Talk:Dan James Pantone

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

2006 Notability discussion[edit]

2006 Notability discussion

See the notability guideline for individuals. While I'm sure Dr. Pantone is an excellent scientist, this article may not suffiicently assert the his notability to stay in Wikipedia. The sentence, "Dr. Pantone has established his notability by publishing scientific publications ranging from the biological control of pests to the conservation biology of endangered species" does not necessarily make it so.

The list of papers may not necessarily establish notability. The whole area of notability is murky and the standards keep shifting back and forward. To muddy the water further, see this unofficial essay on notability in academia and science:

I encourage the editors of this article to find references meeting the reputable sources guideline that will definitively demonstrate Dr. Pantone's notability. --A. B. 03:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the "Professor Test" of notability found at:
"If the individual is more well known and more published than an average college professor, they can and should be included."
Guettarda made this test as seen below and at:
Based on Wikipedia notability guidelines, Dr. Pantone passes the notability test as shown below. Matses 12:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an excerpt of the "Is this botanist notable?" discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants posted by Matses 12:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC):[reply]
Here's the full report from ISI
21 pubs, 12 first authored (not counting one correction) - first authored pubs marked with *. These are in reverse chronological order. The number of citations (in other ISI indexed pubs) is listed first. IF is the impact factor of the journal
2* (Journal of Nematology IF 0.810) - 1987
0* (Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science IF 0.759)
9* (Weed Science IF 1.536)
11* (Weed Science IF 1.536)
12* (Weed Science IF 1.536)
0* (Correction:Weed Science IF 1.536)
16* (Crop Science IF 0.925)
11* (Weed Science IF 1.536)
32* (Journal of Environmental Quality IF 2.121)
3* (Weed Technology IF 0.749)
41 (Agronomy Journal IF 1.473)
0 (Agronomy Journal IF 1.473)
7 (Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science IF 1.147)
11* (Biological Conservation IF 2.581)
1* (Fundamental and Applied Nematology)
7* (Journal of Environmental Quality IF 2.121)
8 (Transactions of the ASAE IF 0.664)
4 (Weed Technology IF 0.749)
1 (Biocontrol Science and Technology IF 0.857)
0 (Biocontrol Science and Technology IF 0.857)
0 (Pest Management Science)- 2005
Based on this I'd say he passes WP:PROF, since 21 pubs puts him above the "average" professor (since the guideline uses the American definition of Assistant Prof or better). Guettarda 05:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See the full "Is this botanist notable?" discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants; some botanists agree with Guettarda's assessment, others disagree. One also notes some limitations in using ISI's IF ratings to assess botanists' notability. --A. B. (talk) 14:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A. B., this is simply not true. No one specifically disagreed with Guettarda's assessment that the author met the WP guidelines. With respect to "IF ratings," they were not used in the assessment; only the number of publications were used. In addition, the list of publications is not complete and lacked many important publications by the author in the fields of entomology, nematology and plant pathology. Moreover, the author never claimed to be a botanist, rather an ecologist. How can you dispute the WP Guidelines for Wikipedia:Notability (people) that clearly state that if a an individual is "more published than an average college professor, they can and should be included." You are wrong to put this subject on the WikiProject Plants and Peru pages and make a public debate about it. The scientist is "notable" using WP Guidelines. Matses 17:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

August 2012 Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard discussion[edit]

See this discussion:

--A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

August 2012 BLP discussion is now been archived at:
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Carbon Cowboy" spam and defamation[edit]

This article, as well as those of two journalists -- Stephen Rice (journalist) and Liam Bartlett -- were attacked with defamation spam today:

Those IPs trace to Australia as do two more from earlier defamatory drive-bys:

The spam domain includes defamatory material on Pantone as well as material defending his nemesis, David John Nilsson, Australia's so-called "Carbon Cowboy". See the August BLP noticeboard discussion (above) for more background on this. The two journalists produced a television feature critical of Nillson and his dealing with Pantone and Amazonian tribes.

The site's owner claims:

"My name is Edward Warden a retired Australian Queensland CIB Policeman. I am devoted to bring Dan Pantone and his associates to justice where ever they may be hiding."

In accordance with our policies on spam and defamation, I will blacklist this domain. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I expect further BLP attacks; I recommend keeping a close eye on this article as well as on Stephen Rice (journalist) and Liam Bartlett.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That domain is now blacklisted on this Wikipedia; if it shows up on any other Wikimedia projects, it should be globally blacklisted at: :::*meta:Talk:Spam blacklist
I still expect further defamation problems and possibly other spam domains.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dan_James_Pantone&oldid=1201639397"