Talk:Geoffrey A. Landis

POV
"foremost" is POV. Avt tor 10:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's curious. Puffery, as well.  I wonder which editor inserted it.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

PROD
I did the prod. It's phrased like an advertisement, plus most of the information isn't even verified (and the ones that are verified look like OR). Cervantes de Leon (talk) 01:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * what's a PROD? I'm pretty good with TLAs, but the FLA leaves me wondering. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * PROD = PROposed Deletion. No offense, Mr. Landis, but presently your article doesn't meet Wikipedia standards. Your article must be phrased objectively; presently, since it's written (I presume) mostly by yourself, it isn't really phrased objectively. Furthermore, in order to meet the notability requirements specified by WP:BIO, you need to list some third-party sources--in other words, you have to list a source where someone completely separate from you talks about you (like, for example, when someone completely independent of Albert Einstein writes an essay on his successes). The information on this page would be more appropriately placed on your user page. Your user page can be created exactly how you want it to, and it can say anything about you without conforming to any policy guidelines. However, if you choose to make a real Wikipedia about yourself, it must conform to the policies. Cervantes de Leon (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My advice, ditch the acronyms; they do not assist in making communication clearer.
 * Nope, I didn't write the page, although I do keep an eye on it and correct and update details as needed. Geoffrey.landis (talk)
 * I agree--some of them get a little burdensome, but WP:PROD is one that has been widely used by the community since before I started editing. Cervantes de Leon (talk) 22:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Since you don't seem to understand the process, know that this article will be deleted in 7 days from the time the PROD tag was posted (which was yesterday). You can, by Wikipedia policy, object to my PROD by removing its tag from the top of your article. If you object to my PROD, you must specify why, and you must resolve the issues that I've pointed out. If you remove the PROD, I cannot re-propose your article for deletion, but I can nominate it for a deletion discussion by the community. If the community then decides that your article is in violation of policy, then it will be deleted.Cervantes de Leon (talk) 21:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if Wikipedia decides to delete the page, that would seem silly to me, but, hey, I suppose I'm biased. Are you going to go through the rest of Category: American science fiction writers and delete them for insufficient references, too?  Or are you only deleting people from Winnetka? Geoffrey.landis (talk) 22:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Technically, the Wikipedia community as a whole should actively be reviewing every category and every article for lack of citations and WP:NPOV. I, however, am only one person, and I, originating from Winnetka myself, am presently only focusing on the Winnetka page and associated pages. My goal is to ultimately delete the [Category:People from Winnetka, Illinois] per WP:OCAT, but when I tried before, the community consensus was that the category could not be deleted without checking all of the articles it contained for policy standards, your article included. You do, however, I said before, have some options; this page doesn't have to be deleted. If you resolve the problems so that it meets policy, then it is fair game. You can move the text to your userpage as I suggested to preserve the information written about you. Cervantes de Leon (talk) 22:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

