Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:09, 4 January 2011

Biography: Science and Academia Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages'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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the science and academia work group. An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 June 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Erdős number in introduction

Do others agree with me that having someone's Erdős number in the introduction is awkward? __meco (talk) 08:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe it should go in the bio section, with the names of those whose co-authorship earns him the number. On it's own it reads a bit like his shoe size, at least to someone unfamiliar with the term. Kevin (talk) 10:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss reverts

The incident concerning Hewitt's ban by Misplaced Pages administrators excited worldwide comment, as is easily shown by reliable sources.

To insist that it not be noted in the article seems inexplicable.

Calamitybrook (talk) 21:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The idea is "revert & discuss." So will revert.

Calamitybrook (talk)

Page protection

Calamity Brook, I've protected the page to prevent a BLP violation. There's consensus (see the archives and history) that this material is inappropriate. The person who drew the media's attention to the situation, and who acted as the source, was also involved in the ArbCom case in opposition to the subject, so it was an unfortunate situation that's best left behind us. The page has been calm recently, and hopefully it will stay that way. SlimVirgin

Consensus has changed as of now.

Your not making a coherent argument.

Deepthroat both drew the media's attention to Watergate and acted as a source. So what??

There are two major news sources quoted from UK and from NZ, and a significant news source from Germany. Undoubtedly there are numerous other reliable sources.

Understand that these are quite clearly very reliable secondary sources that are spread worldwide in at least a couple of languages. That's all that's required for expanding an article in Misplaced Pages, despite the views of a few administrators.

Calamitybrook (talk) 01:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I've explained why it's a BLP violation, CB, and I don't really want to get into the details on this talk page. Suffice to say the circular sourcing was problematic. If you disagree with me, you're welcome to take it to the BLP noticeboard. SlimVirgin 01:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Unreasoned

The arbitration appears to have concerned problematic editing by Hewitt & had nothing to do with the subsequent worldwide reporting by multiple, highly reliable secondary sources on this matter.

Inclusion of such notable material is well within Misplaced Pages policies concerning biographies of living persons. You make no contrary arguments. In fact, you make no argument at all.

Calamitybrook (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry regarding earlier perceived copyright violation.

The incident in question, and its aftermath, was perhaps the most widely noted event in Hewitt's career.

Below are five reliable sources:

Probably the most recent relevant source is from Investment Weekly News January 1, 2011. it is titled WIKIEXPERTS.US; Misplaced Pages Experts Call for No Donations to Misplaced Pages It reports, among other things that "For example, Carl Hewitt, a professor emeritus from MIT, is just one of the many subject-matter experts that have been banned from Misplaced Pages. Hewitt wrote a paper on his experience, with the following summary: 'Misplaced Pages's business model is generating Web traffic for articles of conventional wisdom and morality that are heavily censored by a commune of mostly anonymous Administrators to motivate financial contributions.'" My only link was through a subscriber data base, but I believe there is adequate information above for a citation.

The technology news Website "Tech Radar" noted the banning incident as recently as March of this year in a round-up of what it called "Misplaced Pages's Wackiest arguments." ]

A major UK newspaper, the Guardian, reported on Hewitt's contentious relationship with Misplaced Pages here ]. Apparently only time Guardian ever reported on Hewitt.

NZ Herald carried similar story here ]

The German techology news Website "Heise Online" also took note of the same incident here ]

These are reliable secondary sources concerning a widely noted incident in the biography of Hewitt.

No reasonable arguments exist for excluding this material from the Misplaced Pages article.

Calamitybrook (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Start-Class biography articles
• Start-Class biography (science and academia) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (science and academia) articles
• Science and academia work group articles
• Science and academia work group articles needing infoboxes
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs of scientists and academics
• Biography articles without infoboxes
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs of people
• WikiProject Biography articles