Talk:Max Lu

POV/autobio

This article reads like a LinkedIn profile. It needs copyediting for NPOV (not promotional) and for Wikipedia style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.227.23.43 (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• Edits made should have resolved these issues — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.227.23.43 (talk) 21:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Portmeirion18

• Portmeirion18 is either the subject or someone close to him, and persists to add extensive non-cited and promotional material. 2A00:23C5:DE05:B000:2049:7699:96C2:1281 (talk) 16:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Prof Max Lu Preferred photo high res.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Research and citations section

Some of this doesn't make sense, none of it has a source, and it unduly refers to one piece of work. It would be great to expand the article, but properly. Ideally, someone who is an expert can take the info into layman's terms. Then cite it. Then help contribute to deciding what is proper information to include. Removed text follows: 2A00:23C5:DE05:B000:2049:7699:96C2:1281 (talk) 16:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Note that Lu is the last name credited of 8 people on the paper, his contribution likely was not very significant, and definitely not important enough to be the only one mentioned on his page makes it seem. [1]

Research and citations

Lu's contributions include work on nanoporous materials, nanocrystalline oxide photocatalysts and electrochemical materials. It focuses on the properties of these and how they can be used for energy conversion and storage.

Work he contributed to on Anatase photcatalysts was the first demonstration of non-metallic atoms acting as surface controlling agents to obtain highly active crystallographic facets. There are some uses of this discovery, including the controlled synthesis of single crystal oxides and potential applications in lowering water and air pollution.

Professor Lu has published over 500 peer-reviewed articles (h=116), attracting more than 55,400 citations (Scopus). He is co-inventor of more than 20 granted international patents.

"Thomson Reuters Highly Cited Researcher"

The text "He is a Thomson Reuters Highly Cited Researcher in both Materials Science and Chemistry" seems dubious. There is a source for it, but editors seem to insist (unreferenced) that he is a Thomson Reuters double HCR. Also, the Thomson Reuters citation awards was rebrandied several years ago as Clarivate Analytics. Speaking of, Max Lu is not actually listed as one of the Clarivate Citation Laureates - is this a different honor? If so, is being a HCR that important? Looks like outdated info in any case, and removed whilst in discussion. Please discuss the above points, with references for claims. 2A00:23C5:DE05:B000:152E:EB18:EB26:DD7E (talk) 18:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@Portmeirion18: could you contribute to this discussion?

Hi there -- For full transparency on all recent comments, I am most definitely not Max Lu, but I do work for the University of Surrey. I am desperately trying to responsibly update a couple of wildly inaccurate pages and flying a bit blind. Fair dues on the Research Section, and I didn't know that about Thomson Reuters being renamed. However, Max Lu is definitely a double HCR in Chemistry and Nanomaterials. If you can give me a week to find citations and confirmations of all of this I will either add them in or remove the material entirely. Does that sound ok? Then you can all decide whether it should be kept in at all. Portmeirion18 (talk) 04:46, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi again -- I see in fact that you have removed most of the offending material, which is fine. If I can find citations I will propose to reinstate. One of Lu's children now lives in London so that reference is incorrect. I have not changed it as I do not have an alternative citation, but I suppose reference to where his children live should then be removed? Portmeirion18 (talk) 05:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

We can't just take your word for it, but since information of where Lu's children live isn't important, I'll remove it anyway. I'm glad you also want to contribute to expanding articles and their accuracy at Wikipedia, if you're able to "translate" information to basic that would be well received - I am not an academic, most people aren't, and so a lot of the Research and Citations information is complete gibberish, especially the (completely copyvio) line about citation figures. Unless this can be written in non-technical terms it probably won't be included no matter being cited. 2A00:23C5:DE05:B000:DCAC:CB26:9886:9F44 (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Okey-doke; thanks for explaining!! Portmeirion18 (talk) 09:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Improvement Needed

Editors: I have reviewed and revised this article, adding some sources, restructured the flow and headings. In particular, the early life aspect does need citations to sources. The career section is fine. But there is a need for a "research" section to talk about what he does technically in his research (besides university leadership). Thirdly, the "Criticism" section is fine, but if this gets too long, I encourage writing a separate article about it and adding a link to the parent page. Thanks. 2405:800:9030:2C47:7DE2:76DB:9531:3F63 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:25, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

