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 sourcedmust 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 is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following
WikiProjects:
This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the
project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
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 is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Physics 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.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
I have a
WP:COI in regard to the page I am creating. I am an old acquaintance of the subject (we shared dorm space in college) , and I am creating this page with his encouragement and involvement. I am not taking any form of remuneration for my efforts, so
WP:PAID does not apply. --
Nat Gertler (
talk)
05:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Notability
The notability requirements for this article are met with Strassler's Fellow status in the American Physical Society, which qualifies him via
WP:NACADEMIC #3. He also has an h-factor rating of 51, which indicates his meeting
WP:NACADEMIC #1. --
Nat Gertler (
talk)
21:11, 11 February 2024 (UTC) expanded 12 Februaryreply
FAPS just about does it; 51 is perhaps borderline. What does concern me is reliability. For instance to support "Full Professor" you link to a teaching page where everyone is labelled "Professor". Since that is very commonly usage in the US for Asst & Assoc as well it is a questionable source. I also have strong reservations about including a book which has not yet appeared. Last, but not least, short bios in articles are not good RS, and you are elected a fellow.
You say 51 is borderline (and I should note that the InspireHEP is less than that, but in part because I used the conserative version there; if we use the "citable works" number and don't eliminate papers with over 10 authors,
get 55), however, when I look to see what h-index is required to survive a notability test here, I find folks being kept whose deletion discussions mention
26, for
24,
"mid-20s",
33.
21,
28,
18... going through the first couple dozen or so appropriate results for
this search, I don't find an AFD that invokes an h-index over 25 that results in a "delete" (I do find
one at 34 with "no consensus" and
one with a similar value which was deemed sufficiently notable but draftified for other reasons; otherwise, all "keep".) Given that h-index is more a logarithmic rating than a linear one, it's hard to see that this is anywhere close to borderline, particularly since it's not a "shallow" index rating, as he has 5 papers of more than 500 cites.
As for the book, this is not some theoretical thing that might be printed in the future. In fact, it's already been printed (Strassler posted a photo of him holding a copy on Facebook) and it has reviews that indicate inclusion is
WP:DUE. I think it's best that I include it now, when I can directly edit it into the article, rather than having to go through the poorly-attended requested edit system and tie up additional people's time in just a few weeks when it is released. I'm an editor of substantial experience here, and I cannot think of any article I've worked on or seen where the subject had authored a book or books and all mention of them was kept out of the article.
I'm don't agree that short bios in reliable-source articles are not reliable sources, and most of the matter that you seem to be concerned about is not particularly boastful given the context (i.e., if I were to say "I taught at the UPenn", that would be contextually boastful, because it's outside of any sourced experience that I have, but if we have established that he's taught at Harvard and Rutgers, we've already shown that he taught at that level, and should be able to accept some self-sourced information on the specific places taught.)
H-factors are very discipline dependent. In English, Math or Music an h-factor of 20 is major. I know of an economist who published a paper a year and was considered for a nobel. In most of physics 20 is assistant professor. HEP has high citation numbers, which is why 51 is marginal. If you look at the very top of the area, from Google Scholar that would be Nicola Semprini Cesari who has an h-factor of 238. There has been a recent discussion of this in
WT:NPROF. However, the APS Fellows is generally accepted as proof of notability.
N.B., I would not be surprised to see low h-factors passing AfD. Sometimes what matters most is how many friends you can persuade, as against rigor.
Ldm1954 (
talk)
06:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Addendum: to me a book that has not appeared yet cannot be verified or be notable. In six months perhaps.
