Talk:Mike Galsworthy

UCL

Is he still at UCL, as stated in the article? He's not listed in the relevant staff pages. EddieHugh (talk) 16:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Updated he is now Visiting Researcher at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

• LSHTM Communications Team (19 April 2013). "European Commission must innovate to get value from €70 billion science funding programme". lshtm.ac.uk. London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Retrieved 13 July 2013.
• Wilsdon, James (14 July 2016). "Six leading scientists give perspectives on UK science after Brexit". The Guardian. Retrieved 12 July 2018.

--The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. That's unlikely to be a paid position, so I cut it from the infobox. EddieHugh (talk) 15:37, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

That's unlikely to be a paid position Unlikely? Do you have a citation to that effect? He has been there since 2013 - what's he supposed to be living off? Given his articles in The Lancet about EU funded research it is far more unlikely to be an unpaid. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 01:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Visitors are usually unpaid. That's the norm at universities; in fact, sometimes the visitor has to pay the university for access to its resources. I don't know about this instance, but listing "visiting researcher" as his occupation (ie job) is more than likely to be wrong. That's why doing so is not a good idea. It would be better to use "consultant", as that would almost certainly be paid and is another way that he describes himself. (And his last Lancet piece didn't mention LSHTM as his affiliation.) EddieHugh (talk) 10:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with EddieHugh. Galsworthy is clearly affiliated with LSHTM, and may receive funding from collaborations with LSHTM researchers, but is unlikely to have any kind of appointment there. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 01:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Notability

What notability criteria does he meet? There are a few lines from interviews about organisations that he co-founded. The rest is from his organisations/employer. EddieHugh (talk) 16:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Added Guardian article diff. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. (Addition: as discussed elsewhere, headlines are not normally written by the authors of newspaper articles, so shouldn't be used. The Guardian one you link to is just another of Galsworthy's opinion pieces, which doesn't help establish notability.) You didn't mention what set of notability criteria he might meet. He definitely doesn't meet WP:NPROF for academics or WP:AUTHOR for writers. That leaves WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage. There isn't much coverage at all. He's had some academic articles published, but that's not enough. He's had some opinion pieces published, but that's not enough. Other sources are not independent. There's very little that's actually about him: just a few quotations in articles that mention the organisations he co-founded. I've restored the notability template; please leave it until there's agreement on this talk page that the matter has been dealt with. EddieHugh (talk) 15:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

(Addition: as discussed elsewhere, headlines are not normally written by the authors of newspaper articles, so shouldn't be used. The Guardian one you link to is just another of Galsworthy's opinion pieces, which doesn't help establish notability.) As discussed elsewhere? Where? Can you provide a link please?

You didn't mention what set of notability criteria he might meet. The notability is the Guardian where he is described by James Wilsdon as one of "six leading scientists". It is not enough just to say claim headlines are not written by article authors. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 01:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

You posted it at Talk:Meaningful vote#Moved from my talk page a month ago. EddieHugh (talk) 10:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I presume you mean Talk:Meaningful vote#Threaded discussion with the links that you provided to other uses of the term "meaningful vote" i.e. non-Brexit meanings that you found. I'm not sure how it relates here since Galsworthy is one of the "six leading scientists" in The Guardian article - in fact there are over 500 words in the article about him. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 03:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

No, I meant what you posted at Talk:Meaningful vote#Moved from my talk page. Do a search for "headline" at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for more details on how newspaper headlines are treated. The only words about him in that source are "Dr Mike Galsworthy is programme director of Scientists for EU, and a visiting researcher at London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine." The 500 you claim are actually written by him, not about him! EddieHugh (talk) 10:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I did as you suggested and looked up the term "headlines". The first two diff 1 and diff 2 are about the Daily Mail and one about the Southern Poverty Law Center diff 3. I don't think any of them make your case. I know 500 words were written by him and not about him, but he didn't break into The Guardian's offices to do it - they had to have asked him.

With regards Talk:Meaningful vote#Moved from my talk page I posted the following 2 sentences:

• More appropriate for this comment to be here I think. and
• RfC started below.

which of those 2 are you talking about and how does it relate? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 02:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Your reposting of my comment on headlines is what I meant. There's plenty from plenty of editors at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard that amounts to "headlines don't count". As another editor has repeated, below, writing an article does not contribute to a subject's notability (regardless of who, if anyone, asked). Just read through WP:GNG, which includes "'Independent of the subject' excludes works produced by the article's subject". EddieHugh (talk) 10:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

To re-cap on this point:

1. You stated: (Addition: as discussed elsewhere, headlines are not normally written by the authors of newspaper articles, so shouldn't be used. The Guardian one you link to is just another of Galsworthy's opinion pieces, which doesn't help establish notability.)
2. to which I replied: As discussed elsewhere? Where? Can you provide a link please?
3. you replied: You posted it at Talk:Meaningful vote#Moved from my talk page a month ago.
4. and later: Your reposting of my comment on headlines is what I meant.
5. so from point 1. when you said: (Addition: as discussed elsewhere, headlines are not normally written by the authors of newspaper articles, so shouldn't be used. ... - what you actually meant was as I myself have already said here diff. "headlines don't count as sources". I was confused because I was looking for the "discussion" you mentioned.

