Talk:Ariel Fernandez/Archive 4

Revisiting the deleted passage about retractions
I became aware of the past BLP disputes about this page, from a discussion elsewhere. I've looked into the past disputes, and I've noticed some things that strike me as encyclopedic and due weight, that do not violate BLP, and seem to me to belong on the page. I say this noting that material that reflects negatively on a page subject is not, de facto, a BLP violation. But because it is clearly a matter of editorial controversy, I'm making the suggestion here in talk, rather than editing the page directly.

I saw two things in the deleted material that I think deserve mention.
 * 1) Although I don't think we should list all the articles that received "expressions of concern" (which are just that, and not actual findings of anything wrong), I do think it's appropriate to say that, after Retraction Watch posted material about those expressions of concern, Fernandez said that he was considering a lawsuit against them..
 * 2) In 2006, a paper in PNAS was actually retracted from the journal, as an action by the journal editors. The editor-in-chief, Nicholas R. Cozzarelli, determined that there had been duplicate publication, in which a significant amount of images and text were copied directly from an earlier paper without acknowledging that this was the case. This is a reliably sourced and substantiated case of actual scientific misconduct (and in my opinion, a pretty blatant one at that). I think it needs to be included here. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Definitely agreed that there should be some coverage here since it appears it can be done while following BLP. I haven't looked into retraction watch enough to have an opinion there but for the actual retraction I definitely think it should be included. The pattern of EOCs should also be covered if and only if we have a good source for it. I won't do any editing here, partly because this isn't an area I feel super comfortable in and partly because I could be considered involved following my bad interactions with Fernandez socks. --Trialpears (talk) 14:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above. I'm not sold at all at the removal of the content on BLP grounds - Retraction Watch is a legit outlet, if Fernandez's work has been challenged, it's not a BLP violation to say so.  (It might be a BLP violation to hint that the challenges are correct, but acknowledging the mere existence of the challenges is fine.)  SnowFire (talk) 17:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Consensus at the BLP Noticeboards did not believe that the EOC material met the threshold of reliable sourcing, which included citations to Retraction Watch. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yup. Barring the appearance of new, independent sources, I can see no reason to move away from the consensus established in the BLP/N discussion. Certainly not without broader community discussion than we are seeing here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:06, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Understood. But this is not a proposal to include that material. I think Retraction Watch is a reliable source for lawsuit threats that were directed at it; see also . We could also skip the stuff about the lawsuit and just include the part from Dr. Cozzarelli. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Disputes should be reported by multiple independent RS, not just by the primary reporting of the dispute. Fernandez is not even a public figure, but the threshold should be at least that for WP:NPF. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:25, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The editorial board of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America and the editor-in-chief at that time, Nicholas R. Cozzarelli, are completely independent and reliable sources. They are not the ones who raised the criticisms of Fernandez. They are the ones who evaluated both sides and issued a decision. It's not accurate to call it a dispute. It's a final decision of a major scientific organization. This is quite different from an EOC. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I have a different view of independent, considering they are the publisher that made the retraction of the article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I can change my mind when I see a convincing argument, and I think you have changed my mind. I've re-read the BLPN discussion, and I also see what you mean about the need for other (non-self published) sources commenting further on the retraction. (I've looked, and didn't find any.) I'm going to leave this discussion open for now, but I'm becoming less enthusiastic about the proposal that I made. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * In the interest of examining the question fully, I want to ask a follow-up question. Not an argument, just a question. If a BLP subject were found guilty of a crime, while being notable for something else, we would consider that allowable to include without violating BLP. Aside from the National Academy being a scientific organization rather than a court of law, wouldn't a final decision to retract be the scientific equivalent of a verdict? We wouldn't include an accusation of crime, just as we wouldn't include an "expression of concern", but wouldn't a final determination of retraction be something that has moved from being an accusation to being a solid finding of fact? