Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 116

[Edit conflict -- sorry, Mangoe and Doug, I haven't read your latest yet:] Continuing to think about this ... The conflicting sources -- the library catalogue and the NYT report -- are very high grade reliable sources on this, by our definition. The fact that they disagree is notable, and therefore an editor who wants to delete all evidence of the disagreement would be mistaken. In whatever way the issue of fact may eventually be resolved, there's surely no reason why we shouldn't refer both to the catalogue and to reliable newspaper reports.

But the NYT report is only reliable for the fact that the University claims he doesn't have their Ph.D. It isn't reliable for the story of the appeals etc. That's just stuff in quote marks. Andrew Dalby 16:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I have just emailed the library, but they've gone to bed and won't get up till Monday. I'll say if I get an answer. What I'm doing is OR, Mangoe, you're quite right, but I'm not going to report it on a Wikipedia page! Actually the library catalogue page is a secondary source: the primary source would be an announcement by the University registry. Andrew Dalby 17:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I see now that Redslider had already done this, and been assured that the database details should be "taken at face value", so I may merely have wasted their time by asking again ... Ah well. Librarians are nice people. Andrew Dalby 19:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

A librarian replied at

talk

) 17:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

A library catalog page is proof that a book (or other medium) has been cataloged at the library at one time. It's not proof of much more. This is a bit like asking "is the telephone directory of Beverly Hills proof that XXX is a millionaire". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Unless, of course, there is a specific item in the record that says a degree was conferred (not merely that a "thesis was shelved"); and, a reliable and trustworthy second source verifies that, indeed, "all degrees are conferred". And that is what we seem to have. Certainly that is sufficient to immediately remove all material in the BLP that would infer that the person did not have their degree, and to indicate, without qualification, that a degree was conferred. Certainly, you don't believe we should continue to malign Pellegrino by suggesting otherwise in his BLP? Redslider (talk) 03:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Here are my comments from BLPN:

Librarian here. I don't think this catalog record should be taken as evidence of anything other than that he wrote a doctoral thesis called The Role of Desiccation Pressures. Catalog errors are quite alarmingly frequent and I find it difficult to imagine a cataloger would ever check graduation records or call registrars to verify a student's degree status. All they know is they got a doctoral thesis, so they put it on the shelf. The only exception to using catalog records as sources would be from archives/special collections where they do extensive research on the items they are preserving that are of historical or other value. (Some library special collections also house copies of theses, but that doesn't mean they do this kind of research.) Gamaliel (talk) 17:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Update: so I shouldn't have taken the TL;DR approach because there's quite a bit more to this than I assumed initially. The New York Times quotes the university as saying there is no doctorate, so there is no doctorate for our purposes, period. A catalog record can not be used to override a gold-standard secondary source getting its information from the best possible primary source. A big "doctoral degree controversy" section like this one is inappropriate, but this can be dealt with in a sentence or two and is appropriate for inclusion. Gamaliel (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with almost everything Gamaliel says but not with the conclusion :) The controversy "can be dealt with in a sentence or two and is appropriate for inclusion". Andrew Dalby 18:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

(e/c)

No, a published thesis is not evidence PhD was awarded.

A published thesis is evidence that someone completed a portion of a PhD program but is not evidence that a PhD was ever awarded. My PhD thesis clearly states "in partial fulfillment...." A PhD program requires a thesis and its defense; it also has other requirements such as course work, an area exam, and (in days past) foreign language proficiency. In the typical case, a PhD candidate completes all the other requirements and the last thing s/he does is the thesis. When only the thesis requirement remains, the candidate is often referred to as AbD -- all but dissertation; many leave grad school in that position. But there are people who do it differently. I know one famous PhD (he has an article on WP) who flew through his dissertation but had ignored some other hoops. He got millions in DARPA funding for his own company related to his thesis work and concentrated on that more interesting work. The university wouldn't give him his degree until he took a couple more courses. He eventually took the courses. So even a completed and successfully defended thesis is not evidence that a PhD was awarded.

