Talk:Lewis Wolpert

Review comments
Some suggestions for improvement as the article is expanded:

Espresso Addict 02:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Template:Infobox Scientist should be added
 * Photograph should be added from a source with a free license
 * Needs some internal links adding
 * Some basic biographical information required, eg place of birth, dates of positions held, any marriages/children
 * Article should be divided into appropriate subheadings
 * Information on research should be expanded and references required
 * References should be expanded and preferably converted to inline format
 * External links present which could be used to expand article

Plagiarism
I suggest that this report of plagiarism by Wolpert must be included somehow in the article.--Damorbel (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * @ - if you'd bothered to read the article, you'd have seen that it is. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Please calm down!

I missed the reference in the article because it is obscure, it should be under its own heading.

I do not think the matter is (or was) particularly serious since it amounts more to a text string than an actual passage, more of a blunder than plagiarism. How it came to happen is difficult to imagine!--Damorbel (talk) 20:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I have checked further. The occurences of plagiarism are quite extensive and mention of them should not be included under a general heading such as "Books and lectures" as if it was a normal activity. --Damorbel (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Not really . It's a BLP, so we shouldn't give WP:UNDUE weight to negative material.  It's not central to his career as a researcher.  The explanation he gave for the plagiarism, that it was unintended, has been accepted by those sinned against, and they haven't made a big deal about it. So we don't treat it as a big deal either - WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTSENSATIONAL. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

BLP?

It fraud that has been found out; not massive fraud but it is what has been found out. Proper attention should be drawn to it with due emphasis on 'what has been found out' and his admitting the matter.

It is comparable with athletes taking 'medicine' containing banned substances, the detection of small amounts of banned substances is not to be taken as the totality.

Plagiarism is theft of intellectual property, it is hard to prove that it is 'massive' but Wolpert has admitted it so there can be no reasonable doubt that it happened, it should not be hidden in a passage about perfectly respectable activity, that would be misleading, the two do not mix! You yourself deduced that I had not noticed it.

BTW from your argument you give the impression you have an interest in the affairs of Lewis Wolpert; I have none, and you? --Damorbel (talk) 05:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Move along. You've clearly not understood what you've been told above. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)