Talk:Luk Van Parijs

Untitled

Maybe include links to the fabricated research?

"POV conjectures"?

Betsythedevine started a discussion on my talk page, entitling it, "Wikipedia is not the National Enquirer." Betsythedevine stated,

There is no reason for the Luk Van Parijs article to contain POV conjectures about David Baltimore. The statement you removed from the article, that Baltimore suggested Caltech look at LvP's work, is sourced, cited, accurate, and neutral. Your suggested replacement

Caltech begins inquiry ("requested" by Baltimore "when New Scientist pointed out" problems).

is inappropriate.

Betsythedevine, your are incorrect on many points. The first New Scientist report (28 Oct 05) states,

"[...T]here are also additional concerns about data in a paper published by Van Parijs in 1999 after he left Harvard and became a post-doc in the lab of Nobel-prize winner David Baltimore at Caltech Institute of Technology in Pasadena. In Immunity (vol 11, p 281)...

...

Due to New Scientist's queries on apparent duplication of data within the 1999 Immunity paper (vol 11, p 281), Caltech launched a separate inquiry into Van Parijs's work three weeks ago. The inquiry was instigated by Baltimore, Caltech's president, and the senior and corresponding author on the Immunity paper..."

And the final (so far) New Scientist report on the matter (published 24 Nov 07) states,

"[...H]is [van Parijs] work prior to joining MIT was not in question in MIT's investigation, but New Scientist uncovered apparently duplicated and inconsistently captioned experimental results in earlier papers. These included two papers published while Van Parijs was a postdoctoral researcher in the lab of virologist David Baltimore at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena.

"When New Scientist pointed out the apparent problem, Baltimore requested a review of Van Parijs's work. This led to an investigation convened by Paul Jennings, former provost of Caltech..."

So, my edit is backed up by New Scientist - twice. I also note that none of the other reporting on van Parijs is incompatible with my edit. My edit therefore did not, "contain POV conjectures" - "about" anyone. As well, my edit is therefore, "accurate[] and neutral" and not "inappropriate." Indeed, your citation (New Scientist, 24 Nov 07), backs up my edit. As I stated in my comment of the edit you Undid, "facts is facts." I encourage you to read the news reports. RspnsblMn^talk 15:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The sources you cite say that 1) Caltech's inquiry was "instigated by Baltimore" and 2) a review of Parijs's work was "requested by Baltimore." Putting quotes around "suggested" is inappropriate POV because they function as scare quotes -- (to quote Wikipedia) "to provoke a negative association for the word or phrase enclosed in the quotes, or at least a suspicion about the appropriateness or full truth that might be presumed if the quotes were omitted." The clear implication to a native speaker of English is that Baltimore's suggestion of an enquiry was somehow belated, pro forma, forced on him ... or that for some other reason he should be get no credit for requesting an investigation.

The wording you replaced was neutral and supported by the sources:

* 6 October 2005: At David Baltimore's suggestion, Caltech initiates inquiry. New Scientist

I assume that it is the October 28, 2005 New Scientist report and a few other news stories related to Van Parijs's dismissal from MIT that you refer to as "Media storm begins". This also is inappropriate editorializing. betsythedevine (talk) 16:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Betsythedevine, please face the facts. New Scientist clearly explains that its enquiries prompted Baltimore to request a review of van Parijs' work at Caltech (see sentences beginning "Due to..." & "When..." in my extensive New Scientist excerpts (above)). Furthermore, I did not quote, "suggested." I quoted, "requested." Both of my edit's quotes are from New Scientist of 24 Nov. 2007 - which, incidentally, is the same report you cited. I could have quoted, "instigated" rather than, "requested." My edit is accurate, informative, and neutral. "The clear implication" you mention is really your speculation/"conjectures" concerning questions that occurred to you: such as (probably), What is the significance of the timing of Baltimore's request for an inquiry? But I'm glad you backed off claiming my edit has, "POV conjectures about David Baltimore." Would you agree to my edit if I eliminated "quotes arround," "requested": "requested by Baltimore 'when...'"? Or, how about, "'Baltimore requested' it 'when...'"?