"Notability" would be a question if I was proposing an article about the book. For inclusion of information in an article, the standard is
WP:DUE, which multiple reviews in respected sources indicate. For the statement being made, that there is a book scheduled for release, we have plenty of verification, as the Kirkus review carries that information, as does
the publisher website, which may not be of use for showing import but is a perfectly viable source for
WP:V on their own release schedule. --
Nat Gertler (
talk)
15:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)reply
At this point, while the positions that he has held are sourced to various third-party sources and/or the relevant institutions, the dates he held those positions are sourced to subject's own website. This should not be a problem; even if holding a certain position is considered boastful (and really, given his position at Harvard, none of the other positions should be, but I digress), the specific dates are not. --
Nat Gertler (
talk)
06:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Maybe now OK
The article is very significantly better than what I declined it a month ago. I am not going to review it at
WP:AfC a second time, but I would say that it has a decent chance of passing other reviewers, particularly with the APS fellow recognition and (now) better sourcing. Good luck.
Ldm1954 (
talk)
02:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't know what game you're playing here, since you voiced the previous OK and are now stopping by to laden it with tags, which are not well-grounded. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with
WP:BLPSPS, which indicate that using a self-published source by the subject of a BLP article is acceptable for material which is not unduly self-serving nor significantly in doubt, and such things as saying that he studied music during a college career where he performed concerts and giving the dates for a career position that has been otherwise established surely qualify. The idea that a professorship position held by someone whose scholarly work is the primary basis for his article is not relevant is risible; that is basic information in an article on such a person. I ask that you review your recent additions in that light and remove them as appropriate. --
Nat Gertler (
talk)
14:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Vast amounts of the current page are based upon [2], which is a self published blog. For instance it is the only source provided for his postdoc, that he studied music and you use it again to reinforce other sources. For [6] you use a page which states "Strassler, a theorist from the University of Washington in Seattle" as a source that he taught there.
You might not think it, but I am being gentle on you by pointing out issues so you can repair them. Many others will just remove large parts of the page. You may want to look at the comment added on my talk page by User4edits for Magenta.lily which I have included below in italics. User4edits pointed out some issues in the page
Pankaj Mehta; I had been trying to help Magenta.lily with the page. (I think the comment is harsh, but I have seen harsher ones.)
Not using self-published and self-written sources from personal web pages is
COMMONSENSE. Given your understanding of other WP policies and guidelines, and given your presumed relationship with academia, the hesitancy to understand the aforementioned commonsense gives an impression in which you might appear
gaming the system. Also see the
COI and
ownership messages I have left on your talk page.Ldm1954 (
talk)
14:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
If, as it appears, User4Edits is trying to push that such sources should never be used, that flies in the face of both practice (and I'm saying that as someone with far more Wikipedia editing experience than that account shows) and policy (as seen at
WP:BLPSELFPUB.) That isn't to defend whatever specific usage they may be complaining about, but it fails as a general statement. But yes, there are bad editing comments elsewhere; I miss how that's support for your activities.
Hardly "vast amounts" of the article are based on "[2]"; it's two half-sentences under Education, and as a backup reference on a sentence-and-a-half in Teaching and scholarly positions. Which of that fails under
WP:BLPSELFPUB? --
Nat Gertler (
talk)
16:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Items to be restored
I am removing some perfectly reasonable
WP:BLPSELFPUB statements just so that reviewing editors don't see the shame tags that have been placed on them and turn away from reviewing them, with an eye toward having them restored once the draft passes. I am pasting them here for easy reference later.
@
SafariScribe: Can you point me to the supposedly improperly referenced statements in this article on a subject that you admit meets notability requirements so that it can finally be gotten into article space? At this point every statement is referenced to sources that are online, including to major third-party reliable sources such as the Wall Street Journal; those statements that are referenced to non-independent sources are done so sites that we would consider reasonable verification (a school's own site for that he taught there.) The only content for which Strassler's
WP:BLPSPS material is cited is minor, non-boastful matters such as specific dates of a teaching assignment otherwise confirmed.
May I point you to just under
WP:ANYBIO, where it says "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." Stassler clearly meets
WP:NACADEMIC on point 3, via his selection for the
American Physical Society as covered in the Accolades section. If this article was reduced to just that section, would it satisfy your requirements? --
Nat Gertler (
talk)
16:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I was at the church, so I didn't see this. First off, @
Ldm1954, if you think you agree with NatGertler, then you re review the draft again. However, here are some places where I felt had a little problem with sourcing.
