th. The event is held by the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering, and is fully booked, but online participation is very welcome, and suggestions for articles relevant to the theme of "Women in Science" that need work, and topics that need coverage.

The journals will have full and free online access to all from 1am (GMT/UTC) on 4th March 2014 until 11pm (GMT/UTC) on 5th March 2014. Normally they are only free online for issues between 1 and 10 years old. They are:

The RS position is a "pilot" excercise, running between January and early July 2014. Please let me know on my talk page or the project page if you want to get involved or have suggestions. There will be further public events, as well as many for the RS's diverse audiences in the scientific community; these will be advertised first to the RS's emailing lists and Twitter feeds.

I am keen to get feedback on my personal Conflict of Interest statement for the position, and want to work out a general one for Royal Society staff in consultation with the community. Wiki at Royal Society John (talk) 17:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks! Shyamal (talk) 08:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Judith M. Bennett

Hello academia experts. This old abandoned Afc draft is about a professor. She holds a named chair, but there i no Google Scholar report. I tried to find references and there are many, but there are so many professors named Judith Bennett that I can't seem to sort them all out. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

ERC grant, IEEE newsletter

Does anyone know off hand whether a European Research Council EXPLORERS grant constitutes a "highly prestigious academic award", or if editing an IEEE newsletter implies either "Fellow of a major scholarly society" or "editor of a major well-established academic journal"? (I see that IEEE is selective for fellows, but editors might be ordinary members.) I'm trying to decide whether Pierre-Yves Oudeyer satisfies notability for academics. I've just noticed that his academic awards are mainly grants or things like best paper at a particular conference. Cnilep (talk) 06:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Editing an IEEE scientific journal would satisfy NACADEMICS, but editing a newsletter would not. I don't know about the ERC grant. Grants are rarely exclusive enough to make someone notable (as opposed to awards, even though one may say that a grant has been "awarded", it's not the same thing as an award). In addition, I cannot find any "EXPLORERS grant" on the ERC website, but there is a "Starting Grant" and personally I would take that as a promising sign, but not proof of notability. However, his GS profile lists several highly-cited articles (4 cited >100 times) and an h-index of 23. This is generally enough to be considered meeting NACADEMICS#1 in AfD discussions. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 15:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
That does help. Thanks, Cnilep (talk) 04:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

New article

Could someone in the project Talk page assess this new one please Thanks - Alfred Lodge. Acabashi (talk) 17:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Adrianne Wadewitz deletion discussion notice

  1. Adrianne Wadewitz
  2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrianne Wadewitz

There is an ongoing deletion discussion taking place now about whether or not to have a biographical article about Adrianne Wadewitz on Wikipedia.

The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrianne Wadewitz.

For those newer to Wikipedia, you may wish to read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and Wikipedia:Notability.

— Cirt (talk) 15:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Astronomy people

Category:Astronomy people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for renaming -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 23:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Adrianne Wadewitz for Peer review

  1. Adrianne Wadewitz
  2. Wikipedia:Peer review/Adrianne Wadewitz/archive1

I've nominated the article Adrianne Wadewitz for Peer review.

Discussion is at the peer review subpage, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Adrianne Wadewitz/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 04:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should Nikola Tesla's birthplace be changed?

An RfC Should Tesla's birthplace be changed? has been created. Comments are welcome.- MrX 15:41, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Historians of science, geneticists, biochemists, see

George M. Church article, and recent talk entry from me at the same article. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Robert S. Nelsen

Could somebody from "WP:ACAD" take a look at Robert S. Nelsen. Some information about his early life was recently added that may in fact be true, but is currently unsourced. I have posted my concerns about this at Talk:Robert S. Nelsen#Early life but this unsourced stuff probably should immediately be removed per WP:BLPSOURCES. I initially added {{citation needed}} templates, but removed them as soon as I found out such templates are not supposed to be used in such situations. Anyway, I just thought I'd ask here since this article would seem to fall under your purview and your members probably have dealt with this kind of thing before. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Royal Society of Chemistry - Wikimedian in Residence

Hi folks,

I recently started work as Wikimedian in Residence at the Royal Society of Chemistry. Over the coming year, I'll be working with my new colleagues there, and the society's members, to help them to improve the coverage of chemistry-related topics, including biographies, in Wikipedia and sister projects.

