Talk:Peter Bogner (businessman): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:15, 7 April 2023

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 sourced must 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 has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Organizations Stub‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography Stub‑class

	Biography portal 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
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

COVID-19 Stub‑class

	COVID-19 portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19 articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Dubious WP:SPA author

A note to any admin or experienced editor who may review this Draft. The initial author of the draft is a single-purpose account who appears to be focused on an agenda to criticize a global scientific initiative. In this early draft, sources are already being used to support claims that are not mentioned in the sources. For example, footnote 4 cites a document that makes no mention of "starting his own strategic consulting firm". In my estimation, this is the work of someone with a dull axe to grind. - AppleBsTime (talk) 04:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear AppleBsTime,

Thank you for taking the time to review the draft and provide your feedback. I appreciate the vigilance in ensuring that the content on Wikipedia remains accurate, neutral, and well-sourced. In response to your concerns, please find a point-by-point address below:

Dubious Wikipedia:Single-purpose account: I understand your concern about potential single-purpose account (SPA) status of my account. Rest assured, I am an experienced Wikipedia editor with nearly 20 years of experience. I am using a legitimate Wikipedia:VALIDALT account due to need for privacy. GISAID is known to retaliate against people who do not praise it. I would encourage you to evaluate the content of the article objectively, independent of your pro-GISAID views, focussing on the content and its accuracy.
Agenda to criticize a global scientific initiative: In light of your feedback, I have reevaluated the tone and focus of the article to ensure there is no doubt it adheres to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy.
Misuse of sources: I apologize for any inaccuracies in the use of sources. Specifically, regarding footnote 4, I have corrected the citation and removed any claim that is not supported by the source. Please review again and let me know if there is anything else you would like me to address.
Dull axe to grind: Please Wikipedia:Assume good faith and don't make such accusations without good evidence to back it up.

I invite you and other editors to contribute to the article, ensuring that it meets Wikipedia's high standards. Your expertise and constructive criticism is invaluable in maintaining the quality and reliability of the information on the platform.

Best regards,

AncientWalrus AncientWalrus (talk) 15:19, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Case for Notability

In this diff on April 1st, @Onel5969 added a {{notability}} tag during Page patrol.

I would like to document on the talk page why I think the page satisfies notability criteria.

According to WP:BASIC it is sufficient to show:

significant coverage
in multiple published secondary sources
that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject.

Bogner, and his role in founding GISAID is covered in significant detail in multiple reliable, intellectually independent secondary sources. In particular the first devotes many paragraphs to Bogner. Both sources are of high reputation and reliability (Wallstreet Journal and Science):

Zamiska, Nicholas (2006-08-31). "A Nonscientist Pushes Sharing Bird-Flu Data". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2023-04-01.
Enserink, Martin (2007-02-16). "New Swiss Influenza Database to Test Promises of Access". Science. 315 (5814): 923–923. doi:10.1126/science.315.5814.923a. ISSN 0036-8075.
Enserink, Martin (2006-08-25). "Pushed by an Outsider, Scientists Call for Global Plan to Share Flu Data". Science. 313 (5790): 1026–1026. doi:10.1126/science.313.5790.1026. ISSN 0036-8075.

There is continued coverage of Bogner's role as President of GISAID, more than 10 years after the initial foundation event in 2006.

The following recent articles all mention Bogner:

Wadman, Meredith (2021-03-12). "Coronavirus sequence trove sparks frustration". Science. 371 (6534): 1086–1087. Bibcode:2021Sci...371.1086W. doi:10.1126/science.371.6534.1086. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 33707243. S2CID 232209221.
"A critical genetic database is under fire". The Economist. ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved 2023-04-06.

Bogner is quoted in these reliable sources (just a selection):

Lastly, Bogner is President of an organization that receives significant high profile media coverage. This should additionally be considered for the determination of notability:

AncientWalrus (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just voicing disagreement with a good portion of the justifications seen above. I will say more later, but shortly here now, it's worth noting that "mentions" or (worse) "passing mentions" are rarely sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia. Also, there is WP:1E to consider. Bogner is almost exclusively mentioned in sources that happen to be focusing on GISAID -- the sources are not biographical features about Bogner. Consider Walter Goad -- his Wikipedia biography is illustrative of sources like an obituary, a book featuring an entire chapter about him with details about his childhood and early career, and even the Walter Goad Papers, a collection of the man's "correspondence, reports, and legal documents of both a professional and personal nature." That's why Goad has a Wikipedia biography, and for the same standard, why Peter Bogner does not merit one. - AppleBsTime (talk) 01:14, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 16:58, 6 April 2023 edit AncientWalrus (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 1,364 edits →Case for Notability: new section Tag: New topic ← Previous edit		Revision as of 01:15, 7 April 2023 edit undo AppleBsTime (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers 1,584 edits →Case for Notability: Disagree, with rationale Next edit →
Line 58:		Line 58:

	[[User:AncientWalrus\|AncientWalrus]] ([[User talk:AncientWalrus\|talk]]) 16:58, 6 April 2023 (UTC)		[[User:AncientWalrus\|AncientWalrus]] ([[User talk:AncientWalrus\|talk]]) 16:58, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

			:Just voicing disagreement with a good portion of the justifications seen above. I will say more later, but shortly here now, it's worth noting that "mentions" or (worse) "passing mentions" are rarely sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia. Also, there is [[WP:1E]] to consider. Bogner is almost exclusively mentioned in sources that happen to be focusing on GISAID -- the sources are not biographical features about Bogner. Consider [[Walter Goad]] -- his Wikipedia biography is illustrative of sources like an obituary, a book featuring an entire chapter about him with details about his childhood and early career, and even the Walter Goad Papers, a collection of the man's "correspondence, reports, and legal documents of both a professional and personal nature." That's why Goad has a Wikipedia biography, and for the same standard, why Peter Bogner does not merit one. - [[User:AppleBsTime\|AppleBsTime]] ([[User talk:AppleBsTime\|talk]]) 01:14, 7 April 2023 (UTC)