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * A questionable analogy, in my opinion, but I'd note that there is absolutely nothing in WP:BLP policy that states that criminal convictions have to be included in biographies. Whether we were do so or not would depend on the degree to which independent sources covered the matter, and the emphasis they put on it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:56, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and I do sincerely appreciate the discussion. It occurs to me, in fact, that significant criminal convictions typically get reported on in independent sources, whereas retractions, or at least this one, do not. I'm beginning to realize that the deciding factor here is not whether the thing is verifiable or sourced, but whether it has attracted sufficient secondary source interest that editors like me are not "creating" that interest as a sort of WP:RGW. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note that reporting on criminal convictions sourced solely to the court decisions would be a violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY Nil Einne (talk) 18:06, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There is an independent, reliable source for AFs lawsuit threat against Retract Watch: The Chronicle of Higher Education (https://www.chronicle.com/article/meet-retraction-watch-the-blog-that-points-out-the-human-stains-on-the-scientific-record/ ). Just FYI LongTimeObserver (talk) 15:49, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That piece was brought up in the WP:BLPN discussion. Consensus was still against including the disputed material. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Photo
Rather than edit-warring over it, we should probably be discussing whether the photo (apparently added by a banned contributor) should be included... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure. Given the (ongoing) socking, it falls under WP:BANREVERT. I realize that an argument can be made that, just because it's been done by blocked users, doesn't mean that it must be reverted – but it's also the case that just because it's a WP:BLP, it doesn't have to be used as WP:NOTWEBHOST to make the page subject look good. Let's be clear that this isn't a BLP issue. (In case you didn't see it, there's a talk page discussion here that was reverted by an admin: .) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * From BANREVERT: This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (changes that are obviously helpful, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert. One can have an entirely subjective view either way about whether adding a photo of the page subject is "obviously helpful", but it isn't a slam-dunk that it's needed, so I'd treat it as presumed ambiguous. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:59, 19 September 2022 (UTC)


 * WP:BANREVERT to me reads as saying edits by banned editors may be reverted, but also explicitly states:This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor. If a banned editor makes positive, encyclopedic contributions, those don't need to be reverted robotically. I would argue including a decent, representative image of the subject is encyclopedic, not promotional or webhosting, no matter who uploaded or took the photo or the prominence of the subject's public profile. It is not uncommon for subjects (or their representatives) to upload photographs of themselves or colleagues. If there are concerns of the copyright of the image, or serious doubt as to whether the photo is in fact Ariel Fernandez, then a discussion should be raised at Commons. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * In the ec, I explained my thinking about that. There's no concern about copyright or authenticity, because the uploader is a sock of a sockmaster who voluntarily posted on-wiki that they are Fernandez. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 19 September 2022 (UTC)


 * As a general principle, I'd say that including photo's of article subjects (living or otherwise), when available, is normal practice, and would have to suggest that they aren't generally included to 'make the subject look good'. They are there so the reader can see what the subject looks like. And I'd have to ask how not doing in this case so benefits our readers. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This really isn't a general case. WP:EDUCATIONAL discusses the pros and cons of images being needed to benefit readers. Unless there is a slam-dunk case that readers need the image, BANREVERT says that the presumption should be to revert. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * (By the way, BANREVERT is explicitly exempted from 3RR. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC))


 * WP:EDUCATIONAL is irrelevant, since we aren't discussing the proposed deletion of a non-free image file, which is the context it refers to. As for the 'presumption', that is your interpretation here. It isn't mine, since I am of the opinion that what we put in articles shouldn't be unduly influenced by external considerations. Our ongoing spat with socks doesn't seem to me to be adequate grounds to exclude something found in more or less every biography. So, I'll ask again: how does excluding this specific image benefit readers?


