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. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 00:21, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
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)
This section needs additional citations for
verification. |
![]() | This section may be too technical for most readers to understand.(April 2019) |
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.
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)
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)
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)
Okey-doke; thanks for explaining!! Portmeirion18 ( talk) 09:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I note that some editors have been trying very hard to remove negative content about the subject of this article. Such actions are more likely to attract even more negative attention to him than exists already, particularly if the press pick up on this obvious attempt at whitewashing. Please stop this, because it can only turn out badly for you. Phil Bridger ( talk) 20:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
On the article many of the sources (not all) for criticism are UK and AUS. Which is expected, but there are more international sources. It should be added that it has been covered by big international publications like Mena Report " Chinese head of UK university criticized over claims, perks" and Socialist Worker " Fighting the racists at Soas and UCU round up", and aggregated on World News Network " Vice-Chancellor who spent more than PS1000 of university money on his dog faces mutiny from staff" and The Free Library " Uni paid for dog to travel from Oz".
The no confidence vote also got an article from a UK-wide organization for students' rights, Student Left Network, which should be added. " Surrey students and staff overwhelmingly vote no to university management" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:ED81:4900:966:BC71:B4DA:5594 ( talk) 00:44, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The request was not specific enough. |
Hello -- firstly I would like to declare my conflict of interest: I work for the University of Surrey, directly for Max Lu. Therefore I have not attempted to make changes to his page.
I would like to request that the following sentence in the Controversies section (under University of Surrey/Criticism of Salary and Expenses) please be reviewed and edited for accuracy:
The controversy reappeared in early 2019, specifically for Lu, when the University of Surrey announced that they would have to fire staff because of a deficit.[41][42]
The two cited articles do not state that the University announced that staff would have to be fired. The first cited article states that 'compulsory redundancies could not be ruled out'. The second cited article says that the University ‘warned staff of potential cuts.’
I would like to request that the following sentence in the Controversies section (under University of Surrey/Vote of No Confidence) please be reviewed and edited for accuracy:
In May 2019, the staff and students of the University of Surrey held a no confidence vote against the university management, with coverage largely focused on Lu's leadership.[40]
The article cited does not focus on Professor Lu’s leadership, mentioning only the ‘governing body’ as the issue.
Thank you very much for your attention and help in this. Portmeirion18 ( talk) 11:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Edit request example
|
---|
|
Regards,
Spintendo 01:29, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
References
Instructions for Submitters: Describe the requested changes in detail. This includes the exact proposed wording of the new material, the exact proposed location for it, and an explicit description of any wording to be removed, including removal for any substitution.
Instructions for Submitters: If the rationale for a change is not obvious (particularly for proposed deletions), explain.
Many thanks, will do. Portmeirion18 ( talk) 15:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. A consensus could not be reached. |
Please remove the first sentence from the third paragraph of the University of Surrey Criticism of Salary and Expenses section:
"The controversy reappeared in early 2019, specifically for Lu, when the University of Surrey announced that they would have to fire staff because of a deficit.[41][42]"
Please add the following claim as the first sentence of the third paragraph of the University of Surrey Criticism of Salary and Expenses section:
"The controversy reappeared in early 2019, specifically for Lu, when the University of Surrey announced that because of a deficit, compulsory redundancies could not be ruled out.[41][42]"
Using the same references for the claim.
Reason for the change being made: the references do not support the previous claim.
Please remove the first sentence from the first paragraph of the University of Surrey Vote of No Confidence section:
"In May 2019, the staff and students of the University of Surrey held a no confidence vote against the university management, with coverage largely focused on Lu's leadership.[40]"
Please add the following claim as the first sentence of the first paragraph of the University of Surrey Vote of No Confidence section:
"In May 2019, the staff and students of the University of Surrey held a no confidence vote against the university management.[40]"
Using the same reference for the claim.
Reason for the change being made: the reference does not support the previous claim. Portmeirion18 ( talk) 08:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Spintendo, I am not sure why the first request re the firings need not be changed? The difference in wording is subtle but significant. Neither citation indicates staff were ever told they would be fired. With regard to the second request, I am in agreement with your views about rewording the sentence, and I will have a think about it. Is it an edit you would like me to make, or given I have a conflict of interest, you would prefer to make? SovalValtos, I have never made edits logged out as an IP; I have always been logged in insofar as I can remember. I feel it is two separate requests. I should have made each request separately. I am a novice editor, so I believe my error in combining the two edits in one request has led to confusion. In my view the two edits are related to the same broad issues but linked at all. Portmeirion18 ( talk) 13:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
{{
request edit}}
template for any new requests they submit. Regards,
Spintendo 08:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)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. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 00:21, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
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)
This section needs additional citations for
verification. |
![]() | This section may be too technical for most readers to understand.(April 2019) |
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.