@Formulaonewiki: - Hi there. While I am ok with you re-inserting subsections for University of Surrey controversy so that they reappeared in the table of contents box, please be reminded that in Wikipedia, no personal attacks are not allowed WP:NPA. If the University of Surrey issues are lengthy, then it deserves a separate page on its own. Thanks. 2405:800:9030:2C47:7DE2:76DB:9531:3F63 (talk) 10:38, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

While I appreciate your concern, I do not believe there is a WP:NPA issue here. The content is written in a neutral and appropriately encyclopaedic manner and directly concerns the subject, with due context and background information to ensure it is best understood. In its current state, there is (in my opinion) no need to migrate anything to a new article. Formulaonewiki 13:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, why would the early life section not need references? All things need references, or else we don't know them. Unless you're the same editor, now without logging in, who works for the University of Surrey and asserted these things. It would certainly seem that way since you don't know wiki markup and are making edits to promote the subject (rearranging to move criticism away, removing factual statements because it's "irrelevant to career". I propose reversion of all your edits based on that likelihood. I'm at least going to fix the article. Please cease. 2A00:23C6:ED81:4900:9573:E847:C294:73D9 (talk) 22:19, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Possible CoI

An IP stated in the edit summary for this edit [2] that "there is clear evidence of people who work with or for the subject editing the page". I posted on the IP talk page [3] asking for the evidence but I now see it may be a wandering IP so I am posting again here to make sure they can see it if they get a new IP address. Please could they share with us the evidence?SovalValtos (talk) 18:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion can be found here. Also have a look at earlier talk page discussion, there is more there. Formulaonewiki 22:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@Formulaonewiki: @SovalValtos: That is not the evidence. The last editors 131.227.206.122 and Portmeirion18 hadn't reappeared. And I don't believe adding research done by Max Lu is a self-promotion. Editor 2A00:23C6:ED81:4900:35AE:3CC9:CFDE:401 seems to be stopping positive things to be written about Max Lu and insisting on blowing up the surrey controversy to stain him. 2405:800:9030:2C47:4099:1E25:C4CA:9695 (talk) 00:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you've read any edits as being 'stopping positive things' being written. If anything, the truth is quite the contrary: They've merely ensured the edits which appear to be trying to remove the fair, sourced and contextualised criticisms of the subject are reverted. Additionally, nobody is claiming that adding research done by the subject is self-promotion, the argument was (correctly, in my opinion) made that it seems irrelevant to include an attribution of the paper to the subject when they only contributed a minor part toward. Formulaonewiki 22:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Possible NPA

Take note of WP:NPA and WP:WEAK. The article should be about the biographical material about a living person and should not be overwhelmed with University of Surrey controversy (regardless of the number of sources you can find or add to this page). Once the controversy portion becomes the major, those information will be removed or moved to a separate page. Using wikipedia to defame or harass another person is clearly not allowed. If an editor has an issue with Max Lu, he or she should write to him or to the university and not use Wikipedia to highlight his/her displeasure against the person. 2405:800:9030:2C47:4099:1E25:C4CA:9695 (talk) 00:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

All of the information about the Surrey controversy is (1) relevant to the subject, and if anything it would be biased to omit such a significant event in his career from the article; (2) written using, and supported by neutral sources which meet WP:RS; (3) written with appropriate context and presents a balanced view of the source material; and (4) in no way defamatory nor constitutes harassment. You cannot refuse to include information on an article simply because it highlights perhaps more negative depictions of the subject, to do so would go against WP:NPA and be adding bias. You appear to be unfairly inferring the motives of the editor in an attempt to negate the validity of perfectly sourced and balanced edits. Formulaonewiki 23:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@Formulaonewiki: - Disagree. I think it is best all the University of Surrey controversy material be removed and moved out of this biographical material into a new article under the name "Controversy of University of Surrey Leaders" instead. One can, however, add a link to University of Surrey and Max Lu to refer to the existence of the controversy. 2405:800:9030:2C47:5C40:D10E:A430:D177 (talk) 00:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

