Talk:Ariel Fernandez

Retracted papers paragraph.

There is an active discussion about this paragraph on WP:BLPN#Ariel_Fernandez, but given that consensus seemed to be trending towards removing it, and given that this is a WP:BLP, I removed it for now. My feeling (which I'll note down here so it isn't lost if this comes up again in the future) is that a retracted paper isn't automatically worth including in an article, and definitely not in a BLP. Going over the sources, Retraction Watch, as I understand it, covers retractions indiscriminately, which makes it useless to establish significance. The only other secondary source mentions it only in passing, only to note that Fernandez disputed it on Twitter, and is merely using Fernandez to make a more general point -- they make no assertion that the retraction has any significance in terms of Fernandez' biography. My feeling is that to mention something like this in a BLP, we need a source specifically saying that it matters; the sources provided here definitely do not provide enough to include it. This is especially true in the context of the article -- that sentence reads like someone has collected every issue or concern that has ever been raised about Fernandez' papers to try and imply some impropriety or some other negative judgment of Fernandez; but without a source explicitly making such allegations, it comes across as WP:SYNTH. --Aquillion (talk) 19:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes let's continue talking at the BLPN. Jytdog (talk) 20:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

It is not an issue of a single retraction. There are several "expressions of concern" issued by prominent journals in recent years. While a single questionable paper would not be appropriate in a BLP unless it was an egregious violation of scientific ethics, a repeated pattern of papers with problems in the data is worthy of a mention. If sources are the issue, linking to the actual journal expressions of concern instead of Retraction Watch is an option. 72.21.225.66 (talk) 19:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

No it is not an option. Until a reliable source puts forward the case that these expressions of concern are significant then we shouldn't take them as notable enough events in this man's career to be included in his biography. Things that are worthy of a mention by their very nature get mentioned elsewhere. Rubiscous (talk) 22:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

So now it is mentioned elsewhere. An edit summary you gave ("merely repeats what Retraction Watch says as a comment on Retraction Watch, not the article subject") is incorrect -- the CHE article doesn't simply repeat what RW says, instead it contacted Fernandez and got his perspective as well. Anyway, to a certain extent journalism/reporting involves reporting what people say; we'd have reason to worry about that if we thought that what was reported might be untrue, but in this case we know from the primary sources (the journals themselves) that what is being reported is true. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

We have a content-related issue regarding the Wikipedia Biography article Ariel Fernandez. The matter has come up at least twice in BLP notice board. Yet, although concensus trended towards removal, there is a line repeatedly being removed and added back that mentions three papers by the subject that have been questioned by the journals where they were published. Challenged papers are a common occurrence in science and, in regards to the papers in question, no definite action has been taken by the journals. Furthermore, nobody has pointed to a serious breach of ethics in the research practices of Ariel Fernandez. In our opinion, the paragraph is not adding meaningful content to Wikipedia, while some Wikipedia contributors have referred to it as potentially libelous given the lack of balance of the article itself. Please advice.

Argentine Natl. Research Council181.228.138.187 (talk) 11:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

It isn't mentioned elsewhere in the context in which it is presented in your edit, ie without mention of the spat with Retraction Watch. If there had been no heated exchange, if there had been no legal threats from Dr Fernandez, there would have been no mention of events in The Chronicle of Higher Education, and I dare say there would be no attempts to make mention of them in this Wikipedia article. The questioning of the papers are currently being presented as noteworthy events in and of themselves, which is not something that is supported by the source. Rubiscous (talk) 15:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

That sounds like an argument for including mention of the legal threats against RW. Fine with me. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

It's an argument against including mention of the expressions of concern stripped of context. I remain to be convinced that the whole affair is worthy of mention. In the interests of NPOV I would suggest that as CHE contacted Fernandez and got his perspective then that should be included for balance. Rubiscous (talk) 16:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

As always, happy to consider a proposed edit. I have no axe to grind here, apart from re continued attempts of the article subject to whitewash. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

As far as we can see, the questioning of research articles authored by Dr. Ariel Fernandez is not noteworthy, and there is no source justifying or supporting inclusion in Wikipedia. Please advice.181.228.138.187 (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)Argentine Natl. Research Council

BLP Concerns

I noticed this article is listed at the BLP Noticeboard. I have reviewed the article is its well written, well sourced, NPOV, it's a very good piece of work. It looks like there are some capable editors reviewing these matters. I see no serious BLP concerns over adding or not adding the content, so long as it is properly weighted. 97.126.235.119 (talk) 17:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)