You can keep track of progress at Wikipedia:GLAM/Royal Society of Chemistry, and use the talk page if you have any questions or suggestions. I've already discovered a number of "missing" biographies of chemists (lists via Wikipedia:GLAM/Royal Society of Chemistry#Articles needed)

How can I and the society support your work to improve Wikipedia? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Academia?

Please see here: Talk:Academia#WikiProject Academia?. Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 02:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Jonathan R. Alger

Hi there, I believe WP:ACADEMICS supports Jonathan R. Alger. First, I have a COI with the page, but have been working with non COI editors to expand the page. It's a stub now. I would appreciate it if someone could take a look at the expanded article, I am especially wondering about the format for the citations for his Published Works, and also the section about the Sexual Assault Controversy (which I will not be editing given my COI). I ask you to consider: The article says “In 2014 Alger was criticized for JMU's handling of a case,” but sources for that statement are problematic. The first source cited[1] is an editorial opinion piece written by an invested party and the second source cited[2] does not criticize the President for his role at any point. Please consider these sources[3][4]on the same subject. Thanks. Cville24 (talk) 15:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Kildee, Brian; Lemm, Laura. "Culture of callousness at James Madison University". The Washington Post, Opinions. Retrieved 11 November 2014.
  2. ^ Cruise, Grant. "Former JMU Student Speaks Out on Sexual Assault, Part One". WHSV3. Retrieved 11 November 2014.
  3. ^ Anderson, Nick. "JMU president versed in civil rights law". The Washington Post, Education. Retrieved 11 November 2014.
  4. ^ Anderson, Nick. "Campus discussions increasingly focus on sex assault". The Washington Post, Education. Retrieved 11 November 2014.

Launch of WikiProject Wikidata for research

Hi, this is to let you know that we've launched WikiProject Wikidata for research in order to stimulate a closer interaction between Wikidata and research, both on a technical and a community level. As a first activity, we are drafting a research proposal on the matter (cf. blog post). Your thoughts on and contributions to that would be most welcome! Thanks, -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 02:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention

This is a notice about Category:Biography/Science and academia articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Iceblock. But do you know of any example where the appropriate expert was actually alerted by one of these tags and fixed a problem? I think it is much better to contact relevant wikiprojects for advice. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, RockMagnetist! Could you please describe in detail what steps you recommend for dealing with pages in the categories Category:Miscellaneous articles needing expert attention, Category:Articles needing unspecified expert attention and other subcategories of Category:Articles needing expert attention? Suggestions are welcome. What I have done is to notify matching wikiprojects about the categories, in this case Category:Biography/Science and academia articles needing expert attention. Iceblock (talk) 20:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, for a start I'd go through and remove any expert attention tags that don't provide a reason. Judging by the pages I have looked at, that would be over 90% of them. RockMagnetist(talk) 21:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, RockMagnetist! I asked at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_116#Policy_on_removing_expert_tags about having a bot remove the tags, but was advised this is not a good idea. I guess it's best that I leave the removal to other editors, to avoid unfortunate results. Iceblock (talk) 16:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The category is now empty. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Free 'RSC Gold' accounts

I am pleased to announce, as Wikimedian in Residence at the Royal Society of Chemistry, the donation of 100 "RSC Gold" accounts, for use by Wikipedia editors wishing to use RSC journal content to expand articles on chemistry-related topics (including biographies - there are a number of obituaries in the archives, for instance). Please visit Wikipedia:RSC Gold for details, to check your eligibility, and to request an account. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Kiril Tenekedjiev

The article has seen problematic COI editing in the past and as soon as the protection dropped, previous editor showed up. Can someone familiar with the math/science scene review the article and sources check whatever the standard places for sources that are not currently being used and take any appropriate next steps? Thanks! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Series of BLP biologist articles: extra eyes wanted.

