Talk:Victor C. Strasburger
Latest comment: 8 years ago by 77.99.129.197 in topic Controversies section removed by living subject
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Victor C. Strasburger article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| blp=yes }}
Controversies section removed by living subject
editA well sourced and referenced section on controversies surrounding the subject's research was removed by the living subject of this biography in Sept 2010. As I understand, this violates Wikipedia's TOS. Although biographies of living persons do need to be handled with great care, I don't believe it is permissible for subjects to remove peer-reviewed criticisms of their work and comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.46.56.73 (talk) 02:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- That is untrue. Though we in general discourage involved persons editing articles, they aren't forbidden to do so. In any case, the material removed looks questionable. It is based on primary sources, with no evidence of notability, and as such any Wikipedia editor would have been correct in removing it. I am going to remove the 'neutrality' tag. Please do not replace it without further discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- Personally, this doesn't look like the right decision. The removal of published critiques of the scholar's work by the scholar himself does look like a conflict of interest. That probably shouldn't have been done and I think perhaps the POV tag returned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.129.197 (talk) 21:32, 12 June 2016 (UTC)