Talk:Max Lu

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.

Biography Unassessed

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

POV/autobio

This article reads like a LinkedIn profile. It needs copyediting for NPOV (not promotional) and for Wikipedia style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.227.23.43 (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edits made should have resolved these issues — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.227.23.43 (talk) 21:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portmeirion18

Portmeirion18 is either the subject or someone close to him, and persists to add extensive non-cited and promotional material. 2A00:23C5:DE05:B000:2049:7699:96C2:1281 (talk) 16:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Prof Max Lu Preferred photo high res.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Research and citations section

Some of this doesn't make sense, none of it has a source, and it unduly refers to one piece of work. It would be great to expand the article, but properly. Ideally, someone who is an expert can take the info into layman's terms. Then cite it. Then help contribute to deciding what is proper information to include. Removed text follows: 2A00:23C5:DE05:B000:2049:7699:96C2:1281 (talk) 16:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Lu is the last name credited of 8 people on the paper, his contribution likely was not very significant, and definitely not important enough to be the only one mentioned on his page makes it seem. [1]

Research and citations

Lu's contributions include work on nanoporous materials, nanocrystalline oxide photocatalysts and electrochemical materials. It focuses on the properties of these and how they can be used for energy conversion and storage.

Work he contributed to on Anatase photcatalysts was the first demonstration of non-metallic atoms acting as surface controlling agents to obtain highly active crystallographic facets. There are some uses of this discovery, including the controlled synthesis of single crystal oxides and potential applications in lowering water and air pollution.

Professor Lu has published over 500 peer-reviewed articles (h=116), attracting more than 55,400 citations (Scopus). He is co-inventor of more than 20 granted international patents.

"Thomson Reuters Highly Cited Researcher"

The text "He is a Thomson Reuters Highly Cited Researcher in both Materials Science and Chemistry" seems dubious. There is a source for it, but editors seem to insist (unreferenced) that he is a Thomson Reuters double HCR. Also, the Thomson Reuters citation awards was rebrandied several years ago as Clarivate Analytics. Speaking of, Max Lu is not actually listed as one of the Clarivate Citation Laureates - is this a different honor? If so, is being a HCR that important? Looks like outdated info in any case, and removed whilst in discussion. Please discuss the above points, with references for claims. 2A00:23C5:DE05:B000:152E:EB18:EB26:DD7E (talk) 18:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Portmeirion18: could you contribute to this discussion?

Hi there -- For full transparency on all recent comments, I am most definitely not Max Lu, but I do work for the University of Surrey. I am desperately trying to responsibly update a couple of wildly inaccurate pages and flying a bit blind. Fair dues on the Research Section, and I didn't know that about Thomson Reuters being renamed. However, Max Lu is definitely a double HCR in Chemistry and Nanomaterials. If you can give me a week to find citations and confirmations of all of this I will either add them in or remove the material entirely. Does that sound ok? Then you can all decide whether it should be kept in at all. Portmeirion18 (talk) 04:46, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again -- I see in fact that you have removed most of the offending material, which is fine. If I can find citations I will propose to reinstate. One of Lu's children now lives in London so that reference is incorrect. I have not changed it as I do not have an alternative citation, but I suppose reference to where his children live should then be removed? Portmeirion18 (talk) 05:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We can't just take your word for it, but since information of where Lu's children live isn't important, I'll remove it anyway. I'm glad you also want to contribute to expanding articles and their accuracy at Wikipedia, if you're able to "translate" information to basic that would be well received - I am not an academic, most people aren't, and so a lot of the Research and Citations information is complete gibberish, especially the (completely copyvio) line about citation figures. Unless this can be written in non-technical terms it probably won't be included no matter being cited. 2A00:23C5:DE05:B000:DCAC:CB26:9886:9F44 (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okey-doke; thanks for explaining!! Portmeirion18 (talk) 09:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement Needed

Editors: I have reviewed and revised this article, adding some sources, restructured the flow and headings. In particular, the early life aspect does need citations to sources. The career section is fine. But there is a need for a "research" section to talk about what he does technically in his research (besides university leadership). Thirdly, the "Criticism" section is fine, but if this gets too long, I encourage writing a separate article about it and adding a link to the parent page. Thanks. 2405:800:9030:2C47:7DE2:76DB:9531:3F63 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:25, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Formulaonewiki: - Hi there. While I am ok with you re-inserting subsections for University of Surrey controversy so that they reappeared in the table of contents box, please be reminded that in Wikipedia, no personal attacks are not allowed WP:NPA. If the University of Surrey issues are lengthy, then it deserves a separate page on its own. Thanks. 2405:800:9030:2C47:7DE2:76DB:9531:3F63 (talk) 10:38, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate your concern, I do not believe there is a WP:NPA issue here. The content is written in a neutral and appropriately encyclopaedic manner and directly concerns the subject, with due context and background information to ensure it is best understood. In its current state, there is (in my opinion) no need to migrate anything to a new article. Formulaonewiki 13:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, why would the early life section not need references? All things need references, or else we don't know them. Unless you're the same editor, now without logging in, who works for the University of Surrey and asserted these things. It would certainly seem that way since you don't know wiki markup and are making edits to promote the subject (rearranging to move criticism away, removing factual statements because it's "irrelevant to career". I propose reversion of all your edits based on that likelihood. I'm at least going to fix the article. Please cease. 2A00:23C6:ED81:4900:9573:E847:C294:73D9 (talk) 22:19, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possible CoI

An IP stated in the edit summary for this edit [2] that "there is clear evidence of people who work with or for the subject editing the page". I posted on the IP talk page [3] asking for the evidence but I now see it may be a wandering IP so I am posting again here to make sure they can see it if they get a new IP address. Please could they share with us the evidence?SovalValtos (talk) 18:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion can be found here. Also have a look at earlier talk page discussion, there is more there. Formulaonewiki 22:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Formulaonewiki: @SovalValto: That is not the evidence. The last editors 131.227.206.122 and Portmeirion18 hadn't reappeared. And I don't believe adding research done by Max Lu is a self-promotion. Editor 2A00:23C6:ED81:4900:35AE:3CC9:CFDE:401 seems to be stopping positive things to be written about Max Lu and insisting on blowing up the surrey controversy to stain him. 2405:800:9030:2C47:4099:1E25:C4CA:9695 (talk) 00:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possible NPA

Take note of WP:NPA and WP:WEAK. The article should be about the biographical material about a living person and should not be overwhelmed with University of Surrey controversy (regardless of the number of sources you can find or add to this page). Once the controversy portion becomes the major, those information will be removed or moved to a separate page. Using wikipedia to defame or harass another person is clearly not allowed. If an editor has an issue with Max Lu, he or she should write to him or to the university and not use Wikipedia to highlight his/her displeasure against the person. 2405:800:9030:2C47:4099:1E25:C4CA:9695 (talk) 00:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]