Talk:Paul Frampton

recent edits
I believe 99% of readers of my profile are far more interested in my latest 2021 physics research than in a wrongful 2012 conviction in Argentina. I made three changes: the way it was written it looked as though I live in Italy but I have lived in the UK for over six years so that is an experimental fact; I updated my 2021 research which is exciting and interesting, and sourced that by a published 2021 paper; finally, since the Wiki editors persist with including drug-related text I added a source which shows that the key incriminating evidence was invented by the Argentina police who initiated the scam. For the last one I tried to provide a URL to the source but it did not appear correctly. I hoped the Wiki-experts would helpfully straighten that detail out rather than simply "undo" all three corrections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrayhamWebb (talk • contribs)
 * There's no way around the fact that the source you added does not meet a core requirement here: WP:RS.
 * In addition: I would urge you to use only one Wikipedia account. Otherwise someone might have concerns about WP:SOCK.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note that I have placed a COI warning on Grayham's Talk page just in case he really is Paul. -Roxy the grumpy dog . wooF 16:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrayhamWebb (talk • contribs) 07:25, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You should cite those published sources rather than a PDF hosted on Frampton's own website. Writing in the Wikipedia article that Olsson's paper demonstrated "a rigour which would convince judge and jury in any first-world courtroom" is also inappropriate speculation. --Lord Belbury (talk) 09:55, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

For Lord Belbury who seems to care about the factual accuracy and intellectual content of Wikipedia:

The Editor who undid my three latest corrections was interested only in the politically sensational one in a section worthy of Mail on Sunday or Daily Mirror tabloid-style journalism, so much so that (s)he evidently did not even read the intellectual part.

The intellectual addition I made about physics cites a refereed journal article in a reputable journal which does satisfy the requirement for a source stipulated in WP:RS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrayhamWebb (talk • contribs) 10:56, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Biography of Living persons - Complaint by Professor Paul Frampton
2A00:23C6:B208:3300:FC1F:E209:1C59:1104 (talk) 18:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

The following is a new "Talk" entry which requires study in its entirety for my biography to be rendered consistent with BLP policies.

August 2021

Biography of Living Persons - BLPs

by Paul Frampton who is concerned that his profile violates Wikipedia’s BLP policy, thereby causing harm to his name and reputation just at a time when one of his physics papers is becoming famous.

Sources, including the New York Times, are misleading and damaging so the term ”source” needs special care in BLPs.

In Wikipedia’s own policy on BLPs, it states as follows:

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia’s job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people’s lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgement.

This policy is violated in the ”Drug Smuggling Conviction” section which I believe was initiated by Jonathan Jones eight or nine years ago. Jonathan [redacted] had the conflict of interest that he did not want me to be a member of the Senior Common Room at Brasenose College where I am an alumnus and he is a tutorial physics fellow. Jonathan repeatedly re-edited any Wikipedia edit I made within minutes whether at 7am or 11pm. He must have installed an alarm system. He became so obsessive that I needed to threaten a lawsuit for harassment before he removed the section. [redacted]

The article by Maxine Swann published in the New York Times in March 2013 was misleading and damaging because it quoted twenty-odd text messages from the Argentina prosecutor’s presentation which was devoted to fake texts about drugs allegedly written by me. How could they have been when I had no suspicion about drugs before my arrest? I did laugh at the end of the prosecutor’s talk because I never heard anything so ridiculously false. Nevertheless the tribunal of judges, being part of a scam, did convict. If Maxine had then gone against the court verdict, it would have put at risk her career, even her life, in Buenos Aires. All Maxine wanted, and obtained, were movie rights. Interestingly the same fake texts appear in the UNC Provost’s dismissal letter in April 2013, just one month later.

I had no idea how to prove the texts are fake until hearing in 2017 about forensic linguistics. John Olsson is credited with founding this new science in the UK in the 1990s and judging by his CV has had considerable success. A few UK universities have faculties dedicated to its study. I have never met, nor paid, him but in 2017 John became so interested that he produced a professional report which shows ingeniously how the prosecutor’s text messages could not have been written by me as a native English speaker but rather by a native Spanish speaker most likely an Argentina police person specialising in drug crimes. His report led to action by Oxford University and is very important in convincing the physics community and others that my 2012 felony conviction in Argentina was unsafe and that my 2014 dismissal from tenure at UNC was wrongful. Olsson’s report discusses explicitly the dismissal letter by the UNC Provost but the text messages are precisely the same as quoted in the New York Times.

The Olsson report is therefore crucial to clear my name at Wikipedia and hence to editors’ discussion of the tabloid section in my BLP where Wikipedia’s usual rules about sources simply do not work.

Wikipedia policy that whatever is published by a reputable source can be considered acceptable for publication is not sufficient. Here you have a case of a reputable source but for reasons of personal security the author of the report omits significant facts. Even before Olsson, anyone with the slightest knowledge of the corrupt judicial system in Argentina would have at least raised a caveat on the judgement of the court. If the reporter had worries about personal security in doing that, he or she should have avoided reporting the case. Please remember that the suppression of truth is one of the worst forms of lying.

PS. The correct Encyclopedia sections on physics in my biography should not be forgotten. Recently on August 10 and 11 I submitted updates but they were rebuffed without justification by two editors. One of them called Roxythedog had restored Jonathan’s tabloid section ironically characterising it as well sourced.

