Talk:Henry F. Schaefer, III

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

The subject of this article, Henry F. Schaefer, III, has edited Wikipedia as Hfsiii (talk • contribs).

Contents 1 three-revert rule 2 Scientific Bio material 3 Monk's revisions 4 Stating up front what and where 5 You win 6 Citation for a variety of claims 7 Monk is google where you do searches of scientific literature?

[edit] three-revert rule

For those currently editing this page, please do no violate the three-revert rule. Please familiarize yourself with this rule as it is official policy for Wikipedia. Thanks. --Roswell native 17:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I would also point out that the large extra material about his career that is part of that revert war is actually a copyright violation from his web site. It is not clear that even he can give permission for its use. It might be owned by the University of Georgia. --Bduke 20:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I took a look at http://www.ccc.uga.edu/member_page.php?id=8 and I cannot find any copyright information. --User:Mathchem271828

[edit] Scientific Bio material

Mathchem271828, please see Bduke comments above regarding copyright of the material. That is why it was reverted previously. Even if copyright is not an issue, the material needs to be much more concise and wikified for the article.--Roswell native 06:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Well go ahead and wikify it. Removal of all of that material isn't an option. --User:Mathchem271828

IMHO, inclusion of the material as is doesn't seem to be an option based on Wikipedia:Copyrights. Just because the site does not explicitly state the copyright doesn't mean it's fair game, the lack of copyright needs to be verified before inclusion. Also, the material should be edited down, and the person adding it should wikify it if possible (again IMHO). The info wasn't removed to change the tone of the article, it was removed for the copyright concerns. A well written summary of that info definitely belongs in the article. Thanks.--Roswell native 06:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)--Roswell native 06:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I still believe your arguments about the copyright issue are disingenuous, by that I mean *you* don't really believe that the argument that you are giving is valid. If the issue is with wikifying the material then it will happen eventually. Thanks. --Mathchem271828

Mathchem, I just left a message on your talk page citing the wikipedia guidelines which address my copyright concerns as well as other concerns. If I am incorrect in interpreting those guidelines please discuss here (as I know this topic is of interest to other editors for this article) and cite your reasonsing if possible rather than citing unfounded assumptions about the intentions of others.

I would also like to politely request that you refrain from assuming that my intentions are disingenuous and referring to them as such - I'm assuming your goal is to make this a better article based on Wikipedia's guidelines, please assume the same of me until I demonstrate otherwise.

Also, with respect to the "wikifying happening eventually", someone has to start, and the folks that want/place the material in the article should take responsibility for that IMHO. There are already plenty of articles in Wikipedia that need cleaning up - my $.02.

Cheers, --Roswell native 07:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monk's revisions

Monk you appear serving some sort of agenda against the subject's religious beliefs. This isn't the place for that. I really encourage you to let the scientists write about the accomplishments of the other scientists. The link to the philosopher is also spurious and serving an agenda that has nothing to do with Prof. Schaefer's contributions to science. As someone who works in the area, you can take it from me that his impact has been really pretty big. And whether you like it or not, this article is going to be about his contributions to science. --Mathchem271828

Mathchem can you explain what you mean by letting "the scientists write about the accomplishments of the other scientists"? Everyone is welcome to write about everyone however, statements that a given paper was pioneering or such are the sorts that flirt with a non-neutral point of view and thus at minimum need citations. Now, from what I know about the subject Schaefer's role has been big. But claims of that need to meet verifiability and need to be sourced to reliable sources just like everything else on Wikipedia. JoshuaZ 07:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

JoshuaZ, I'll say to you that I think that you know the answer to your own question. Please just wikify the biographical information that has been provided and make it a more local and readable copy and that will be a great contribution to his biography. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mathchem271828 (talk • contribs) 07:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

No I actually really don't. Do you mean the scientists on Wikipedia? Do you mean the scientists as a whole on this planet (this seems unlikely). An explanation would be good. JoshuaZ 07:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

A simple Google search shows that Schaefer is known as much for his advocacy of ID as he his for his accomplishments in science. The article needs to reflect that fact, and attempts to gloss over his role in ID is no more acceptable than what you've (wrongly) accused me of, and something that we've seen at this article and dealt with before. FeloniousMonk 07:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, please read WP:LEAD, which clearly states "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies, if there are any." FeloniousMonk 07:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Bowdlerizing relevant details out the intro, like this: [1], simply will not fly. Again, Mathchem, please read WP:LEAD. It clearly tells us that "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies, if there are any." Deleting coverage of the notable and verifiable controversial views of Schaefer runs counter to our policies. Please become more familiar with WP:NPOV as well. FeloniousMonk 08:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stating up front what and where

Other than his DI/ISCID role, exactly what is Schaefer doing right now and where is he doing it? You can read the entire article, much less the intro, and still not get that information. Is he at a university? If so, which one and what is he doing there? This is the sort of detail that belongs in the intro. FeloniousMonk 07:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that is in the lead already "Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and Director of the Center for Computational Chemistry at the University of Georgia" JoshuaZ 07:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Because I just added it. FeloniousMonk 07:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops. My bad. JoshuaZ 08:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

This needs a source: "He is the author of more than 1100 scientific publications, the majority appearing in the Journal of Chemical Physics or the Journal of the American Chemical Society." FeloniousMonk 07:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You win

You can go ahead and make it about stuff you know about and is accessible to you monk. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mathchem271828 (talk • contribs) 07:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Citation for a variety of claims

this may help. Among other things it has a citation for the 6th most cited claim. JoshuaZ 08:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monk is google where you do searches of scientific literature?

If you want to look at the publications of someone in theoretical chemistry you can visit, for instance, http://jcp.aip.org/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mathchem271828 (talk • contribs) 08:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

I don't think that's the only issue. No one is claiming that he isn't a very accomplished chemist. So the above search seems less than relevant. JoshuaZ 08:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I generally use PubMed, Biosys or Elsevere. For non-scientific topics, like ID, Google works wells. Google Scholar works nicely for actual science, too. FeloniousMonk 08:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

okay then why didnt you use those before? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mathchem271828 (talk • contribs) 08:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

The details that need sources, that he is the author of more than 1100 scientific publications and awarded the American Chemical Society Award in Pure Chemistry in 1979 are not going to be found in peer reviewed journals. FeloniousMonk 08:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

go to a university library that has access to something like web of science and they keep track of that sort of stuff. Google probably doesn't keep track of that stuff. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mathchem271828 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC).