This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Meredith Whittaker article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
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 sourcedmust 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.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
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 within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science 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.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers 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.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour 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.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women 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.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Google, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Google and related topics 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.GoogleWikipedia:WikiProject GoogleTemplate:WikiProject GoogleGoogle articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
This article was created or improved as part of the Women in Red project. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
Putting this to rest re: WP:POV pushing on a Discretionary Sanctions pageedit
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Ziggy89, B17k17r17h and IP 72.28.93.169 I have added authoritative WP:RS that establish the co-founding and founding of the two labs/research groups. Lets put this to rest now. ANd please avoid edits that push an agenda or point of view, per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. These edits you have added are not in keeping with that principle, and frankly border on conspiracy theory. Do note that this page has a Discretionary Sanctions template (above) which means that Administrators can act quickly to prevent you from editing this page in the future and/or ban you. --Theredproject (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
Theredproject The sources you added for Google Open Research are not WP:RS. "In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible." This does not apply to these news articles, which mention Google Open Research in passing only and in the same language as her self-provided bio. A source from, say, Google Research would be WP:RS (even if not for the claims at googlersagainstdeceit.blogspot.com).
As for M-Lab, yes that source appears to now exist; it was added on December 13, four days before your recent edit, and the same day as her appearance at NeurIPS. Given that timing and the low quality of the citations you added, your accusation that the edits 'border on conspiracy theory' appears to be in particularly bad faith, as is threatening me (and the authors of the more recent edits) with sanctions because of a 'Discretionary Sanctions' template you added yourself after reverting my edits in September. This violates multiple principles of etiquette and exposes you to the same potential sanctions.
At the very least, the claim of 'founding Google Open Research' should be removed as it is not verifiable. If you find this objectionable, I suggest dispute resolution via 3O or DRN may be appropriate until an authoritative source can be established.
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Can somebody verify why a research professor would be called a "distinguished research scientist" ? Is there any source for this claim ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8802:5600:7850:4CF0:9996:BBC0:75A8 (talk) 18:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
Per this press release it is a title that they give to some researchers. The assertion that she is (was?) one can be found in a number of secondary sources, but neither this article nor her NYU page make that claim currently. Stellaathena (talk) 06:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
.jpg){kind=small}
