Talk:Petr Vaníček

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Petr Vaníček 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

For older versions of this Talk page, see: Talk:Petr Vaníček/Archive1.

For new discussion topics, please make a new section at the bottom.

[edit] Notability

We need to return to the notability question, which turns simply on whether we can find independent sources with significant coverage of the subject. The only source I see with significant coverage is the Tuzo Wilson award citation by Craymer in 1996, which got his Ph.D. under Vanicek in 1998, so can hardly be supposed to be independent, much less unbiased. The rest are all either by Vanicek or about his LSSA method. Anything else? If we don't get at least one independent source with significant coverage about him, I'm inclined to propose deletion. Anybody? Dicklyon 22:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your removal of the COI tag, but I'm puzzled that you put back the notability tag. I'm pretty sure this guy is notable. There is only one Tuzo Wilson award each year for all of Canada, and Tuzo Wilson himself was just about infinitely famous as a scientist (I grew up in Canada, in case that's a COI :-). Remember that Wikipedia is impressed by awards. If he really was the founder of the Canadian Geophysical Union, I think he gets a lot of points for that. Finding sources is hard work, but I think that work should continue. By no means do we have articles for all the Tuzo winners, but I hope we eventually do. I understand that the Least Squares Spectral Analysis stuff may or may not give a proper reflection of his role, but that issue can be worked out over time, now there is no longer an edit war to contend with. EdJohnston 22:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

My concern is not with the guy, but with the article. The article does not contain the required citations to independent sources with significant coverage about the guy. I'm willing to wait a few months for someone to do the work to find the sources. I haven't had any luck lucking for them myself, but I'm not Canadian so maybe I have my own biases... Dicklyon 01:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Ed, I wasn't sure what you meant by wikipedia being impressed by awards, so I went to WP:NOTE and then found the link to Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and found that criterion number 6 there, about awards, does indeed make him notable. So you're right, and I'll remove the tag. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. Dicklyon 01:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

That seems about right. There are still some unverified claims (probably true, but more ref's would be good. I'm going to go ahead and mark them. (Although I don't think they'll need a {{Not verified}} banner). Cheers, --Bfigura ^(talk) 01:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Should be straigtforward to verify or eventually remove a few things.

One more thing: on reviewing the old discussion, I see that you (Bfigura) did mention WP:PROF, but I must have missed it, as I was still ignorant of that list of criteria. If either you or Ed had explained when I said "If any of them state that they strongly believe I am wrong, I won't object when they remove the notability tag," it could have saved us some trouble. Oh, well, all OK now. Dicklyon 01:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh well. Must have missed your comment too :) That page did get a little on the long side. Cheers, --Bfigura ^(talk) 02:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Footnote style

I just noticed after providing some references that I followed my usual habit of putting them after end punctuation, though the original creator of this article did it the other way around and objected to changing it. I'll be happy to fix it either way, but I'd like to hear whether others think it's best to do it my way, or keep it the way the article started. Dicklyon 02:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it matters much, since WP:CITE has examples going both ways. There seem to more examples of putting it after punctuation, so I'd go with that though, unless it would take a lot of effort to make it consistent. Cheers, --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to fix it. I reviewed WP:CITE again, and since it says Nature puts footnotes before end punctuation, I looked at some Nature articles to see. The first one I checked, an old one, had footnote superscripts after periods and comman. A more modern one did indeed have them before, but didn't have the brackets that wikipedia uses. So there's no way to capture the Nature style, and trying to do so introduces even bigger displacements of end punctuation. So, back to the more usual way, more like Chicago Manual of Style way, as I always do. No trouble. Dicklyon 03:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)