Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Science and academia

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

Historians of science, geneticists, biochemists, see[edit]

George M. Church article, and recent talk entry from me at the same article. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Robert S. Nelsen[edit]

Could somebody from "WP:ACAD" take a look at Robert S. Nelsen. Some information about his early life was recently added that may in fact be true, but is currently unsourced. I have posted my concerns about this at Talk:Robert S. Nelsen#Early life but this unsourced stuff probably should immediately be removed per WP:BLPSOURCES. I initially added {{citation needed}} templates, but removed them as soon as I found out such templates are not supposed to be used in such situations. Anyway, I just thought I'd ask here since this article would seem to fall under your purview and your members probably have dealt with this kind of thing before. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Royal Society of Chemistry - Wikimedian in Residence[edit]

Hi folks,

I recently started work as Wikimedian in Residence at the Royal Society of Chemistry. Over the coming year, I'll be working with my new colleagues there, and the society's members, to help them to improve the coverage of chemistry-related topics, including biographies, in Wikipedia and sister projects.

You can keep track of progress at Wikipedia:GLAM/Royal Society of Chemistry, and use the talk page if you have any questions or suggestions. I've already discovered a number of "missing" biographies of chemists (lists via Wikipedia:GLAM/Royal Society of Chemistry#Articles needed)

How can I and the society support your work to improve Wikipedia? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention[edit]

This is a notice about Category:Biography/Science and academia articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Iceblock. But do you know of any example where the appropriate expert was actually alerted by one of these tags and fixed a problem? I think it is much better to contact relevant wikiprojects for advice. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, RockMagnetist! Could you please describe in detail what steps you recommend for dealing with pages in the categories Category:Miscellaneous articles needing expert attention, Category:Articles needing unspecified expert attention and other subcategories of Category:Articles needing expert attention? Suggestions are welcome. What I have done is to notify matching wikiprojects about the categories, in this case Category:Biography/Science and academia articles needing expert attention. Iceblock (talk) 20:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, for a start I'd go through and remove any expert attention tags that don't provide a reason. Judging by the pages I have looked at, that would be over 90% of them. RockMagnetist(talk) 21:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, RockMagnetist! I asked at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_116#Policy_on_removing_expert_tags about having a bot remove the tags, but was advised this is not a good idea. I guess it's best that I leave the removal to other editors, to avoid unfortunate results. Iceblock (talk) 16:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The category is now empty. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Academia?[edit]

Please see here: Talk:Academia#WikiProject Academia?. Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 02:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Jonathan R. Alger[edit]

Hi there, I believe WP:ACADEMICS supports Jonathan R. Alger. First, I have a COI with the page, but have been working with non COI editors to expand the page. It's a stub now. I would appreciate it if someone could take a look at the expanded article, I am especially wondering about the format for the citations for his Published Works, and also the section about the Sexual Assault Controversy (which I will not be editing given my COI). I ask you to consider: The article says “In 2014 Alger was criticized for JMU's handling of a case,” but sources for that statement are problematic. The first source cited[1] is an editorial opinion piece written by an invested party and the second source cited[2] does not criticize the President for his role at any point. Please consider these sources[3][4]on the same subject. Thanks. Cville24 (talk) 15:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


  1. ^ Kildee, Brian; Lemm, Laura. "Culture of callousness at James Madison University". The Washington Post, Opinions. Retrieved 11 November 2014. 
  2. ^ Cruise, Grant. "Former JMU Student Speaks Out on Sexual Assault, Part One". WHSV3. Retrieved 11 November 2014. 
  3. ^ Anderson, Nick. "JMU president versed in civil rights law". The Washington Post, Education. Retrieved 11 November 2014. 
  4. ^ Anderson, Nick. "Campus discussions increasingly focus on sex assault". The Washington Post, Education. Retrieved 11 November 2014. 