The Chancellor's statements suggest that the candidate wrote his thesis but failed the thesis defense. Failing a defense happens.

A failed defense could be consistent with some sourced statements (I'm not happy about a source from "blogs.nytimes...") if "stripped" is viewed as "discarded" rather than "awarded and then revoked". We'd have the case of someone doing substantial work preparing a thesis, only to have that work discarded by the committee. But I'm not familiar with the details, so I won't take a stand on what actually happened.

There are some problems.

I would not expect a university library to publish a thesis that failed its defense, but it might happen. My PhD had to be signed by both my thesis advisor and the chairman of the department committee; I doubt the latter would sign on a failed defense, but I do not know what happens to failed defenses.

The catalog having a the statement "vuwschema.type.vuw Awarded Doctoral Thesis" is not a compelling statement. It's a schema type, so it may refer to a general pattern rather than this specific pattern. It does not say "Awarded Doctoral Degree". The library system is probably independent of the academic system, so it does not carry much authority.

There are some date issues in this case. Perhaps there was a successful appeal to the Crown (or some other action) after the NYT sources in early 2010 reported failure and before the library issue date in late 2011. We don't know until RSs say so.

Girx, If it were only a question of a "published thesis" and no other source of record, you might have a point (at least one to be investigated further). However, an RS more reliable than either the NYT article, or the tertiary VC source, says otherwise - One that the RS (research archivist) specifically stated with reference to the particulars provided him in this case that the record indicates that "all degrees are conferred". That plainly does not say anything about the "published thesis" (although its common sense that you have have that done to have the other state be true). According to the librarian's statement, the record indicates that the subject received their phd. (no matter what else it indicates about the thesis itself). So I think all of your conjecture (and it is only that) falls apart. The very reliable second source - the librarian in charge of the Research Archives collection says you are wrong. Your litany of other things besides a thesis which are required has no standing. Whatever the requirements at VUW, the documentary evidence, according to the librarian, says that all those matters are done, "all degrees conferred". I don't know why you seem to be having trouble with that or are second guessing the expertise of the librarian. Again, when you cite the catalog as not providing a "compelling statement", it is a reliable second source that is making the statement, not simply the document. The second source is telling us what the document means, and that is, "All degrees conferred". You may have a bunch of wild theories (someone broke into the archive and changed that particular record....) but that is of little value here, or anywhere else. We have the record, we have a good second source; one, I argue, that is better than any other we have. Your library, some other library may publish "failed thesis" (I don't know of any; well, one that shelves them in a completely different part of the library and doesn't specify them as 'published' or 'awarded'). But here, we have one in the Research Archives catalog, along with all the others that are there. The doubt rather lies on the side that its cataloging does not represent a true record, or that the subject does not have a "conferred degree".

But there is an issue in this that almost all detractors (save me, so far) have missed. I don't think anyone in these discussions, save someone with a completely different agenda than establishing the validity (or lack thereof) of Pellegrino's degree, would argue that there hasn't been serious doubt cast on the claims by those who suggest he doesn't have a degree. Given that, given even a modicum of doubt that the other sources are incorrect, would you find cause to infer or otherwise include assertions (sourced or not) that would impugn or discredit a man's personal and professional reputation? Would you find that consistent with either Wikipedia policy, or common decency? Even beyond that, I think the matter interesting in that it calls into question Wikipedia's various policies on the matter, regarding cases in which a person's character and reputation may be maligned and serious harm done to them. I know this is a topic for another venue (though I don't know where). I would argue, though, that when it involves such matters as discrediting someone personally and/or professionally, Wikipedia should require a much higher standard than simply RS from newspapers or unsourced claims by editors. An editor may find some unsourced conversation with some unspecified person at a university sufficient reason to broadcast the matter to the media and other places on their own, or to insert discrediting statements into the BLP, or undermine the subject reputation with statements such as "claims to have...". This, however, seems totally inconsistent with WP purposes and avowed interest in avoiding doing harm or maliciously injuring people. Rather, I suggest the standard ought to be, where material that might harm or impugn the character of the subject is concerned, a higher standard and degree of proof needs to be provided than simply conventional second sources; and, that this standard require an editor to consider any legitimate sources of doubt that the disparaging remarks are true, or even partially true. In all the discussions here, the assertion has been that the subject (or those in defense of him) must prove the validity of his degree. That is exactly backwards. Where then is any doubt at all (and the length of these discussions suggest there is considerable doubt) the standard should be that material should be omitted or removed immediately. I know, its an argument for another place. But that is the underlying issue in this case (along with, I suspect, some other one's as well). And, while we comfortably sit here, splitting hairs over source validity, a real person's (a living one at that) is having his personal and professional reputation defamed. I think we all should take a look up from our musty books and catalog entries for a moment, and consider what this whole matter means to the one really being subjected to it. 71.193.56.126 (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I would examine the reliability of the earlier sources (the blog issue). I'd keep earlier statements if they were RS. If I kept the earlier statements, I would include a matter-of-fact statement about the PhD thesis existing at VUW and source it with the link, but I would not take a position whether that entry implied the grant of a PhD. If I didn't keep the earlier statements, I'd be silent on the whole issue.

