Talk:Brian J. Ford

message: As I stated earlier, below: "I've deleted the foreign editions of his books from the biliography, because they strike me a overkill (and because this is the English Wikipedia)."  It's not at all unusual for an author to chalk up dozens and dozens of versions of their books through translation and foreign licensure. It's standard to list only the original English-language publication. An exhaustive list of all secondary versions will be difficult to keep up to date, and adds nothing to the topic at hand. In fact, it seems like puffery and resume-padding. I'd rather keep the article focused and readable. Thanks. -- P L E A T H E R talk 20:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed foreign editions, again 

message: These comments do make a lot of sense, this is a global encyclopedia not a UK fan site. Have checked some of the x-references. The bibliographical entry linking to the 'space microscope' is the same as the reference in the first section and has been deleted to avoid duplication.
:I've taken out the bit about which celebrities he's shared the TV screen with, and the gossip about which are close friends of his. First of all, being on the same quiz program with someone is hardly a significant relationship to that person. Secondly, Dr. Ford doesn't really benefit from this sort of strained connection-making. It's not in keeping with his serious scientific reputation, and in truth he's better-known internationally than most of the UK TV personalities cited. If he's vacationing with some celebrity, perhaps that's something for the Trivia section. -- P L E A T H E R talk 19:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Snipping celebrity references 

message: Some categories added, hope this works. Later on, can others add links?
:I like the way this article is shaping up, and I'm pulling the cleanup tag. I've added some direct cites in the text. Also, I've deleted the foreign editions of his books from the biliography, because they strike me a overkill (and because this is the English Wikipedia). Good work. --Pleather 20:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good progress! 

message: I think we need more in the page rather than less. Ford is a world authority and the list of current books below is more than most scientists can amass in their whole lives. Is there a problem here? 
-----
Don't think we can question every statement of every page like this, google is full of the internet's appreciation of what Ford has done/is doing! Why say 'just links'? They are largely to highly detailed reputable sources. Not many biog entries have comments like these. I'd agree to remove the ESA microscope references if a Wiki advisor thinks it best and we could replace it with other material.   
:There are still claims that very much need substantiation, such as "the invention of an orbiting space microscope for the European Space Agency." While this certainly looks much better than it used to, I'm returning the cleanup tag to the page until we can get some of this sourced. --Pleather 14:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs sources, not just links 

message: I don't doubt that Mr. Ford (Dr. Ford) is notable, but this needed sorely to read like an enyclopedia entry, not a press release. I've stripped out all the non-neutral language ('his remarkable one man show"), as well as the claim he was a science columnist "even before he was a student" (I was a student when I was five; how about you?). 
:I think we're getting there, but this is still all unsourced. I want to keep the article in WP, but I'm adding a cleanup tag and hoping others will pitch in. --Pleather 21:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dialing down 

message: There is a Wikipedia style for references, and , , and  templates to keep them consistant ... please use them. I have started with the "Other authors' reminiscences, etc., on Ford" section, and added a "References" section to collect them from the <ref> tags. Some other editor with more interest in the subject than I have can fix the rest ... I've also tried to fix this talk page by removing the duplicate section names and indenting replies to comments. —72.75.105.165 20:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New "References" and proper citations 

message: I see this article has been tagged previously, and subsequently untagged, but it still reads from start to finish as self-promotion. Therefore I'm tagging it again, and hope to find time to do some work on it. Andy Farrell 17:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not happy about the items which reference Ford's own website - that perpetuates the "news release" impression this article gives, and I would prefer to find external verifiable accounts instead. Does anyone feel the "Authors' Reminiscences" sections actually adds anything? That gives it a press-release feel too, and I would like to remove it. Andy Farrell 21:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagging for cleanup 

