Talk:Dănuț Marcu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Being a well known and serial plagiarist is of importance to general public. It is also reflected in the numerous literature as cited. Please read the references before further removal. Mhym 03:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I did read them. I see no evidence for the subject being best known for plagiarism. The citations are also not "numerous". Unsourced claims will be removed; it's that simple. Additionally, having plagiarized does not automatically make someone of such importance they should have a Wikipedia bio, so his importance (as far as Wikipedia is concerned) rests on your claim of "well known". If you can demonstrate this, without engaging in original research, I will be satisfied. So far all I see is some hearsay in an email (mentioned in one of the references). Given WP:RS, the sourcing should really be better than that before levying that kind of accusation. --C S (Talk) 04:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. I added more reference to support my claim. Please read these MathSciNet reviews (including MR2031645 which explicitly mentioning that Marcu is "infamous"). That enough to convince you? Mhym 04:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Your references are only available to subscribers, at least according to the article all of them link to. That's not enough to support a claim such as yours. Henning Makholm 04:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
This is not a web site but a journal published by the AMS. The WP source policy allows books, journals and other print media to be references. See Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Books, journals are ok. MathSciNet is accepted by WP as reliable source. Naturally. Mhym 04:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the links are fine. Anybody with university library access will be able to see them. --C S (Talk) 04:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Almost, but not quite. Most of the forthright reviews you cite are by Jerrold Grossman. All claims like this, to be properly sourced, should say something like "Jerrold Grossman calls Marcu an infamous plagiarist in Math Reviews..." I really doubt Marcu is that famous, period, for plagiarism or otherwise. Grossman considers him to be an infamous plagiarist, but Grossman also apparently spends a lot of time reviewing Marcu's articles, so his perspective may be skewed. Other reviewers in general do not comment on this or at least seem unaware that Marcu could possibly have plagiarized the work. So I am skeptical about how well known Marcu is.
I don't think there's enough here to make a blanket assertion that Marcu is well known for this. A claim like Albert Einstein is an iconic physicist would not require extensive documentation, as this can be backed up by hundreds if not thousands of sources by different scholars, publications, etc. But here the scarcity of sources is obvious. One cannot simply make a claim that someone is famous for such-and-such reason without giving some sources that show that person is indeed famous. I don't see enough here. I see, at most, someone that may be the subject of occasional gossip at some math department tea. Hardly Wikipedia fame. There is no media coverage here, no newspapers, magazines, etc.
I would just stick with reporting the clear facts. You can say such and such journals have banned him, or that a dozen of his papers have been found to be "word for word" duplicates according to whomever. --C S (Talk) 05:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I kind of agree with Marcu being less famous than Einstein.... As for WP-famous, I say he passes the bar. There are at least 3 articles banning him by the editorial board, and one article dedicated solely to his case, how he got caught but published "his" article eslewhere anyway (see the 4OR paper). Compare him agains others in the Scientific misconduct category like Steven A. Leadon or Elias Alsabti. The google test gives roughly similar results.
As to whether we should say in the article that he is "famous..." - I am ok with dropping the word. This does not affect Marcu's notability if I understand you correctly. Mhym 06:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with Mhym:

"Being a well known and serial plagiarist is of importance to general public. It is also reflected in the numerous literature as cited."

This is a very important service to heneral public, mathematicians, and particularly for editors and publishers. I thank Wiki for this page, which should be kept, and expanded to other documented cases. [User: stganger] Dec 6, 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Asoifer (talkcontribs) 02:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC).


