Talk:Kuo-Chen Chou

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * KCChou image.jpg

Wikipedia editing activities of Kuo-Chen Chou
Note: There is discussion of articles created by sockpuppets related to Kuo-Chen Chou at this link: WT:WikiProject_Molecular_Biology. T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 05:37, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Kcchou.png
 * This was an invalid speedy delete. The file was uploaded by User:SanDiego2003, who has self-declared as being a member of this institute and who claimed it was his own work. Bueller 007 (talk) 21:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

No Original Research
The example added is clearly original research using a primary source, which is unacceptable for controversial/negative claim in a BLP. If added, Wikipedia would be the first published source to claim that this is an example of coercive citation. That's the definition of original research. Even if it appears obvious that this is a specific example of coercive citation, we can't be the first to make that claim. It needs to be referenced to a reliable secondary source. (In addition, the link used is no longer valid, although it is still available on archive.org) Bueller 007 (talk) 23:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * OK. I think I'm starting to see your point. You're saying that the "...a review illustrating coercive citation..." is OR. Fair enough. Would it be possible to rephrase as, "There is a published anonymous review (since deleted) that illustrates the behaviour described in the editorials ." Or words to that effect? Paul (talk) 02:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Paul, the review is very fishy for sure, but the link to Chou does seem hard to prove in a BLP-compliant way. If this was a wikipedia sockpuppet investigation, it's easy to point out that its link to the now-deleted, sockpuppet-created distorted key theory strongly suggests that the reviewer is the same person as the COI-banned "jjia" puppeteer, and the behavior is indeed in line with the description. But I don't think I can do that in a BLP without someone pointing out this as an example elsewhere. (By the way, the link is somehow valid again.) --Artoria2e5 🌉 03:07, 5 March 2021 (UTC)