Talk:Niels Keiding

What needs to be done next
There is a nice template for an article of the type "Academic Biography", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Academicbio

See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) for the important criteria, several of which are clearly satisfied; they just need to be properly documented through links to Reliable Sources.

Here are some notable publications (google scholar)

TITLE, CITED BY, YEAR

Statistical models based on counting processes

PK Andersen, O Borgan, RD Gill, N Keiding

Springer Science & Business Media	5499	2012

Evidence for decreasing quality of semen during past 50 years.

E Carlsen, A Giwercman, N Keiding, NE Skakkebæk

British medical journal 305 (6854), 609-613	4023	1992

Male reproductive health and environmental xenoestrogens.

J Toppari, JC Larsen, P Christiansen, A Giwercman, P Grandjean, ...

Environmental health perspectives 104 (suppl 4), 741-803	1973	1996

WHO Expert Committee on Leprosy: Seventh Report

WHO Expert Committee on Leprosy, World Health Organization

World Health Organization	869*	1998

Multi-state models for event history analysis

PK Andersen, N Keiding

Statistical methods in medical research 11 (2), 91-115	676	2002

Richard Gill (talk) 11:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Photograph for the article: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Arjen_Doelman,_Niels_Keiding_at_Richard_D._Gill%27s_farewell_conference_dinner.jpg Richard Gill (talk) 05:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Copyright problem
I started this article by using text from an ISI “In Memoriam” article, moreover I indicated the source of that material. The article was written at the request of ISI by colleagues of Niels Keiding, who like him are members of ISI. But copyright law is copyright law. We must rewrite “in our own words” (which is crazy, since those were our own words), or get written permission from ISI (should be no problem), or in some other way establish copyright ownership under a free re-use copyright type. Richard Gill (talk) 15:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Today we received an email from ISI:

Dear Per,

Thank you for your message. My former colleague Liliana is no longer working at the ISI.

You will have our permission to use the text – does ISI need to do anything else except this email permission? Kind regards, Katie Junasova

Webmaster International Statistical Institute

www.isi-web.org

We have sent the official wikipedia instructions back. I hope that the webmaster of ISI is authorised to settle copyright questions about their website, andknowledgable enough. I still find this quite crazy. The ISI wants the whole world to read this "In Memoriam" and has totally no interest in having any kind of copyright. Richard Gill (talk) 11:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Actually, I have now rewritten other sections of the article so that the copyrighted material is completely superfluous. I suggest the copyright question is considered closed and the material which was hidden be completely removed. The article still has a reference to the originally used source, which is quite enough for further editors to use, and of course its existence is evidence of notability. Richard Gill (talk) 11:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

More thoughts on the copyright issue. It is not clear to me that copyright was ever claimed by anyone for the material in question. The original authors did not claim copyright and were not asked to transfer it to the ISI. ISI never asserted copyright on the members’ newsletter which they put out on internet. The authors, scientists paid in effect by the Danish taxpayer, are employed by Copenhagen University to further the progress of science for the benefit of all mankind. The ISI is an international organisation whose purpose is to further the well-being of mankind through good statistics. It is run and paid for by the contributions of its members. It us not a profit-making organisation, nor is Copenhagen University. So why is copyright violation being claimed for work which the authors and publishers intended to be in the public domain for the benefit of mankind? Naturally, text which is quoted from another source ought to be attributed to that source, as a matter of courtesy and proper documentation. The source was documented in the original posting, but obviously that could have been made publicly more visible. Richard Gill (talk) 19:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)