Source 1 is a primary source–subject's thesis and the info presented ultimately will be written by him.
Source 4 needs an archive to view and
source 5 was his own personal statements–frok.his website.
Source 6 Abit clustered with him coming from the University of Washington.
This is not clear as I can find where it stated that the subject taught in 2007, also a connected source.
Source 9 is also connected and a simple profile of Matt.While I support the potential article about Matt, I also cannot use this
source to know he was elected fellow. I am just particular about his research
Cascading gauge theory. IMO, one of the sourcing criteria of a BLP is that it should be sourced, atleast relevant parts. @
Ldm1954, if you consider it fit, please move it to mainspace. Cheers! Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!20:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Source 1 was written by him but published by the university, and thus has their backing. The portion that it is being cited for, that Peskin was his Principle Advisor, is attested to in the document in Peskin's own hand.
I'm not sure why you're saying that Source 4 needs an archive to view; it comes up fine for me (even with a reload, so it's not just coming from my cache.)
Source 5 is yes, from his own websites, but is only being used for specific dates, which should be utterly reasonable as non-boastful
WP:ABOUTSELF.
I'm not sure what you're saying about Source 6, which specifies "Strassler, a theorist from the University of Washington in Seattle"
The Washington.edu source is a verifying source for saying that he taught there, the end year can be sourced to again the same
WP:ABOUTSELF source used earlier.
Source 9 is yes, a connected source, being used for appropriate non-boastful information, as it is Harvard stating that he is an associate there. A listing of places that an academic has been on staff is fairly basic information, much in line with short bibliographies for authors or filmographies for actors. --
Nat Gertler (
talk)
20:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you... but you shouldn't need to wait until
Matthew Strassler is deleted, as this article is best placed at
Matt Strassler, his more common public name now, as witness that being the name on his significantly-reviewed recent book. We can then just switch Matthew Strassler to be a redirect to Matt Strassler. --
Nat Gertler (
talk)
21:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply
It looks like the APS did away with or at least moved their online fellow archive since I added that reference; I have added a link to an archive of that archive page which will display the Strassler entry. I am unclear on what you mean by your "relevance" tag; where he taught would seem to me quite relevant to the career of the academic this article is about. Or are you trying to say that the references are somehow not relevant to the statements made? --
Nat Gertler (
talk)
21:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comments:
Re 1, the only valid source that someone did a PhD is the actual thesis, which is a referred document. No other source is appropriate for an academic.
For 4 it comes up directly for me, not an archive and a standard secondary source.
5 is OK as it also has 4 to verify it
6 is also OK, although I earlier tagged how useful it was
7 is a very strong secondary source. Course details are effectively legal documents, and the university is responsible for their truth. See the bottom for the source.
You are also wrong about 9. If universities misrepresent on pages they can get into BIG trouble in the US. Note who owns the cooyright.
I do agree that the source for him being an APS fellow is strange. I know he is, @
NatGertler please fix that.
Comment: Thime subject is notable per
WP:ANYBIO, just that the lack of sourcing of this
WP:BLP is grossly appealing, and needs attention. Don't resubmit if you don't replace with reliable sources that significantly covered the subject researches or himself. Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!14:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: Checking again, editor has still not prepared a proper article and has numerous references to his self-published Blog page, and also a few references which do not justify the statements they are attached to.
Ldm1954 (
talk)
08:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: While reviewing this, there were far too many statments made which could not be verified, for instance "full Professor at Rutgers". Some I have deleted, some I have marked. Too many statements bent the truth too far for me. While he does have a few well cited papers, he has no major academic awards and too much dubious information for me to be comfortable with accepting this draft.
Ldm1954 (
talk)
03:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)reply
^Cite error: The named reference about was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).