On the surface, the guy seems WP:N. I am not an expert on the field and am not qualified to determine what claims are valid. I would suggest a full WP:AFD fi some agreement is not reached supporting notability.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Mars Crossing alone has 588 library holdings and is sure to have reviews. Anyway, a Hugo and a Nebula award makes for very clear  notability. meets WP:AUTHOR., as recipient of major literary prizes.   DGG' ( talk ) 05:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Noted, but I'd still argue that the article is completely devoid of inline citations and has been since its creation. The only three references listed at the bottom are all invalid: the first is a primary source, the second is is just a patent listing, and the third is a broken link. Regardless, the PROD was removed, and I'll play by the rules: moving to full-on WP:AFD. Cervantes de Leon (talk) 00:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just considered something: Hugo and Nebula awards are unverified in this article. Notability still in question? I might include this in the AFD proposal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cervantes de Leon (talk • contribs) 00:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Never mind, they've been verified. I rest my case. Cervantes de Leon (talk) 14:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Notable
User:Epeefleche is insistent on deleting the word notable from the lead. Winning one Hugo, two Nebulas and a Locus award confers notability, so I am reverting the editor's edits again. The awards are evidence of notability in the world of science fiction and they are referenced to RS in the article. They do not need specific referencing in the lead. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Jez-- you've failed to provide an RS ref that says that the subject is notable. Feel free to reflect in the lede that he won said awards.  That's fine.  Readers can conclude for themselves if that makes him "notable".  But don't go ahead, without any RS ref whatsoever that says that he is notable, inserting the phrase yourself -- so that in wp's voice it is stated that he is notable.  That is completely inappropriate.
 * Furthermore, you have completely mis-stated the rule. The lead must conform to verifiability policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged (which I have clearly done here) must be referenced. This puffery is clearly not "non-controversial" -- instead, it is a matter of controversy, as you yourself have noted above. It has been challenged. As such, it should be deleted or a ref supplied. There is not, as you suggest, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads.  Please don't make up facts.  Contentious material about living persons must be cited every time. As an editor with a number of edits under your belt, I'm a bit surprised by your having mis-stated what is clearly the rule.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Notable and noteworthy are synonyms. Check out Reget's Thesaurus. There is now a cite, moved up from the body of the article. Your challenging of this appears to be egeregious, spurious and pointless. Jezhotwells (talk) 04:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What ref are you referring to? What does it say?  The ref that you inserted after the phrase "notable writer" is neither an RS, nor does it say that he is notable.  Your "defense" for your complete mis-stating of the rule as to refs in ledes continues to be troubling ... you've supplied none, other than to attack me.  Seeking compliance of the lede with WP:LEADCITE is by no means what you describe it as--indeed, to retain GA status I would think you would be eager to have it comply with LEADCITE, rather than misrepresent LEADCITE.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Try reading the citations, it is all there. As I said, noteworthy = notable, as does famous and award-winning. To quote WP:LEADCITE: Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. Challenging the word "notable", when the article clearly expands the awards won and the explicit use of the words noteworthy, famous and award-winning in cites to RS is nit-picking and a waste of everyone's time. Anyway, there are now sufficient sites in the lead so I am content to leave this. If you wish to pursue this further then please use an appropriate noticeboard or raise an RFC. Good night.Jezhotwells (talk) 05:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:LEADCITE says, in pertinent part (emphasis added): "The lead must conform to verifiability ... policies.... material that is challenged ... should be cited.... there is not ... an exception to citation requirements specific to leads.... controversial subjects may require many citations.... Contentious material about living persons must be cited every time."

What part of that did you miss?

I started reading your citations, as you suggested. The very first one you supply "supporting" the notability statement is clearly not an RS. Before I go on, do you have any RSs that say he is notable? I see non-RSs used as references, and I see support for the statements (that are not the ones at issue (that he is a writer, and that he has won specific awards). Your need to -- in wp's voice -- describe him as "notable" is not clearly referenced by any RS as best I can see.  What have I missed?  Non-RSs are not helpful for this purpose.  Nor are RSs that simply say he is a writer or has won award x or award y -- those statements are not being challenged, and are not at issue.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, lets take those one by one:
 * Golden Gryphon Press is one of his publishers. The quote is "This collection of his short stories, Landis's first, contains most of his award-nominated and award-winning stories, including the Hugo winner "A Walk in the Sun," a surreal survivor story set on Luna." Award-winning is a fact, do you dispute this? He is a writer, that is he wrote the stories - do you dispute that?
 * The Peoples Daily is a newspaper: "The US was planning to send robots to Mars in 2003, said Landis,who is also a famous science fiction writer." famous science fiction writer
 * ScFiPedia is a respected online encyclopaedia of Science fiction, not a blog or a wiki. "Some hard SF authors have distinguished themselves as working scientists, including Gregory Benford and Geoffrey A. Landis, while mathematician authors include Rudy Rucker and Vernor Vinge. Other noteworthy hard SF authors include Hal Clement, Larry Niven, Robert J. Sawyer, and Stephen Baxter."
 * US Fed News: "Other notable authors who will participate are Greg Bear, Gregory Benford, David Brin, Ben Bova, Geoffrey Landis and Kim Stanley Robinson."
 * Manila Yimes: ..."confirms Geoffrey Landis, a NASA scientist who is also an award-winning science-fiction author."
 * Library Journal: "RUSA CODES Notable Books Council. Literary Tastes: A Notable Books Breakfast. 7--10 a.m. Authors of Notable Books selections speak to the writing experience and/or read from their works. After the breakfast, the authors will be available for signing and conversation: Ed Greenwood ("Band of Four" series), Geoffrey Landis (Mars Crossing), Vernor Vinge (A Deepness in the Sky) ...."
 * Famous / notable / noteworthy are synonyms. I rest my case. BTW, your contention that the subject wrote the majority of the text in the article is simply not true as an elementary examination of the article history show. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you seriously think -- even for a moment -- that (even if it were on point) that as to a disputed point of puffery the person's own publisher would be an RS? That's absurd.  Anyway, it doesn't state that he is notable.  It states that he is a writer, and that his stories won certain awards.  As I wrote above (are you not reading?), I am not deleting from the lede that he is a writer.  Nor that his stories won awards.  I am deleting one word -- which has been the only word in contention here ... the insertion by you or the author himself or someone else of the word "notable".  In WP's voice.  Where is your RS source for this?
 * As to your comment that the second source "is a newspaper", as I've made clear above, and I expect you would understand, that is not the test. The question is whether it is an RS.  Which it isn't, for matters of fact (though you could list it as the foreign Communist party paper' opinion).
 * Whether or not ScFiPedia is an RS, it does not say he is a notable writer. Not even close.  Why in the world are you throwing completely irrelevant citations in here, that do nothing to support you position?
 * US Fed News is not an RS. It is a clearinghouse for all public comments made through press releases, statements, and other documents.
 * Manila Yimes -- great. She confirms he is a writer.  She confirms he has won certain awards.  Those are already in the lede.  Those are not being disputed.  This is wholly irrelevant, again -- are you just throwing all sorts of inapposite junk in here for any coherent reason that I am missing?
 * Library Journal -- this is an announcement of a breakfast, an ad for it ... this is not RS support.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that there are two or three "editors" here who have some sort of personal issue with Landis, some ax to grind. Perhaps they don't like his fiction, who knows. But the personal issue angle is pretty obvious to anyone looking in from the outside. Indeed, it's pretty unseemly, and quite juvenile. Just my observation... 76.22.32.86 (talk) 03:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