I've trawled through three pages of search results of "headlines" in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard I don't intend to do any more of it. Any diffs either of us might find would only be discussions with differing views rather than policy anyway.

The full quote from GNG "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. The work is produced by Guardian Media Group, to put it another way if you or I walked into the offices of The Guardian and asked to be quoted at length for one of their articles we would be thrown out. The article text states that Galsworthy is a media commentator about the effects of Brexit on the scientific community in the United Kingdom. The citations within the article demonstrates that Galsworthy was requested to comment on Brexit by the Guardian Media Group and by New Scientist who are both independent of Galsworthy. His notability comes from the invitation. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reading so many comments on the use of headlines. Did you find any that supported their use? I haven't. "His notability comes from the invitation". No, it doesn't. 'Being invited to write an article' isn't a notability criterion. It might help indirectly to meet WP:AUTHOR (one of the reasons that I'm – still – trying to persuade you to say what specific notability criteria you think he meets), but a vast amount more would be needed. "The work is produced by Guardian Media Group". No, it's not. The work was published by them; it was produced by the writer. If MG hadn't produced it, it wouldn't have existed for The Guardian to publish. EddieHugh (talk) 15:30, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion on how policy ought to be interpreted. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 15:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

You know from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Britain for Europe that substantial coverage is required to establish notability and that a few lines in a few newspaper articles is generally thought of as being insufficient. A headline asserting anything is not substantial coverage, so is also insufficient to establish notability (in addition to the other problems of using headlines). If you're going for WP:NACADEMIC, he has to meet at least one of the 9 criteria listed there. In my view, he doesn't. Do you think he meets one of them? If so, which? EddieHugh (talk) 10:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

If you're going for WP:NACADEMIC, he has to meet at least one of the 9 criteria listed there. I'm not going for WP:NACADEMIC. His notability comes from being co-founder of Scientists for EU and Healthier IN and as a commentator on the subject - the article is a headline plus 507 words in The Guardian as well as the other refs. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 03:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

As above, the 500 words you mention were written by him, not about him, so contribute very little to establishing notability. EddieHugh (talk) 10:13, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

(And you shouldn't have removed the notability template. Read WP:MAINTENANCEDISAGREEMENT: "You should not remove maintenance templates if [...] The issue has not yet been resolved [...] There is ongoing activity or discussion related to the template issue". Having it helps to draw more editors to the discussion. I ask you to restore it.) EddieHugh (talk) 10:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

In the same diff I invited you to take it to an AfD. If you want to draw more editors to the discussion and you are sure of your argument then – for a second time – I invite you to go ahead and do it. I'm happy to abide by the outcome of the AfD. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 03:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Going to AfD can be done by anyone who believes that an article's subject is not notable. Removing a notability tag should not be done by someone who believes that an article's subject is notable; it should be done only once the matter has been dealt with; removing it unilaterally is rude and goes against standard procedure. I'm trying to have the discussion here, so that there's no need for AfD. I don't want to go to the formality of AfD if it can be avoided, and I don't have an argument... I want to know what yours is. If it did go to AfD, it would be up to you and any others to demonstrate notability. You seem sure of his notability, but haven't stated which specific criteria you think he meets. So, are you saying he meets WP:AUTHOR, or WP:GNG, or something else? EddieHugh (talk) 10:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I stated above: I'm not going for WP:NACADEMIC. His notability comes from being co-founder of Scientists for EU and Healthier IN and as a commentator on the subject - the article is a headline plus 507 words in The Guardian as well as the other refs. You answered so you already know my opinion on the matter. We disagree. That's fine. For the third (and hopefully final) time – if you are sure of your argument and you want it to go to the wider Wikipedia community then take it to AfD. It is not "rudeness" to prefer to see resolution rather than to see the article indefinitely stuck with a notability tag. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 18:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

All I've asked is that you specify which notability criteria you think he meets. You keep on telling me which criteria you think he doesn't meet! "being co-founder of Scientists for EU and Healthier IN and as a commentator on the subject" is not one of the criteria for any kind of notability! Again: I'm not presenting an argument & prefer to avoid formal procedures. Answering the simple question will help us move forward (& permanently remove the notability tag): are you saying he meets WP:AUTHOR, or WP:GNG, or something else? EddieHugh (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

My response to this is the same as my response to your comment above diff - Thank you for your opinion on how policy ought to be interpreted. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 15:35, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

More sources have been added but they either don't mention him or they are articles written by him, they do not help with his notability, we need in-depth coverage of him rather than the organisations he has set up, it's beginning to look like a coat rack article. Theroadislong (talk) 06:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

