Talk:Charles M. Lieber

Fair use rationale for Image:Charles Lieber headshot.gif

Image:Charles Lieber headshot.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Image now removed. Thanks, GChriss <always listening><c> 16:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Is Carlie Catholic?

I notice the lack of information about his religious backgrounds.User_talk:Mongo><Special:Contributions/Mongo> 18:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.21.44.198 (talk)

He is an ethnic Jew, and a chemist at that. I would vouch for either atheist or Jew but if there's nothing on religion he's probably an atheist. On top of that, he's had dubious connections to the Chinese PRC, an atheist state. --180app 18:25, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

is wikipedia discriminating on basis of religion, an inquistion by wilipedia?

besides that - the MAIN article has ton of typos and grammar mistakes

"WP:BRD, WP:OR anda source issue"???

4 different sources called out the same thing. It is part of the rising tension with China, which draws parallels to McCarthyism.

Critics, however, argue that federal restrictions to these programs can lead to racial profiling, drawing parallels to McCarthyism.

Simon Marginson, a professor of education at Oxford University ... Marginson added that concerns about China’s conduct are “legitimate criticisms” but “reek of prejudice”. In an interview with the Stanford Daily, Larry Diamond, a political scientist and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, insisted a balance can be reached. “I think [TTP participation] should be a matter of public record,” he said. “Beyond that, [professors] might do a lot of good things for China in bringing back medical and scientific knowledge, improving human welfare and raising standards of living.”

The Massachusetts US attorney Andrew Lelling called the charges “a small sample of China’s ongoing campaign to siphon off America’s technology and knowhow for its country’s gain”.

After chemist Dr. Lieber’s arrest, Steven Holtzman, former Biogen Executive Vice President, told The Boston Globe, “You don’t want to get yourself into a climate where people will be so afraid of interacting with [foreigners] that they’ll stop coming [to the U.S.]. That was McCarthyism.”

These recent developments in the clinical and research community are happening within the context of broader geopolitical strain between the world’s two most powerful nations, fueled by domestic demands that the U.S. “get tough on China” for past misbehavior – and likely influenced by a well-documented rise in expressions of nativism and xenophobia.

Irrespective of geopolitical tensions, the FBI’s particular assault on academia has drawn its own criticism. “I don’t even understand the term ‘academic espionage,’” Elliott says. “Espionage involves stealing secrets, something you’re trying to keep private or away from someone. But unlike in a company, where you have inventions and things that you patent and you want to protect and you don’t want anybody else to see, for academics the goal is to publish what you have learned. It’s to share.”

Just some quick passages from the sources I cited. Newslack (talk) 05:57, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

1: ASH Clinical News (ACN) isn't a reliable source; at least it hasn't been registered as one and if you want to see it certified or at any rate established as one, that is your responsibility, not mine as you are the one who wants to include this source. But even if you could establish ACN as a reliable source, usage of that source would still violate all sorts of other content policies such as WP:UNDUE.

2: Considered literally, the rising tensions and McCarthy parts are original research because that is not what the sources say. When the articles talk about rising tensions/mccarthyism, their object of analysis isn't Lieber. The clausesare only relevant if you want to make this tendentious point that the arrest was political and therefore illegal.

3: Considered contextually, the conjunction between the rising tensions and McCarthy parts is undue and at any rate coattracking. The sources cite officials who directly attribute the rising tensions to espionage, theft or whatever else you want to call it by the PRC, (i.e. not Mccarthyism) and the attribution of McCarthyism to the outcome of the federal investigations is made by just one person (the Guardian writer who it should be noted did not even write that description from her personal perspective). Similar to point 2, this conjunctive formulation only works if you want to make this tendentious point that the arrest was political and therefore illegal.

4: The sentence lacks balance. The fact that you cited Diamond as part of your corroborating evidence in your opening post further means that you knowingly and wilfully misrepresented the content in the sources (or at the very least the Guardian source).

Stylistically the sentence: (5) isn't written in an impartial tone and (6) lacks attribution Flickotown (talk) 09:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

1: "With more than 17,000 members from nearly 100 countries, the ASH is the world's largest professional society serving both clinicians and scientists around the world who are working to conquer blood diseases." "In April 1958, the first official meeting of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) was held in Atlantic City, New Jersey, where more than 300 hematologists gathered to discuss clinical and research matters related to blood and blood diseases. Since that initial meeting, ASH has played an active and important role in the development of hematology as a discipline." Author's credential "Edward P. Evans Chair in MDS Research and Institute Physician at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute; Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School; Editor-in-chief of ASH Clinical News" Unless we are going totally anti-science, I don't see how ASH Clincial News can be considered unreliable by reasonable editors. You mean WP:RSPS this list? Where is the stated wiki policy that shows every source not on that "registered list" is automatically considered unreliable and can't be used or "you have to first register it before it's used"? How does it violates WP:UNDUE, it was 1 source out of 4 and it's one sentence in the whole article?