User:Herpetology2 has been creating a series of BLP articles on biologists sourced primarily from the subjects' own publications or affiliated sources, laden with peacock phrases, and with little reliance on secondary sources; and secondary sources (news and film coverage, as well as professional accolades) in some cases appear to exist. The user has at times added commentary and media files (some removed) that suggests at worst a personal familiarity with the subjects and conflict of interest, or at best unsourced opinion/original synthesis, and honest confusion regarding licensing policy (although at least one of the subjects was interviewed prior to his article creation). I've been trying to provide the user feedback and all relevant policies and guidelines, and prune excessive listings of accomplishments, but it seems to have little effect. The articles in question are currently:

(and see also Herpetological Conservation and Biology) Maybe I'm overreacting, but I feel like pointing out a series of accomplishments by sourcing the work is overly promotional, and certainly not balanced or in line with WP:BLP nor WP:SCHOLAR. Additional opinions or intervention are welcome, as I don't want to be the sole voice of policy for this user. Thanks. --Animalparty-- (talk) 02:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Notability of a Valhalla train crash victim

One of the victims of last week's train wreck north of New York City was Robert M. Dirks, a computational chemist with a doctorate from Caltech, where he also did a postdoc, who worked at D.E. Shaw Research in Manhattan. Since another victim, Walter Liedtke, has turned out to be notable, I decided to look into Dirks ... who seems to have coauthored quite a few papers, and his employer describes him as having made "tremendous contributions" to "the development of novel computational chemistry methods."

I've compiled what I've found on the article's talk page. I'd like some input from editors more familiar with interpreting the notability criteria for academics and scientists than I am, and perhaps better qualified to judge if Dirks' research makes him notable. (I am also asking at WT:CHEM for help on this, plus someone who can say what was significant about his research if indeed it made him notable). Daniel Case (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Removal of referenced info at Carol M. Swain

Removal of referenced information from this page. I reverted it once, but did not insist a second time to avoid edit-warring. Would someone else like to revert it? Is it appropriate to censor this info?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

It is neither appropriate to censor it, nor is it necessarily appropriate to include it, per WP:ONUS, as long as the article maintains a neutral tone and is not overly one-sided, nor unduly weighted towards current events (fresh though they are in the minds of the media), per WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALASPS. Any well-cited material, even contentious, may potentially be included, especially if it has received relatively high amounts of secondary coverage (indeed, that's how we assess notability and noteworthiness), but if it's just par-for-the-course opining and response, then it may not be significant in the totality of one's career, and then perhaps should be shortened or omitted until the article becomes expansive enough to fairly and proportionally allocate the good with the bad, the recent with the historic, etc. FYI this discussion should probably continue on Talk:Carol M. Swain for maximum utility in article improvement. Cheers, --Animalparty-- (talk) 23:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd rather not discuss this further. I just wanted to bring this to your attention in case you wanted to revert it and expand the page, etc.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Socrates

This article is being totally rewritten by one user. It desperately needs wikifying and checking for factual accuracy and needs to brought back to a manageable size. I do not have the expertise to respond to this myself - I was just reading the article today but could not do so as it now has a highly complex structure and layout and is full of unnecessary quotes and content that suggests OR. Can someone familiar with the life and times of Socrates please look at the article? Alternatively, can we go back to the version as at 24 February 2015? Thanks --Chewings72 (talk) 11:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Nikola Tesla

Light bulb iconBAn RFC: Should all discussions and proposals about Nikola Tesla's nationality, ethnicity and country of birth (broadly construed) be limited to the sub-page: Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity? has been posted here. Interested editors are invited to comment.- MrX 20:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

RFC for Brian Leiter

I have placed a request for comment on Talk: Brian Leiter. The editors involved have been unable to reach consensus on several issues related to the entry. There is extensive discussion on the talk page. Sneekypat (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

William Shockley

The article about Nobel laureate William Shockley is gaining fresh attention from editors this week. Your suggestions there could be quite valuable, as that article has been subject to much edit-warring over the years, and is remarkably brief and poorly sourced for an article about a Nobel laureate. I have just suggested some sources on the article talk page, and I would be glad to hear your suggestions of other sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Two biologist articles at Good Article nominations

