Talk:Suman Sahai

plagiarism

http://www.klinikum.uni-heidelberg.de/ShowSingleNews.176.0.html?&no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=6772&cHash=493fc2a4bdbf14a5532b76df14417abd

"Ms. Sahai was and is not entitled to call himself a professor at the University of Heidelberg. ..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paranoid Android1208 (talk • contribs) 10:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Controversy section removal

Certain editors keep removing the Plagiarism section without explanation[1]. I assume this has to do with the WP:BLP guidelines. As far as I can see the section does not fly in the face of BLP, but I've brought it up at the BLP noticeboard, nevertheless. See what they say.  Yintan  12:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Controversy and See Also sections edited to reflect updates

The accusation of plagiarism made against the BLP Suman Sahai was later proven to be false and the University issued a letter dated 07.02.2014 confirming that no plagiarism proceedings had been initiated against the subject, after a case was instituted against the Dean for making false statements against the subject and which was won by the subject. Similarly, the information given regarding the venia legendi mentioned in the previous version of the BLP was false and has been removed. The article which made the accusation, cited as the main source of information in the previous version of the Controversy section, is patently defamatory (http://www.biotech-europe.de/editorials/726.lasso) and cites a press release by the University but the link provided does not exist as it was subsequently deleted for being false and providing incorrect information. (http://www.klinikum.uni-heidelberg.de/ShowSingleNews.176.0.html?&no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=6772&cHash=493fc2a4bdbf14a5532b76df14417abd). The other content in the cited article is unsourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleepingcow (talk • contribs) 07:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC) Sleepingcow (talk) 07:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• The plagiarism was confirmed by a reliable independent source. That the university for whatever reasons moved them didn't initiated proceedings does not at all prove that the plagiarism accusation was false (that would have been the case if the university had initiated an investigation and had exonerated Sahai). The info on the venia legendi is sourced to a reliable secondary source and to the university's own website(not live on their own website any more, but available as an archived link). There is at this point no indication that the article in the (online and print) Laborjournal was "defamatory". --Randykitty (talk) 21:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

*The main source of the article cited to show the plagiarism accusation leads to a non-existent page (ref - http://www.biotech-europe.de/editorials/726.lasso). The reason is that the University rectified an earlier error and, through a letter dated 07.02.2014, confirmed that no plagiarism proceeding had ever been initiated against the subject. This indicates that the University did not find any need to initiate such action because they did not find any evidence to show the plagiarism, unless the University itself is biased but that is mere conjecture.

Further, a more recent article (http://www.gen-ethisches-netzwerk.de/GID/224/kurz-notiert-politik-und-wirtschaft#17) confirms that the University had not initiated any plagiarism proceeding against the subject. In view of this evidence, citing an older article that merely claims to have primary sources for the allegation but does not actually cite any official confirmation (eg. letters, circulars, evidence of an investigation etc.) to verify the the same, is defamatory. However, to reflect a more NPOV I have not included the word defamation.

Sleepingcow (talk) 13:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect. The GEN website only cites a letter from the university to Sahai that no proceedings were initiated. There can be many reasons for this, perhaps they thought the case was too long ago. In any case, if no proceedings were initiated, they could not conclude either way: they did not investigate. Laborjournal did and published about it, and is a reliable source. Nowhere is it stated that the university's earlier statement was an error, that is just your conclusion, but as far as I can see not based on any evidence. If the Laborjournal article was defamatory, I would have expected that Sahai's lawyer (mentioned in the GEN notice) would have contacted them and either the journal would have retracted or been sued. Neither seems to have happened (from which, if I were inclined to synthesis, one might conclude that Sahai has no case against them. I also note that some Googling will easily identify places on the Internet where Sahai claims to have been a professor at Heidelberg, which she never was. I further note that the GEN website is possibly not a reliable source and also likely not impartial, given that they and Sahai share their anti-GMO activism.

Nevertheless, given the BLP issues here, I'll post a notice on the BLP Noticeboard (I'll provide a link as soon as I've done that) asking uninvolved editors to have a look at our edits and give their advice. --Randykitty (talk) 13:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Check Noticeboard for past and new discussion - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Suman_Sahai ::::Sleepingcow (talk) 09:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and? --Randykitty (talk) 11:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)