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 Maryland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Maryland 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.MarylandWikipedia:WikiProject MarylandTemplate:WikiProject MarylandMaryland articles
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
Controversies section removed by living subject[edit]
A well sourced and referenced section on controversies surrounding the subject's research was removed by the living subject of this biography in Sept 2010. As I understand, this violates Wikipedia's TOS. Although biographies of living persons do need to be handled with great care, I don't believe it is permissible for subjects to remove peer-reviewed criticisms of their work and comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.46.56.73 (talk) 02:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is untrue. Though we in general discourage involved persons editing articles, they aren't forbidden to do so. In any case, the material removed looks questionable. It is based on primary sources, with no evidence of notability, and as such any Wikipedia editor would have been correct in removing it. I am going to remove the 'neutrality' tag. Please do not replace it without further discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, this doesn't look like the right decision. The removal of published critiques of the scholar's work by the scholar himself does look like a conflict of interest. That probably shouldn't have been done and I think perhaps the POV tag returned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.129.197 (talk) 21:32, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]