Talk:John Funder

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John Funder article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if 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
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.

Portal	John Funder is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents 1 Ascertaining information 2 John Funder 3 Please read WP:BLP 4 Edit warring 5 RFC Comments 6 Again

[edit] Ascertaining information

To put an end to this nonsense,I decided cto ring up the Vice Chancellor's office at Monash from Singapore where I am.Prof.Larrkin's office tells me that they are aware of the information on the page but despite repeated questioning refused to say that the information was in any way inaccurate.Thus we have to oprate on the premise that the information is accurate.(Vr 11:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC))

[edit] John Funder

thanks for your note.Actually teh encyclopedia does cite a source-www.scientificmisconduct.com

 I tried visiting the site but could not.Howver I did ring Vice Chancellor of Monash Univesrity's office.Prof.Larkin's office admitted they were aware of thsi information as well as www.scientificmisconduct.com but despite my repeated prodding,did not call it inaccurate.I shall try visiting the source again but I felt given the facts were in the Vice Chancellor's knowledge and not contradicted it had to be true.I shall be of course guided by your advice but this anonymous user has been vanadalising so many other pages besides this-was blocked for three months in November and actually used 3 different ID's all relating to Monash University.I ahve a feeling it is Funder himself.I shall welcome your advice.(Vr 06:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC))

thanks for your note.Actually the encyclopedia does cite a source-www.scientificmisconduct.com

 I tried visiting the site but could not.Howver I did ring Vice Chancellor of Monash Univesrity's office.Prof.Larkin's office admitted they were aware of thsi information as well as www.scientificmisconduct.com but despite my repeated prodding,did not call it inaccurate.I shall try visiting the source again but I felt given the facts were in the Vice Chancellor's knowledge and not contradicted it had to be true.I shall be of course guided by your advice but this anonymous user has been vanadalising so many other pages besides this-was blocked for three months in November and actually used 3 different ID's all relating to Monash University.I ahve a feeling it is Funder himself.I shall welcome your advice.(Vr 06:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Please read WP:BLP

Unsourced and poorly sourced negative information concerning a living person is NOT permitted on Wikipedia. These three sources - [1], [2], and [3] - are not considered reliable sources. In the case of the first [4], it is just another internet encyclopedia and it cites a website that no longer exists. The second [5] is citing a user-submitted comment to a news article. The third [6] is a blog entry. These are not considered reliable sources for any article, much less for an article about a living person. As for the book that Delhite (talk · contribs) cited, that might be a reliable source, but we need to know how much of that potentially inflammatory paragraph is actually mentioned in the book, as opposed to the book merely mentioning John Funder in passing. Please, to everyone editing this article, read WP:BLP and do not add inflammatory, poorly sourced, information concerning a living person. --BigDT 01:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring

Current edit warring by editors who repeatedly remove or replace items - regardless of the veracity of the information - can blocked by an admin - either 'side' can take note of this. SatuSuro 22:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFC Comments

I wanted to give a little history here. I originally became involved with this article while responding to a request on WP:RFP to protect the page from "vandalism" by an IP user. I examined the page and found the the IP user was correctly removing poorly sourced information from the article. Essentially the same paragraph was previously sourced using links to a blog, a user-posted reply to an article, and an internet encyclopedia that itself was unsourced. Since then, the passage has been sourced with this book [7]. Upon my request, Delhite gave me the exact quotation from the book that he is using as a source. See here [8] for that passage.

My inclination, after much consideration over the last few weeks, and my own independent research, is to believe that this should NOT be considered an acceptable source under WP:BLP. The book offers no context for the anecdote and its place in a biographical article is dubious. I did, on the other hand, find this document [9], which discusses accusations that Funder and Copolov made against a Dr. Prasad ... and this article takes the position that their accusations were correct. In any event, we don't even have any way of knowing if this is the incident that the book is talking about or if it is some other incident. Because the book gives no context, we have no way of knowing whether this is a key event in Funder's life or if it is a minor incident in his career that nobody not directly involved in the situation would care about. In short, unless there is reason to the contrary, I am inclined to agree with the IP user, the material should be removed unless a good source can be found that provides some context. --BigDT 03:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Again

I see someone is once again trying to insert this claim. In addition to all BigDT's comments above, which still apply, I note that the book offered as a source is indexed by Google Books at [10]. Delhite (now indef blocked as an abusive sock) claims that the passage in question is on pages 35-36; page 35 is available as part of the preview and has nothing to do with allegations of scientific misconduct; it's about segregation in American schools. Furthermore a search reveals that neither the names of John Funder [11] nor David Copolov [12] appear anywhere in the book in question. It appears that the full story of this bizarre incident can be found in this Australian radio documentary, as well as the BMJ article cited by Big DT above. The unfortunate psychiatrist who was found guilty of misconduct by Funder seems to have a long history of making groundless claims to have been vindicated by some court or other (see the radio documentary); with the amount of misinformation flying around about this case nothing should be said about it unless it meets a very high standard of BLP sourcing. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 07:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)