Talk:Arieh Warshel

Untitled
Is the main contributor to this article a co-worker of Warshel's? While I find his work to be of great importance, I also find the article to be somewhat biased and promotional.Carstensen (talk) 13:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Everything in the article is verifiable and referenced, and there is nothing in it that is not true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiaqneo (talk • contribs) 21:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear ... I'd suggest you should really start reading the literature. I am a great admirer of his work and will always try to make sure he is cited properly ... I am not a PhD student on procrastination tho :) Find it quite terrible to let a site deteriorate like you did with his ... and not even being able to write in English doesn't make it much better. Anyway, sounds quite reasonable to have probably more enemies than friends in his case as usually people must seem simply stupid to him most of the time (and that would include me I'd strongly assume).

Recent edits on this Wikipedia article
As a former postdoc of Warshel's, I am quite alarmed to see the recent editing war this article has ignited. I completely appreciate and support the importance of not introducing a biased point of view into Wikipedia articles, particularly in light of the fact that not everyone who reads Wikipedia articles are experts on the topic they are reading about. That said, while I did not write the original article that has sparked this controversy, I do believe that the subsequent cleanup has resulted in a case of throwing out the baby with the bathwater, and the present edited version does no credit to Warshel for his tremendous contributions to the field (a view shared not only by myself as a former postdoc and ongoing colleague of his, but also by other leading scientists in the field, see for example Nat. Struct. Bio. 8 (2001), 392, a reprint of which is available here: http://csb.stanford.edu/levitt/Levitt_NSB01_History_0501_392.pdf). Therefore, as I feel the present cuts have been too extreme, over the next few days, I will be completely reworking this page to provide a more balanced biosketch and overview of Warshel's contributions to the field and scientific work. All content will be properly referenced. Any objections to content that go beyond minor corrections and linguistic edits, please discuss (and justify) on this talk page before completely reworking the page.

LK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.197.227 (talk • contribs)
 * I object. See WP:COI. Another better option is to suggest changes to the article here. Also, please sign your contributions.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

According to the COI document: "Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged—but not actually required—to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of the related article they are editing, particularly if those edits may be contested". This I have done above by stating clearly that I am a former postdoc and therefore I don't believe that by editing the article I would be violating COI issues as long as I to the best of my ability work on neutrality and declare potential COI. As mentioned above, I was not involved in writing the original article, but am deeply disappointed by the fact that the most recent edits (not necessarily by you) essentially amount to completely vandalizing the page - I fully support Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy but believe it should not be used as a mask to then remove all credit for his actual work. There are several well balanced biosketches of leading scientists in the field that succeed in presenting overviews of the relevant people and their accomplishments without violating bias issues. My aim with the upcoming edits will be to generate something similar to that of other respected scientists profiled on Wikipedia, which provides a biographical background as well as references and examples to some of his most significant contributions in the field (clearly with documented references) as well as links to further material, keeping in line with similar Wikipedia pages. By disclosing the fact that I am a former postdoc I am making it clear that even with the best of intentions there is still a possibility of bias, and welcome any *legitimate* edits on anything considered to be factually incorrect or one sided. However, by the same merit I think that edits that go too far in the other direction are equally inappropriate as those that are heavily biased towards a positive point of view, and I strongly object to such edits on the same ground. With regard to signing the article: I am not trying to hide my identity, but rather, I don't want to get a wikipedia account right now, nor do I want this to show up in Google search results because I put down my full name, hence the more unconventional way of signing. But, based on my initials and IP address, it should be fairly easy for any interested party to figure out my identity, while still protecting my privacy against automated search results. LK 90.224.104.200 (talk) 22:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm - ok, I see your point with the signing, I seem to have missed the four tildas thing... 90.224.104.200 (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Not interested in your identity. At this point, I accept who you say you are, and I have no intention of trying to figure out what your name is. However, a better interpretation of the conflict policy would be the alternative I suggested, to post your suggested changes here first ("If you have a conflict of interest, then any changes that might be seen as controversial or not strictly neutral should be first suggested on the relevant talk page or noticeboard."). Your comment about "vandalizing the page" does not bode well and is not supported by any evidence of vandalism. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines take a long time to absorb. Thus, what you think is "neutral" and complies with policy may not be in the eyes of more experienced editors. Why don't you try what I suggest and see how it goes? At worst, it will slow you down, not necessarily a bad thing. Patience is a virtue--Bbb23 (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Article has been edited according to literature, not peoples' dependencies. If you have a problem with this material and references please discuss here before you do start vandalizing again ... peer-reviewed scientific published material complies with wikipedia standards but it does not say anywhere with personal opinions!


 * So, here is an older version (almost everything has been removed). I do not really see any significant POV/COI problem in this older version and think it must be at least partially restored. My very best wishes (talk) 03:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Fuck yankees
ción mundial, pueda ganar más del 25% de los premios. Esos conspiranoios han alentado mucho la actividad intelectual, y eso explica su representación despropor

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Arieh Warshel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130104183357/http://www.weizmann.ac.il/chemphys/lifson/home.html to http://www.weizmann.ac.il/chemphys/lifson/home.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130104183357/http://www.weizmann.ac.il/chemphys/lifson/home.html to http://www.weizmann.ac.il/chemphys/lifson/home.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)