 * (And no, there is no 3RR exemption for reverting anyone except those violating bans - which doesn't include good-faith editors disagreeing over content) AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Including this particular image helps our readers know what Fernandez looks like. Not knowing what he looks like isn't particularly an impediment to understanding why he is notable. He isn't notable for what he looks like. (I know what EDUCATIONAL is about, because I wrote it. I didn't say that it's the guideline for what we decide here. I said it provides useful information on the pros and cons.) Your presumption may be that this shouldn't be influenced by external considerations, but we have an internal policy that influences this in favor of removal, unless one can make a clear argument that the image is absolutely needed, as opposed to being a nice thing or something that is traditional on pages where edits by banned users have not been a consideration. Arguing that we should ignore the fact that socks added the material in favor of just making the page nice looking is not based in policy. An image is no more required than an infobox is. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I have to go somewhere, so I'm logging out now. I'll check back tomorrow. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Tryptofish, the last 20 articles you've edited (including several biographies) all contain lead images of, or relevant to, the subject. Humans (those with sight) are very visual learners. Why should Staffordshire Bull Terrier or Cornbread (graffiti artist) have a lead image and not Ariel Fernandez? MOS:LEADIMAGE states It is common for an article's lead or infobox to carry a representative image—such as of a person or place, a book or album cover—to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page. MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE states Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding. WP:IMAGEPOL (policy) states: Wikipedia encourages users to upload their own images. WP:COI encourages even users with Conflicts of Interest to upload suitable free images that the community can use. It would be different if sock/COI editors added to this article several rather redundant or frivolous headshots or images of Fernandez speaking or working (especially since the article is so short), but such images might still have educational value on Commons or in other articles. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:06, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Once someone who isn't a sock reinstates the edit and takes responsibility for it, the BANREVERT argument is moot and the edit should be judged on its merits. The only instance I can think of in which we would exclude a compatibly-licensed lead image from a biography is if the only image available is so inappropriate that it is a BLP issue in itself (e.g. a mugshot for someone who isn't notable for being a criminal, or an utterly atrocious image, like this one that I removed some time ago). We certainly don't go around removing photos of everyone who's not a model, actor, etc. on the basis that they're not notable for their appearance. Spicy (talk) 23:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm going to comment that once the image is uploaded to commons and there are no copyright or BLP concerns, any editor is free to use the image even if it was uploaded by a banned user. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I want to start by acknowledging that all of the comments defending the image are coming from a good place, a good desire to do what's best here.
 * Other pages I have edited are just WP:OTHERSTUFF, and I'm not at all clear why it would be helpful to search into my edit history. And I accept what others are pointing out about BANREVERT, once a good-faith editor takes responsibility, so I stand corrected on that. I'm happy to change my mind when presented with a good explanation, and I hope that other editors are, too.
 * I've been thinking more about the question of what good it does for our readers to remove the image. A very important issue for Wikipedia is that we need to have the trust of our readership in order to fulfill our mission. Wikipedia has long been the butt of jokes, and readers need us to be alert to things that would make readers doubt that they can trust what they find here. A perception that any person or organization that wants to self-promote can manipulate us to have an article that makes them look good hurts our value to readers. We owe it to readers to make sure that we are not being manipulated into being someone's web host. The self-identified sockmaster is very active online self-promoting as a consultant. The only reason we are even discussing this image is because a sock showed up yesterday to post here and canvass elsewhere, complaining about the removal, and that drew attention to it.
 * It should be abundantly clear that an entirely applicable policy is WP:NOTWEBHOST. That's policy here. It's not just a matter of personal opinion that we do not allow people to use the website to promote themselves. It's a policy, and it applies.
 * If I were to ask for a comparable policy that the image must be used, no one would be able to find it, because no such policy exists. One good-faith editor may feel that the image is a net positive here, and another good-faith editor may see it as a net negative, but that's a subjective judgement. Neither such editor is wrong. But there is no such thing as a policy that says that an image must be used, and that says that it's disruptive conduct to remove such an image. This is, as much as anything else, is a matter of what is common practice. It's common to include images, and the image here has been on the page for a long time without dispute. But that's not the same thing as policy. (Animalparty quotes from a variety of guidelines, but none of those contradicts what I say here. LEADIMAGE (a guideline) says that images in leads and infoboxes are common, not mandatory. And ArbCom had a case about infoboxes that determined that they should not be treated as automatic on every page. IMAGERELEVANCE (a guideline) says that images are often an aid, but it doesn't say that they are required. The fact that users are encouraged to upload images has nothing to do with using the images. The COI guideline leaves it up to other editors whether to use media supplied via a COI, but does not call for COI editors to post images without disclosing their COI. No one is saying the image should be deleted from Commons.)
