Talk:Martin Nowak

Apparent copyright violation

I've removed what appears to be a direct copy of this page, which clearly displays a copyright notice and is not credited as a source. A quick look at the Wayback Machine shows the external webpage existed before the text was added to this article, so it appears that some improper copying has taken place here. The material can be re-added if it is appropriately reworded or fully quoted and given proper attribution. Franamax (talk) 18:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

This material actually came into the article from Nowak's biography on the PED website, which is credited as a source. I strongly suspect thirteen.org (of which I hadn't heard) got it from Martin's CV. Although formulaicly the Harvard CV asserts copyright this is definitely fair use. NBeale (talk) 05:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

NBeale, I am not interested in this article enough to sort it out completely, but it sounds like you are copying verbatim material from some PED site which has also been copied verbatim by thirteen.org. That suggests your copying is not in violation of the copyrights of thirteen.org. However, it sounds like your copying is plagiarism in the sense that it does not show by use of quotation marks which passages are verbatim copies of some source. It could be fair use to quote that much, but you have to put the passages in quotes or it is plagiarism. (Note/apology: I could perhaps be a bit off-base here, because I have not traced out where the specific language came from.) doncram (talk) 09:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Really this is not a problem. I know Martin well, and I'm quite sure he does not object. But to make people happy I have also done a few tidies. NBeale (talk) 13:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

EO Wilson paper

I've put in a reference to this very important paper which has just come out as the cover paper in Nature. I know and collaborate with Martin, but I do think this is (a) important and (b) NPoV. NBeale (talk) 09:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I have included a note and refs to the criticisms of this paper.vHF 152.88.168.51 (talk) 13:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Supercooperators

I've added a section on Supercooperators because any book that gets a substantial review in Nature is IMHO notable enough for this. Also Milinski says something quite important about the NTW paper. However I am a friend of Martin's and if people feel this is insufficiently NPOV please amend. There is lots more to be said about Supercooperators and if someone else were to make an article about the book it wouldn't be a bad idea. NBeale (talk) 07:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

List of doctoral students

Do we really need so many names in the "list of doctoral students" section, especially when most of these people are not really notable scientists (yet) with their own Wikipedia entries? I would propose deleting most names except those who are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashujo (talk • contribs) 18:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Martin Nowak. 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/20070123171823/http://www.templeton.org/about_us/who_we_are/board_of_advisors/ to http://www.templeton.org/about_us/who_we_are/board_of_advisors/

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) 09:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Martin Nowak. 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/20061211093716/http://www.ped.fas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/ to http://www.ped.fas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080516005403/http://www.ped.fas.harvard.edu/news/PSPaward_2006.pdf to http://www.ped.fas.harvard.edu/news/PSPaward_2006.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061209165413/http://www.ped.fas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/index.html to http://www.ped.fas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/index.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) 07:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

On leave from Harvard

Martin Nowak is on leave because of previous contacts with Jeffrey Epstein, according to the Harvard Crimson. It's too early for edits and the story will likely evolve in the next few weeks, but we should keep an eye out for it.--Raxu360 (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

BLP and Epstein

Article says: "Nowak played a role in substantiating Epstein's false claims to MIT administrators that he had given tens of millions of dollars to Harvard", with a link to Wired.

Wired says only that Nowak "helped" Epstein tell that story to MIT, based on a linked Harvard report (and an earlier MIT report it does not link to) and does not specify what help MIT says Nowak provided. In particular, Wired says nothing to indicate that Nowak lied to or misled anyone at MIT about amounts of money Harvard derived from Epstein, or otherwise acted badly. There is no other reference to Nowak in the Wired piece, which is about Epstein.

The article at the moment insinuates in Wikivoice that Nowak was a party to Epstein's misrepresentations to MIT, which seems like a blatant BLP violation if Wired is all there is to go by. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 23:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

The MIT report does not refer to Nowak as far as my searches of the PDF ("Nowa", "Nova", "Martin") can tell.

http://factfindingjan2020.mit.edu/files/MIT-report.pdf?200117

Nor do the appearances of "MIT" in the Harvard report involve Nowak. https://ogc.harvard.edu/files/ogc/files/report_concerning_jeffrey_e._epsteins_connections_to_harvard_university.pdf 73.89.25.252 (talk) 23:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence due to the above findings in the reports. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Just to nail this down, from the Harvard report one can infer the underlying facts.