Launch of WikiProject Wikidata for research[edit]

Hi, this is to let you know that we've launched WikiProject Wikidata for research in order to stimulate a closer interaction between Wikidata and research, both on a technical and a community level. As a first activity, we are drafting a research proposal on the matter (cf. blog post). Your thoughts on and contributions to that would be most welcome! Thanks, -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 02:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Free 'RSC Gold' accounts[edit]

I am pleased to announce, as Wikimedian in Residence at the Royal Society of Chemistry, the donation of 100 "RSC Gold" accounts, for use by Wikipedia editors wishing to use RSC journal content to expand articles on chemistry-related topics (including biographies - there are a number of obituaries in the archives, for instance). Please visit Wikipedia:RSC Gold for details, to check your eligibility, and to request an account. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Kiril Tenekedjiev[edit]

The article has seen problematic COI editing in the past and as soon as the protection dropped, previous editor showed up. Can someone familiar with the math/science scene review the article and sources check whatever the standard places for sources that are not currently being used and take any appropriate next steps? Thanks! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Series of BLP biologist articles: extra eyes wanted.[edit]

User:Herpetology2 has been creating a series of BLP articles on biologists sourced primarily from the subjects' own publications or affiliated sources, laden with peacock phrases, and with little reliance on secondary sources; and secondary sources (news and film coverage, as well as professional accolades) in some cases appear to exist. The user has at times added commentary and media files (some removed) that suggests at worst a personal familiarity with the subjects and conflict of interest, or at best unsourced opinion/original synthesis, and honest confusion regarding licensing policy (although at least one of the subjects was interviewed prior to his article creation). I've been trying to provide the user feedback and all relevant policies and guidelines, and prune excessive listings of accomplishments, but it seems to have little effect. The articles in question are currently:

(and see also Herpetological Conservation and Biology) Maybe I'm overreacting, but I feel like pointing out a series of accomplishments by sourcing the work is overly promotional, and certainly not balanced or in line with WP:BLP nor WP:SCHOLAR. Additional opinions or intervention are welcome, as I don't want to be the sole voice of policy for this user. Thanks. --Animalparty-- (talk) 02:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Notability of a Valhalla train crash victim[edit]

One of the victims of last week's train wreck north of New York City was Robert M. Dirks, a computational chemist with a doctorate from Caltech, where he also did a postdoc, who worked at D.E. Shaw Research in Manhattan. Since another victim, Walter Liedtke, has turned out to be notable, I decided to look into Dirks ... who seems to have coauthored quite a few papers, and his employer describes him as having made "tremendous contributions" to "the development of novel computational chemistry methods."

I've compiled what I've found on the article's talk page. I'd like some input from editors more familiar with interpreting the notability criteria for academics and scientists than I am, and perhaps better qualified to judge if Dirks' research makes him notable. (I am also asking at WT:CHM for help on this, plus someone who can say what was significant about his research if indeed it made him notable). Daniel Case (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Style guidelines or community consensus about lists of publications?[edit]

It is not uncommon for Science and academia biographies to have a selection of publications at the end, usually titled "Selected works" or "Bibliography". It is (thankfully) less frequent that an article has an exhaustive list of publications, ranging from books to conference abstracts, which seem copied from a Curriculum Vitae or database (example). How many works should be included seems largely left up to respective editors, but I feel it's prudent to bring up the question of how should these lists be implemented, and how exhaustive (or not) they should be. Publishing papers is not inherently noteworthy for academics, and exhaustive lists may be considered indiscriminate info, promotional, or an attempt to appear to satisfy WP:SCHOLAR without actually gathering the explicit secondary sources establishing notability. Here are some possible guidelines to the issue:

  1. Only list publications that have been explicitly featured by independent, reliable sources.
  2. Only list books/monographs published. Defer the listing of papers/conference proceedings, etc. to an External link.
  3. Be as comprehensive as you wish. List away!
  4. Include literature of any size in a {{collapsible list}} list, which might make articles more concise and readable while still directing interested readers towards primary literature. (see for instance William Keeton#Bibliography of orientation publications)
  5. Leave questions of inclusions to the editor(s) involved in their respective articles, no attempt at guidelines or rules-of-thumb.