Ralph Vary Chamberlin and Robert C. Stebbins have been nominated as Good Articles in Biology and medicine. Any uninvolved editor is welcome to review. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 00:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

And for completeness there are also two medical biography articles to be reviewed: Mary Herring and Gabor B. Racz. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norm Houghton (historian)

The above AfD could use some input from editors here. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 08:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to add draft, file and redirect classes for WP Biography

I started a proposal to add draft, file and redirect classes for all WP Biography articles here. This would first help organize the half dozen or so drafts from the 140 or so articles at Category:NA-Class biography (science and academia) articles so we can identify the draft articles more easily. Please comment there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Assistant professor#Proposed merge with Professor

This discussion may be of interest to some editors here. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 09:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Template:Isaac Newton

I seem to have bitten off a bit more than I can chew in creating {{Isaac Newton}}. Are there any experts on the relevant subjects that could help to sensibly organize the template.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure more is necessarily better, especially with regards to friends and family and certain concepts. Per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL and especially WP:Navigation templates#Properties, "The goal is not to cram as many related articles as possible into one space. Ask yourself, does this help the reader in reading up on related topics? Take any two articles in the template. Would a reader really want to go from A to B?" I'm not too familiar with the reach of Newton, but articles like Problem of Apollonius Structural coloration and Solar mass seem somewhat removed from "core Newton concepts", although he had some influence, and would a user reading e.g. Power number, realistically want to read about Woolsthorpe Manor, or would simply following the link to Isaac Newton be sufficient? --Animalparty! (talk) 20:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Soufiane Choubani

Hi all, I note that this sub-board is not heavily traveled, so I may crosspost this at WikiProject Biography's main discussion page. Might someone please look at Soufiane Choubani, an article on a Moroccan professor and founder of the Moroccan national debate team, and evaluate for notability? I get the sense that this is a bit of a vanity article, especially with these IP edits from Morocco, but if the guy's notable, he's notable. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Style guidelines or community consensus about lists of publications?

It is not uncommon for Science and academia biographies to have a selection of publications at the end, usually titled "Selected works" or "Bibliography". It is (thankfully) less frequent that an article has an exhaustive list of publications, ranging from books to conference abstracts, which seem copied from a Curriculum Vitae or database (example). How many works should be included seems largely left up to respective editors, but I feel it's prudent to bring up the question of how should these lists be implemented, and how exhaustive (or not) they should be. Publishing papers is not inherently noteworthy for academics, and exhaustive lists may be considered indiscriminate info, promotional, or an attempt to appear to satisfy WP:SCHOLAR without actually gathering the explicit secondary sources establishing notability. Here are some possible guidelines to the issue:

  1. Only list publications that have been explicitly featured by independent, reliable sources.
  2. Only list books/monographs published. Defer the listing of papers/conference proceedings, etc. to an External link.
  3. Be as comprehensive as you wish. List away!
  4. Include literature of any size in a {{collapsible list}} list, which might make articles more concise and readable while still directing interested readers towards primary literature. (see for instance William Keeton#Bibliography of orientation publications)
  5. Leave questions of inclusions to the editor(s) involved in their respective articles, no attempt at guidelines or rules-of-thumb.

I'm interested in opinions, and/or links to former conversations on this topic. Cheers. --Animalparty-- (talk) 03:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


Trouble finding references? The Wikipedia Library is proud to announce ...

The Wikipedia Library

Alexander Street Press (ASP) is an electronic academic database publisher. Its "Academic Video Online: Premium collection" includes videos in a range of subject areas, including news programs (like 60 minutes) and newsreels, music and theatre, speeches and lectures and demonstrations, and documentaries. This collection would be useful for researching topics related to science, engineering, history, music and dance, anthropology, business, counseling and therapy, news, nursing, drama, and more. For more topics see their website.

