Talk:Hans-Dieter Sues

Discussion of "written like a resume" tag

I'm interested in the rationale by @Jay8g to add this tag to the page. While the listing of novel species that Sues has contributed to naming may appear like a resume, this is not something that academics typically list on their resume, and more common components like a full list of publications, conference talks/abstracts, or invited talks are not present in this page (nor have they been to the best of my knowledge). Most of the cited literature is only invoked for citing taxonomic names, not for the purpose of listing this person's entire corpus of scientific work (which is much larger). Koskinonodon (talk) 22:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

COI tag (April 2025)

Major edits have been done from an account bearing the same name as the article. Nat Gertler (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

@Hans-Dieter Sues: the current version is much revised from when this tag was placed. If you'll promise not to tinker with the article anymore, but instead make edit requests here or at WP:BLPN about any and all the changes you want to see (down to even grammatical articles) I'd be willing to remove the ugly COI banner. Please let us work with you. The banner is the only eyesore here at this point. What do you think, sir? JFHJr (㊟) 03:10, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comments, JFHJr. I can promise that I won't do any further editing on the entry. I would appreciate if you could remove the COI banner. Kind regards, H-DS Hans-Dieter Sues (talk) 11:00, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

As the placer of the tag, I have removed it myself. The article as you had edited it has basically been replaced. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 12:52, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

May I ask one more favor? Could you please correct my birth date to "1956"? Many thanks. 108.56.78.180 (talk) 20:06, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Sir, please remember to log in before posting. So far, editors here have been assuming in good faith that you are the subject, however WP:DOB contains some reasons I might be reverted without a good source. If you were logged in and simply posted here "I was born in 1956," it would be more justifiable to follow your request. See also the Volunteer Response Team for steps you might take to confirm we are talking to the actual subject. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 20:14, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Sourcing and POV terms

At this point, the vast majority of this material is not sourced to independent sources; it's either papers the subject wrote or material put out by his employer. There is also a certain use of enthusiastic language that bends beyond WP:NPOV and into awkwardness, like when it's said that he's especially interest in one set, and especially in a subset. When we get to talking about what someone is especially especially interest in, we may be outside the tone we wish to hit.

I'm going to avoid substantial edits, as I do have a business relationship with the Smithsonian, albeit not the particular branch involved here. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:00, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits and tag; is the issue more that the Smithsonian profiles are not considered appropriate at all, or that there are a bunch of largely uncited statements that could be reworded to be more neutral (I agree with the stance that the current wording is not appropriate)? I think the latter is easy to fix, but if biographical information cannot be cited with a federal website (regardless of who exactly has edit access and whether that makes it fully unreliable), that will be a more complicated issue. Koskinonodon (talk) 01:58, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Nat is doing the utmost not to raise a specter of impropriety in making substantial edits. It's a good thing that's not really worth following up and asking more about. Please, feel free to migrate WP:PRIMARY sources to "External links", verify the remaining text against remaining sources, and tag {{cn}} after unsupported text or just remove it as failing verification. JFHJr (㊟) 02:55, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Certain sorts of biographical information can be cited to the Smithsonian sources -- things like the fact that he works there and the name of his position, barring some sort of contention, they should be fine for. And things that are basic and cannot be seen as boastful, such as the town where he was born or the college he attended, those are also likely fine. But anything claiming something that could be seen as boastful (such as that he made certain discoveries), the Smithsonian sources are a problem for. It may be hard to see why when you think "the Smithsonian", but consider if it was some more questionable employer. Say, QuestionSoft Inc says that their chief engineer invented the most highly optimized search algorithm yet -- you can see why they might want to claim that about her even if it's not true.

The problem is not that we're using the Smithsonian sources at all, it's the shortage of non-Smithsonian sources, in part because we can use reliable independent sources for some of the sort of information we shouldn't be, but also because under Wikipedia standards, the fact that his employer writes about him does nothing to establish his notability. But there are other things out there that an be used, such as this Associated Press article. That does more to demonstrate his notability for us than a pile of articles published by his employer.

So I am simultaneously making the points that

• We are using non-indepdenent, Smithsonian sources for things we shouldn't be
• We need more independent sources
• the phrasing is bad.

At this point, I don't have much doubt that the subject is sufficiently notable for an article, but the things that establish that should be being used in the article. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Took a pass at making some tweaks - can you take a look when you have a chance? Koskinonodon (talk) 01:10, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Koskinonodon, it's a huge improvement in tone and textual support. JFHJr (㊟) 03:12, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Looks like a good solid base of an article now -- there's plenty to expand upon, of course, but enough sourcing for it not to be in a problem state. Good work! -- Nat Gertler (talk) 12:58, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Request edit on 17 April 2025

Please change the year of my birth to 1956. Thank you very much for your assistance. Hans-Dieter Sues (talk) 20:38, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you for your request. And for your previous request. Doing it this way, logged in, helps a lot. JFHJr (㊟) 21:09, 17 April 2025 (UTC)