I'm interested in opinions, and/or links to former conversations on this topic. Cheers. --Animalparty-- (talk) 03:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Having had no response in over a year, I've re-posted this comment here in hopes of getting more input. Please make any new comments on that discussion rather than this stale thread. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Removal of referenced info at Carol M. Swain[edit]

Removal of referenced information from this page. I reverted it once, but did not insist a second time to avoid edit-warring. Would someone else like to revert it? Is it appropriate to censor this info?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

It is neither appropriate to censor it, nor is it necessarily appropriate to include it, per WP:ONUS, as long as the article maintains a neutral tone and is not overly one-sided, nor unduly weighted towards current events (fresh though they are in the minds of the media), per WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALASPS. Any well-cited material, even contentious, may potentially be included, especially if it has received relatively high amounts of secondary coverage (indeed, that's how we assess notability and noteworthiness), but if it's just par-for-the-course opining and response, then it may not be significant in the totality of one's career, and then perhaps should be shortened or omitted until the article becomes expansive enough to fairly and proportionally allocate the good with the bad, the recent with the historic, etc. FYI this discussion should probably continue on Talk:Carol M. Swain for maximum utility in article improvement. Cheers, --Animalparty-- (talk) 23:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd rather not discuss this further. I just wanted to bring this to your attention in case you wanted to revert it and expand the page, etc.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


This article is being totally rewritten by one user. It desperately needs wikifying and checking for factual accuracy and needs to brought back to a manageable size. I do not have the expertise to respond to this myself - I was just reading the article today but could not do so as it now has a highly complex structure and layout and is full of unnecessary quotes and content that suggests OR. Can someone familiar with the life and times of Socrates please look at the article? Alternatively, can we go back to the version as at 24 February 2015? Thanks --Chewings72 (talk) 11:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Nikola Tesla[edit]

BulbBAn RFC: Should all discussions and proposals about Nikola Tesla's nationality, ethnicity and country of birth (broadly construed) be limited to the sub-page: Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity? has been posted here. Interested editors are invited to comment.- MrX 20:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride![edit]

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!

  • What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
  • When? June 2015
  • How can you help?
    1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here
    2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)
    3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing!

User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa

RFC for Brian Leiter[edit]

I have placed a request for comment on Talk: Brian Leiter. The editors involved have been unable to reach consensus on several issues related to the entry. There is extensive discussion on the talk page. Sneekypat (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Donald Chakeres, M.D.[edit]

Could someone please look at Draft:Donald Chakeres, M.D. He is a full professor at Ohio State University and the list of papers at his page at Google Scholar is impressive, but another editor declined the submission. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 02:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

William Shockley[edit]

The article about Nobel laureate William Shockley is gaining fresh attention from editors this week. Your suggestions there could be quite valuable, as that article has been subject to much edit-warring over the years, and is remarkably brief and poorly sourced for an article about a Nobel laureate. I have just suggested some sources on the article talk page, and I would be glad to hear your suggestions of other sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Two biologist articles at Good Article nominations[edit]

Ralph Vary Chamberlin and Robert C. Stebbins have been nominated as Good Articles in Biology and medicine. Any uninvolved editor is welcome to review. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 00:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

And for completeness there are also two medical biography articles to be reviewed: Mary Herring and Gabor B. Racz. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norm Houghton (historian)[edit]

The above AfD could use some input from editors here. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 08:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to add draft, file and redirect classes for WP Biography[edit]

I started a proposal to add draft, file and redirect classes for all WP Biography articles here. This would first help organize the half dozen or so drafts from the 140 or so articles at Category:NA-Class biography (science and academia) articles so we can identify the draft articles more easily. Please comment there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Assistant professor#Proposed merge with Professor[edit]

This discussion may be of interest to some editors here. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 09:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Template:Isaac Newton[edit]

I seem to have bitten off a bit more than I can chew in creating {{Isaac Newton}}. Are there any experts on the relevant subjects that could help to sensibly organize the template.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

  • I have cobbled together what I can for this template. It would help to have eyes on it. It would likely benefit from rearranging by an expert.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure more is necessarily better, especially with regards to friends and family and certain concepts. Per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL and especially WP:Navigation templates#Properties, "The goal is not to cram as many related articles as possible into one space. Ask yourself, does this help the reader in reading up on related topics? Take any two articles in the template. Would a reader really want to go from A to B?" I'm not too familiar with the reach of Newton, but articles like Problem of Apollonius Structural coloration and Solar mass seem somewhat removed from "core Newton concepts", although he had some influence, and would a user reading e.g. Power number, realistically want to read about Woolsthorpe Manor, or would simply following the link to Isaac Newton be sufficient? --Animalparty! (talk) 20:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Soufiane Choubani[edit]

