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 Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
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 is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics 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.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics 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.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics articles
Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
It is certainly interesting what happened. Unfortunately I'm not sure if we can get a balanced view here. We know Ted Hill's side of the story, but the other side pretends nothing happened - and, if we can trust the article that was linked, puts a lot of effort into making sure nothing is made public about it. --mfb (talk) 08:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
I should distribute trouts to various over-eager reverters here. While the content introduced by Cactusthorn was indeed problematic, they also explicitly pointed out in the edit summary that the article in The Scientist had been corrected, including its title - and that was also reverted, re-introducing statements that The Scientist no longer supports. I've fixed that and tried to better summarize the main points of controversy that The Scientist highlights. Huon (talk) 02:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