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 sourcedmust 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 is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following
WikiProjects:
This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the
project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
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 is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Physics 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.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
I have a
WP:COI in regard to the page I am creating. I am an old acquaintance of the subject (we shared dorm space in college) , and I am creating this page with his encouragement and involvement. I am not taking any form of remuneration for my efforts, so
WP:PAID does not apply. --
Nat Gertler (
talk)
05:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Notability
The notability requirements for this article are met with Strassler's Fellow status in the American Physical Society, which qualifies him via
WP:NACADEMIC #3. He also has an h-factor rating of 51, which indicates his meeting
WP:NACADEMIC #1. --
Nat Gertler (
talk)
21:11, 11 February 2024 (UTC) expanded 12 Februaryreply
FAPS just about does it; 51 is perhaps borderline. What does concern me is reliability. For instance to support "Full Professor" you link to a teaching page where everyone is labelled "Professor". Since that is very commonly usage in the US for Asst & Assoc as well it is a questionable source. I also have strong reservations about including a book which has not yet appeared. Last, but not least, short bios in articles are not good RS, and you are elected a fellow.
You say 51 is borderline (and I should note that the InspireHEP is less than that, but in part because I used the conserative version there; if we use the "citable works" number and don't eliminate papers with over 10 authors,
get 55), however, when I look to see what h-index is required to survive a notability test here, I find folks being kept whose deletion discussions mention
26, for
24,
"mid-20s",
33.
21,
28,
18... going through the first couple dozen or so appropriate results for
this search, I don't find an AFD that invokes an h-index over 25 that results in a "delete" (I do find
one at 34 with "no consensus" and
one with a similar value which was deemed sufficiently notable but draftified for other reasons; otherwise, all "keep".) Given that h-index is more a logarithmic rating than a linear one, it's hard to see that this is anywhere close to borderline, particularly since it's not a "shallow" index rating, as he has 5 papers of more than 500 cites.
As for the book, this is not some theoretical thing that might be printed in the future. In fact, it's already been printed (Strassler posted a photo of him holding a copy on Facebook) and it has reviews that indicate inclusion is
WP:DUE. I think it's best that I include it now, when I can directly edit it into the article, rather than having to go through the poorly-attended requested edit system and tie up additional people's time in just a few weeks when it is released. I'm an editor of substantial experience here, and I cannot think of any article I've worked on or seen where the subject had authored a book or books and all mention of them was kept out of the article.
I'm don't agree that short bios in reliable-source articles are not reliable sources, and most of the matter that you seem to be concerned about is not particularly boastful given the context (i.e., if I were to say "I taught at the UPenn", that would be contextually boastful, because it's outside of any sourced experience that I have, but if we have established that he's taught at Harvard and Rutgers, we've already shown that he taught at that level, and should be able to accept some self-sourced information on the specific places taught.)
H-factors are very discipline dependent. In English, Math or Music an h-factor of 20 is major. I know of an economist who published a paper a year and was considered for a nobel. In most of physics 20 is assistant professor. HEP has high citation numbers, which is why 51 is marginal. If you look at the very top of the area, from Google Scholar that would be Nicola Semprini Cesari who has an h-factor of 238. There has been a recent discussion of this in
WT:NPROF. However, the APS Fellows is generally accepted as proof of notability.
N.B., I would not be surprised to see low h-factors passing AfD. Sometimes what matters most is how many friends you can persuade, as against rigor.
Ldm1954 (
talk)
06:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Addendum: to me a book that has not appeared yet cannot be verified or be notable. In six months perhaps.