message: Page has experienced deletions of sources, please re-instate these and report vandal. Thanx.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.179.86.208 (talk) 13:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello 81.179.86.208. As you've also made an accusation of vandalism on my talk page, I guess you are complaining about my edits to this article. I attempted to tidy this article up recently. It seemed written as a publicity piece, which is not what Wikipedia is about, it included many references and asides which didn't add up to a readable article, and carried many unsubstantiated claims - it all sounded as though it was written by the person himself and he was showing off. I set about doing my best to clean it up, tagging the article first and inviting discussion on this talk page, before making my edits. In doing so I tried to keep the good content while making the article more readable and fair by removing a lot of bloat. It's still a long way from my idea of a good article; I left in a lot of the pompous stuff and I'd like to see it cleaned up fully. Clearly you have different ideas. Maybe you'll come back and discuss how you'd like to see the article improved and we can try to reach a consensus? Could I also ask (politely) that you lessen your use of accusatory language please? Calling edits with which you disagree "vandalism" is inflammatory. Wikipedia standards ask that we assume good faith and work by consensus. If you don't like my edits you can edit the article yourself, or discuss it. Can I suggest you read Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Vandalism. From my reading of those, you are a little out of line here. Andy Farrell 16:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: There was deletion of many important links, you must not just take material out because you may or may not like it, many people have put them in and for the good reason of ensuring documentation of sources.
:First, please could you respect the talk page guidelines and remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes.
:What one person may see as important links, may appear to someone else as a load of clutter rendering an article unreadable. Removal of them specifically falls outside the Wikipedia definition of "vandalism" so would you please stop using that term for my edits - it amounts to inflammatory language. Let's see if anyone else has any comment to offer on our respective versions of the article. Andy Farrell 14:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi again. After further thought, I'm going to revert the article back to my previous version. I think you're mistaken in telling me I must not take material out, since Wikipedia encourages editors to "be bold" and content is not sacrosanct. As you've demonstrated, old material can always be revived later, if consensus shows it is appropriate. In the meantime can I ask again that you discuss your vision for this article on here rather than us descending into an edit war. I am perfectly happy to chew over the merits of bits of this article; what I can't see is that it is beyond improvement and warrants setting in stone in the current version for all time. Look forward to your thoughts. Andy Farrell 15:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: There were some adjectives that were not necessary and some have been edited out 'cos they aren't facts. Punctuation checked as well. Editors should explain changes and not just cut links out, I concur. Bugeyewoodchuck 15:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it was Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales who said that Wikipedia doesn't need more links, it needs good articles. What are the negative reasons which you are suggesting as my motivation here? So far you've simply reverted edits back, not contributed any positive changes to the article. Have a read of the talk page history for this article and I suggest you'll find many of the criticisms of it are still in place in your revision of the article - items under headings "foreign editions", "snipping celebrity references", "needs sources, not just links", and "dialling down" all still apply. If you are bona fide then come on in and make some improvements to this article. But I am afraid you are making me think you are trolling, both through the boorish behaviour and a lack of user contributions to any pages other than this. Looking forward to being proven wrong on this! Andy Farrell 17:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing 

message: A friend from the publshing world has given me an opinion about these deletions etc: 
"This entry is a good and factual and it is not like a press release. This is sabotage of Wikipedia copy, not editing, with sections being removed in a random way.  The section on hobbies is referenced from two published sources.  One has been removed on the basis that personal web-site copy cannot be cited.  However, this is a profile, not written for or by the web-site compilers, and is a properly source.  The same points are separately referenced by the Institute of Biology.  Sabotage is the problem with open-access web pages.  In the arena of print we do not encounter it.  You should report the miscreant,  though I do not know how."
Can the sabotageur (=is that right??) be reported please? Biggish Bertha 08:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sabotage 