 * So – we have NOTWEBHOST as a policy, and no policy going the other way. As I think back to the BLPN discussion about the retraction material, there's a significant parallel. Some editors argued that, because the retraction material was something that was long stable on the page, the BLP concerns needed to meet an exceptionally high barrier to undoing the local consensus. Other editors argued that long-time practice was a wrong reason to disregard the BLP policy. The latter became the consensus. And, as I have come to better understand the disputes about this page, I have come to agree with that consensus. A policy counts more than what we have simply been doing for a long time. Well, you can't have it both ways. Just because this page has had an image for a long time, and other pages that don't have the same WEBHOST issues have traditionally had similar images, one cannot just wave NOTWEBHOST away. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Please clarify how WP:WEBHOST applies when an independent editor adds the image to the article. —C.Fred (talk) 17:25, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's an excellent question. First, in looking back at the policy, I want to say that this is actually both WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:NOTPROMO (they overlap, but also have distinct features). I see two components to the answer to your question. One is that NOTWEBHOST and NOTPROMO come into play when the socks first upload the file and add the image to the page. The second is what happens when independent editors come to consider it. What we have here is an independent editor who restored the image, and another who reverted the restoration. One can argue that the editor who restored the image is taking responsibility for it. But that's also a first-mover advantage. If other independent editors object to it, does the first editor's taking responsibility just end the discussion? Often, when the first mover takes responsibility for an edit, it's uncontroversial, so there's no problem. That's obviously not happening here. It's WP:NOTAVOTE, and when the edit becomes controversial, it's no longer a situation where the fact that the first editor took responsibility ends the discussion. That editor needs to address objections. And I've raised objections that haven't really been answered beyond, in effect, telling me to shut up and trying to close the discussion prematurely. It's important that NOTPROMO is also part of this, because that makes it go beyond whether the socks' edits were being hosted. It becomes whether the independent editor restored something that has a promotional effect, something that the socks have made abundantly clear is how they intend it. It's not enough to demonstrate that the image is "a good thing"; it's also necessary to demonstrate that it's not serving to continue the promotion started by the sockfarm. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Given that the consensus here seems to be that we use the photo, I'm going to restore it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's seriously premature for you to have declared such a consensus. I posted yesterday that I was going to check back and comment further. As soon as you saw my brief comment in the section below, you declared this discussion over, without giving me enough time to post what I just now posted above. Not a good look. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:10, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Feel free to take this discussion to WP:BLPN. Or start an RfC. Because as far as I can see, nobody participating so far is in any way convinced by your repetitive arguments. Biographies have photos when available. We have one available. Not liking the individual in the photo isn't grounds to exclude it. Nor is the fact that they've been in dispute with Wikipedia. Treat the article like we do any other. Base content decisions on whatever makes for the best article. We are supposed to be creating articles for the benefit of readers, not to engage in endless disputes with the article subject. AndyTheGrump (talk)
 * You think this is something for BLPN? You think this is about the BLP policy? You have clearly made up your mind before even engaging with what I wrote today. I've been listening to you. You are clearly not listening to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, feel to raise it somewhere else instead. And yes, I've 'made up my mind'. I did that years ago, when I concluded that article content decisions shouldn't be influenced by on-Wikipedia disputes with article subjects. Which as far as I'm aware, is in concordance with Wikipedia policy. If that isn't the case, you clearly need to convince other people. So far, you haven't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:47, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I want to keep this discussion, here, open for more than just a day or so. I'd welcome hearing from more editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Tryptofish, I want to know how you would feel if the exact same disputed image was taken and uploaded by a different user, say a colleague of Fernandez or a Wikipedian who happened to meet him. Would you feel that was a violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST or WP:PROMO? --Animalparty! (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a very good question, thanks. Given that someone took the photo of him, I think it's entirely possible that it actually was something like that. Here is what we know: this is the file page at Commons:, and this is the user page of the account that is listed as the "own work" source of the file: . So let's say for the sake of discussion that the photo was taken by someone who was in a position to take the photo of Fernandez, but who personally had no conflict of interest, and let's also say that the photo was placed at Commons, and editors here took that photo and used it for this page, without any of the extensive and ongoing socking happening. In that situation (with all of those details), my answer to your question is that I would never even have thought of removing it, and I'd be fine with keeping it. That's because there would have been no issue with NOTWEBHOST or NOTPROMO. It just would have been the normal editing process, and it's what usually happens at the vast majority of pages.