RFC
An editor disputes the word notable in the lead of this article, and is requiring citations for facts which are cited in the article. Comments welcome. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What RS refs say that the person is notable?

I see you inserted a number of non-RS refs, such as the person's own publisher. Those are not helpful for such an assertion (even if they were to say that).

You also inserted refs saying the person is a writer -- which is already in the lede, and is not in dispute.

You also inserted refs saying the person won awards x and y -- which is already in the lede, and is not in dispute.

As was asked before you added those refs, what RS refs say that the person is notable? To make such an assertion, especially in an article where the person himself has been the # 2 editor of the article on himself, and where the article has been plagued with POV/puffery since at least 2007, we would want an RS saying that the person is notable. If all that you want to say is that the person is a writer, and has won awards x and y, that is already stated in the lede. To say in WP's voice however that the person is notable, we need a supporting ref.

This all of course begs another question. Which is why, when his lede already reflects the awards (and his article reflects other accomplishments, sourced to the author's own web-page, such as the number of articles he wrote), you are striving so mightily to add this aggrandizing phrase that it appears no RS uses to describe him.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind that there are two altenate acceptable WP:LEAD formats. Either cite all disputed facts in the lead or leave the lead completely uncited with all facts in the LEAD cited in the main text.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think, actually, its pretty clearly just the first part -- cite RSs to support all disputed facts. This is especially the case with a BLP.  Perhaps this is actually what you were saying.  But WP:LEADCITE says, in pertinent part (emphasis added):


 * "The lead must conform to verifiability ... policies.... material that is challenged ... should be cited.... there is not ... an exception to citation requirements specific to leads.... controversial subjects may require many citations.... Contentious material about living persons must be cited every time."


