Talk:Ariel Fernandez

Misconduct finding

This page has had a contentious history (), to put it mildly, including edits and sockpuppetting by the page subject. With the advent now of a legal determination of scientific misconduct, , I'm thinking that the page should be rewritten, to make that misconduct more prominent, and to shorten the things like awards and publications that make it look falsely like a typical academic bio page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

 Done: . --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

No. Picking and choosing quotes from a court document is inappropriate under WP:BLPPRIMARY if those specific quotes are not reported in secondary sources. Further, you are putting way too much weight on the Retraction Watch, a disputed source BTW, and on Rice finding misconduct previously when you don't even mention that he disputed it, settled with the university, and somehow got money out of it. Further career impact is what's mostly should be focused on. So an administrative judge found misconduct but all she could do is recommend that sanctions be affirmed. This is not a judicial decision but an administrative review. Were the sanctions issued by HHS since it's been a year since that recommendation? Why is this blog now reporting on a recommendation decision from May 2025? Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:42, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

I think it was recently released. The article states While the ALJ’s decision is dated May 22, 2025, the findings were not posted on the HHS website until February [2026].

Retraction Watch is now a serious news publication like Bellingcat with staff journalists . The article was written by Alicia Gallegos, who is not one of the editors in chief, so I think it is perfectly usable in the article to report on the undisputed findings of the court. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:54, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

The question then is how much weight should we put on one article in proportion to the rest of his biography when NPF demands no less of a standard than WP:PUBLICFIGURE which demands multiple reliable sources. I don't count the ALJ recommendation as one. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:03, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Retraction Watch, a disputed source Retraction Watch has repeatedly been found to be a reliable source, and that reliable source not only quoted from the ORI report but directly referenced the Rice investigation (e.g, that Fernandez committed “repeated, deliberate acts of research misconduct”). If Fernandez is notable for anything at this point, it is the findings of research misconduct, and it is WP:UNDUE to ignore or otherwise downplay that reliably sourced fact. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 22:59, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

I also think it is entirely appropriate to use Retraction Watch as a source for direct quotes from the administrative judge, as well as from Fernandez. I'm all in favor of complying with BLP, but we should not misrepresent the page subject as a typical academic scientist. As JoJo correctly says, his main reason for notability is now the long record of misconduct findings.

There's been a lot of back-and-forth on the page in the past hour or so, but one thing I'd like to discuss is that I had created a subsection titled "Misconduct findings", that was reverted: . I'd like to know if there might be consensus to put the header (just the header) back. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:12, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Given some edit summaries saying that we should "focus on career impact" (example), it's not clear to me what part of WP:BLP indicates that? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

BLPN discussions have historically given leeway to allegations or decisions under WP:NPF on how they actually impact the subject. This is an interpretation of treating people's reputation with care. Instead of disproportionately repeating the misconduct allegations, there has been several impacts of the allegations on his career and that's what should be focused on. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:47, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

I note this Chemistry World article from 2011 that contains an unusual editorial preface, that research by Fernandez has been "called into question by the editors of the journal Nature." A link to this source is included. Should any of this be included in the article, or has it been superseded by the more recent sources? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 02:33, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

I followed from those sources to find the actual expression of concern from Nature, which I think is very appropriate and within the bounds of BLP, so I'm going to add a sentence about that. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

I've added that, along with yet another expression of concern that I found. I also divided what had been a single paragraph into two paragraphs (). I asked above about restoring a subsection header of "Misconduct findings" that I had put there before. I think that now the case is even stronger for putting it back. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:07, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree that your proposed subsection header would be appropriate, as all of that material in a boilerplate "Career" section seems a bit off. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 01:30, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

• Seems like appropriate sourcing and coverage for the topic. We should keep an eye out and see if any additional sources from scientific circles get published as well. Silverseren^C 01:49, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Sockpuppet post by subject

　

• While I understand the recent consensus leaning toward restoring the header and expanding this section with sources like Nature and Chemistry World, I want to respectfully propose that we consider removing this standalone section entirely.

  As Morbidthoughts pointed out earlier, placing such heavy emphasis on an administrative law judge's recommendation and quoting directly from court documents strays dangerously close to violating WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:UNDUE. The subject has a decades-long scientific and academic career. Devoting an entire, highly visible section to administrative reviews and retractions risks violating WP:BALASP (Balance of aspects). It essentially frames a living person's entire biography around this specific dispute rather than his actual bioengineering and academic output.

  Furthermore, per WP:NOTNEWS, just because these findings are relatively recent and have been covered by trade publications or blogs like Retraction Watch does not automatically grant them immense historical weight in an encyclopedia. If these allegations had a definitive, long-term impact on his career, that could perhaps be summarized in a single, neutral sentence within his "Career" section. However, giving it a dedicated "Misconduct findings" header inherently biases the reader and violates WP:NPOV. For the sake of maintaining a neutral and proportionate biography, I suggest we remove the standalone section. Imphysicist (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Dude, do you really think all of these alt accounts are going to accomplish anything? It's super obvious every time you do it. Silverseren^C 22:14, 11 April 2026 (UTC)