This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
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. |
Motivated by this discussion, I am starting the process of trimming this article in such a way as to lessen the possibility of WP:BLP, WP:POVFORK, and WP:NOT issues. This will include removing entries for individuals of questionable notability, defined here as individuals lacking an enWiki article. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 16:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
the resulting list likely majorly underrepresents people from parts of the world less covered by enwiki and accordingly makes it less likely articles will be written for those subjects, cementing our Anglosphere/Western biasis quite interesting and merits further discussion among those editors. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 02:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Updated link to archived discussion. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 19:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Why are the illegal and inhumane experiments of Joseph Mengele and dozens of other Nazi physicians not on the list? This entry seems to suffer from recency bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sterngard ( talk • contribs) 23:06, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Per the discussion here, and in an effort to avoid potential PAG issues going forward, explicit inclusion criteria for this dynamic list have been added. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 17:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nagoya university's internal report said ( https://en.nagoya-u.ac.jp/news/upload_images/20220316_report.pdf), Itami did NOT fabricated data. But current article says that he falsified data.
In addition, the same point is mentioned on the Itami's talk page, so it should be changed to the factual content I ( かりーらいす) wrote. かりーらいす ( talk) 15:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
I must therefore ask: do you have any personal or professional relationship with Itami, or are you Itami?from @ JoJo Anthrax. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 03:25, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
I have followed WP:BRD by reverting a bold edit, and have now started this discussion. There are several issues attached to the desired new content. Firstly, a couple of the sources (PubPeer, and a blog site) are unreliable and should not be used. Secondly, it is not clear if Spadavecchia is sufficiently notable to be included on this list. Perhaps they are notable, but (for example) there is no enWiki page for them. Until notability can be established, I would err on the side of caution. Thirdly, the statement "repeated breach of the rules of scientific integrity albeit, according to the CNRS findings, without intentionality" seems weirdly non-specific. Was there, or wasn't there, scientific misconduct? If so, what was the precise nature of the misconduct - plagiarism, data falsification, something(s) else? Until these issues can be resolved, I suggest that the content be left out. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 15:46, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
I have used the page for discussions in an ethics course. It occurred to me that last time I searched for terms to identify particular professions that this page could usefully incorporate a sortable table to capture the common elements in each entry. For example, it seems that most are science frauds within the medical domain, with some subdisciplines more heavily represented. For example, oncology has a handful. One of the reasons this would be helpful is that scientific journal editors could reference and summarize for the management and oversight of their research domain. Similarly, the number of publication retractions is common across entries. Perhaps somebody who can do this agrees with me. I do not yet know how to do this, but expect to get to it some day -- perhaps retirement. (Thank you to the folks who have put in effort.)
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
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. |
Motivated by this discussion, I am starting the process of trimming this article in such a way as to lessen the possibility of WP:BLP, WP:POVFORK, and WP:NOT issues. This will include removing entries for individuals of questionable notability, defined here as individuals lacking an enWiki article. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 16:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
the resulting list likely majorly underrepresents people from parts of the world less covered by enwiki and accordingly makes it less likely articles will be written for those subjects, cementing our Anglosphere/Western biasis quite interesting and merits further discussion among those editors. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 02:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Updated link to archived discussion. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 19:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Why are the illegal and inhumane experiments of Joseph Mengele and dozens of other Nazi physicians not on the list? This entry seems to suffer from recency bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sterngard ( talk • contribs) 23:06, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Per the discussion here, and in an effort to avoid potential PAG issues going forward, explicit inclusion criteria for this dynamic list have been added. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 17:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nagoya university's internal report said ( https://en.nagoya-u.ac.jp/news/upload_images/20220316_report.pdf), Itami did NOT fabricated data. But current article says that he falsified data.
In addition, the same point is mentioned on the Itami's talk page, so it should be changed to the factual content I ( かりーらいす) wrote. かりーらいす ( talk) 15:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
I must therefore ask: do you have any personal or professional relationship with Itami, or are you Itami?from @ JoJo Anthrax. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 03:25, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
I have followed WP:BRD by reverting a bold edit, and have now started this discussion. There are several issues attached to the desired new content. Firstly, a couple of the sources (PubPeer, and a blog site) are unreliable and should not be used. Secondly, it is not clear if Spadavecchia is sufficiently notable to be included on this list. Perhaps they are notable, but (for example) there is no enWiki page for them. Until notability can be established, I would err on the side of caution. Thirdly, the statement "repeated breach of the rules of scientific integrity albeit, according to the CNRS findings, without intentionality" seems weirdly non-specific. Was there, or wasn't there, scientific misconduct? If so, what was the precise nature of the misconduct - plagiarism, data falsification, something(s) else? Until these issues can be resolved, I suggest that the content be left out. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 15:46, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
I have used the page for discussions in an ethics course. It occurred to me that last time I searched for terms to identify particular professions that this page could usefully incorporate a sortable table to capture the common elements in each entry. For example, it seems that most are science frauds within the medical domain, with some subdisciplines more heavily represented. For example, oncology has a handful. One of the reasons this would be helpful is that scientific journal editors could reference and summarize for the management and oversight of their research domain. Similarly, the number of publication retractions is common across entries. Perhaps somebody who can do this agrees with me. I do not yet know how to do this, but expect to get to it some day -- perhaps retirement. (Thank you to the folks who have put in effort.)