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)
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)
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)
Okey-doke; thanks for explaining!! Portmeirion18 ( talk) 09:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I note that some editors have been trying very hard to remove negative content about the subject of this article. Such actions are more likely to attract even more negative attention to him than exists already, particularly if the press pick up on this obvious attempt at whitewashing. Please stop this, because it can only turn out badly for you. Phil Bridger ( talk) 20:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
On the article many of the sources (not all) for criticism are UK and AUS. Which is expected, but there are more international sources. It should be added that it has been covered by big international publications like Mena Report " Chinese head of UK university criticized over claims, perks" and Socialist Worker " Fighting the racists at Soas and UCU round up", and aggregated on World News Network " Vice-Chancellor who spent more than PS1000 of university money on his dog faces mutiny from staff" and The Free Library " Uni paid for dog to travel from Oz".
The no confidence vote also got an article from a UK-wide organization for students' rights, Student Left Network, which should be added. " Surrey students and staff overwhelmingly vote no to university management" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:ED81:4900:966:BC71:B4DA:5594 ( talk) 00:44, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The request was not specific enough. |
Hello -- firstly I would like to declare my conflict of interest: I work for the University of Surrey, directly for Max Lu. Therefore I have not attempted to make changes to his page.
I would like to request that the following sentence in the Controversies section (under University of Surrey/Criticism of Salary and Expenses) please be reviewed and edited for accuracy:
The controversy reappeared in early 2019, specifically for Lu, when the University of Surrey announced that they would have to fire staff because of a deficit.[41][42]
The two cited articles do not state that the University announced that staff would have to be fired. The first cited article states that 'compulsory redundancies could not be ruled out'. The second cited article says that the University ‘warned staff of potential cuts.’
I would like to request that the following sentence in the Controversies section (under University of Surrey/Vote of No Confidence) please be reviewed and edited for accuracy:
In May 2019, the staff and students of the University of Surrey held a no confidence vote against the university management, with coverage largely focused on Lu's leadership.[40]
The article cited does not focus on Professor Lu’s leadership, mentioning only the ‘governing body’ as the issue.
Thank you very much for your attention and help in this. Portmeirion18 ( talk) 11:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Edit request example
|
---|
|
Regards,
Spintendo 01:29, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
References
Instructions for Submitters: Describe the requested changes in detail. This includes the exact proposed wording of the new material, the exact proposed location for it, and an explicit description of any wording to be removed, including removal for any substitution.
Instructions for Submitters: If the rationale for a change is not obvious (particularly for proposed deletions), explain.
Many thanks, will do. Portmeirion18 ( talk) 15:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. A consensus could not be reached. |
Please remove the first sentence from the third paragraph of the University of Surrey Criticism of Salary and Expenses section:
"The controversy reappeared in early 2019, specifically for Lu, when the University of Surrey announced that they would have to fire staff because of a deficit.[41][42]"
Please add the following claim as the first sentence of the third paragraph of the University of Surrey Criticism of Salary and Expenses section:
"The controversy reappeared in early 2019, specifically for Lu, when the University of Surrey announced that because of a deficit, compulsory redundancies could not be ruled out.[41][42]"
Using the same references for the claim.
Reason for the change being made: the references do not support the previous claim.
Please remove the first sentence from the first paragraph of the University of Surrey Vote of No Confidence section:
"In May 2019, the staff and students of the University of Surrey held a no confidence vote against the university management, with coverage largely focused on Lu's leadership.[40]"
Please add the following claim as the first sentence of the first paragraph of the University of Surrey Vote of No Confidence section:
"In May 2019, the staff and students of the University of Surrey held a no confidence vote against the university management.[40]"
Using the same reference for the claim.
Reason for the change being made: the reference does not support the previous claim. Portmeirion18 ( talk) 08:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Spintendo, I am not sure why the first request re the firings need not be changed? The difference in wording is subtle but significant. Neither citation indicates staff were ever told they would be fired. With regard to the second request, I am in agreement with your views about rewording the sentence, and I will have a think about it. Is it an edit you would like me to make, or given I have a conflict of interest, you would prefer to make? SovalValtos, I have never made edits logged out as an IP; I have always been logged in insofar as I can remember. I feel it is two separate requests. I should have made each request separately. I am a novice editor, so I believe my error in combining the two edits in one request has led to confusion. In my view the two edits are related to the same broad issues but linked at all. Portmeirion18 ( talk) 13:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
{{
request edit}}
template for any new requests they submit. Regards,
Spintendo 08:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)