2: The articles are indeed talking about how the recent scrutiny over "Thousand Talent Program" which Lieber was arrested for, with direct mention of his case inside the article, which is politically linked to China-US conflict over trade and intellectual property. "the arrest was political and therefore illegal" The arrest is indeed political, when FBI agents specifically mentioned it. No such point is made about its legality. That's your assertion.

3: Yes, the parallels drawn to McCarthyism wasn't made solely by the Guardian author, but it's citing much more authoritative voices. It's also not made by 1 source, but 2. You are not offering any solution as to how to improve the section, except to remove it entirely, when there are clearly many dissenting voice over the implication and cause of the arrest and the surrounding atmosphere after politicizing science. As of now, the whole page is cleared of any dissenting voice over the arrest of this scientist. I can elaborate and make the paragraph longer to capture the nuances, but I know the section would be heavily scrutinized due to current political sensitivity, so I kept it as short as possible. If I add more to capture the nuances, making it clear that "no one came out to say arresting Lieber is 100% McCarthyism and illegal", would you agree to this compromise?

4: How do we make the sentence more balanced then? Considering the whole page have zero dissenting voice against his arrest and adding one sentence of the opposing view is seen as "lacking balance". How do we further balance that ONE sentence on the entire page that presented a dissenting view? Maybe "Critics have seen Lieber's arrest as a part of the rising tension with China due to ongoing China–United States trade war, with some drawing parallels from the politicization and persecution of international collaboration to McCarthyism."? Please give suggestions. "The fact that you cited Diamond as part of your corroborating evidence in your opening post further means that you knowingly and wilfully misrepresented the content in the sources" What?

Ok, how can it be made "impartial tone"? If we want to add specific attribution, then it must get longer, instead of just "Critics saying so".Newslack (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

1:Again, the burden is on you to prove that the source is relialbe as you are the one who wants to include it into this article. The passages you quoted about the society could for all i care be self promotional puffery and the fact that a person works for a famous university doesn't mean that his random and hackneyed musings on topics (which aren't even related to what he does) should be included in relation to the disputed content. It's not good enough to complain that it's anti-science when views which you just happen to really like get disputed.

2: You are making my point for me. As i said When the articles talk about rising tensions/mccarthyism, their object of analysis isn't Lieber. So your gripes belong there and not on this article. And no the arrests dont have anything to do with politics, they are a matter of law/law enforcement which the officials cited in the sources make clear (materially false, fictitious and fraudulent statement). At any rate the FBI doesnt do political arrests unlike,by way of contrast,the MSS in the PRC.

3: No the McCarthyism part is an allegation made by just the Guardian source. I can't help it that you haven't carefully read your own sources. Even if are lots of people upset by this lieber arrest that still doesn't prove anything about mccarthyism.

4-6: A good way address the balance issue is to add content/sources which oppose the view which you are advancing, which is that the arrest was political and therefore illegal. But of course there is no need for me to specify my recommendation because it won't matter unless the first 3 arguments aren't addressed first. Flickotown (talk) 09:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

1. Quite sure by all standards of WP:RS, the source is indeed reliable. It's a professional scientific organization with an author who is credible in mainstream science community. His voice is relevant because it reflects the sentiment inside the science community on such a blatant prosecution against a fellow member of the science community. If this source is considered unreliable, then most sources used on wikipedia need to be wiped out. "random and hackneyed musings" this is your opinion. Besides, I can simply substitute or reinforce that source with another source from The Boston Globe. This is a non issue. If you don't like this source, you can delete it, rather than deleting the whole thing, if you are here to improve the wiki project.

2. I am not. Lieber was part of their overall analysis, not the sole object of their analysis. Are you saying they have to write an entire article only referencing Lieber without talking about anyone else, before we can use it in this article? On another note (not relevant to this article, merely responding to you), historically they did quite a bit of political arrests and other dirty dealings, see Hoover, that is now agreed in the mainstream as political prosecutions. How does the political human rights violation by "MSS in the PRC" play into this subject?

3. Also by ASH Clincial News. No, I read my sources. What does this have to do with "Proving it's mccarthyism"? How would you "prove" it? It's a sentence on wiki that report some critics are drawing parallels from this to McCarthyism. Why would I "prove" it, when I am merely summarizing articles from critics onto wiki?

4-6. 1-3 is already addressed but you haven't addressed my reply to your 4-6. The article already fails NPOV, given no criticism against his arrest is in the article. By removing the single sentence that tries to fix the issue, you are advancing your agenda. "the arrest was political and therefore illegal" Again, no such point is made. Absolutely no assertion about its legality is made. Only thing I am adding on is how critics are seeing his arrest as prompted by a political campaign by Trump, which draws parallel to McCarthyism.Newslack (talk) 21:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I have to agree with Flickotown. Concerning 1. and the "anti-science" accusation above, you seem to confuse peer-reviewed scientific journal articles with opinion articles published by science news sites. And you have failed to meaningfully address the concerns regarding 2. (The first of the sources you cited in this edit, the Boston Globe article, doesn't even mention McCarthyism.)