An editor has removed the notability and coatrack tag without discussion here, there are 22 references of which at least 13 are written by Mike Galsworthy himself. Notability is NOT established other wise we wouldn't be at afd. Theroadislong (talk) 08:22, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I have added new references including an in-depth profile in the German language daily newspaper Der Standard. This reference in particular would seem to qualify as one of the necessary "reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond its mere trivial mention". T0mpr1c3 (talk) 17:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Please also note this newspaper article that talks about the concerns of scientists that have contacted Galsworthy personally with concerns about Brexit and includes several quotes from Galsworthy. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 01:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The Austrian newspaper site contains the best coverage that's been found. It's also probably the only one that gives any substantial detail on his views (and even that's slightly different from being about him). Being contacted by # people doesn't help to establish notability and a few quotes are... just a few quotes, unfortunately (there are plenty of 'a few quotes' sources, but they don't add up to anything substantial). EddieHugh (talk) 13:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

What about the Hansard reference that includes the entire transcript of his evidence to the House of Lords Select Committee? If that doesn't give substantial information on his views, I can't think what source possibly could. What standard of evidence are you applying here? T0mpr1c3 (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Hansard is a published transcript of things that a) must be transcribed and b) must be made public (in normal circumstances). There are dozens and dozens of committees (here's the list), meeting all the time. The existence of a transcript (speaking at a committee/writing a submission for one) doesn't add much to the case. EddieHugh (talk) 19:47, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

In other words, it's a primary source. OK, I accept that. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 20:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I should disclose here (as I already have done on the AfD page) that I know Mike Galsworthy personally, although I have not met or corresponded with him since 2002. We were both students at KCL. Regardless of that, it remains the case that in the world

that I inhabit -- academics from the UK -- he is a significant media figure. His opinion pieces are also widely read, not least because they have appeared in very august publications like The Lancet and Science. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 20:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Promotional edit unsupported by source

T0mpr1c3 can you explain this edit, particularly the "this view was vindicated" wording. Vindicated according to whom? I don't see any third party discussion of such vindication and I don't even see him taking credit for the proposed increase in funding. The article attributes the 3% figure to the OECD, and Galsworthy attributes the rise in awareness to the referendum, not his actions directly. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

You deleted the entire sentence, but the Chemical World reference mentions the 3% figure in the first sentence: "the two main parties have both promised to increase R&D to 3% of GDP", and the Galsworthy quote is taken verbatim from the article. The first clause requires further justification, so I have removed it. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 19:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Edit war?

Seriously T0mpr1c3, you are going to WP:EDITWAR over your preference for "full-length motion picture" versus "documentary film"? "Full-length motion picture" is one word away from being straight off a Hollywood trailer, poster, or puffed up review - the term is "feature-length motion picture" which you will note Wikipedia calls a "feature film". You will also note that "motion picture" redirects to "film". Using "motion picture" instead of "film" is like calling a car a "driving machine" or a watch a "timepiece". Please stop preening this individual's feathers. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Give it up. The language is decriptive, I took it straight off the BFI site. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 20:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Strange, the BFI page describes it as a "film" and they use the term "film" throughout their website as far as I can see. The page also does not indicate anything about the length. The crowd funding, youtube and facebook pages for the film use the industry jargon "feature-length documentary". We don't need to quote industry jargon though, just describe the work in simple terms. Which certainly do not include "motion picture". —DIYeditor (talk) 21:08, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, you got me there. I was wrong about my source, and I am forced to concede that I may have been living in the USA for too long. I agree that "film" is preferable to "motion picture". I do feel that some mention of the length of the film is justified, even though this is clearly a minor release -- I suspect it just went to a few art house cinemas. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 22:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I've pared the description of the film back to the bare bones and included a wikilink to the main page for the film. I hope this is an improvement from your POV. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Coatracking

I propose to remove the coatracking template which User:RaviC has recently restored. I see no justification for this tag per WP:WINAC:

Material that is supported by a reliable, published source whose topic is directly related to the topic of the article, is not using the article as a coatrack.

T0mpr1c3 (talk) 00:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Things that aren't about MG: "Its advisory board included..."; "On 22 May 2015, the group wrote..."; "In a notice posted on the research..."; "Despite the referendum result..."; "In 2016, Healthier IN the EU wrote..."; "Shortly before the 2017 general election, Healthier IN the EU..."; "The documentary was made by...". That's a lot that is peripherally related to him, but is really just padding. EddieHugh (talk) 15:12, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

That's helpful, thanks. I have cut back nearly all of that material keeping only one or two phrases. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 17:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

The article has undergone a lot of changes since this coatracking template was originally added. I feel that there is no justification for it any longer, and since this discussion appears dormant I propose to delete the coatracking tag. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 13:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Tag deleted in the absence of voices to the contrary. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 13:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Voiceover Work

Did he not do the voice for Douglas Reynholm in The IT Crowd? He doesn't have an IMDb profile but I'm sure it's his voice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.106.17 (talk) 21:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

He does have an IMDB profile.τ℗ʍ (talk) 15:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)