 * But that's not what we have here. We have a checkuser determining that the uploader was a sock. And the socks, with a huge COI, have been relentlessly pushing for this page to make Fernandez look as impressive as possible, as opposed to just being a neutral (and, of course, not defamatory) encyclopedia page. We know that the photo was taken by someone who not only had an undisclosed COI, but who was actively seeking to POV the content of the page (and still was seeking to do it, just a few hours ago). I wouldn't care if it were just a matter of who uploaded the file. But the combination of that with the massive, continuing, and unrepentant efforts to disrupt WP is something I'm not able to pretend isn't happening. As I said earlier, we help our readers when we stand firm on making sure that they can trust our content to be reliable and not manipulated. Just imagine the Wikipedia criticism pointing to an article where we let some obvious and aggressive socks get away with making it look like a promotional piece. That's us failing to do what our readers want us to do. That's why we have policies that say what NOTWEBHOST and NOTPROMO say. That's the point of those policies. So if we are going to be just as attentive to NOTWEBHOST and NOTPROMO as we should be to BLP, then we have to treat this as what it is, and not as just another typical page on WP. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The photo isn't promotional. It is a photo of the guy. It shows readers what he looks like. And showing readers what the subject of an article looks like isn't 'webhosting'. It is normal practice to include photos - which for lesser-known biography subjects very frequently get uploaded by someone connected. Not infrequently, we actually ask them to do so - see A picture of you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I thought you had already decided that this discussion was over. I just got through saying that "In that situation... I'd be fine with keeping it." But go ahead and ignore most of what I say. (And that's a how-to page, not a policy.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Fernandez work
I cannot revert Tryptofish because I cannot edit this page. I am not allowed for some reason. Please restore Fernandez books. There are more books and many articles that I will add once I figure out how to edit this page. 201.219.97.44 (talk) 22:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Whether we include specific content or not needs to be decided according to relevant Wikipedia policy. Not according to the whims of individual contributors. This is not a CV, and inclusion of a subjects works in biographies tends to be based around the extent to which such works have received significant commentary in independent sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Further, I note that the IP cannot edit the page because the page has been subject to abusive edits, both pro- and anti-Fernandez, so the page has been protected. No unregistered users may edit the article. Also, a user who edited the page in the past has been blocked and has abused multiple accounts. Evidence of such abuse is grounds for an immediate block. —C.Fred (talk) 15:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)


 * It's pretty obvious what's going on with this IP. We're probably pretty far into WP:DENY territory, along with quite a few other territories. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I don't know why anyone with a favourable CoI would think it a good idea to keep drawing attention to this article. The subject is relatively obscure yet has been the subject of controversy. For good reason we do not mention that controversy at this time. If sourcing changes, we may mention it in the future yet we're less likely to do so no one notices because our attention isn't continually drawn to it so we aren't paying attention to the latest sources. Nil Einne (talk) 12:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there's so much about this that actually seems irrational. For what it's worth, I've been looking for more recent sources, and I'm not finding any. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * As has been raised before both on RW and in the talk page archives the subject also has a Wordpress alter ego, one Weishi Meng, whose AF hagiographies have been the subject of much attention and indeed ridicule. That this combination of WP and non-WP activity represents a prime example of the “Streisand effect” has also been the subject of much comment. Beyond any prurient interest in the psyche of the BLP subject, of more interest in this discussion is whether this activity has served any definable purpose as it relates to the subjects WP entry. The answer to that is an unqualified yes - since the supposedly neutral entry currently omits all reference to retractions and EOCs, items of great relevance as they relate to evaluating the work of any academic. LongTimeObserver (talk) 01:52, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding 'great relevance', as a general principle, one would think that their 'greatness' could be demonstrated though significant coverage in independent sources, rather than having to be asserted, without evidence, by new accounts that turn up to tell experienced Wikipedia contributors about their 'observations'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the offense. I appreciate your expertise in these matters and hope to learn much from you as I go forward. I am somewhat intimidated by your vast WP experience and any pointers you can provide will be appreciated. I deeply regret my use of the word “great”, it was clearly inappropriate and it won’t happen again. Thanks for taking the time to “school” a WP newbie. LongTimeObserver (talk) 14:45, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think any offense was given. Just asked in good faith and answered. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:37, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I fail to see the good faith in "...asserted, without evidence, by new accounts that turn up to tell experienced Wikipedia contributors about their 'observations'". I see instead a proprietary attitude that seeks to diminish and marginalize a dissenting view through the use of arbitrary standards and ad hominem attack. That 5 EOCs and one retraction are relevant in judging the quality of an academic's output is self-evident. That my status on WP has any bearing on that fact seeks to diminish this argument by marginalizing the presenter. LongTimeObserver (talk) 19:10, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree (although I've come to accept the consensus on the EOC-related content). That's why I didn't want you to feel that you had caused any "offense" to apologize for. There's no need for long-time editors to snarl at users who come new to the discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I thank you for that. LongTimeObserver (talk) 19:55, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Perspective on the BLP
I just stumbled upon this BLP. It ought to be one of the most widely (and fiercely) argued in Wikipedia. According to the ORCID record, the subject has authored 445 research articles, mostly in top tier journals, 5 (6?) books, etc. He merits a kinder portrayal. We are arguing over a drop in the bucket. Stueckelberg (talk) 15:04, 25 September 2022 (UTC)


 * It would probably be easier to argue for a 'kinder portrayal' if brand new accounts clearly created just for the purpose didn't keep turning up, to perpetuate the endless arguments about sockpuppetry and whether it should influence article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:25, 25 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Stueckelberg (talk) 16:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Yeah, well here's a long-time account telling you that the more facile arguments I see from obvious sockpuppets, the less likely I am to take any interest in this article any more. And that's coming from someone who has previously supported arguments that the article has been unfairly skewed against Fernandez. Fuck off. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:40, 25 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Somebody needs to block the obvious sock. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Done. —C.Fred (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Page protection
I've semi'd the talk page for two weeks so the current discussions have time to progress without the continued sock disruption. If there are any good faith objections I'll revert the protection. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! { --Tryptofish (talk) 20:22, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Book list?
