Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mae-Wan Ho

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Mae-Wan Ho

Mae-Wan Ho (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

An article on a living person has sat since February 2006 without any reliable third party sources. Given her highly controversial opinions, that are argueabley pseudoscience, it's essential an article like this have substantial third party sourcing. Otherwise, it can only alternate between a hatchet job or a promo piece. --Rob (talk) 05:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, does "third party" mean "secondary source" as in "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources" or does it mean "tertiary source" as in "encyclopedias or other compendia that sum up secondary and primary sources". Are reliably sourced news articles or journal articles acceptable "third party" sources? Are her own reliably sourced books or journal articles acceptable sources to describe her own views? --EPadmirateur (talk) 07:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
"Third-party" means that Mae-Won didn't write it. Nothing she writes on her own can possibly establish her notability, regardless of who published it. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I vote for deletion and agree that this article can never amount to anything because the only stuff written about this person is either from herself or from non-reliable sources such as purveyors of alternative medicine or anti-GM activist publications. Mainstream science essentially ignores her pseudoscientific views. Ttguy (talk) 05:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • DeleteKeep as not having established notability through reliable third-party sources. This lack of reliable third-party sources means that the article has, at times, devolved into edit-wars over whether her CV substantiates fields of expertise claimed in her 'biographical sketch' (both sourced from the subject). There just isn't enough here for a solid article, let alone one that needs to carefully navigate a controversial subject. HrafnTalkStalk 06:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Nature article cited by Tim Vickers below meets the threshold of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". HrafnTalkStalk 08:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, because Mae-Wan Ho is notable by a number of measures. Third party citations have come and gone in the article that would support that. However, I doubt that any reliable sources or neutral presentation would be allowed by other editors. Since its inception, this article has served as a personal sandbox for a few editors who used it consistently to publish discrediting information about her, even after the material had been removed, and to remove or strongly dispute any positive information that might be put in it.
For example, User:Ttguy has used a set of favorite items for discrediting Mae-Wan Ho:
  • From the beginning through to the present, that she is a vivisectionist who likes to burn rabbits' eyes (and is therefore a hypocrite): [1] [2] [3] [4]
  • Also from the beginning, that she believes living organisms don't follow second law of thermodynamics [5] [6] [7]
  • that she has been involved in cloning humans and therefore a hypocrite [8] [9]
  • that she is a "AIDS denier" and the "treatment she recommends is selenium and other antioxidants" [10] [11]
  • that her claimed academic credentials are "inflated" and simple claims of what fields she worked in are false: [12] [13] [14] [15] Ttguy even has [his own webpage containing his personal analysis of Ho's credentials, which he uses in the article and in the talk to support the claim that Mae-Wan Ho's credentials are don't match her claims
  • that she may have been fired for incompetence from an academic position [16]
  • when positive or balancing information is added, it's removed usually for trivial reasons [17] [18], including the one third party reference that made it into the article [19]: why? because it was "POV"
Also User:Hrafn has disputed what should be non-controversial edits, for trivial or contrived reasons [20] [21] [22]
It's ironic that the first two editors to jump in and vote to delete this article are Ttguy and Hrafn.
So this is what WP:BLP allows: the unbridled two-year-long campaign to discredit a person's reputation, where deleted material is constantly re-added, and where honest attempts at balance and neutrality are smacked down to the point where the only thing left to do is delete the article. It would be impossible to add any reliable third-party sources to this article in good faith because, I'm afraid, they would be removed for trivial reasons within a day. I have no interest in Mae-Wan Ho or her positions but I strongly oppose the kind of editor POV pushing and bullying that is evident in this article. I asked in another place "is this the way WP is supposed to work for biographies of living people who happen to do something some editors don't like?" Hey, I guess so, and when it gets really bad, we just delete the sandbox. --EPadmirateur (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: If there has been substantial coverage in reliable third party sources that has been deleted from the article, then where are the difs? Please provide substantiation. All your other accusations are irrelevant to an AfD. HrafnTalkStalk 16:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • EPadmirateur , It seems you want a biography based only on Ho's writings. You were fine with my removal of negative material sourced to her research paper (like the eye buring), but you're happy to have positive things sourced to Ho. The problems with this article stem from the fact, there's no third-party reliable material to go off. So, all the editors inject their own opinions, because that's all there is: opinion. Wikipedians are left to debate what's relevant and notable about her self-claimed work. Wikipedias policy on deleting non-notable bios is actually in the best interests of the bio subject, who are most harmed by the inevitable original research that's conducted on them. It's unfortunate that this article wasn't deleted at the beginning. --Rob (talk) 16:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Not at all: I would gladly seek out reliable sources to provide information about her. However, I'm nearly certain that they would be removed for trivial or contrived reasons, as was done with the simple claim of what fields she has worked in. I thought that the policy for BLP was to provide balance as per WP:BLP#Criticism and praise and to avoid "biased or malicious content about living persons". If WP wants to permit POV pushing and bullying in BLPs as you seem to want to allow here, fine. Just let us all know, and by all means delete this article. --EPadmirateur (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
You are free to show us the reliable sources right here. Please also show the diffs of where an editor has removed a reliable source. --Rob (talk) 17:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I haven't searched for third party sources. Under the circumstances I don't much see the point. The two external sources that were removed mentioning Ho were deleted here.EPadmirateur (talk) 19:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