Glrx (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Academic libraries make cataloguing errors all the time. Staff who perform such tasks are not necessarily highly trained professionals. Material will be transferred from written to digitised catalogues and then tranferred again to new systems. In the process nuances will get lost and simple errors made. If there were no argument about the matter the catalogue may have sufficed, but clearly there is, so it doesn't. Paul B (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It is one of the great shames, in my opinion, of librarianship that so many in the field view cataloging as unimportant drugework and pile it on low level employees who couldn't care less (nor do they get paid enough to care) and often have no knowledge or background in the field. So many library catalogs (including my own) are shoddy and nearly useless. Gamaliel (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the New York Times source should be seen as a reliable source. Motojo Rich is a reporter for the Times[21], and I doubt very much that the Times doesn't exercise editorial control over its columns and blogs. And it is a fact that Pellegrino's website doesn't claim he has a PhD.

talk

) 19:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it's reliable, too. My point above is that the NYT doesn't say that Pellegrino went through all that appeal process. It says that the University spokesman asserted it. That's what the famed fact-checking will have checked, and we can certainly believe the NYT on that.

As to the thesis, as you and others have said above, we know it was submitted and no one denies it. So we could write and footnote all we need to, right now, and whether we can ever satisfy Redslider I doubt. Andrew Dalby 20:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I looked a little further, and I'd say that NYT does have control over Rich's blog. Furthermore, Rich wrote earlier about Pellegrino in a conventional NYT article; the blog is a follow up that would reasonably use the same standards; the article just wasn't significant enough for a conventional article.

There are some non-RS sources that have Pellegrino going into more detail about getting his PhD revoked. A fellow author, for example, published some letters from Pellegrino to her on her website. Such sources cannot be trusted.

At http://www.charlespellegrino.com/preface.htm (apparent The Last Train from Hiroshima preface for 2nd ed), Pellegrino (I presume it is his site and is therefore quotable) claims his PhD was restored in April, 2010. (Rich's NYT blog was March 5, 2010, so it would predate this restoration.) Pellegrino gives a lot of detail about the revocation (but does not source the lawsuits or his restoration).

Glrx (talk) 22:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

That's very interesting. If it's true, it means there's no conflict between the NYT article (which, as you say, predates the award of the Ph.D.) and the library catalogue (which seems to have a recent date). Andrew Dalby 11:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I've read that piece now. Nice find, Glrx. I'd be interested to see a New Zealand Wikipedian comment on it, but I'd say, at first reading, it has the ring of truth about it. Andrew Dalby 12:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The only real question here is whether a thesis submitted for PhD can appear on the library shelves even though it is not considered good enough for the PhD to be granted. This will depend on the local procedures in place at each location, as well as on the likelihood of administrative errors. From my experience (decades of handling PhD theses) it is perfectly possible. So to use the presence of the thesis in a catalogue as evidence for a degree being granted is an error. We might allow it in a case where where there is no contrary evidence or reason to doubt, but it certainly does not disprove explicit claims to the contrary in reliable sources. Zero^talk 21:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems as if one needs to carry out