message: Consensus has been built by many people over many months, it is just one person who deletes our stuff. Can someone find out why please?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.9.21 (talk) 19:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The B-Class rating of this article suggests that "considerable editing is still needed". That is in keeping with the comments from various users on the talk page, and with my own opinion. You've resisted and reverted any attempts I have made to change this article, whether that attempt was a rewrite or a small edit. You can't get away with complaining about me removing some of the dross, because even after I stopped trying to alter that, you've kept reverting all changes - you've even repeatedly removed the tags saying there was a dispute, when the text on those tags asks users not to do that until the dispute is resolved. I have attempted to follow Wikipedia guidance and good practice, and point you at policy, assume good faith on your part, etc. In return you've simply been rude. One of us has clearly lost the plot here. I'm not so bold that I assume my editing is always right, so I've invited you to discuss improvements - you've just replied with more rudeness. You don't seem to have made a contribution to the material on Wikipedia, you just bizarrely want to protect this one mediocre article from any changes. It causes me to wonder what your special interest in this article is. Anyway, I am not a hugely experienced editor so that's why I've posted the rfc to see if someone with some standing will break this deadlock. Andy Farrell 20:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I have cleaned up the article just a tad, but it needs considerable work, mainly finding other sources rather than the subject's website, and rewriting the article in a subdued and encyclopedic tone. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we find a consensus way forward? 

message: If the topic is up for discussion, and outside viewpoints, it would be polite for one new person not to keep insertying tags.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.48.41 (talk) 17:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polite discussion 

message: Here is a start for discussion. This page has really been vandalised repeatedly. I have been looking at September 9 '07, and see whole sections were deleted by user 'Andy Farell', he then inserted gratuitous remarks without any source whatever. Deleting important sections, and inserting unsourced personal remarks, is definately what wikipedia is _not_ about. One of the early remarks was from user 'pleather' who set users off in a positive direction. For a year there has been a built up concensus. Now we have one person deleting sections and putting in insults that are probably a slander anyway. Interesting to note that the remarks concerned Professor Fords personal motives over Mensa, and the source that 'Andy Farell' deleted was from--the Mensa magazine. I bet this is a campaign by one of the Mensa members and (if so) no wonder the category of Member of Mensa was recently removed from wikipedia. I am new here,  and just an amateur, and this is apalling behaviour which undermines everything we stand for. Bugeyewoodchuck 10:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Repeated vandalism

message: So, you going to run Andy Farrell to source? Nice one! He may just have a fixation. But whatever it is, he can't expect to get away with blanking wikipedia text. Students use this source as a reference for Ford because so many people have gathered things together, and there's nothing like this on the www.brianjford.com website which is really a list of publications plus cuttings. I am going to mark this edition of the page as unvandalised. Feel free to restore if it gets vandalised again, yeah? and thanx!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.61.85.126 (talk) 12:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Repeated vandalism

message: More big deletions, we will need to checkm with the wiki people.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.179.102.2 (talk) 07:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Repeated vandalism

message: Not known: he is currently on two of yr tv channels  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.238.232 (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The United States has literally hundreds of television channels; a person can be on a couple of them and still remain an unknown here. Please understand that nobody is trying to destroy this article; merely to make it encyclopedic instead of its current status as a puff piece zealously maintained by fans. --Orange Mike 17:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Brian Ford has been best-sellinhg author in America for 30 yrs at least, currently on Discovery, History, National Geographic... come on, man ...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.226.60 (talk) 22:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you continue reverting good faith efforts to clean up this article, the range of IP addresses from which you are editing will be blocked for disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: "Bestsellinhg"? I've been a retail bookseller in the United States since 1978; I've never heard of the guy. (And please sign your edits, even when using an anonymous/IP account.) --Orange Mike 00:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ford in USA 

message: I am not sure that listing a series of citations is needed for a bio article. If wanted, these views can be summarized rather than providing a list. Here is the text I have removed: ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: People will probably agree with that, which is how the page was when it was put up, and if citations are needed then there should be a note of the comments from these sources, and some people were lpooking at these in the university library.  More advice from jossi, please.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.103.117 (talk) 16:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: Jossie, hear hear, please block anybody who interferes ngatively. If you can promise people that the big blanking job done by Andy Farell will be conpletely stopped, then we can get back to editing this page. He said he was cutting dross, but what he really cut was good, researched text with full sources! It was only negative. If that will stop then the undoing will stop as well.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugeyewoodchuck (talk • contribs) 16:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jossie answers problems 