Hi all, I note that this sub-board is not heavily traveled, so I may crosspost this at WikiProject Biography's main discussion page. Might someone please look at Soufiane Choubani, an article on a Moroccan professor and founder of the Moroccan national debate team, and evaluate for notability? I get the sense that this is a bit of a vanity article, especially with these IP edits from Morocco, but if the guy's notable, he's notable. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Trouble finding references? The Wikipedia Library is proud to announce ...[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library

Alexander Street Press (ASP) is an electronic academic database publisher. Its "Academic Video Online: Premium collection" includes videos in a range of subject areas, including news programs (like 60 minutes) and newsreels, music and theatre, speeches and lectures and demonstrations, and documentaries. This collection would be useful for researching topics related to science, engineering, history, music and dance, anthropology, business, counseling and therapy, news, nursing, drama, and more. For more topics see their website.

There are up to 30 one-year ASP accounts available to experienced Wikipedians through this partnership. To apply for free access, please go to WP:ASP. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

guidelines about living scientists[edit]

I am trying to do my best to write scientifically robust articles about NMR scientists, in the framework of a long-term "project" about NMR on wiki, but I feel there're different and strong feeling about how articles of living (or recently deceased) scientists should be written. I am talking about what is considered relevant and what is considered "peacooking". I really follow secondary sources in a very pedantic way and I try to set up a starting point looking at the biggest amount of similar articles, but there are sections or sentences that are considered useful/acceptable or excessive depending of the wikipedian commenting on the issue. A little bit of discussion on the specific article is useful, but sometimes the general picture looks confused and contradictory.

For example compare Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry#Geoffrey_Bodenhausen with Lyndon Emsley, an article that was cited on home page in January. I feel that we really need less strong generic statement here and more global agreement on what is ok or not.

Could someone provide me some previous general discussion? Possibly not too general... I kinda know the general rules of biographies and that does not seem to help here in practice.--Alexmar983 (talk) 04:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Have you thought about asking living persons if they would like a BLP to be written about them (response would not be binding)? Xxanthippe (talk) 05:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC).
Yes, I write articles only of people who tell me they're ok. Another one is in preparation on my computer and I have already contacted him. Any comment on main question?--Alexmar983 (talk) 05:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
That is an excellent policy. I wish more people would follow it. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC).
Thank you :D they know or they can be told by people we both know I'm in the "popularization field" and I am precise so they trust me. Also, I hope to get some interesting images on the long term from their "personal archives". In any case they are very "boring" professors, there is almost no controversial issue. Except "peacocking" but -again- that's in the sources and it is typical of very close environments. I've heard someone can have strong feeling about the idea of a wikipedia article but another long term goal should be to prepare a simple "friday afternoon talk" about wikipedia at a (solid-state) NMR conference in 2-3 years, and if they or some of their students want to write something I hope they would contact me for some advice (mainly: please don't do it yourself!).--Alexmar983 (talk) 06:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Hina Rabbani Khar[edit]

Hina Rabbani Khar, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship[edit]

Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the skills considered at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

GAR for Tycho Brahe[edit]

Tycho Brahe, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. More details are available on the re-assessment page. Please ping me if you need anything as my watchlist is already quite large and I'd prefer not to add seven or eight more wikiprojects to my watchlist on top of the ones that I already have. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Jerry Falwell Jr. discussion[edit]

Hello. There is currently a discussion taking place at the above article regarding whether or not to include a section about the Trump tapes and Liberty University students' reactions to it. Given how few people have watchlisted the page, I thought it best to notify relevant WikiProjects of the discussion, especially because Falwell is a very politically-involved figure at the moment. I believe that this notification is as neutrally-worded as possible and that it does not violate the canvassing policy. Gestrid (talk) 22:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)