reliable source. Cusop Dingle (talk

) 22:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, Cusop and Zero, it is not the catalog entry itself that is the source - but the research archivist (in fact the person in charge of these particular archives) that is the source; a very reliable secondary source, given his expertise as a research librarian responsible for the records in question (who likely knows more than anyone else what the records are about and what they mean than anyone else, including the VC or the Chancellor, for that matter). Others are re-verifying his statement (see below) now, so we should wait for those results, too. For that matter, the catalog entry is also a secondary source as, in fact, it is the reflection of primary records (permission slips, faculty and advisor signoffs, and other primary sources from which the librarian creates the record.) You might also note, that this particular record is held in the Research Archives at VUW and the people who handle and are responsible for these documents are research archivists. Now research archives are a very special breed of librarian. You might say they are to library records, what basoonists are to symphonies - very finicky, very precise. When it comes to the written record, academics are best advised not to argue with research archivists. One is almost always certain to lose the argument. So too, with the archives themselves. These are special collections which preserve important historical information. Despite Gamiel's suggestion that the Phd catalogs are some how "less important" and subject to less care than other historical records, on the contrary, they are the repository of one of the most important parts of a universities collections. Those records underlie a university's reputation as well as its history. The Phd catalogs are the place where a university's record of success and achievement are reposited. I think it would also be a losing argument to try to call the handling of such records, let alone the regard for them, into question or suggest they are somehow handled with less care. I certainly wouldn't want to try. 71.193.56.126 (talk) 23:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, the pdf copy available through the library's website lacks the signature plate. Now, granted, I don't know what the norms are in NZ, but in most US universities I'd expect to see the signed plate, especially if you're talking about a scanned version of a hardcopy (like this one is). Guettarda (talk) 00:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Gamaliel, I don't doubt your experiences with the matter of data entry errors. However, in the interpretation of the record in the VUW Research Archives, I directly asked the librarian in charge of processing those records if the entries (which I copied directly from Pellegrino's published record) indicated if the student had actually received their degree. Here is the part of the Talk discussion describing that communication:

the following communication from the Digital Initiatives Coordinator of Technological Services at the Wellington Library, should be helpful

In response to my question, "That is, given the follow catalog descriptors and information,

       "vuwschema.type.vuw Awarded Doctoral Thesis en_NZ
       thesis.degree.discipline Zoology en_NZ
       thesis.degree.grantor Victoria University of Wellington en_NZ
       thesis.degree.level Doctoral en_NZ
       thesis.degree.name Doctor of Philosophy en_NZ

       along with VUW publication designation, accession dates, etc.
       can one presume the student has gotten their degree?

The Co-ordinator replied with the following statement,

       In answer no Thesis is included in the Research Archive that has not already been awarded.
       All degrees are conferred. Some recent ones may be in before actual graduation, but they have
       all been passed. The process is that after a Thesis is passed the student must deposit a copy
       with the library before graduation.
       You can accept the Awarded Doctoral Thesis at face value."

       Michael Parry
       Digital Initiatives Co-ordinator
       Technology Services
       The Library
       Victoria University of Wellington
       PO Box 3438, Wellington, New Zealand"

I call your attention to Mr. Parry's statement: All degrees are conferred.

That's how it works at VUW. I think that is a rather unequivocal statement of the meaning of those entries from the person most in a position to know. I would also find it a bit of a stretch, while data entry errors do occur, that in the 30 years of records (from the copyright date of 1983 on Pellegrino's record) this particular one, and those particular descriptors were mis-entered. That's really playing the odds, yes? As for your accepting words quoted by a columnist of a VC on a phone call as more reliable than the written record itself seems less than prudent. Phd accession records as you know, are not like 3x5 cards in k-12 libraries. They are legal documents surrounded by a number of protection and compliance processes. It's like the difference between have the mortgage in your hand or the real estate broker telling you what the status of your home is, yes? That little catalog item is a record of a process, a completed process. (btw: i included the contact info on the librarian, so that anyone could also verify the same information (that is, I sourced it). Redslider (talk) 05:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