The storm of news media coverage began 28 October 2005. So what? Furthermore, why, "assume?" New Scientist wasn't the only publication covering the story on 28 October 2005. RspnsblMn^talk 19:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

In the interest of consensus, I changed the timeline info to reflect that New Scientist's enquiries prompted Baltimore's request for an investigation. You are correct that you quoted "requested" rather than "suggested." In the context, however, they still function as (inappropriate) scare quotes.

The fact that media coverage began the day after Van Parijs was fired is true, but calling it a "storm" of coverage makes it sound like a media event on the order of Brangelina. The article cites and links to several newspaper articles about this now-obscure scandal -- it isn't necessary or appropriate to editorially inflate the 2005-era public interest by having the article call it a storm.

In fact, its lack of interest for most people is reflected in the fact that it's "orphaned" within Wikipedia. I had lunch today with several biologists and other scientists. When I told them Luk Van Parijs had somehow ended up on my Wikipedia watchlist, the whole group said, "Who?" betsythedevine (talk) 22:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, Betsythedevine, I don't agree with your edit/change. The timeline should have short phrases - not long, poorly constructed sentences. Moreover, your edit's comment, "Adding information that Baltimore's request came after hearing reports of problems elsewhere from New Scientist" is flabbergasting. The news reports state only that New Scientist pointed out problems in publications produced by van Parijs and others while at Caltech. Good grief! You're just not getting it. Moreover, what is wrong with my 2 proposed changes (above)?

Also, I find your statement, "In the context, however, they still function as (inappropriate) scare quotes" nonsense. What is, "they?" I quoted, "requested" and, "when New Scientist pointed out." Are both, "scare quotes?" (Who cares about, "suggested": no one used the word.) What, "context" do you mean? The context of the timeline? How are quotes, "scare quotes" merely because they are in a time line? ("Suggested" would be a harmless misquote, not a scare quote; Good grief.) I am happy to eliminate quotes. How about, "Caltech begins inquiry (prompted by free-lance reporter's queries)?" Or, "Caltech begins inquiry (instigated by Baltimore upon free-lance reporter's queries)?"

So, Betsythedevine, does your, "POV conjectures about David Baltimore" objection under title, "WP is not the National Enquirer" boil down to illegitimate and nonsensical "scare quote" arguments as well as an objection to the term, "media storm?" Anyway, we are not done. Your Undo of my edit also changed other entries of the timeline. Any objections to those? RspnsblMn^talk 01:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Let us discuss the article content and its relation to Wikipedia policy. This is a discussion of an article, not a personal confrontation -- let's approach it that way. If you object to my edit, put your own improved version into the article. betsythedevine (talk) 02:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Good grief, Betsythedevine. You reverted my edit without first discussing it with me. Your reversion edit had the comment, "Remove editorializing and conjecture; restore accurate, cited, neutral description that was replaced." At the same time, you also started a discussion on my talk page, entitling it, "WP is not the National Inquirer." In it, your lead-off complaint about my edit was, "POV conjectures about David Baltimore..." Since these actions of yours, I've been trying to learn - from you - the basis for your comments & objections. I would really like to know what was wrong with my edit. So far, we have discussed only 2 points on the timeline. There are other points of my edit that you changed. Let's discuss them as well. Please don't stop discussing now merely because you couldn't support your initial comments & objections and so then resorted to illegitimate and nonsensical "scare quote" arguments that include "clear implication[s]" of speculation/"conjectures."

Re: "If you object to my edit, put your own improved version into the article." Make up your mind. Do you want to discuss or not? What a cop out. You started the discussion. Stick up for your edits. If you won't support your edits, don't make them. Or, at least state you will not interfere w/ corrections of your edits. Also, the information content of your latest edit is incorrect as well: the Caltech inquiry began 6 October 2005. When Baltimore requested the inquiry can't be determined from the news reports: it is possible only to glean that Baltimore requested the inquiry on or before 6 Oct 05. I am again flabbergasted. We have been discussing the 6 Oct 05 time point nearly exclusively. RspnsblMn^talk 04:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I would like to apologize for the tone of my initial objection to your edits. Because I saw the quotes in that line as "scare quotes" intended to discredit Baltimore, I interpreted the rest of your edits in that light, as an attempt to add anti-Baltimore POV to LvP. I used Wikipedia's revert function to remove several of your edits, including the addition of Baltimore's resignation from Caltech. That seems of marginal relevance to LvP bio. In fact, this article seems much more suited to have a title like "Luk Van Parijs scandal", since that is the only topic being discussed here.

