Talk:Philip Baker (obstetrician)

Recent edits

User:Part has changed "discovered to have plagiarized" to "accused of plagiarism". This gem of an edit has been accomplished by deleting the reference where he "admitted he plagiarized parts of a speech to graduates has resigned" source. We can discuss it, but it will soon be reverted once it's clear that this is a ridiculous path. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

This is not balanced. User:Nomoskedasticity seems determined to portray the subject in a bad light. I'm sure he/she will omit to mention that the subject initiated the plagiarism investigation after reading the references that he/she cites. I have added substance to the article. User:Nomoskedasticity is biased. Part (talk) 10:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

It is factually correct that the subject resigned after accusations before a full investigation. My edits are factually correct, it is factually not true that the subject resigned after discovery. Part (talk) 10:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

If you want to complain about me, this is not the place. Again: he was not simply "accused" of plagiarism, he admitted it (as per the reference you deleted). Do you dispute that he admitted copying parts of his speech? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I do not dispute that. But your edits are biased and factually incorrect. Do you dispute that? Part (talk) 10:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Part (talk) 10:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks I only corrected factually what you wrote and you're now saying I'm setting off the editing on a "ridiculous path". Feel free to edit how you want but you are biased and were incorrect factually in that instance. You started this article after all. I am tired of these edit wars which push people away from editing. Part (talk) 10:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

If you do not dispute that he admitted plagiarizing parts of the speech (and indeed wrote a letter to the students apologizing for having done it), then there's no justification for changing the text from "discovered" to "accused". So I don't see how my edits were "factually incorrect". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you dispute he resigned after accusations? He didn't resign after discovery. Part (talk) 05:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

i've restored the source you deleted (you still haven't explained that one) and adjusted the text correspondingly. I see no point in quibbling over wording in that way. The bottom line is that since he admitted it we would misinform our readers by telling them (only) that he was "accused" of plagiarism. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

hi. i am going to revert your edit because it's not factually true that he resigned after admitting, rather, he resigned after accusation. the article is not neutral, for example there is little information on what the subject does (obstetrics) but you seem to want to highlight the events of single graduation speech and neglect a long and documented career of helping many many people. the title of one of the articles you cited says in the heading he was accused even. I strongly feel your position on this is biased in a sophisticated intellectual way and violates NPOV. on further reading, Atul Gawande apparently felt flattered by use of his speech. are you going to mention this? Part (talk) 09:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

If you'd like to contribute to this page, then perhaps you could add material describing what you consider to be his accomplishments -- rather than repeatedly removing a perfectly good reference and then pretending that the text has to be altered accordingly. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The sentence is referenced yes, but not true. He didn't resign after admission. Where does it say that in the references you cite? He resigned after the accusations. I have contributed to the page already as best as I can to provide more balance. Part (talk) 18:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Given that you accept that the sentence is referenced, on what basis do you assert that it's not true? I think you might have to gain familiarity with WP:V: the basis for editing at Wikipedia is not what you "know" to be true but what can be verified with reliable sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

This is what is written" "Dr. Philip Baker, dean of medicine and dentistry at the University of Alberta, stepped down Friday amid allegations of plagiarism.", I can't find to the best of my ability any place in the references you cited where it says what you say. I have also removed July as the month of the resignation. Although you referenced this July date, that's not what the articles say, they say June. Referencing something as you can see does not mean what you have written is true. Part (talk) 05:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, and here's something else that was written: "The University of Alberta medical school dean who admitted he plagiarized parts of a speech to graduates has resigned" source. Why are you so adamant that this is untrue? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I think I give up, I don't have time to continue this - you are getting facts clearly wrong as I have demonstrated, you are biased as I have shown. Is there anything in the article that is untrue? No! Part (talk) 06:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Third opinion

Response to third opinion request:

This one is pretty simple. Part, I have to go with Nomo on this one because the subject clearly admitted that he plagiarized the material (which, btw, has been explained to you several times). I don't know if maybe you don't want to include this information to preserve his character or something; if so, that isn't how Wikipedia works, I'm afraid. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 00:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

This is still not factually correct Erpert. He did not resign after admission, he resigned after the accusations while an investigation was being done according to an article cited that has even that in the title. If you like, you can split the sentences or rephrase that he admitted later, but what is written is not what happened if you read the cited articles in case you have not. Why are there two references to the incident while the other material has one? Before I added a measure of balance, Nomoskedasticity produced an article that had a wrong date and the current article has been reverted incorrectly by Nomo back to July instead of June (I tried to be polite and hope he/she would notice on their own). (Personal attack removed) Please don't try and use technical arguments, I'm also well aware of NPOV. Perhaps you support user Nomo, nowhere do you highlight the attack he/she made on me suggesting I am ridiculous. I am reverting his/her edit because the date is wrong and the facts not correct. Part (talk) 08:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity you seem to be intellectually dishonest. I pointed out that the date is June and not July which is supported by the two references you cited. Am I not telling the truth about the date? Are you not being dishonest? Attention Erpert Part (talk) 08:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

My comment of intellectual dishonesty is not a personal attack please see (Personal attack removed) I am sorry and apologize if you perceived it this way. Part (talk) 08:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

On user Part's talk page

For more context on this issue please see
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Nomoskedasticity reverted to a version which is incorrect despite this being higlighted and when I pointed this out he/she threatened me with being blocked from editing. For more on this issue and my response please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Part#October_2015 This is amazing, you reverted to a version that I pointed out is incorrect. Nomoskedasticity do you dispute this? I point out this is not proper (backed by evidence - which means this is not a personal attack), next thing you are slapping me with threats of being blocked from editing. I apologize for removing your first reference when I first came across the article, I have subsequently not quibbled about this since it was put back. I have no objection to you mentioning the admission in the article as long as what is written is factually correct. Part (talk) 09:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)