Talk:Peter Murray-Rust

Family

I don't think it's right to have details of his family here. The family members are not notable in their own right, so far as I can see, and if they were they should have their own entries. This type of detailed private family information ought not to be published willy nilly. --MichaelMaggs 13:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, though I am one of his sons, so it's not being published willy nilly - though if it breaks Wikipedia's rules then I'm sure it's the right thing to do to take it off. - Tom

The general rule is that information about family members should (a) have been published in a WP:RS (the alternative, taking from a blog or website or Facebook page, is also sometimes done) and (b) isn't disproportional (see WP:NPOV). So often it's simply something like "X and her husband Z had three children, two girls and a boy". One consideration is whether readers would be interested - so, for example, some family info for a politician's would most be included where available, while for a scientist, not so much so. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Professor?

"Data"'s colofon indicates that he is a Professor; the information provided here indicates that he isn't. Which is correct?92.12.60.184 (talk) 15:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

He's referred to as "Prof" on this Cambridge University page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I was a full professor at University of Nottingham and as such I kept the honorific after I left. (I was also a visiting professor at Birkbeck College for many years). I have not been a Professor at Cambridge, but Cambridge used the honorific on my office, web page etc. Peter Murray-Rust, Petermr (talk) 17:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)