What would be the point of that? While that is your opinion, there is no basis in Wikipedia guidelines for that arrangement. An article titled as such would also not make sense as there is only one controversy of note regarding 'leaders' (as you so put it) of the University - that being the one concerning Max Lu - and so the article would have to be titled 'Max Lu University of Surrey controversy'; I cannot see such an article meeting Wikipedia's notability requirements. As such, it makes the most sense for it to be a part of this article. Formulaonewiki 00:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Formulaonewiki: - No, it isn't. Go check out Christopher Snowden where there exists criticisms and also University of Surrey issues. Hence, it makes senses to have a separate article that covers both university of surrey and the two leaders. This will leave personal information alone and university controversy material move out into a separate article. 2405:800:9030:2C47:FD10:AC22:9455:348C (talk) 12:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I find this proposal bizarre. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a hagiography, so articles should contain negatice information as well as positive. Much of the coverage of the subject in reliable sources focusses on controversies about his actions, so much of our article should do likewise. Doing so is simply writing a neutral factual biography, not a personal attack. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Be careful what you ask for

I note that some editors have been trying very hard to remove negative content about the subject of this article. Such actions are more likely to attract even more negative attention to him than exists already, particularly if the press pick up on this obvious attempt at whitewashing. Please stop this, because it can only turn out badly for you. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I have been told that the last part of the comment above looks like a threat, for which I apologise. I certainly didn't mean it as such, and do not intend to take any action myself about this other than to edit this article and talk page if needed. It's just that many journalists know Wikipedia quite well, enough to check out the editing history of an article and its talk page, and if anyone was to write a newspaper article about Professor Lu (which, I repeat, I will do nothing to encourage) they could well come to the conclusion that there has been an attempt to whitewash this article on his behalf. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Edit request

On the article many of the sources (not all) for criticism are UK and AUS. Which is expected, but there are more international sources. It should be added that it has been covered by big international publications like Mena Report "Chinese head of UK university criticized over claims, perks" and Socialist Worker "Fighting the racists at Soas and UCU round up", and aggregated on World News Network "Vice-Chancellor who spent more than PS1000 of university money on his dog faces mutiny from staff" and The Free Library "Uni paid for dog to travel from Oz".

The no confidence vote also got an article from a UK-wide organization for students' rights, Student Left Network, which should be added. "Surrey students and staff overwhelmingly vote no to university management" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:ED81:4900:966:BC71:B4DA:5594 (talk) 00:44, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Edit request

Hello -- firstly I would like to declare my conflict of interest: I work for the University of Surrey, directly for Max Lu. Therefore I have not attempted to make changes to his page.

I would like to request that the following sentence in the Controversies section (under University of Surrey/Criticism of Salary and Expenses) please be reviewed and edited for accuracy:

The controversy reappeared in early 2019, specifically for Lu, when the University of Surrey announced that they would have to fire staff because of a deficit.[41][42]

The two cited articles do not state that the University announced that staff would have to be fired. The first cited article states that 'compulsory redundancies could not be ruled out'. The second cited article says that the University ‘warned staff of potential cuts.’

I would like to request that the following sentence in the Controversies section (under University of Surrey/Vote of No Confidence) please be reviewed and edited for accuracy:

In May 2019, the staff and students of the University of Surrey held a no confidence vote against the university management, with coverage largely focused on Lu's leadership.[40]

The article cited does not focus on Professor Lu’s leadership, mentioning only the ‘governing body’ as the issue.

Thank you very much for your attention and help in this. Portmeirion18 (talk) 11:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Reply 04-SEP-2019

  Clarification requested  

• To expedite your request, kindly state each specific change in the form of verbatim statements which can be added to the article (if approved) by the reviewer, including the exact location where the desired claims are to be placed. Exact, verbatim descriptions of any text to be removed should also be described. Finally, reasons should be provided for each change. An example edit request for how this is to be done is shown below:

Edit request example

Please remove the third sentence from the second paragraph of the Sun section: "The Sun's diameter is estimated to be approximately 25 miles in length." Please add the following claim as the third sentence of the second paragraph of the Sun section: "The Sun's diameter is estimated to be approximately 864,337 miles in length." Using the following as a reference for this claim: Paramjit Harinath (2019). The Sun. Academic Press. p. 1. Reason for change being made: "The previously given diameter was incorrect."

• Kindly open a new edit request at your earliest convenience when ready to proceed with the verbatim text and the placement locations.

Regards,  Spintendo  01:29, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Many thanks, will do. Portmeirion18 (talk) 15:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit request

Request 1

Please remove the first sentence from the third paragraph of the University of Surrey Criticism of Salary and Expenses section:

"The controversy reappeared in early 2019, specifically for Lu, when the University of Surrey announced that they would have to fire staff because of a deficit.[41][42]"

Please add the following claim as the first sentence of the third paragraph of the University of Surrey Criticism of Salary and Expenses section:

"The controversy reappeared in early 2019, specifically for Lu, when the University of Surrey announced that because of a deficit, compulsory redundancies could not be ruled out.[41][42]"

Using the same references for the claim.