 * --Epeefleche (talk) 07:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think we should just remove the "notable" claim as without a reliable claim to his notability it is just WP:PEACOCK backed up by WP:SYN.AerobicFox (talk) 06:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Landis, you are a writer, try showing your notability in the article instead of telling it.AerobicFox (talk) 06:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent point. Thanks for pointing us as well to WP:PEACOCK, which is directly on point.  As it says:  "Puffery .... notable ... Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information. They are known as 'peacock terms' ... Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance."  It then has an example, using Bob Dylan, which is worth glancing at.  The analogue here would be to do precisely what AerobiFox suggests.  Although that will of course lead to another question, when we look for RS support for the statement (now only referenced by the author/editor's own webpage) that he wrote 300 articles.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I will go ahead and remove the disputed clause; if someone does want to defend it in the future they can, but for now it seems without support.AerobicFox (talk) 20:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I see this dispute through the lens of AfD, where articles often go to the block for want of an "assertion of notability." It's unnecessary to explicitly state that someone is notable, but if they are—while Epeefleche's puffery concern is well-taken—I see no harm in saying so. In the mine run of articles, this dispute would present a simple dichotomy: A subject is either notable or not, and if not, the remedy is AfD not fiddling with the lede. The wrinkle here, however, is that Landis comes to us with two asserted bases for notability, qua scientist and qua author; he doesn't have to be notable in the latter capacity for the article to stay. Is he? That's the nub of the dispute, and the answer is yes. WP:ANYBIO #1 supplies notability when "[t]he person has received a well-known and significant award or honor," and Landis has won at least four, a factual point which doesn't seem to be in dispute. A statement of notability is therefore permissible. Nevertheless, I have not reverted AerobicFox's edit; the current text is concise and steps elegantly around the controversy. We should leave it at that. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Notability is relative though. His fiction works will not likely ever be studied in a classroom, by my definition that makes one not notable as a writer. It is better to just give the achievements and let the readers for themselves decide just what constitutes being notable. That said I appreciate you not reverting me; if you like however I would not revert you back if you did. In any case though, I would be hesitant calling a writer notable unless there was a reputable organization that profiles writers called him notable.AerobicFox (talk) 20:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - Landis is an accomplished NASA engineer (his CV is a matter of record) who is also a SF writer with several literary awards that are of indisputable high reputation. For these reasons, he is clearly notable. This discussion is silly and pretty obviously driven by two or three editors with some undisclosed personal issue (a "chip" perhaps). Additionally, if all the content of Wikipedia marked with "Citation Needed" where removed from the site, the overall size of Wikipedia would drop by at least 1/3. In this case, "notability" is clear. And, the use of the infamous "notability argument" by deletionists and others with a POV is a well known "Wiki-Lawyer" tool, and in general a "red herring" that attempts to obscure disingenuous attempts at censorship because of personal grudges or other issues irrelevant to the actual value of the article in question. This case is so obvious that I'm surprised it has reached this point without intervention of an admin or other powerful editor with a cooler head and common sense. DISCLOSURE: I do not know personally or professionally, nor have I ever had any contact of any sort with the subject of this discussion, G. Landis. 76.22.32.86 (talk) 03:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not one thing you've stated either deserves or will get a response.AerobicFox (talk) 06:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Congrats on being part of the problem at Wikipedia, rather than the solution. I'm sure you feel very "leet" being part of an exclusive club. 76.22.32.86 (talk) 22:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ditto my above post.AerobicFox (talk) 23:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

A description of how the awards are selected: AerobicFox (talk) 07:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Awards
 * Hugo Award: is voted on by fans at the Worldcon sci-fi convention
 * Locus Award: is determined by the votes from a reader poll in Locus magazine
 * Nebula Award: chosen by members of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America. Which anyone can enter after a single publication.
 * Rhysling Award: is chosen by members of the Science Fiction Poetry Association which anyone can join for a small fee


 * Comment - I agree that the current wording, sans the disputed word, “notable,” is better. As Epleefleche has pointed out, the use of the word is rather gauche on Wiki, since it has been specifically listed as a peacock term. And as aerobicfox says, it's weird for a article on an accomplished writer to “tell” about notability rather than “show” it. If an editor can find an RS referring to GL as notable, it wouldn't be a violation of fundamental Wiki principles to use the term. But it would be in poor taste, and seemingly beneath the dignity of the subject of the article.