As several people indicated that this article should adhere strictly to our policy for biographies of living persons, I rewrote the article. As an added benefit, I verified everything. However, I cannot access the following two references. Since their contents were not clear in the original article (though we can have a guess), I moved them here:

I hope that everybody can agree with my rewrite; otherwise, I'm sure I'll hear it. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 07:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I can access the geom. ded. link. It is a 1 page pdf; I hesitate to quote much of it due to copyright, but it is about the same instance as the Zbl review you link. The editors K. Strambach and F. D. Veldkamp observe that the Marcu and Lindström papers are "more-or-less word for word the same", note that they suspect plagiarism on Marcu's part, and state that they contacted Marcu but that he denied ever having seen Lindström's paper. They did not find his denials convincing, they say, but they "leave it to the scientific community to form their own opinion". And finally they apologize to their readers. It does not say anything about banning him from the journal. —David Eppstein 08:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I incorporated that. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 05:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
It looks good, but I wonder why you removed the importance tag. Do you believe that Marcu is important enough to require a Wikipedia bio? --C S (Talk) 08:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I do think that somebody who has plagiarized dozens of papers over 10 years and managed to publish them in peer-reviewed (I assume) journals is notable enough for Wikipedia, though it's close to the notability border. However, that's not the main reason why I removed the tag. The notability tag, like all clean-up tags, is supposed to be temporary. I don't see how the article can be changed to make the notability claim clearer, so I removed it (though I shouldn't have done it so surreptitiously).
I think the tag should not be used just to flag articles as perhaps not notable enough, in some editor's opinion. If you think it doesn't reach the necessary level of notability, you can start a discussion on the talk page (already done), in some other forum, or start an AfD. However, if you do think this is a proper use of the tag then feel free to put it back in. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 05:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with your reasoning. I was curious if you saw some other reason to claim notability. I don't think the plagiarism thing by itself is significant. --C S (Talk) 08:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
When I wrote the first draft of the article, I had this Saitama Math. J. reference for a reason. I bet it says that Marcu plagiarised the paper they published. I am just too lazy to go to the library to check... But I do have this link: MR1972494. Mhym 06:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Inline comment moved from article[edit]

Evidence from MathSciNet is overwhelming, and allows the editors of Wikipedia to draw more definitive conclusions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asoifer (talkcontribs) 2006-12-11T19:15:27

Moved from main page by Henning Makholm 21:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion at BLPN[edit]

I'm a little uncomfortable about an article that seems to exist solely to disparage somebody, even if it's done so very accurately. I don't know what to do, but I've started a discussion at the BLP noticeboard, if anybody wants to chime in. RayTalk 15:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

This article undergone a number number of early edits to comply with the BLP. It not an attack, or at least no more so than Ted Kaczynski. Both are LP, and became notoriously famous for their crimes. Both articles report/document those (no longer alleged) crimes, with copious sources. What exactly is the threshold for inclusion of someone guilty of academic misconduct then? And why is that standard different from any other crimes/violations. Mhym (talk) 20:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree -- if he is notable mainly for multiple instances of plagiarism, then that is what our article here should cover. Apart from that, he clearly meets WP:PROF, as I have indicated at the AfD. In any event, I agree that it's appropriate to restore the material. It's certainly inconsistent with NPOV to omit it entirely. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
The article may not be negative in its entirety. If you are going to document someone's "crimes", the use of which word would appear to be defamatory, you must provide a much more complete biography. As it stands, the article does not comply with WP:BLP, despite your assertion. You've also remove an AfD template. Leave it be, discuss at the AfD. Yworo (talk) 20:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
There's no policy that says an article may not be negative in its entirety. Even if there were -- it wasn't, the first paragraph wasn't negative at all. What matters here is NPOV. The tone was really quite neutral. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Re removal of AfD - my bad. I simply restored the article to an early state, so it is clear that what is being proposed to delete. Re: NPOV, DUE - we used all available RS. If you know other RS which can lit more light into Mr. Marcu - please add it. At it is, I don't see how removing well sourced material serves NPOV, as these sources are the whole reason for Marcu's fame. Mhym (talk) 20:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Which puts the article into the People notable for only one event category, for which we don't maintain biographical articles of living people. While a discussion is ongoing at WP:BLPN, the material should be left out until a consensus is formed. That's standard process. Yworo (talk) 20:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
1E? With an article cited 1880 times, and others cited several hundred times? Really? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Yup, if he's notable only for being discovered as a plagiarist, and for no other reason, then he doesn't meet notability requirements. Apparently no other biographical material is available, which means he has achieve not notability independent of these accusations. Yworo (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
But he's notable for being highly cited. Perhaps you're not familiar with WP:PROF. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Circular reasoning: he's only highly cited due to the accusations of plagiarism. Also, I think WP:CRIME would also apply. Has he been convicted in a courtroom? Yworo (talk) 20:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
How on earth would you know that? Never mind; it's obviously mere speculation. Anyway we will see what the regulars at the academics delsort list have to say. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
1E? Have you read the article? He committed so many proven *different* plagiarism vio, this makes it into dozen of events. This article [1] alone lists 5 in a single journal. Math Reviews published a dozen reviews of him as well, all published RS.Mhym (talk) 20:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
WP:Crime?? Felony is different from academic vio. There is a formal court in the formal case, and a formal academic review in the latter case, eventually banning from publication. If you read what editors of several journals did - they went through a thorough review and instituted this ban, as was proper. Mhym (talk) 20:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Primary sources[edit]

