Talk:Sander van der Linden

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sander van der Linden article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Science contributor101 (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has been banned and may therefore be reverted on sight. (Indefinitely blocked sockpuppet per SPI. See COIN case. Promotional SPA per contribs)
131.111.5.184 (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. (Promotional SPA per contribs)
131.111.5.55 (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. (Promotional SPA per contribs)
131.111.5.181 (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. (Promotional SPA per contribs)
131.111.5.183 (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. (Promotional SPA per contribs)
62.49.144.162 (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. (Promotional SPA per contribs)
80.177.151.42 (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. (Promotional SPA per contribs)
80.0.22.33 (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. (Promotional SPA per contribs)
Sciencemaniac101 (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has been banned and may therefore be reverted on sight. (Indefinitely blocked sockpuppet per SPI. See COIN case. Promotional SPA per contribs)
184.49.6.183 (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. (Promotional SPA per contribs)

The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Academic contributor (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has been banned and may therefore be reverted on sight. (Indefinitely blocked sockpuppet per SPI. See COIN case. Promotional SPA Per contribs)
FlynnBytes (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has been banned and may therefore be reverted on sight. (Blocked for socking Promotional SPA per contribs)
Canyouedithis? (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has been banned and may therefore be reverted on sight. (Blocked for socking; Promotional SPA per contribs)
Biodome fan (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has been banned and may therefore be reverted on sight. (Blocked for socking. Promotional SPA per contribs)

Secondary sources

Please let me know if I don't understand the nature of secondary sources well enough, e.g. references 23 to 27 are all secondary I thought. I can also help reword anything that sounds like advertising, please give me an example of what sounds inappropriate. I tried to write most of it in a descriptive neutral tone. User:Science_Contributor_101 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.22.33 (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read the COI guideline and start following it. That means declaring any connection you have with this person, and not editing directly about him.

Also if you want to be known as "Science_Contributor_101" please create an account. Anybody can write something, and write "User:Science_Contributor_101 after it; this is not a "signature". If you are the person who created the Science contributor101 account then please log into it, and use it.

Please clarify if you also created the Sciencemajor1 Sciencemaniac101 account and the Academic contributor account and the Maasuni that uploaded the picture here from der Linden's academic website. Jytdog (talk) 20:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC) (add Sciencemajor1 account Jytdog (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC))[reply]

I have clarified to multiple editors now that I simply work in the area of environmental social science so I know of the work of various notable scientists in this area but have no other connection to them. Yes I also created Sciencemaniac101 (because I lost my login info) and edit multiple people in this area (because I know about the field) not just van der Linden (for example, I also created Edward Maibach). Obviously I'm not very good at it as I don't understand how to sign a comment but thanks for your help in cleaning up the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Science contributor101 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you deleted the whole section on fake news though, it seems that is what makes him notable? I also spent a long time researching all of the awards, which is extremely common in acadmeic biographies, to establish notability. I would imagine people want to read facts about other people, such as what awards they have been given, what is said in the popular media about them, and what they are known for. You have just effectively deleted all of that. I must dispute all of these edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Science contributor101 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will be happy to speak with you after you act ethically and disclose your connections with a) the subject of this article; and b) the other accounts that have edited the same way as you. This is a very basic matter of academic integrity. Very. Basic. Jytdog (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For example, see https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Steven_Pinker

It says, "one of the world's most influential intellectuals" but no source is provided! I actually provided factual and objective references for establishing notability for van der Linden & others, how's that for integrity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Science contributor101 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC) Where do I declare that I'm familiar with the work and decided to create a bio?[reply]

See message above; there are two questions - about the other accounts (all of them) and this person. You can reply right here. I will not be replying further until you disclose, as you should have been doing all along. This is all very distasteful. Jytdog (talk) 21:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is distasteful is that you randomly delete factual content, very disrespectful of people who spent good time writing that stuff. I already answered your questions, I do not know the few people I have written about directly, I clearly know of their work, I read their work, research their background (as do thousands of other people), but am not family nor a colleague or any direct relation. If you don't like my writing, you should have someone who frequently edits scientific biographies fix this page up rather than just deleting stuff, anyone can do that, takes no editorial skill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.22.33 (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2018‎

I agree wholeheartedly with Jytdog. No point in further discussion unless/until you disclose your affiliation with Dr. van der Linden. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry

The subject's Wikipedia sockpuppetry has become the topic of discussion on Twitter and a substack article by investigative journalist Paul D. Thacker. There doesn't seem to be a consensus on Substack as a reputable source and indicative notability, so I'll leave it for others to discuss and decide. -Reagle (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also getting attention here https://dailysceptic.org/2024/02/23/cambridge-university-misinformation-researcher-caught-lying-and-spreading-misinformation-1/

Gilgamesh4 (talk) 10:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]