There are up to 30 one-year ASP accounts available to experienced Wikipedians through this partnership. To apply for free access, please go to WP:ASP. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

guidelines about living scientists

I am trying to do my best to write scientifically robust articles about NMR scientists, in the framework of a long-term "project" about NMR on wiki, but I feel there're different and strong feeling about how articles of living (or recently deceased) scientists should be written. I am talking about what is considered relevant and what is considered "peacooking". I really follow secondary sources in a very pedantic way and I try to set up a starting point looking at the biggest amount of similar articles, but there are sections or sentences that are considered useful/acceptable or excessive depending of the wikipedian commenting on the issue. A little bit of discussion on the specific article is useful, but sometimes the general picture looks confused and contradictory.

For example compare Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry#Geoffrey_Bodenhausen with Lyndon Emsley, an article that was cited on home page in January. I feel that we really need less strong generic statement here and more global agreement on what is ok or not.

Could someone provide me some previous general discussion? Possibly not too general... I kinda know the general rules of biographies and that does not seem to help here in practice.--Alexmar983 (talk) 04:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Have you thought about asking living persons if they would like a BLP to be written about them (response would not be binding)? Xxanthippe (talk) 05:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC).
Yes, I write articles only of people who tell me they're ok. Another one is in preparation on my computer and I have already contacted him. Any comment on main question?--Alexmar983 (talk) 05:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
That is an excellent policy. I wish more people would follow it. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC).
Thank you :D they know or they can be told by people we both know I'm in the "popularization field" and I am precise so they trust me. Also, I hope to get some interesting images on the long term from their "personal archives". In any case they are very "boring" professors, there is almost no controversial issue. Except "peacocking" but -again- that's in the sources and it is typical of very close environments. I've heard someone can have strong feeling about the idea of a wikipedia article but another long term goal should be to prepare a simple "friday afternoon talk" about wikipedia at a (solid-state) NMR conference in 2-3 years, and if they or some of their students want to write something I hope they would contact me for some advice (mainly: please don't do it yourself!).--Alexmar983 (talk) 06:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Hina Rabbani Khar

Hina Rabbani Khar, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship

Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the skills considered at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

GAR for Tycho Brahe

Tycho Brahe, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. More details are available on the re-assessment page. Please ping me if you need anything as my watchlist is already quite large and I'd prefer not to add seven or eight more wikiprojects to my watchlist on top of the ones that I already have. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Jerry Falwell Jr. discussion

Hello. There is currently a discussion taking place at the above article regarding whether or not to include a section about the Trump tapes and Liberty University students' reactions to it. Given how few people have watchlisted the page, I thought it best to notify relevant WikiProjects of the discussion, especially because Falwell is a very politically-involved figure at the moment. I believe that this notification is as neutrally-worded as possible and that it does not violate the canvassing policy. — Gestrid (talk) 22:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Bibliography of Grover Furr

Which books/papers should be listed in a bibliography of a scientist? Certainly not all of them.
Do we list translations of the same paper as separate items?
If a scientist publishes non-academic books and papers, shouldn't we separate such items from his/her academic texts?Xx236 (talk) 09:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I suggest you remove all of the bibliography. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC).

Alternate title for Michel Foucault's Surveiller et punir

At Talk:Discipline_and_Punish#Crime_and_Punishment_.3F, I have sought opinions regarding possible alternate translations for the title of Michel Foucault's Surveiller et punir. I encountered someone who felt it was known as Crime and Punishment rather than Discipline and Punish. Should we have a redirect at Crime and Punishment? Please comment there if you have an opinion on this issue.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Requested move of "Carl Jung"

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Carl Jung#Requested move 14 November 2016, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks,  Paine  u/c 01:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Van Wolverton

The article Van Wolverton has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non-notable person

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 23:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Thomas Eugene Foulks

The article Thomas Eugene Foulks has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non-notable person

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 04:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

LÖVE

LÖVE, currently a redirect to Mari0, has been nominated at RfD. As there are biographies of Áskell Löve and Doris Löve tagged by this project, your comments are invited in the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 12#LÖVE. Thryduulf (talk) 14:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Reihaneh Safavi-Naini

Does this individual qualify as notable per WP:NACADEMIC? I can't find a single third-party source about her, the article has been tagged for over four years now, and the (possibly COI) user who created the article is still active but hasn't added references. The only source appears to be a dead link to Alberta Innovates Technology Futures, which funds her research. (See this and this. Is this a legitimate named chair?) Mindmatrix 19:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Max Josef von Pettenkofer

