Talk:Joseph Dwyer (physicist)

Conflict of interest
The article appears (self-)promotional and is not in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines. In particular, there appears to be a conflict of interest between the major contributing author and the subject of the article.


 * A while back I saw both of these tags at the top of the article. My first thought is that the first one, autobiographical (or self-promotion), is pure speculation, not to mention potentially libelous. For that reason, I don't think it should even be here on the talk page unless someone can supply supporting evidence.


 * As for the second accusation, just looking at this article's history page, clicking on the use page of the person who created this article, then reading the talk page and examining the contribution history, makes it clear that this was a good-faith error. Enough years have elapsed that it should no longer be an issue.


 * Also, why are all these strange edits (putting in these tags) coming from two anonymous accounts in Finland? This looks like the work of an experienced Wikipedia user. Zyxwv99 (talk) 22:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The first tag is "autobiography or has been extensively edited by the subject or by someone connected to the subject". The primary editor of the article is user Stargazer6290 who claims on their page [] to be a student working for the subject of the article. This constitutes "someone connected to the subject" as per the Wikipedia tag. Aditionally, as far as could be ascertained, this user is an SPA. At the time the tag was originally added, this is therefore a valid assertion. It is not clear why one of the previous users on the talk page suggests it is libelous, unless this was directed at the claim made by Stargazer6290 to being a student of the subject.


 * With clear justification, and statement of conflict of interest, any neutrally written, non-promotional article of encyclopedic value has a place on Wikipedia. But as such, it is also subject to public questioning by anonymous review. That is part of the peer-review process, which is a foundation stone of modern scientific credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.145.195.17 (talk) 14:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)