• Epstein donated 9.6 million dollars, including the money that established Nowak's institute, and further introduced two donors to Harvard who gave another 9.5 million (7.5 of it to Nowak's program).
• "The Harvard Crimson and other sources reported at the time that Epstein’s 6.5 million gift was part of a 30M pledge from Epstein" but no record of such a pledge was found by Harvard.
• Epstein introduced a big donor, Leon and Deborah Black and their foundation, to the research by Nowak and another professor, leading to the above millions in donations to Nowak's institute, but the Blacks continued to donate up to a total of 20 million dollars to various parts of Harvard "over the past decade" according to their representative (p.14). The report is dated May 2020 and the first donation from the Blacks engineered by Epstein was in late 2011.
• "At the publicist’s request, and with Professor Nowak’s approval, the Program’s website added links to two websites maintained by Epstein’s foundations. The website for one of those websites, ... falsely stated (and continues to falsely state) that Epstein’s foundation “established the Program for Evolutionary Dynamics at Harvard University with a $35 million gift to the university.” (p.21)
• "Epstein plainly sought to use Harvard’s web domain to improve his image. Professor Nowak’s decision to accede to Epstein’s request that PED create a page on the PED/Harvard website featuring Epstein’s photograph and links to Epstein’s own website permitted Epstein to use Harvard’s web domain for self-promotion. It also enabled Epstein to spread false information about the level of his giving to Harvard."

So, Epstein directly and through his friends gave 18-30 million to Harvard depending on how you count, used the webpage links from the Harvard program he had established to draw attention to his claim to have given 35 million, and may have used that in his contact with MIT. Eventually with the help of the same friends, Epstein gave 8 million dollars to MIT, and at a faster rate than the donations to Harvard ( see https epstein-ranking dot xyz, Wikipedia does not allow a direct link). It's not clear here whether Epstein was deceptive at all in presenting himself as potentially a donor of tens of millions of dollars to MIT, and Nowak's role is in putting links on a site, not "substantiating Epstein's false claims to MIT administrators".

Wired's version, that Nowak helped Epstein spread a false story, is also stretching the truth. Reporter privilege is that people rarely dig to check the details so any equivocal insinuation will do. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

To seal the deal, if you go through all occurrences of "Harvard" in the MIT report, they describe several people getting the impression of huge gifts from Epstein to Harvard ("25M center" and "30M+"), but based on media reports, their own Google searches, and conversations with people who are clearly not Nowak (e.g. "tech billionaires", a professor at Harvard Law School, and a Linkedin executive). The number on Epstein's site linked from Nowak's institute was 35 million. The MIT report neither mentions that figure nor has any indication that the institute's webpage was part of the information chain from Epstein to anyone at MIT. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 03:57, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Finally, in case it becomes relevant here or at WP:RSNP, the paragraph in Wired (formerly) cited in the article reads as follows: When Ito and other MIT administrators first heard from Epstein, they believed that he had given tens of millions of dollars to Harvard. According to the new report, Epstein spread that false story with the help of PED director Martin Nowak. (Nowak is on paid leave while the university reviews whether he violated its standards of conduct.). Article URL: https://www.wired.com/story/for-jeffrey-epstein-mit-was-just-a-safety-school/ . 73.89.25.252 (talk) 04:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Lead Paragraph Citations

• IMO article lead includes career discipline information well developed in the article body with apparently appropriate citations.
• However article lead sentences omit citations possibly leading casual readers to form Wikipedia:BLPRS concerns.
• I suggest repeating citations within the article lead improves the article's credibility.
• Does Wikipedia policy or other consensus apply in such a case?

Conrad T. Pino (talk) 09:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Removal of Epstein content

I have made some edits to get this article in a better state and plan to continue working on it. However, examining the article's history, I have noticed that over the past few months, a series of anonymous IPs have gradually removed content relating to the disciplinary actions against Nowak due to his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. This is a WP:NPOV violation as these events were extensively covered in reliable sources. I will restore this content. Astaire (talk) 09:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

It's pretty absurd that all of it was removed. I've added it back in from a previous version. Gumshoe2 (talk) 13:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Violation of Wikipedia BLP policy

It appears that recent edits to the website have significantly highlighted the association between Nowak and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. This action violates Wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) policy and may stem from personal animosity towards Nowak. The current introductory paragraph offers a well-rounded summary of Nowak's career. 2A01:E0A:808:6FB0:5826:E7F6:D4BA:1979 (talk) 15:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I've restored content to the lede. Please be specific about which claims you find concerning. I don't think any of the content in this edit should be controversial, it all appears clearly in reliable sources. Gumshoe2 (talk) 20:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I've also restored content to the Career section. Again, be specific about what parts you consider to be BLP violations. Gumshoe2 (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

In the future, I'd recommend that someone add material on Harvard's report finding that Nowak "had facilitated Epstein’s efforts to use ties to the prestigious university Harvard as a tool to rehabilitate his image," to quote The Guardian. Another ref is The Harvard Crimson. For BLP purposes, any such material would have to presented carefully.

(I think such material was previously on this page, but was taken out at some point) Gumshoe2 (talk) 22:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

It's worth noting that even Nowak has explicitly recognized the relevance of Epstein for his career. The following excerpt from his book Supercooperators (published in 2011) is about his first visit to Little St James:

The phone rang one day, when I was at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton. Within a minute or two I found myself explaining my research to a stranger who had introduced himself as Jeffrey Epstein. He turned out to be a Wall Street tycoon. The next day, his office wired my administrator a generous donation to fund my research.