For anyone who's interested in the history of hygiene, or is simply an editor who likes reading such things, I would be highly interested in a second set of eyes to look over the work that I'm doing on the Max Josef von Pettenkofer page. I'm trying to expand it to include a better background of his work in both chemistry and hygiene (also a discussion of his institute of hygiene). Any help or questions are welcome. Mgood13 (talk) 02:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Query about notability: Waitman Wade Beorn

Would the experienced editor(s) let me know if this academic passes individual notability test? I originally created an article on his book Marching into Darkness since I assumed as a single-book author & an assistant professor, he wound not pass the individual test.

In the course of putting together that article, I learned that Waitman Wade Beorn is:

Would this put Beorn over the threshold for notability?

Sources include:

Plus the additional reviews of the book in the book article.

To clarify, I have no COI in re: this subject; I've created multiple articles on academics to date: User:K.e.coffman#Historians. I would appreciate any input! K.e.coffman (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't know whether the university passes the major institution requirement in WP:PROF C5, but aside from that, the guideline clarifies that a named chair only suggests notability if the holder is a full professor. I don't think the museum is big enough to confer any notability upon its director. WP:AUTHOR is often an easier pass, but I don't see it happening with WP:PROF. EricEnfermero (Talk) 23:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. To simplify my question: if the article Waitman Wade Beorn were to be brought to AfD, would it be a "delete" or "keep"? K.e.coffman (talk) 23:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
It's a research university, but not a major one. The named professorship is in this case a sponsored chair in a special field, not a distinguished chair, so it wouldn't imply notability . And he has still only one book. For the author of a single book, it's in my opinion not a good idea to write articles on both the book and the author. I'd let it go with the book, since you already wrote that, and just do a redirect. BTW, the Omaha newspaper is not a good source for notability by an local author. I adjusted the emphasis a little. To say in the first sentence that the book was published by Harvard is impt. When his second book is published, then write the author article. DGG ( talk ) 05:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Lisa Kemmerer

Would someone from this WikiProject would mind taking a look at Lisa Kemmerer and assessing it? Article was moved directly to the mainspace by its creator, who is a SPA and may have a COI, Neither of these mean the article should be deleted, but the sources currently cited are not really sufficient for establishing notability per WP:BIO or WP:PROF. Googling her does get a number of hits, but not many seem to be significant coverage. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

With two books for Oxford Univ Press, she's almost certainly notable. I removed the list of minor publications--WP is not a place to publish an academic CV. The language needs cleanup, removing over personal material. I've done some of that. DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


WP:AN

There's an interesting discussion about WP:PROF on WP:Administrators Noticeboard, section here DGG ( talk ) 06:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

What has been going on at IRC? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC).
I never use it. DGG ( talk ) 11:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Science and academia/Archive 2/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Biography.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

  • The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
  • The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
  • The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Biography, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanley Aronowitz bibliography

Should we create a complete "bibliography of ..." article for every notable academic? Please see this AfD for a discussion very pertinent to this project. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 11:06, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

No except for outstanding figures like Nobel prize winners. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:36, 8 July 2017 (UTC).

A-Class review for Philip Baxter needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Philip Baxter; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 06:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Carl Anderson.jpg nominated for deletion at Commons

I nominated File:Carl Anderson.jpg for deletion at Commons. I invite you to comment there. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 06:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

John Oldshue

Was wondeing if someone would mind taking a look at John Oldshue and seeing if it's worth keeping. The video he took of the 2011 Tuscaloosa–Birmingham tornado might mean a redirect to that article is preferred over deletion per WP:BLP1E. The article has already been prodded once and it appears to have been created as an autobio. Much of the content about career seems self-promotional and quote in the lead seems WP:UNDUE. I cannot seem to find any significant coverage of him in independent reliable sources which would meet WP:BIO, WP:AUTHOR or even WP:ENT, but I'd like to hear from others before going to AfD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography/Science_and_academia/Archive_2&oldid=1088881970"