 * As for the request that RS’s be used to back points of fact made, I think that this is something that the authors of the article should work toward. It is, however, according to WP:RS, not a violation to use self-published sources as long as they are 1) not unduly self-serving, 2) there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity, and 3) the article is not based primarily on such sources. (And there are a couple of other points that don’t seem to apply here.) I doubt if Landis would be unprofessional enough to misrepresent his number of published papers. Early morning person (talk) 19:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Just to add. I agree with the removal of the Citation needed template per the above statement. I also do not think he would misrepresent the number of his publications.AerobicFox (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) That's just the sort of unusual claim that the guideline tells us to source to a RS; 2) the source doesn't even say what the text says.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I am quite worried about the way this discussion's being approached; there's a bit of a red herring involved, the implication of COI. "To make such an assertion, especially in an article where the person himself has been the # 2 editor of the article on himself, and where the article has been plagued with POV/puffery since at least 2007...". The subject hasn't edited the article for over a year (as shown by the link given), during which time it's been expanded sixfold, extensively reviewed, and passed as a GA. Looking at the history, there's no indication that he wrote the comment complained about in 2007 (which predated his involvement by three years) or the use of "notable" under discussion (which appeared after he stopped editing this page). Shimgray | talk | 00:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You are the only one who has mentioned COI in this entire discussion. Your fears that this discussion is being handled improperly due to a COI red herring therefore needs an explanation.AerobicFox (talk) 07:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * One does not need to say "COI" to imply there's a problem in that regard. To repeat the section I quoted, with emphasis:
 * "To make such an assertion, especially in an article where the person himself has been the # 2 editor of the article on himself, and where the article has been plagued with POV/puffery since at least 2007..."
 * and to quote yourself later in the discussion:
 * "Landis, you are a writer, try showing your notability in the article instead of telling it..."
 * Both of these strongly suggest, to a reader skimming the discussion, that Landis was involved. If there was no intent to suggest that he was involved in some way with the version of the article under discussion (or with the discussion) then these are, at best, irrelevant remarks. Perhaps no-one meant to accidentally imply that there was a conflict of interest issue in this article, but either way, it's certainly the way it currently reads to someone stumbling across the discussion, and that's a real problem. Shimgray | talk | 15:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone "stumbling across the discussion" and "skimming the discussion" should try reading all the way through the relatively small amount of comments on this RFC before coming to conclusions. If you feel that my above post that you quoted, that the article should show notability instead of stating notability, incorrectly addresses the issue at hand then please explain your reasoning, but do not feel as though you need to concern yourself with someone implying a COI implication from my post as they just have to ask and I will clarify that no such implication was meant.AerobicFox (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't feel suggesting "show don't tell" implies a COI. I feel that your addressing your remarks to the subject of the article when discussing editorial issues leads inexorably to the conclusion that they're involved in the editorial discussion - why on earth mention their name otherwise?
 * And yes, I did read through this discussion, at which point I discovered my original conclusion (that he was somehow involved) was wrong, worked out why I had come to that conclusion, and realised that some remarks were framed in such a way that it was very easy to fall into that trap. So I noted it here, and I followed it through to the more general discussion on the COI noticeboard, where allegations of COI were being more explicitly thrown around and this article was mentioned, and left some comments there.
 * As to your last remark, it's all very well to say "oh, I'll correct it if anyone calls me on it", but the solution is to be more careful to avoid leaving these imputations hanging in the air in the first place. Shimgray | talk | 20:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I addressed Landis because I thought he was involved in this discussion having been directed here from his talk page. For clarity, do you support or oppose the inclusion of the term "notable", because so far you have only argued that the posters here "framed" a "trap" for you to fall into, and have not even addressed topic of this RFC.AerobicFox (talk) 22:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that's my point exactly - both you and I made the same mistake! If two of us did, it seems likely other users may do so.
 * Given the - very aggressive and mostly inappropriate - allegations being made about Landis' claimed COI issues elsewhere, linked to this discussion, it seemed a good idea to make it clear here that the implication hanging in the air had no bearing on the topic at hand; I wouldn't have bothered had it not been for the fact that the discussion above happens to read in such a way as to strongly suggest such an implication to a reader. (I also think you slightly misunderstand the use of "trap" here - "easily made mistake" rather than "deliberate trick".)
 * As to the particular question, I didn't state a position as I am broadly ambivalent; it's not a term I'd use myself had I written the text, but the arguments for removing it seem pretty tenuous; either with or without is an acceptable status quo. I am more concerned with the manner of discussion in the RFC used to get to that status quo; if the comments are leading people to think the challenged text was written by the subject, they may well come to a different conclusion on what to do with it. Shimgray | talk | 23:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody is likely to make such a mistake after this though, and all this could have been clarified in a few sentences. Next time feel free to post "Comment: I would just like to state that Landis himself is not involved in this discussion as it seems to be being implied up above", etc, etc.AerobicFox (talk) 00:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, quite; that was the point of my posting in the first place. It clearly wasn't sufficient in itself, though, as the discussion above stems from you disputing that such an impression ever existed... This seems to be getting quite circular, now, and my point has been aired, so I shall bow out. Shimgray | talk | 00:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * When clarifying you should avoid using such words as "red herring" which relay the intentional attempt to deceive others. Trying to clarify something typically won't meet opposition, but trying to clarify a "deception"(even if not meant to come across that way) almost always results in these types of arguments.AerobicFox (talk) 00:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the comment above: "1) That's just the sort of unusual claim that the guideline tells us to source to a RS; 2) the source doesn't even say what the text says.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)"