I don’t see a reason why a list of books authored by Fernandez should be excluded. Generally a biographic article has such a list if the subject has published more than one book. Thriley (talk) 20:34, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * For reference, here is the diff of the edit I made some time ago, removing the list: . Even if we set aside for now the issue of the list having largely been added by socks, the fact remains that it is simply not true that we always have book lists in biographic articles. We routinely remove such lists per WP:NOTCV. (It's actually pretty common to do that for academic BLPs, because a lot of such pages can go through periods of being kind of promotional for the page subject.) I stand by what I said in my edit summary about NOTCV and about it being WP:UNDUE on a short page like this one. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking further through my watchlist, I just found out that two IP socks, now blocked, tried to reopen this issue at BLPN (now reverted). If anyone came here after seeing the sock post, please know that it was indeed two more block-evasion socks.--Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I don’t see how published books make an article look like a CV. I can see how journal articles, conference presentations, minor awards etc are often excessive, but published books are standard to include. I have never seen a book list removed from an article before. I don’t think it is relevant that socks previously tried to add it. I, a NPOV editor, am the one adding it now. Thriley (talk) 21:24, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * How about covering the books in the form of paragraph text, instead of as a list? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Any thoughts about this? Silver does a lot of biographic articles. I’d like some other input as I think a list is fine. Thriley (talk) 21:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm aware, the point of NOTCV is meant to prevent putting in a full list of published papers by an academic. Because, yeah, that would be disruptive. But a bibliography is indeed standard for published authors. I don't see why we'd want to omit books he's written anyways? We should just make sure the section is titled Bibliography and that the books are formatted in a Cite Book format with author-mask being used. For example, how I formatted things at John Fraser Hart. Silver  seren C 21:44, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * BTW, have any of those books been covered/reviewed in any secondary sources? And for the record, reviews by sockpuppets at Amazon.com do not count. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:39, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I just took a look at the 7 BLPs of the 7 people who have won science Nobel Prizes this past week. One of those pages has a book list, 6 of them do not. It is simply untrue that we routinely include them in science BLPs. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Just because they haven't been put in yet doesn't mean they shouldn't be. Presuming those Nobel Prize winners have written books? Since just winning a Nobel Prize doesn't mean you've written a book. If they have though, I can pretty much guarantee you that if you brought those articles up to FA level and submitted it at FAC, they'd bring up the Bibliography section being missing. Silver  seren C 21:45, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * As JoJo Anthrax asked, would such an FA review consider whether or not those books had been noticed by secondary sources? In this case, the page subject has written books, but is not notable for having done so. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Generally no, because this isn't about notability of said books. We aren't making separate articles on them, but an article on the author. And, as an author of books, it is always DUE to include a bibliography on books made. On a separate note, I found an additional source not used in the article currently. Silver  seren C 22:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, is that the same person? Or do we have another Ariel Fernandez that does drug discovery and protein work? That would be annoying to deal with. Did he previously work at the University of Chicago? Silver  seren C 22:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, he works on protein structure and its application to drug discovery. I just looked at that source, and it's written by "anonymous". I think we have to be careful here, because (I'm going to word this carefully) the sockmaster is very active at other websites in promoting Fernandez's work, using fictitious names as the "authors". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what that has to do with an article in R&D, which is an established trade magazine. Their article often don't list the author. Silver  seren C 22:18, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Instead of pinging one editor, I've left a note at WT:PROF, asking for more views: . --Tryptofish (talk) 21:55, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I've just made this edit:. It provides the fact that he has written books and what they are about. But it's more encyclopedic and more in balance with the rest of the page than a list would be. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * [edit conflict] Here from a pointer to this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics). My feeling is that a book is a major-enough work that, for authors of books, we should provide a list of them, preferably sourced by published reviews. If there are self-published books we can omit them unless they are reviewed, and edited volumes are of lesser significance for which inclusion is a matter of discretion, but we should list all authored books by major publishers. Replacing it with a sentence "he has published books" is just fatuous and uninformative; all academics publish stuff. It is what they publish that matters. