Talk:John Funder

Ascertaining information

To put an end to this nonsense,I decided cto ring up the Vice Chancellor's office at Monash from Singapore where I am.Prof.Larrkin's office tells me that they are aware of the information on the page but despite repeated questioning refused to say that the information was in any way inaccurate.Thus we have to oprate on the premise that the information is accurate.(Vr 11:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC))

John Funder

thanks for your note.Actually teh encyclopedia does cite a source-www.scientificmisconduct.com

 I tried visiting the site but could not.Howver I did ring Vice Chancellor of Monash Univesrity's office.Prof.Larkin's office admitted they were aware of thsi information as well as www.scientificmisconduct.com but despite my repeated prodding,did not call it inaccurate.I shall try visiting the source again but I felt given the facts were in the Vice Chancellor's knowledge and not contradicted it had to be true.I shall be of course guided by your advice but this anonymous user has been vanadalising so many other pages besides this-was blocked for three months in November and actually used 3 different ID's all relating to Monash University.I ahve a feeling it is Funder himself.I shall welcome your advice.(Vr 06:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC))

thanks for your note.Actually the encyclopedia does cite a source-www.scientificmisconduct.com

 I tried visiting the site but could not.Howver I did ring Vice Chancellor of Monash Univesrity's office.Prof.Larkin's office admitted they were aware of thsi information as well as www.scientificmisconduct.com but despite my repeated prodding,did not call it inaccurate.I shall try visiting the source again but I felt given the facts were in the Vice Chancellor's knowledge and not contradicted it had to be true.I shall be of course guided by your advice but this anonymous user has been vanadalising so many other pages besides this-was blocked for three months in November and actually used 3 different ID's all relating to Monash University.I ahve a feeling it is Funder himself.I shall welcome your advice.(Vr 06:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC))

Please read WP:BLP

Unsourced and poorly sourced negative information concerning a living person is NOT permitted on Wikipedia. These three sources - [1], [2], and [3] - are not considered reliable sources. In the case of the first [4], it is just another internet encyclopedia and it cites a website that no longer exists. The second [5] is citing a user-submitted comment to a news article. The third [6] is a blog entry. These are not considered reliable sources for any article, much less for an article about a living person. As for the book that Delhite (talk · contribs) cited, that might be a reliable source, but we need to know how much of that potentially inflammatory paragraph is actually mentioned in the book, as opposed to the book merely mentioning John Funder in passing. Please, to everyone editing this article, read WP:BLP and do not add inflammatory, poorly sourced, information concerning a living person. --BigDT 01:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring

Current edit warring by editors who repeatedly remove or replace items - regardless of the veracity of the information - can blocked by an admin - either 'side' can take note of this. SatuSuro 22:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

RFC Comments

I wanted to give a little history here. I originally became involved with this article while responding to a request on WP:RFP to protect the page from "vandalism" by an IP user. I examined the page and found the the IP user was correctly removing poorly sourced information from the article. Essentially the same paragraph was previously sourced using links to a blog, a user-posted reply to an article, and an internet encyclopedia that itself was unsourced. Since then, the passage has been sourced with this book [7]. Upon my request, Delhite gave me the exact quotation from the book that he is using as a source. See here [8] for that passage.

My inclination, after much consideration over the last few weeks, and my own independent research, is to believe that this should NOT be considered an acceptable source under WP:BLP. The book offers no context for the anecdote and its place in a biographical article is dubious. I did, on the other hand, find this document [9], which discusses accusations that Funder and Copolov made against a Dr. Prasad ... and this article takes the position that their accusations were correct. In any event, we don't even have any way of knowing if this is the incident that the book is talking about or if it is some other incident. Because the book gives no context, we have no way of knowing whether this is a key event in Funder's life or if it is a minor incident in his career that nobody not directly involved in the situation would care about. In short, unless there is reason to the contrary, I am inclined to agree with the IP user, the material should be removed unless a good source can be found that provides some context. --BigDT 03:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Again

I see someone is once again trying to insert this claim. In addition to all BigDT's comments above, which still apply, I note that the book offered as a source is indexed by Google Books at [10]. Delhite (now indef blocked as an abusive sock) claims that the passage in question is on pages 35-36; page 35 is available as part of the preview and has nothing to do with allegations of scientific misconduct; it's about segregation in American schools. Furthermore a search reveals that neither the names of John Funder [11] nor David Copolov [12] appear anywhere in the book in question. It appears that the full story of this bizarre incident can be found in this Australian radio documentary, as well as the BMJ article cited by Big DT above. The unfortunate psychiatrist who was found guilty of misconduct by Funder seems to have a long history of making groundless claims to have been vindicated by some court or other (see the radio documentary); with the amount of misinformation flying around about this case nothing should be said about it unless it meets a very high standard of BLP sourcing. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 07:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Funder. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060819072428/http://www.haroldmitchellfoundation.com.au/viewBiography.asp?id=11 to http://www.haroldmitchellfoundation.com.au/viewBiography.asp?id=11
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060820153052/http://cera.unimelb.edu.au/aboutus/staff/bio/funder.html to http://cera.unimelb.edu.au/aboutus/staff/bio/funder.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 19:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)