message: Pleased to note that the blanking of pages by user Andy Farell has been ended. We should add useful links and/or sources to this page now. Jossi has had a toast drunk at our bar lunchtime. Bugeyewoodchuck 16:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jossie answers problems 

message: Many sources are added as jossi says, we can't just ignore pages mirrord on the Brian J. Ford web site. Ford has been working for 40 yrs before journals etc. were digitised and the site has articles dating back before the web, and pages must be used as reference. Importabt thing is that pages have their references, date, page, etc, and this site is a store of hundreds of original articles.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugeyewoodchuck (talk • contribs) 08:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, whoever is doing this is inserting links to Ford's website instead of putting in proper references to the original publication. A mere link to the website is not a proper cite. Read the instructions on citing sources. --Orange Mike 14:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but the cuttings etc are mirrored on the site, the refs are given always, but many of them are not online anywhere else, anyway. Many magazines, journals etc have never been online, and this is the way we can see them digitized. There are 1000's of pages on this site, its a great resource.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.179.72.193 (talk) 13:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the era of Photoshop, scanned clippings are not a reliable source. The references should cite the original publication, not link to the subject's own website, per the instructions on citing sources. References do not have to be online to be cited. --Orange Mike 13:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding sources 

message: Really annoyed that so much good stuff has been omitted. This was getting to be a really great entry. The other bio. sites I see on wikipedia have much more vague information, and they don't get covered with tags. This now doesn't even mention Ford's lecturing and broadcasting. But if you don't want it, don't have it, at least it's there in the history section. 81.179.88.198 09:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing material 

message: have said that there is a problem; You older folks dont understand difference between citing, references, and hosted text. The articles are sources, doesnt matter where theyre hosted. The references are the name of book, whaveter, date and publication details. These are what you needed in references. All youve done is list hot links to articles, what you need is academic references (just an observation)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.238.210 (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References and sources

message: Two points to make: 1. Ford is a major global academic figure, he lectures in countries all arou nd the world and he is cited in hundreds of scientific papers. He's published in Scientific American, New Scientist, Nature etc. He is also reported in these journals. Jossi removed a list of authors describing Ford, calling them citations. But these are independent descriptions and they are absolutely important in a biog. Please put them back! 2. The list of sources is selective and many of Ford's important papers are not here. Trouble is that if we put them all the page would be full of references. However some further examples should be put. Oh a third point 3. There was a TV reference, where did this go? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biggish Bertha (talk • contribs) .
: As per the references found, Ford has no formal degrees in any science, as he attended University  for a few years only, thus he cann0ot be called an "academic". In the numerous bios available, best I could found is a description about Ford being a "research scientist".  I could not find any peer reviewed articles published by Ford. If you have any references to such, that would be a great addition. Seems that Ford has only published in popular science magazines and other such. I have not deleted any material that was well sourced, please be more explicit about which deletion do you refer. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You added leading research scientist, I am not sure that this is a supported statement by the available sources. Seems that Ford is a prolific author, and lecturer. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Can you please provide some research papers by Ford that have been published in a mainstream scientific journal? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global academic 

message: Looks like this page is being edited by a couple of people who really do not know much about the subject. Why are occasional users still being blocked please? Our interest was to stop repeated vandalism and blanking of sections, now much useful information is simply missing. Can we appeal abpout being preveneted from adding new material? Why is there a tag about sources? Other bio articles do not have so many sources. 81.178.250.37 08:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If other bios do not have sources, that only means that they need sources. See WP:V. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please unblock editing 

