Jump to content

Talk:Diederik Stapel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Be careful with the numbers of PhD's affected. This case is breathtaking enough without exaggerations. What are the facts? Please count along with me on page 6 (last para) and 7 of the official interim report (http://www.tilburguniversity.edu/nl/nieuws-en-agenda/commissie-levelt/interim-rapport.pdf). Even without any Dutch language skills, you can count 19 names that are listed, not 21 (take care: one is listed twice). Of those, 7 are cleared of all suspicions (to be precise: one in the last para on p. 6, six more in first sentence of the last para. on p. 7). 19-7=12, not 14 as it says in all the mainstream media.

Someone seems to have made up two entire PhD’s!

If we look more closely at what is said about those 12. The degree of suspicion varies quite a lot upon close reading. -For 3, there is a factual statement that “one or more chapters” contain fake data (these dissertations contain 4, 4, and 5 chapters with data respectively) -For 2, it says there are signs that fake data may have been included in “minor parts”. -For the remaining 7, there are “doubts.” It says that in some cases data were given to PhD students by Stapel, in other cases the data had been “in some stages of the analysis” in the hands of Stapel.

Thanks for the info. I will have a look. (I can read Dutch) It would be easier if you got a userid. It takes only seconds to register for a userid. I can see that you are editing from the university of Groningen. So, if you have a wikipedia:conflict of interest then let us know. By the way, I could use some help to translate the pertinent sentences in the references from Dutch to English. Officially this is recommended, especially for a wp:BLP. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources. Andries (talk) 12:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Selected papers

[edit]

I think we should not ad a list of papers of this guy until we know which ones are fake and which ones are real. Currently there are no reliable sources that make clear which article is what. As such, WP does not have business to publish them as genuine articles, even with a disclaimer that they might be fake. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The reader is informed where and what he published, so this is added information. In addition it has been announced that it will take years before a list is published which publications are fake and which are real. We cannot wait that long. See http://www.omroepbrabant.nl/?anp/311011212592/Volledig+onderzoek+Stapel+duurt+nog+jaren.aspx Title in english "Complete investigaton Stapel will take years/Volledig onderzoek Stapel duurt nog jaren"Andries (talk) 20:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"WP does not have business to publish them as genuine articles" Anybody who takes a few seconds to read knows that they are suspect. Andries (talk) 20:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The argument that we cannot wait is bogus. WP does not publish because we cannot wait, it should be the other way round. Currently, the commission not even has published the list of the 30 papers they know already are based on fake info. The problem is even bigger because it is a list of 'selected articles'. Originally selected because they were so good? As long as there is no clarity about it, we run the risk of serious BLP issues by labeling 'selected articles' as status unknown. Until we know what articles are fake and not, we cannot arbitrarily pick and choose some articles are put in the category unknown, because what does that imply about the articles NOT listed? Are those fake or real? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kim van der Linde wrote "WP does not have business to publish them as genuine articles" They are not presented as genuine: anybody who takes a few seconds to read knows that they are suspect. Andries (talk) 20:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The selection implies nothing about the status of the articles not listed. I do not see any problem with that. Why would that be a problem? Andries (talk) 21:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I really do not see a BLP problem. Please explain.Andries (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Help me out please. What is the criterion to include these 'selected papers'?-- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know. I think I copied it somewhere if I remember it well. I only added one prominent article in science magazine. Andries (talk) 21:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, what is the reason these articles are included and not the 100+ others? Are these the only undetermined articles? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That would make the list too long. This is the custom, as far as I know. Andries (talk) 21:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All his 130+ articles are undetermined. Andries (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are not. 29 or 30 have been determined to be based on fake data (which ones?), an unknown (0-??) has been determined to be okay. Do you knwo which of them are undetermined? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We only know that 30 or more are faked data. I do not know which ones, so all 130+ are undetermined status for me. Andries (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal opinion is irrelevant. Some of them are NOT undetermined, just not published in reliable sources, while we do know from reliable sources that they exist. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even bother to read the article? From the article "The University of Tilburg will only tell which publications are based on faked or manipulated data after the extensive report is ready." Andries (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, we have no way of knowing. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is the point you are trying to make? Andries (talk) 21:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That we have no way of knowing which articles are fake, not fake, or not yet checked. And as such, we have no business to label them as belong to either category. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So do you want to remove the comments "Undetermined status"? That is acceptable for me, though I prefer not to remove it.Andries (talk) 21:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I want to remove all articles for which we can not verify what their status is. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unacceptable for me. I still do not see any good reason for removal. Andries (talk) 21:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, we need to get some others to chime in then. I posted the issue at the BLP noticeboard for wider comments. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to think that a selection of articles is important to give the reader a sense of what and where he published. Andries (talk) 21:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand the factual accuracy warning for the list of publications. There seems to be no dispute that these publications appeared in journals. Andries (talk) 22:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion above. We do NOT know which of the articles are undetermined, which are fake and which are genuine. As such, the listing of the articles under undetermined is a factually problem. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand it at all. Andries (talk) 22:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The publications are real, even if some of them will get retracted later. Andries (talk) 22:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I get that you do not get the issue. Lets try it this way. What reliable source shows that these articles are "undetermined" instead of falsifications or genuine articles? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
None, I just removed that comment which I only added after you removed the list for the first time. Andries (talk) 22:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, part one resolved. Part two. Why are these specific articles choosen to be representative, especially in context with the material in the previous sections, which is primarily about the falsifications? Does inclusion in the selective list means that these are fakes or genuines or what?-- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I already answered these questions. I did not even consciously choose the list. Inclusion or exclusion does not mean a statement about the status of the article. Andries (talk) 23:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the section. Please see discussion at WP:BLPN.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-added it - reliable sources say that those papers were published - that's the start and end of what the sources *currently* say. Even if in the future, the report says that papers X,Y and Z contained faked data, the papers would still exist, and if they were redrawn by the journals concerned, we'd note that. That's the start and end of what can be done with the sources currently available, we don't edit based on what a source might say sometime in the future. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial expression of concern

[edit]

The comment on the "Coping with chaos" paper should be updated: Science, where it was published, has issued an Editorial expression of concern. This is essentially a warning to not use the paper, as there is a good chance it could be retracted. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 21:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Returning the Amsterdam Ph.D.

[edit]

Hi, I have slightly reworked this bit. According to Dutch law, someone holding a doctorate cannot return it - its fate is to be decided by the university alone, so Stapel's returning the piece of paper with his qualification on it does not mean anything. Compare this to the Zu Guttenberg case in Germany, where a similar point became relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilja.nieuwland (talk • contribs) 09:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't mention whether he's returning his salary and pension.

99.231.114.245 (talk) 21:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Diederik Stapel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A separate article for the scientific misconduct case

[edit]

I am going to create a separate article for Stapel case of scientific misconduct in order to allow better coverage of the case and its consequences without violating WP:BLP too much. Discussion about a similar case here Talk:Schön_scandal#Requested_move_05_July_2014. I also thought "case of scientific misconduct" sounds more encyclopedic than "scandal", otherwise I would have chosen to follow the naming logic of the Schön case. --Qtea (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Diederik Stapel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Family etc.

[edit]
Re: 
Stapel was born to ... and married...

UNDUE. Who cares. Let us remove it.

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Diederik_Stapel&oldid=1210541475"