Reason for the change being made: the references do not support the previous claim.

Request 2

Please remove the first sentence from the first paragraph of the University of Surrey Vote of No Confidence section:

"In May 2019, the staff and students of the University of Surrey held a no confidence vote against the university management, with coverage largely focused on Lu's leadership.[40]"

Please add the following claim as the first sentence of the first paragraph of the University of Surrey Vote of No Confidence section:

"In May 2019, the staff and students of the University of Surrey held a no confidence vote against the university management.[40]"

Using the same reference for the claim.

Reason for the change being made: the reference does not support the previous claim. Portmeirion18 (talk) 08:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Decline There seems to be some merit in your request Portmeirion18 but still more careful wording is needed to comply with the existing source. Maybe a further source would be helpful. With regard to the second proposed change I find that confidence votes included no confidence in Max Lu's leadership, which should be given due weight. . It would be easier for me at least if you were to propose each one separately. I have not looked at the first part.SovalValtos (talk) 10:10, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. When you say you have not looked at the first part, do you mean the first request? I am not sure if your 'decline' refers to both requests or just the second one. I want to avoid resubmitting separately if one or both requests have already been declined. Thanks in advance for clarifying. 2A00:23C7:2782:2401:2452:12D5:8BB4:6A75 (talk) 10:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I think you are saying that the second edit request, about the vote of no confidence, is declined because 'governing body' effectively includes and implies Max Lu's leadership and therefore is accurately cited in essence. Is that correct? And I think you are also saying that you have not yet considered the first request about the Criticism of Salary and Expenses reference and to submit that again as a separate request. Is that correct? Many thanks again! 2A00:23C7:2782:2401:2452:12D5:8BB4:6A75 (talk) 10:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

 Comment: I believe that the second request should be approved, with the proposed sentence being reworded to indicate that it was Lu's explanation of the university as being unable to rule out the avoidance of compulsory redundancies which precipitated the students' union and staff trade unions to hold votes of no confidence in his leadership. As it reads now, it attributes the no confidence vote to "Lu's leadership" in general, rather than Lu's explanation of the firings. If the coverage of that vote was "largely focused on Lu's leadership" in general, then that coverage should be supplied here as references, rather than just the Surrey Live source — because Surrey Live's coverage makes it clear which of Lu's actions precipitated the vote. On another note, I agree that the first request regarding the firings need not be changed. Regards,  Spintendo  15:57, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure that my contribution has been helpful Portmeirion18 Spintendo but there some further points I would like to make. Did you make edits logged out as an IP Portmeirion18 as seems likely? I may not understand the process correctly but at first sight I saw it as one request in two parts; the combined request consequently falling if either part was declined. It was subsequently split into two separate requests by Spintendo. Is that allowed? I would find it easier to deal with if it was presented as separate requests as long as they are not intertwined. I don't think they are intertwined here. Who is allowed to edit proposed changes if anyone or should they be submitted afresh if not approved in their original state? Rephrased new requests may well be approved IMHO.SovalValtos (talk) 10:39, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Spintendo, I am not sure why the first request re the firings need not be changed? The difference in wording is subtle but significant. Neither citation indicates staff were ever told they would be fired. With regard to the second request, I am in agreement with your views about rewording the sentence, and I will have a think about it. Is it an edit you would like me to make, or given I have a conflict of interest, you would prefer to make? SovalValtos, I have never made edits logged out as an IP; I have always been logged in insofar as I can remember. I feel it is two separate requests. I should have made each request separately. I am a novice editor, so I believe my error in combining the two edits in one request has led to confusion. In my view the two edits are related to the same broad issues but linked at all. Portmeirion18 (talk) 13:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Whoooops that should have said 'not linked at all' Portmeirion18 (talk) 13:45, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi -- no replies yet to my latest queries above. Any thoughts on next steps? I would like to try to resolve this. Thanks. Portmeirion18 (talk) 07:45, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I was just offering a comment because as far as I knew, SovalValtos had either already handled the request or was in the process of handling the request. I'd agree with SovalValtos that if the COI editor wants to resubmit, they should feel free to do so, making sure to use the {{request edit}} template for any new requests they submit. Regards,  Spintendo  08:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)