[23] is an article on a blog where they have interviewed Ho. I dunno if this contributes to notablility or not Ttguy (talk) 10:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
[24] tells us that Ho attended a meeting along with 1400 other people. Not sure this contributes to notability either. She is mentioned once in the article. Ttguy (talk) 14:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea how reliable these sources would be viewed but they are the only two that have been added. Ho is certainly controversial and influential as these two citations show and also here. Her work is cited in Meaning of life, in Black people, in Rupert Sheldrake#The Presence of the Past, in Horizontal gene transfer. Her name is listed on the List of signatories to "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" (original document here, page 2) and as writer on holistic science. She has 79 journal articles listed in PubMed. Those are 79 reliable third-party sources. Here are 13 articles or letters appearing in The Guardian about her or written by her. Here's a book review in New Scientist. Here's an interview, a lecture summary, a briefing to the European Parliament, etc. That's just for starters. I think there are dozens more third-party sources. What more do you want? How hard did the other editors try? --EPadmirateur (talk) 19:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
You said "Those are 79 reliable third-party sources". Anything written by Ho is, by definition, not a third party source. I will review the other sources as much as I can shortly. --Rob (talk) 02:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Side comment: I think it would be a good idea of editors could go through the backlinks, and check how Ho has been used as a source in other Wikipedia articles. --Rob (talk) 16:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. I think there are a couple of third party sources there that can be used in this article. I would also say that her own suitably published work can be cited as WP:RS when describing her ideas, as was the consensus recently in Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Self_published. --EPadmirateur (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're what you're talking about. I wanted people to review the backlinks, where Ho is sometimes cited, since those should be removed or replaced by cites from recognized authorities. Ho is not a recognized authority in any field, and shouldn't be cited as such. Unless/until Ho is mentioned by a third-party, Ho doesn't belong on Wikipedia, anywhere. --Rob (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Well I think there are plenty of third-party sources (see above). She certainly has scientific credentials (see PubMed list above). But her notability comes from her controversial stances on a number of things, which can be reliably documented in third party news reports, interviews, etc. In addition, her own papers in reliable journals and books published by reliable independent publishers can also be used as a reliable sources for her own views (see the consensus recently in Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Self_published). --EPadmirateur (talk) 19:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Except (apparently) if these papers show her in a bad light (eg Burning rabbits eyes) - then these papers can not be used !!!! - right? Ttguy (talk) 09:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Of course, the experimental work on corneas can and should be used if it is relevant to her notability. Apparently even her AIDS denialism is not notable by the third-party source standard (I couldn't find anything), only her anti-GMO work. --EPadmirateur (talk) 11:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep this seems to be a very interesting person, she has some very interesting ideas, a whole lot of wrong ideas and possibly she doesn't always know what she's actually talking about. In addition, she seems to be somewhat hypocritical, and may in some contexts be considered a 'ho'. I've been somewhat rude, maybe I've made some overstatements, my apologies for that, probably not all she says is rubbish, it may in fact be very interesting to analyse how this woman has come to combine wisdom and knowledge with misinterpretations and other nonsense. Anyway, it should be the task of Wikipedia to clarify the whole mystery and controversy surrounding this person. 84.194.237.100 (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep apparently at least borderline notable as a scientist. About 60 published papers in peer-reviewed biology journals, cited reasonably according to Web of Science (GS is not helpful here, the papers are back in the 70s) Her papers on theoretical evolution in Journal of theoretical biology, a mainstream journal though in my opinion willing to publish pure speculation had 76, 65, etc citations. Some of her perfectly orthodox cell biology papers in good journals had 128, 71, 70. This counts as quite respectable. Her later work is not science, nor is it published by significant scientific publishers. However, it's widely noticed. I think it's deplorable, but it's notable. DGG (talk) 04:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable scientist with notable views on notable subject. WAS 4.250 (talk) 04:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep a notably bad scientist. Not notable for their research or expertise, but the extreme opinions exposed by this person have gathered wide notice and a strongly negative reaction from their peers. See Nature news article for example. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Note - I've added some reliable sources criticizing this publication. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Be very careful here. She is a very controversal figure, but no assertion of her non-notability should be credited without a review of just who is asserting it and with what motivations. Notably bad might be very accurate, but quite notably bad. --Blechnic (talk) 04:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree completely with DGG. Her views on GM crops are clearly wrong to me, but she's a notable opponent. --Crusio (talk) 08:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Off topic. I'm not ready to dismiss everything she says, but I have gotten rather tired of hearing her at times. I work in agricultural genetics, so I've probably heard a bit more than most. --Blechnic (talk) 08:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per TimVickers, DGG, Crusio. Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The New Scientist and Guardian sources linked above show clear notability. It seems that some people have trouble understanding that a subject's notability is nothing to do with whether you agree with them or not. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Tim Vickers. Ford MF (talk) 21:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)