"Notability" would be a question if I was proposing an article about the book. For inclusion of information in an article, the standard is
WP:DUE, which multiple reviews in respected sources indicate. For the statement being made, that there is a book scheduled for release, we have plenty of verification, as the Kirkus review carries that information, as does
the publisher website, which may not be of use for showing import but is a perfectly viable source for
WP:V on their own release schedule. --
Nat Gertler (
talk)
15:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)reply
At this point, while the positions that he has held are sourced to various third-party sources and/or the relevant institutions, the dates he held those positions are sourced to subject's own website. This should not be a problem; even if holding a certain position is considered boastful (and really, given his position at Harvard, none of the other positions should be, but I digress), the specific dates are not. --
Nat Gertler (
talk)
06:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Maybe now OK
The article is very significantly better than what I declined it a month ago. I am not going to review it at
WP:AfC a second time, but I would say that it has a decent chance of passing other reviewers, particularly with the APS fellow recognition and (now) better sourcing. Good luck.
Ldm1954 (
talk)
02:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't know what game you're playing here, since you voiced the previous OK and are now stopping by to laden it with tags, which are not well-grounded. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with
WP:BLPSPS, which indicate that using a self-published source by the subject of a BLP article is acceptable for material which is not unduly self-serving nor significantly in doubt, and such things as saying that he studied music during a college career where he performed concerts and giving the dates for a career position that has been otherwise established surely qualify. The idea that a professorship position held by someone whose scholarly work is the primary basis for his article is not relevant is risible; that is basic information in an article on such a person. I ask that you review your recent additions in that light and remove them as appropriate. --
Nat Gertler (
talk)
14:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Vast amounts of the current page are based upon [2], which is a self published blog. For instance it is the only source provided for his postdoc, that he studied music and you use it again to reinforce other sources. For [6] you use a page which states "Strassler, a theorist from the University of Washington in Seattle" as a source that he taught there.
You might not think it, but I am being gentle on you by pointing out issues so you can repair them. Many others will just remove large parts of the page. You may want to look at the comment added on my talk page by User4edits for Magenta.lily which I have included below in italics. User4edits pointed out some issues in the page
Pankaj Mehta; I had been trying to help Magenta.lily with the page. (I think the comment is harsh, but I have seen harsher ones.)
Not using self-published and self-written sources from personal web pages is
COMMONSENSE. Given your understanding of other WP policies and guidelines, and given your presumed relationship with academia, the hesitancy to understand the aforementioned commonsense gives an impression in which you might appear
gaming the system. Also see the
COI and
ownership messages I have left on your talk page.Ldm1954 (
talk)
14:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
If, as it appears, User4Edits is trying to push that such sources should never be used, that flies in the face of both practice (and I'm saying that as someone with far more Wikipedia editing experience than that account shows) and policy (as seen at
WP:BLPSELFPUB.) That isn't to defend whatever specific usage they may be complaining about, but it fails as a general statement. But yes, there are bad editing comments elsewhere; I miss how that's support for your activities.
Hardly "vast amounts" of the article are based on "[2]"; it's two half-sentences under Education, and as a backup reference on a sentence-and-a-half in Teaching and scholarly positions. Which of that fails under
WP:BLPSELFPUB? --
Nat Gertler (
talk)
16:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Items to be restored
I am removing some perfectly reasonable
WP:BLPSELFPUB statements just so that reviewing editors don't see the shame tags that have been placed on them and turn away from reviewing them, with an eye toward having them restored once the draft passes. I am pasting them here for easy reference later.
@
SafariScribe: Can you point me to the supposedly improperly referenced statements in this article on a subject that you admit meets notability requirements so that it can finally be gotten into article space? At this point every statement is referenced to sources that are online, including to major third-party reliable sources such as the Wall Street Journal; those statements that are referenced to non-independent sources are done so sites that we would consider reasonable verification (a school's own site for that he taught there.) The only content for which Strassler's
WP:BLPSPS material is cited is minor, non-boastful matters such as specific dates of a teaching assignment otherwise confirmed.
May I point you to just under
WP:ANYBIO, where it says "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." Stassler clearly meets
WP:NACADEMIC on point 3, via his selection for the
American Physical Society as covered in the Accolades section. If this article was reduced to just that section, would it satisfy your requirements? --
Nat Gertler (
talk)
16:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I was at the church, so I didn't see this. First off, @
Ldm1954, if you think you agree with NatGertler, then you re review the draft again. However, here are some places where I felt had a little problem with sourcing.
Source 1 is a primary source–subject's thesis and the info presented ultimately will be written by him.
Source 4 needs an archive to view and
source 5 was his own personal statements–frok.his website.
Source 6 Abit clustered with him coming from the University of Washington.
This is not clear as I can find where it stated that the subject taught in 2007, also a connected source.
Source 9 is also connected and a simple profile of Matt.While I support the potential article about Matt, I also cannot use this
source to know he was elected fellow. I am just particular about his research
Cascading gauge theory. IMO, one of the sourcing criteria of a BLP is that it should be sourced, atleast relevant parts. @
Ldm1954, if you consider it fit, please move it to mainspace. Cheers! Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!20:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Source 1 was written by him but published by the university, and thus has their backing. The portion that it is being cited for, that Peskin was his Principle Advisor, is attested to in the document in Peskin's own hand.
I'm not sure why you're saying that Source 4 needs an archive to view; it comes up fine for me (even with a reload, so it's not just coming from my cache.)
Source 5 is yes, from his own websites, but is only being used for specific dates, which should be utterly reasonable as non-boastful
WP:ABOUTSELF.
I'm not sure what you're saying about Source 6, which specifies "Strassler, a theorist from the University of Washington in Seattle"
The Washington.edu source is a verifying source for saying that he taught there, the end year can be sourced to again the same
WP:ABOUTSELF source used earlier.
Source 9 is yes, a connected source, being used for appropriate non-boastful information, as it is Harvard stating that he is an associate there. A listing of places that an academic has been on staff is fairly basic information, much in line with short bibliographies for authors or filmographies for actors. --
Nat Gertler (
talk)
20:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you... but you shouldn't need to wait until
Matthew Strassler is deleted, as this article is best placed at
Matt Strassler, his more common public name now, as witness that being the name on his significantly-reviewed recent book. We can then just switch Matthew Strassler to be a redirect to Matt Strassler. --
Nat Gertler (
talk)
21:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply
It looks like the APS did away with or at least moved their online fellow archive since I added that reference; I have added a link to an archive of that archive page which will display the Strassler entry. I am unclear on what you mean by your "relevance" tag; where he taught would seem to me quite relevant to the career of the academic this article is about. Or are you trying to say that the references are somehow not relevant to the statements made? --
Nat Gertler (
talk)
21:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comments:
Re 1, the only valid source that someone did a PhD is the actual thesis, which is a referred document. No other source is appropriate for an academic.
For 4 it comes up directly for me, not an archive and a standard secondary source.
5 is OK as it also has 4 to verify it
6 is also OK, although I earlier tagged how useful it was
7 is a very strong secondary source. Course details are effectively legal documents, and the university is responsible for their truth. See the bottom for the source.
You are also wrong about 9. If universities misrepresent on pages they can get into BIG trouble in the US. Note who owns the cooyright.
I do agree that the source for him being an APS fellow is strange. I know he is, @
NatGertler please fix that.
Comment: Thime subject is notable per
WP:ANYBIO, just that the lack of sourcing of this
WP:BLP is grossly appealing, and needs attention. Don't resubmit if you don't replace with reliable sources that significantly covered the subject researches or himself. Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!14:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: Checking again, editor has still not prepared a proper article and has numerous references to his self-published Blog page, and also a few references which do not justify the statements they are attached to.
Ldm1954 (
talk)
08:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: While reviewing this, there were far too many statments made which could not be verified, for instance "full Professor at Rutgers". Some I have deleted, some I have marked. Too many statements bent the truth too far for me. While he does have a few well cited papers, he has no major academic awards and too much dubious information for me to be comfortable with accepting this draft.
Ldm1954 (
talk)
03:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)reply
^Cite error: The named reference about was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).