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:26, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that. I didn't think it was fatuous, but I accept that consensus is against me. I was about to self-revert and reinstate the list, but you beat me to it. I'm content to leave it at that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:30, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't mind if you want to hide the publisher and ISBN metadata in a footnote, though. I think it would be easier for readers to list only titles and years. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Also here via WP:PROF; I agree with David Eppstein; I've always included a list of all authored books in scientific bios I've created (and often some or all of the edited ones too). It's nice if they have reviews but I don't think it's necessary; they seem an obvious part of what makes the academic notable, and different from another academic. We don't require secondary coverage of the importance of say their date of birth, it's just taken as given. Agree one can hide the ISBNs if desired, though I'd leave the publisher (as a surrogate marker for importance of book) and one entry per book is generally enough (if it had multiple editions). Espresso Addict (talk) 23:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Just to make sure I understand
I just finished reading the rest of the talk page sections above and gave myself a headache. So, to be clear, some editors over at BLP/N said that even though the subject was covered in Nature (link) and Chemistry World (link), because the papers in question were retracted after an investigation by Retraction Watch, which the latter source explicitly mentions too, none of that material on his research and his academic negligence can be included because it would be negative toward the BLP subject? What are they smoking over there at that noticeboard? Silver seren C 22:25, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for saying that. Don't get me started on BLPN and that stuff. And I don't blame you for the headache. { --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * none of that material on his research and his academic negligence can be included because it would be negative toward the BLP subject? That's how it seemed to me. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 23:42, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That seems like nonsense. If reliable sources have covered the retractions of his work, which they have, then that is something that should be mentioned. Silver  seren C 00:09, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder: WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well, so let's not use "academic negligence" carelessly. Are Nobel laureates Frances Arnold and Gregg L. Semenza guilty of academic negligence? You can read the previous BLPN discussion here, if you wish. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:55, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If they had papers retracted, then yes. Being Nobel laureates doesn't therefore make them free from criticism. Linus Pauling being the perfect example. And your examples don't seem to fit the issue here. The authors themselves self-retracted the papers because they identified issues with their work or were missing data that had been lost. Self-retracting is the proper act of integrity to take. Has Fernandez also self-retracted his work that had problems? Silver  seren C 00:09, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

If I am to bend over backwards here to explain the arguments from BLPN crowd, I think it's that there is some scandal-bias sometimes seen in sources and content. For more obscure people or "not public figures (WP:NPF)", caution should be exercised when thinking about how to include content that may reflect poorly on the subject of the article. That's only fair, Wikipedia is not meant to be a defamation engine nor an amplification of negative commentary. But caution does not mean whitewash. In this case, I think some pretty strong arguments have been made that at least two sources are sufficiently thorough, independent, and reliable to be used as source for some sort of text. If we use the PNAS and Chronicle sources, I think the only text they can possible source would have to deal with these controversial incidents. We don't need to overload the article, but excising it seems a pendulum swing too far in the other direction, IMHO. jps (talk) 11:36, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying here is directed at everyone (including me) and at no one in particular. It's probably best if we focus, on this talk page, on possible edits to the page itself, and not on other scientists' bios, and not on the culture at BLPN (as much as I am fascinated by that topic myself). What I do think is relevant is that an editor new to this page has expressed support for the page covering the scientific [whatever one wants to call it]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:32, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, I want to say something about the BLP-on-talk issue of calling it "scientific negligence". I was just looking back again at the Chronicle source, and here is a direct quote from it: The most common reason for a retraction is misconduct. Sometimes that means a researcher has gotten two different journals to publish the same article.... "Misconduct" is a stronger word than "negligence", and it's used in a secondary source. I think it's a stretch to call the language used in this talk section a serious BLP violation. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)