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 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 has been
automatically rated by a
bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the
Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the
project page where you can join the project or contribute to the
discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands articles
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
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
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 Lindeat venus20:47, 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 Lindeat venus20:57, 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
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 Lindeat venus21:21, 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
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 Lindeat venus22:18, 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 Lindeat venus22:35, 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 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
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.
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.
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.
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.