message: Here we have an editor, jossi in fact, whose edits are becoming exactly like Andy Farrell's and are only negative. Jossi, let me explain:- to become a chartered biologist as Ford did many years ago means you are appointed at an official level, this is a european recognition of an experienced biologist after publishing papers, etc. Ford was later elected a fellow of the I.o.B., like Crick and Watson of DNA, because of his disntinguished career in biology. The F.I.Biol. is only given to top-ranking world biologists. It took me less than three minutes to discover this on the web. Please make sure you do not alter or delete things like this again. Wikipedia is written by people who know their subjects, you say you are working from the viewpoint of somebody who is completely ignorant of the facts and worse still, you cannot even locate them online. You must now stop deletng facts, just because you do not happen to know them. Bugeyewoodchuck 11:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ford  C.Biol F.I.Biol as well as FLS . The former is a fellowing of the Institute of Biology, and the latter is a fellowship of Linnean Society of London. That information is already in the article. The concern expressed was one related to the text "a leading research scientist" added by a anonymous contributor. Mr. Ford is most definitively a notable individual, a prolific author, etc. but bios in WP need to be understated and factual. If you have knowledge of scientific papers published in peer reviewed journals, please make them available as sources for this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Restoring objective editing

message: Has jossi now added tags to other articles lacking such details of references and sources? Where is that TV link which was briefly mentioned?
: Sure. Check my contribs list. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Objective editing

message: The youtube link has now been restoredBugeyewoodchuck 12:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Found the TV link!

message: The tv link has gone and needs to be restored and while we are on the topic, if you google microscope research you find ford as top of 20 million sites. His published work is all over the journals of the world!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.225.77 (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, really? ! If you have knowledge of scientific papers published in peer reviewed journals, please make them available as sources for this article. --Orange Mike  | Talk 23:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lost the TV link!

message: While I have no intention of dismissing the geniuine contributions Dr. Ford may have made, the vast majority of this article presents his ideas as if they are all widely accepted by the rest of the scientific community.  The reality is that when Dr. Ford works outside his specialty, he occasionaly produces what can only be called fringe theories.  The article smacks of auto-hagiography.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.48.177.50 (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Hagiography

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Brian J. Ford. 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/20061004191453/http://www.rlf.org.uk/fellowshipscheme/profile.cfm?fellow=8&menu=3 to http://www.rlf.org.uk/fellowshipscheme/profile.cfm?fellow=8&menu=3
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060930091934/http://www.rms.org.uk/downloads/1_-_Ford-Stokes.pdf to http://www.rms.org.uk/downloads/1_-_Ford-Stokes.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Brian J. Ford. 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/20060930091934/http://www.rms.org.uk/downloads/1_-_Ford-Stokes.pdf to http://www.rms.org.uk/downloads/1_-_Ford-Stokes.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Brian J. Ford. 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/20110615065842/http://mcri.org/home/section/101-209/the-2007-inter-micro-program to http://mcri.org/home/section/101-209/the-2007-inter-micro-program
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: This article is a mess. Firstly, it is not clear exactly what Ford is notable for. The article appears to mostly be a general bio written to promote the subject of the article. It is also extremely poorly sourced, and the source that do appear are often very weak, from the subject himself, primary sources or do not support the text without some interpretation. Even the text critical of him and his theories suffers from the same problem and verges on WP:EDITORIALISING or WP:OR. I have no opinion on Ford either way and hope to work with any interested editors to improve this page. Ashmoo (talk) 10:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: As someone who never has and never will do any work with Wikipedia I'd like to echo this plea with extreme urgency: the only thing I'm aware Brian J. Ford has ever accomplished is publishing a shallow pseudoscientific book about how dinosaurs were too big to walk and must all have been aquatic, yet I come to this article and I find acres of bizarre self-aggrandizing minutia on his life and a tiny mealy-mouthed aside on this subject wedged in at the bottom of the page.  It's as if the PT Barnum page were a long series of brags about all the places he travelled to and people he met with a little two-sentence paragraph mentioning that he also established a circus, 'though some accused him of including fakery in his exhibits.' 2607:F2C0:EAB8:5A9:1C5A:C99A:38EA:6A70 (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article clean up