Talk:James M. Tien

A note
If there is a neutrality dispute--you must post here.--Bnobleman (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It should be pretty obvious: there's a long string of unsourced peacock terms, such as "renowned" and "widely recognized"... In fact there are no sources at all. Hairhorn (talk) 04:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hardly a long strong. It should be very obvious that one does not earn a PhD or become a Dean of a research insitution or receive an award such the one named in the article without earning a certain level of prestige. There is a source--and a simple web search would reveal his standing as well as references/sources--and you could add to this article instead of disputing. This is a new article. I will add scholarly sourcesBnobleman (talk) 13:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but there are hundreds of thousands of people worldwide with PhDs, not all of them are "renowned", and a Dean is the academic world's equivalent of middle management. There were no sources when I posted above, and now there is only one, a University of Miami website that the photograph and most of the text appear to be borrowed from. Hairhorn (talk) 13:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

note references--all "refereed"--Bnobleman (talk) 14:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyright violation
I have removed the text. Please rewrite and re-add to the article. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It's my text and photo--and I've released to the public domain thru cc and wikimedia. Note my initials on the photo file. I'm adding sources, but your edit conflict caused them to be deleted. Why the hard time here? This is a biographical page about an important researcher. It's a factual page. Disagree about a dean being middle management--now, that's not a neutral comment.Also, check your history--there was a source when you posted. There are more now, and 187 more, refereed, coming.--Bnobleman (talk) 13:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * All I see is a link to an article written by Tien (the link is 404 by the way). And the page that contains both the text and photo read "Copyright 2010 University of Miami. All Rights Reserved." I don't see any evidence any of this was released under CC or any other license. Feel free to rewrite the entry using neutral non-copyvio languge, I'm sure everyone will be happy with that. Hairhorn (talk) 13:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

BTW--photo on U of Miami site is not the same photo--Bnobleman (talk) 14:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, but it's clearly from the same shoot. Unless you are UofM or the photographer I doubt you can claim copyright. Hairhorn (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I Am U of UM.--Bnobleman (talk) 14:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ha ha... okay then, remove the "all rights reserved" tag from the bottom of the UofM page and replace it with a CC license. Then have a look at wp:coi.... Hairhorn (talk) 14:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I did already rewrite, but will again. I hope the references now make you happy.This is an extraordinary researcher--really, who is doing good for humankind and deserves to have a bio on wikipedia for the sake of others' access.I know you/we see a lot of junk, but this isn't one of them. --Bnobleman (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay fine. But please don't fill up the entry with a huge list of articles written by Tien. Those aren't references and they needlessly clutter up the entry. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 14:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I suddenly can't access the Miami site either. Strange. Anyway, I think the subject is probably notable. Let's address the copyvio issue first. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The site is working, but I'm going to simplify the page by adding an external link.--Bnobleman (talk) 14:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay. Good plan. I still can't access the site. Let's drop the photo issue. If it's a different photo then it's not a problem. I suggest paraphrasing the text to distance it from the Miami site, and re-adding it. That should take care of that. As for notability, my opinion is that it passes. Others may object though.


 * As for the huge list at the bottom, I'm fine with it, but would suggest putting it into its own section above the reference section. Others may object to its length. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Is everyone okay with this? I'll add references, too, as the page develops--Bnobleman (talk) 14:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm happy. It could actually be more expansive. Thanks for your patience and understanding. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Tags
I admire your enthusiasm, but it's not appropriate for the author of the article to remove all the tags that were placed at the top of the article. Please leave the tags as they are, they will be removed by other impartial editors one by one as they feel the issues have been suitably addressed. The notability question in particular needs to be assessed by a third party, preferably by one or two Wikipedia administrators. Thank you for your cooperation. Invertzoo (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry--but what more do you need--I read the comments and see plenty of other bio-type articles with less(references, links, publications,etc.) than this one without so many "issues" or questions or any tags at all.--Bnobleman (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I am sorry too. I would recommend you just be patient and see what happens over the next few days. The article may actually turn out to be more or less OK as it stands, but first I think we do need a few more people, more qualified people, administrators, to look at it to see if it meets various guidelines. I should explain that roughly half of all new articles get deleted, because they don't meet Wikipedia guidelines and are not acceptable. We have to be extremely careful in general with biographies of living persons, and with copyright issues. Your article was noticed by new article patrol people and became a focus of attention for a while for reasons that have already been noted on the talk page of the article and here on your talk page. In general it is usually recommended that new editors spend a fair bit of time getting more familiar with Wikipedia, by editing bit by bit on other articles, rather than immediately starting a new article, and that is because a new article is quite difficult to do well, and new editors don't always know the ins and outs of the relevant Wikipedia guidelines and process. But thanks for all your efforts, and please hang on in there until we get this sorted out. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 17:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Note
I will add more about accomplishments later today--Bnobleman (talk) 16:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC) PS: the term "Distinguished Professor" is a title, not a peacock term--Bnobleman (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Meaning of the orphan tag?
The article still has the orphan tag because there are no other articles on Wikipedia that link to it. To fix this, this academic's name could perhaps be added to the section on "Notable faculty" in the article about the University of Miami. There may also be other articles where it would be appropriate to mention his name. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)