By asking you to make your own improved edit, I was not opting out of discussion. I was asking you to clarify exactly what you wanted. I think it makes sense for us to express our opinions by writing edits that express them, and by modifying each other's edits to the article until we reach a state both consider accurate. I don't think it makes sense for either of us to promise not to "interfere" with hypothetical future edits by the other.

Thank you for flagging my inadvertent error in making Oct 6 the date of the request rather than the enquiry. In fact, I have used your exact wording except for the quotes which I still consider to be inappropriate in their effect though not in your intent. I hope you see this as the gesture of good will that in fact it is.

Can I assume that you don't object to my ending the characterization of Oct 28 as a day of media "storm"? Do you want to re-add the Baltimore resignation, and if so why is that relevant to LvP? If there other edits you want to discuss, feel free to put them into the article in advance of discussion. betsythedevine (talk) 14:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Betsythedevine, I have decided you are neither editing nor discussing in good faith. I think you want to remove any fact that may reflect poorly on Baltimore. You will argue and discuss but, in the end, you will fail to get it. You will keep trying to see what you can get away with. Your next to last edit and its comment are pathetic - as I've explained. Furthermore, your statement concerning your last edit, "I have used your exact wording except for the quotes" is false. You changed, "when" to "after" and removed the parentheses. Your most recent edit is defective also on other counts: the reference is not necessary and it is not the source for the 6 Oct 2005 beginning of the inquiry. Moreover, your apology for "tone" evades important capitulations: 1) There were no "POV conjectures about David Baltimore;" 2) misquotations are neither "POV conjectures" nor necessarily "scare quotes"; and 3) you assumed misquotation as well as mal-intent w/out checking the news reports. I thought I had been around the block. I have never before heard of "scare quotes." I have heard of innuendo, however. Finally, at David Baltimore talk, you made the absurd suggestion that the few sentences on LVP implied LVP had learned to cheat in Baltimore's lab.

The 3 October 2005 Baltimore resignation from the Caltech office of the president should be in the timeline. Baltimore is an important figure in van Parijs' life. Baltimore was van Parijs' mentor during his postdoctoral training at Caltech. Baltimore's abrupt resignation for not very specific reasons 3 days before the inquiry beginning is therefore a significant event in van Parijs' life. Furthermore, that Baltimore was not Caltech president when his lab was investigated is a significant fact of the resolution of van Parijs' Caltech fraud. RspnsblMn^talk 22:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I still don't see how the timing of Baltimore's resignation 5 or so years after LvP left his lab is a significant event in LvP's life, although his being out of office during the Caltech investigation may have some slight significance to the LvP scandal. Do you think this article should be re-named to reflect its content?

I did make very slight changes that I thought were improvments in the exact wording of your edit. They did not affect my intention that it should be an olive branch toward consensus.

Please stick to discussing the article, not my motivation and character and especially not your hypotheses about what horrible edits I might plan to make in the future. Wikipedia has excellent procedures for dispute resolution and for dealing with editor misbehavior; article talk pages are not the place for accusations.

I wonder if your investigation of my past edits turned up the fact that I have frequently tried to restore NPOV to bios of people who seemed to me to be under attack, including, for example, David Baltimore, Dave Winer, Joe the Plumber, Jeff Gannon and varied others. In those cases also, I have been accused by partisans of having some sekrit pro-((whoever) motivation. I have no secret portfolio for David Baltimore or any of those other people, but I do have a strong interest in making Wikipedia an accurate and NPOV encyclopedia that lives up to its own policies on biographies of living people. betsythedevine (talk) 01:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Luk Van Parijs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080609010603/http://www.biomedcentral.com/1464-8431/7?issue=3 to http://www.biomedcentral.com/1464-8431/7?issue=3
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090515233459/http://www.nasw.org/users/essreich/ to http://www.nasw.org/users/essreich/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110309085113/http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/03/former-mit-researcher-convicted-.html to http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/03/former-mit-researcher-convicted-.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)