... Some time later, he invited me to visit him again. A female member of Jeffrey’s household rang to make the arrangements. There would be a ticket to fly me to San Juan, Puerto Rico. From there, I would be picked up by helicopter. She casually added that she would be the pilot. Now I felt like an extra in a James Bond movie.

... Every day I breakfasted with Jeffrey as the sun rose. We would have endless conversations about science, about my work, what it meant and where it was headed. On the last day of my visit, Jeffrey said he would build an institute for me. In 2003, after negotiations between him and our then president Larry Summers, I was able to set up the Program for Evolutionary Dynamics, PED.

... On his island paradise, Jeffrey had plenty of time to think. Several years later as we both sat at the same stone desk, he returned to one of the biggest questions of all: “What is life?” Yet he put this Biggest of Big Questions in a more interesting way. He added: “Life is the solution. But what is the problem?”

And from New York Magazine in 2002: "Jeffrey has the mind of a physicist. It’s like talking to a colleague in your field ... Sometimes he applies what we talk about to his investments. Sometimes it’s for his own curiosity. He has changed my life. Because of his support, I feel I can do anything I want." Gumshoe2 (talk) 05:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Continued violation of Wikipedia BLP policy

Nowak's fame derives from his seminal contributions to the field of mathematical biology, his appointments at Oxford/Princeton/Harvard, and his books, especially ‘Supercooperators’. The lead paragraph should reflect this. Incorporating the Epstein affair in the lead paragraph, especially given its discussion in the Career section, is an attempt to unfairly associate Nowak's name with Epstein's crimes, overshadowing the significant scientific and religious pursuits that made Nowak worthy of having a Wiki page in the first place.

The Wikipedia BLP policy explicitly cautions against such edits: ‘Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content.’ By emphasizing the Epstein affair excessively by adding it to the lead paragraph, GumShoe2 has breached this policy.

Moreover, the insistence of GumShoe2 on adding the Epstein affair to the lead paragraph of Nowak’s personal wiki page raises questions about potential jealousy or animosity towards Martin Nowak. If such motivations are at play, it violates the following rule: ‘Wikipedia is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities’.

Notably, GumShoe2 has previously received a warning for disruptive editing, suggesting a propensity to misunderstand or flout Wiki policies, especially when it comes to Wikipedia’s standards of neutrality. 2A01:E0A:808:6FB0:3467:956:6743:2C0F (talk) 04:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Nowak is a notable scientist, but I think he's certainly more notable as one of Epstein's closest contacts in the academic world, see e.g. this article in The Verge.

It's clear we won't come to agreement here, so I've opened a case on the BLP noticeboard.

(I was previously spuriously accused of disruptive editing for this and this, I can't recall it happening otherwise!) Gumshoe2 (talk) 05:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Nowak's contributions to mathematical biology have garnered him a well-established Wikipedia page long before the Epstein affair came to light.

In 20 years, what will be remembered of Nowak are his contributions to mathematical biology, not the fact that Harvard accepted a donation on his behalf from someone who later turned out to be a sex criminal.

Some individuals seem to take sick pleasure in sensationalizing the Epstein affair and attempting to insinuate guilt by association through the mention of his name in connection with others. This behavior not only lacks ethical integrity but also runs counter to Wikipedia's guidelines. Fortunately, Wikipedia is not a platform for tabloid-style content.

I have taken the initiative to remove the paragraph related to Epstein from the lead section and await feedback from the BLP noticeboard." 2A01:E0A:808:6FB0:7440:DE98:52C2:F32 (talk) 14:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Nobody is doubting that Nowak is a significant mathematical biologist. But your preferred "Harvard accepted a donation on his behalf from someone who later turned out to be a sex criminal" is a really poor summary of Nowak's association with Epstein. I suggest you read Harvard's report, which was widely covered in the press. There is significant material that isn't even presently on the wiki page, such as Nowak's use of Epstein to mislead the Templeton foundation about the source of funds. (See pages 15-17 of the report.) Gumshoe2 (talk) 15:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I read the report and still fail to see how its relevance is equivalent to a lifetime career with 40 papers in Nature and Science and multiple prestigious awards.

Why do you insist so much on putting it in the lead when it is clearly discussed below?

I suspect you have some personal animosity towards Nowak, which makes you unfit to edit his wiki in the first place. 2A01:E0A:808:6FB0:7440:DE98:52C2:F32 (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Please be aware of the three revert rule. Gumshoe2 (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, the three revert rule has the following exemption:

X

"Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy."

Since your edits are biased, I had to remove them again...

Please read carefully Wiki policies before editing again! 2A01:E0A:808:6FB0:5546:1C39:3117:E320 (talk) 05:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Your removals have been reverted by five different editors; it seems that you are the only one who thinks the material is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced. If you are concerned about my editing or the content of this page, perhaps you should start a discussion on a noticeboard. Your removals are clearly not being productive here. Gumshoe2 (talk) 14:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)