2A00:23C6:B208:3300:FC1F:E209:1C59:1104 (talk) 18:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

However, there are serious problems with removing information because someone claims to be the person involved and claims that the information is false, because very simply both of those claims are frequently made falsely.
 * Can you direct us to reliable third party statements supporting what you say? Is Olsson's report available? JBW (talk) 18:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I suggest you look at Biographies of living persons, particularly the sections Biographies of living persons and Biographies of living persons. JBW (talk) 20:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)


 * OK, when I posted my comments above, I did so in good faith on the basis of what you said in your IP post above. Since then, I have found editing by an account which, if what you said above is true, must be you, and which throws a quite different light on several aspects of the case, for a number of reasons, including the following. You created an account under a pseudonym. There's nothing wrong with that: I have done so myself. However, you proceeded to make self-serving self-promotional edits, at least once referring to yourself in the first person, unambiguously with the intention of giving the misleading impression that the editing was done by a third person. You also failed to point out when you made that IP post that you had also raised the issue from your account, and editors had responded to your comments; by omitting that information you misled me into thinking that I was dealing with a situation significantly different from that which was in  fact the case. You omitted to mention that you yourself had written a book publicising the conviction; whatever the validity or otherwise of that conviction, if you yourself choose to publicise it then you don't have a leg to stand on in trying to suppress mentions of it on Wikipedia. You also failed to mention that a copy of the report you mention which you claim exonerates you is hosted on your own web site, and you have a history of posting as fact into Wikipedia subjective judgements which support your case, such as "with a rigour which would convince judge and jury in any first-world courtroom". As you can no doubt well imagine, I am not well-pleased to find that I have put time and effort into trying to help what I thought might be a sincerely aggrieved innocent person unused to the ways of Wikipedia, only to find out that I was in fact misled about several aspects of the case by that person, and that the person in question has a history of deliberately seeking to mislead. JBW (talk) 20:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, now we come to the biggest deception of all. You said above "I have never met, nor paid, him but in 2017 John became so interested that he produced a professional report". In relation to that report, Olsson says "I have been commissioned by Dr Frampton" and "I have a contractual relationship with Dr Frampton". Don't bother to point out that you did not actually state that you did not "commission" Ollson (whatever that means, and whether or not you paid him), because I'm sure that anyone of your intelligence knows that there are more ways of seeking to deceive than telling a direct untruth. Anyone reading what you wrote would take it as implying that Olsson's report was an independent one, not made at your behest, and undertaken merely because he found the case interesting, and you must have been aware of that when you wrote it. To think that I put time and effort into thinking through what you said, looking up the relevant Wikipedia policy sections, and drafting and editing a message to try to help someone who was using such dishonesty to try to recruit my help. JBW (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

2A00:23C6:B208:3300:B91A:163F:1618:4455 (talk) 10:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, I deny every accusations of my being dishonest, deceiving or lying. That is not a way to progress. Let me reduce to two facts and one question. FACT ONE: The Olsson report exists. I did take the initiative to contact him but he produced his report without being paid. It may be that he wrote it as though he expected to be paid. FACT TWO: My Wikipedia biography is damaging and misleading thus violating BLP policy. Only the Olsson report can straighten it out. QUESTION: How can the Olsson report be used as a source? 2A00:23C6:B208:3300:B91A:163F:1618:4455 (talk) 10:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Paul asks: How can the Olsson report be used as a source? Answer: it can't.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:29, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * A more accurate and fairer answer would be (and I have posted this on the editors talkpage) it cant by itself. It would need to be published or discussed in a reliable source. Otherwise its just a commissioned report. In order for it to be used it would need to be discussed/analysed by an unrelated party. The problem is, anyone who does take a look at it impartially is bound to consider the inconsistancies in Frampton's story regarding the texts, regardless of the conclusions of the report itself. A report by the way, which was written significantly after the event and frankly given the failure to consider quite key issues, would likely be ripped to shreds if it had a proper impartial review. (Science20 btw doesnt pass muster as a reliable source for our articles, I include it here only as an example of what even a half-hearted look by a critical thinker brings up). Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Only in death does duty end, Nomoskedasticity,, what we might could do is this: drop the special heading and cut the content in half (if possible), and simply stick it in the biography (and we can call that section "Biography" instead of "Career"). The only problem I see with that is that, as with many academics, there isn't much properly verified biographical information outside of career. But I certainly support trimming the section. Drmies (talk) 22:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, it can be trimmed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:17, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * In my opinion this whole incident, in proportion to Frampton's whole career, is too small to justify more than a passing mention, if any. I also think there's enough doubt about the facts of the case that in the interest of justice it would be better to leave it out entirely, or failing that describe it in a way that doesn't present it as fact, as opposed to allegation. Initially I was willing to work towards achieving something of that sort, but I decided to drop it when I realised how I'd been led up the garden path. I have returned to make this one final comment only because Drmies pinged me. I don't expect to comment here again. JBW (talk) 09:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Doubt about facts?? There's no doubt about the fact that he was convicted.  It's not a (mere) allegation...  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes I know that. Obviously that isn't what I meant. JBW (talk) 09:21, 20 August 2021 (UTC)