I take this comment to be on the claim of 300+ scientific papers. Although this editor may be correct in saying that the source doesn't state specifically what the text says (300+ papers), if you take the trouble to count (aided by the count function on a good word processor), there are in fact more than 300 papers listed. Early morning person (talk) 14:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Precisely, and the source is at Massachussetts Institute of Technology, which should be a reliable source. I am rather surprised that writing 300+ papers is regarded as an "unusual claim". Jezhotwells (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The citation needed template was for this line "He has patented eight designs for solar cells and photovoltaic devices", not for the 300 publications.AerobicFox (talk) 16:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Challenged self-promotional claim sourced only to self-promotional author. 1) Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not complying with this may be removed." WP:BLP extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies when the material is positive, as here.


 * For challenged claims such as "I wrote 300 papers", per WP policy we do not rely on the person, if no RS has said as much -- either the claim is non-notable, or it is so self-promotional that an RS is required to support it. When living persons publish unduly self-serving material about themselves, and their self-published claim is not supported by RSs, such material may not be used as a source.


 * Questionable sources include ones such as the one used here, and are unsuitable for citing contentious claims. Anyone can create a website and then make a claim. "For that reason self-published media are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated. Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons; see WP:BLP.


 * 2) Early -- My word processor doesn't show what yours does. How many papers does yours show?
 * 3) How many papers does you count he wrote, per his own (arguably) self-promotional listing, and how many do you count he was a contributor to and co-wrote but did not write himself?
 * 4) At what point does OR come in?
 * For all of the above, but especially #1, IMHO it should be deleted. We simply don't reflect unusual self-promotional claims, sourced only to the author's own writing, that RSs either did not think were notable enough to cover or that they do not agree with, as they have failed to reflect them themself.  And the self-promotional bent of the author is evidenced by his editing of his own article and his creation and heavy editing of his wife's article.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay. To answer your question, my word processor showed around 325 articles (and I did go through and take out subheads, etc., that would inflate the count). But yes, good point, many of these (roughly half, I would say) were co-authored. Perhaps then, the phrase in the article should be "authored or co-authored more than 300 scientific published papers . . . "? You do well to reference your comments to relevant points from WP:V and BLP. But do you think that website where these papers are listed is "largely user-generated"? And is the stated number of papers "contentious" or vulnerable to challenge? --300 papers is not unusual for an active research scientist after three decades, from what I've heard. However, as mentioned above, I am glad to see the peacock word, "notable" gone. Early morning person (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes -- I think it contentious. 1) I have objected to it, and challenge it, for the aforementioned reasons.  2) The person in question, as delineated above, has shown a penchant for unabashed self-serving promotion (creation of his wife's article, etc.).  3) There has been too much hard-fought promotion in this article already.  4) No RS confirms it.  None.  Zero.  Either it is not true, or it is not notable. 5) My suggestion accords w/wp policy, as indicated, even in the absence of all the side-points that concern me (and I haven't even touched on the apparent socking).--Epeefleche (talk) 16:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment
 * 1. The word "notable" could be deleted or kept; I don't think it matters much. Landis is clearly notable, I won't rehash those arguments. Saying that Landis is notable is therefore not really a disputed fact or an unusual claim. Consensus on the issue is important but consensus is not likely here because people seem to have become entrenched and personally invested in particular outcomes. I personally lean toward finding the word "notable" stylistically undesirable because of all the unpleasant arguments I have seen Wikipedia editors engage in while debating deletion vs inclusion of articles. Others might say it is gauche or puffery; however, I think the real problem is that "notable" has become such a loaded term here on Wikipedia that it is automatically suspect.
 * 2. The citations supporting factual assertions are a bit clunky when included with the lead sentence. Stylistically I prefer that the assertions be cited/referenced/supported in the body of the article so that the lead sentence is clean and concise. It is also valid to cite/reference the lead sentence. Again, I don't know that consensus will be reached on this issue because people seem to have dug in their heels.
 * 3. The Wikipedia policies and guidelines are not strict rules. (See also the five pillars.) Time spent arguing policies could perhaps be better spent editing articles and adding citations/references. --Vampyrecat (talk) 04:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It seems that the editors who are concerned about the issues raised here have in fact spent tens of thousands of edits both editing articles and adding citations/references.  Perhaps it is that experience that makes them concerned when, as here, they come across articles with an unusually high level of puffery and COI.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)