It seems that this is not the first time you have been called out for promoting what might be construed as a pro-PRC viewpoint with citations that do not directly support it.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

If you guys are going to gang up on me, then GG. Let's be honest though. In any other article, ASH would have been considered a viable reliable source with no challenge. In any other article, 1 out of 4 sources being challenged wouldn't warrant the deletion in entirety. A single sentence trying to cover a common dissenting viewpoint wouldn't be deemed POV.

It's more like any viewpoint that doesn't march in lockstep with the political fever in American mainstream media is accused to be "pro-PRC" these days. How can dissent against a potentially unfair allegation against a well known accomplished AMERICAN scientist from Harvard be accused as "pro-PRC"? Unless one is of the mindset "punching a hole in the boat which drowns everyone, but if this chokes my enemy up too, it's good. Anyone stopping me from punching this hole is helping my enemy and acting as their spokesman". That incident you dug up is also a perfect example. It was a viral sensationalist conspiracy theory outlet that spreads numerous made-up articles about "millions of covid-19 patients dying or being cremated or buried alive in China", that's just as bad as alex jones, but because it fits Trump's crusade against China, summarizing well-sourced debunking articles that work against its credibility is scrutinized over a microscope and sources/practices that would have worked in any other wiki article are now unviable.Newslack (talk) 20:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Stop wasting our time with these nonsensical ramblings. This isn't your personal blog where you can just say anything you want, think that it's the truth and expect everybody else to think the same way. If you are going to put in controversialmaterial, the least you should have done is made sure that it conformed to basic editing policies. Of course we can always talk about the bias in your viewpoint and how that is reflective of the political atmosphere in the PRC, but that is for another time. Argue better or get out. It's that simple. Flickotown (talk) 03:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

If you could have answered 4-6, answer instead of ignoring my arguments, not nitpick on a single source to dismiss a whole POV in its entirety, or actually followed up with good faith suggestions to improve the article and make it more balanced with dissenting views, instead of WP:PA, WP:CIV and relying on gang ups, then I would have a way to "argue better". As of now, it just seems like there are other factors at play, which I won't be able to change. oh well. "bias in your viewpoint and how that is reflective of the political atmosphere in the PRC" I think whatever you assume about my background is simple wrong, as whatever "political atmosphere in the PRC" has no influence on me, while the "political atmosphere in the USA" does have lots of influence on me.Newslack (talk) 01:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not my problem you won't read what we are saying. Nobody is ignoring your arguments; you just don't like what we are saying. Not our problem and of course not surprising either given your bias. And no my assumption about your motivation isn't wrong, it's totally right based on the evidence. You are complaining about the political atmosphere in America because you are just angry you can't get your pro-PRC edits to go through. Yes I know: it really is that simple. Flickotown (talk) 09:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

"Ruining the career of arguably the best American scientist in his area, accusing him to be a 'traitor', using retrospectively enforced bureaucratic rules reactivated due to rising political/trade tensions, seems like a bad idea. It's not MAGA. In fact, if you are an enemy and want to Un-MAGA, ruining America's scientific edge in the hottest tech, this is exactly what you would do. Maybe we should add a SINGLE line that summarize multiple writers/experts who compared this trend to a historical bad idea" = "lol, you are just angry you can't get your pro-PRC edits to go through". Alright, I can't argue better than this amazing argument. Also, there is at least one argument that was ignored repeatedly, but we are getting so far into the post-truth nonsense-soundbite-accusation territory that it's pointless.Newslack (talk) 20:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Here's a WP:RS that quotes someone expressing the worry that the prosecution of Lieber could be McCarthyism. [1] U.S. Accuses Harvard Scientist of Concealing Chinese Funding, by Ellen Barry, New York Times, Jan. 28, 2020. --Nbauman (talk) 05:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Pumpkin Growing relevant?

It seems odd to me that so much space (or really any space at all) is devoted to Lieber's growing of pumpkins. It certainly is not the reason why he is renowned and I do not see why it should be discussed.ABC23341 (talk) 12:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Cash

To add to this article: mention of the up to tens of thousands of U.S. dollars Lieber appears to have brought back to the U.S. from China in the form of "bags of cash" (this has been covered in most of the current articles about him, including the one in the Boston Globe). 173.88.246.138 (talk) 01:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Conviction update

Are there any updates on how long he is sentenced for and how much in fines he has to pay? He should have been sentenced on 1-11-23, but I do not see any online articles about his punishment. Metalreflectslime (talk) 03:33, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/us-chemist-feng-tao-avoids-prison-sentence-for-hiding-ties-to-china/4016855.article He will be sentenced in March 2023. Metalreflectslime (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Sentencing Update

He should have been sentenced today on April 13, 2023. Do we know how long he has been sentenced for? Metalreflectslime (talk) 02:31, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

https://archive.ph/qMeEi

He will be sentenced on April 26, 2023. Metalreflectslime (talk) 01:05, 22 April 2023 (UTC)