I have to object to all the sources used to cite the plagiarism facts. They are primary sources, written and published by the reviewers and editors to whom the the manuscripts were submitted, reporting on an event in which they were involved. The facts of "ban notices" cannot be sourced to the ban notices themselves. They have to be sourced to third-party reports about the ban notices. The way the article is done, it constitutes original research based on primary, self-published sources (i.e. the writers of the notices are not independent of the publishers of the notices). This is strictly forbidden by the BLP policy, which does not even admit the exception of self-publication by known experts allowed elsewhere. How the heck can this pass BLP?. Yworo (talk) 02:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

You clearly are not reading these sources, as some of them are by subscription. Very few are "bans" themselves, and WP has no policy against including primary sources, so long as independent sources are provided. Now, while some of the sources are reviews of Marcu articles, most include references and description of other reviews and bans. Being published in reputable journals, when viewed as such, they constitute third party sources. The sheer number of such reviews is so overwhelming, there is no need to argue reliability of each individual sources.
On another matter, where is all this negative attitude coming from? Perhaps, if you explain what really bothers you in this article, we can help you fix it. Writing "How the heck..." is neither prudent nor helpful. Mhym (talk) 06:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I imagine you've already seen, but in case not, there are two other editors at the AfD agreeing that those sources are fine for this purpose. Under the circumstances, I think all those in-line tags can go. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Will remove them then. Mhym (talk) 21:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

A review of an article by Marcu is not a restricted source by virtue of WP:PRIMARY. It is a secondary source about Marcu's article, no different from the book reviews that are cited very extensively throughout Wikipedia. An abuse of WP:PRIMARY (not to mention WP:NOR) would be ourselves note that a Marcu article was mostly identical to some other article. Depending on the content of the review it might be necessary to present it as the opinion of the reviewer, but that's a different issue. Zerotalk 11:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Highly cited non-plagiarized works?[edit]

During the recent AfD and DRV, there was some discussion of some papers by "D. Marcu" that were highly cited and seemingly non-plagiarized, giving him a pass of WP:PROF#C1. If this is true, it would be appropriate to balance the article to include those works. However, the Google scholar search link given in the AfD goes to works by Daniel Marcu (not Dănuț), and when I factor those out I don't find so much [2]. The first result that looks like a valid match is down on page 4 with only 5 citations: "An upper bound on the domination number of a graph" Math Scand 1986, MR0873487, possibly related to a paper of his from the previous year MR0790481. I see no evidence that these papers are plagiarized but they are also not highly enough cited to be worth mentioning. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Missing book source[edit]

Of the six new sources mentioned in the AfD and DRV, I added four to the article. I did not add "An Academic Publisher’s Response to Plagiarism", Lewis, Duchac, & Beets, J. Bus. Ethics 2011 because I thought its coverage of Marcu was too superficial, but I also did not add a book source, The Great Betrayal: Fraud in Science, Judson 2004, ISBN 9780151008773, because Google books [3] wouldn't show me the text of its coverage of Marcu so I couldn't tell how relevant it was or which page numbers to cite. My university library also doesn't appear to have it. Can someone else with better access to this book report on what it says about Marcu, please? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dănuț Marcu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)