See

WP:OR - this isn't a court of law. We go by sources, rather than by 'evidence' acquired through our own investigations. And an e-mailed answer by a 'Digital Initiatives Co-ordinator' to an abstract question isn't a 'legal document' in any case. AndyTheGrump (talk

) 06:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

No, AndytheGrump, it's just a direct communication from a reliable second source. And certainly more reliable than an NYT columnist, or a tertiary-sourced VC, who has no expertise in such matters and is not responsible for the management of student records, in any case, even if the VC may speak for the university on a variety of matters. On the other hand, The librarian is a solid second source, and his email is quite good for our purposes - we are trying to establish a credible fact, not creating an entry for the BLP. Btw, I notice that you are a stickler for being precise, but that you frequently use "We" in your posts as though speaking for everyone else (I'm presuming you don't intend to use the royal "We"). I think it much better to say "I go by sources" and such when referring to your own practices. Just observing. 71.193.56.126 (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem I see here is that it doesn't appear that the librarian was told about the statement in the NYT. Any query to the library needs to be specific and to ask about the discrepancy. And my guess is that there must be someone at the University in a better position to confirm Pellegrino's status than anyone in the library.

talk

) 06:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

In my query to the library yesterday (which I sent without realising that Redslider had already sent one -- apologies, but there's been a lot of discussion around here!) I did mention the report in the NYT and pointed out the contradiction. So, if someone at the Library replies to me, we may yet get a comment on that matter. Andrew Dalby 09:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

That's ok Andrew, Doug sent a query too, and I sent a follow-up query as well. I hope others will hold off an not inundate the poor librarian with endless repeats of the same query! Let's see what the replies tell us. Btw. I would suggest that mentioning the NYT article or any other matter to a second source, tends to prejudice the matter some and make the second source a little less reliable. when the information you wish is simply a statement of fact within their expertise; not to apply that expertise to an extraneous element (which may be important to us, but not relevant to the request being made of the second source.) Purer if one just asks the source the question that is within their province to answer, and let that answer serve as it does. Otherwise, in effect, you are asking the second sources to do original research on a conflict that is outside their scope of practice. Still may be useful information, but less reliable. 71.193.56.126 (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I differ from you there, Redslider. Reference librarians often like to know why you're asking and it may help them to give a more useful answer. Anyway, we'll see. Andrew Dalby 13:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

There are a lot of things I might disagree with in Doug's opening statement, but I think we're entirely on the same page about one thing; the issues involved cut across a lot of lines - sources, BLPs, and a bunch of others. Interesting, and instructive as source arguments can be, I'm electing to sit this dance out. Maybe later, I'll come back for the sheer fun of wrapping my head around the issues. But for now, I've elected to take this thing to mediation, which I've done, and see if their isn't a neutral position in this dog pile.

Like I say, source-fights are interesting. For those of you that wish to pursue this one, there's a lot of material to wade through. My take was to examine the sources given in the original BPL and ask, 1) what is the original source (and it's unsourced companion) from which all the secondary sources began? What was going on there, and why did the initiator take effort to do what they did (and describe it in the BPL as well? Then I looked at the secondary sources and asked how/why did this emerge from the initiator? How much were the secondary's contribution? I also looked at other inconsistencies and conflicts within the sources. It was an interesting tour, I hope you find it equally intriguing. Next, I went to the library record. And, of course, recognized that many entries applied to the thesis itself, true. But some others puzzled me (though, some I was familiar with from other universities). I knew what the initiator's unsourced source said (it was quoted in the BLP). And what the VC said. But there were other items in the record that didn't quite add up. So I got in touch with the librarian closest to the matter for an interpretation of the descriptors and keys (NZ being down-under, who knew for sure?). And there are other puzzles. No one has yet talked about the strange dates that appear - a 'copyright' of 1983 (that descriptor used to be called 'publication date' in the NZ catalog. I think they changed it). Then notice the accession and issue dates - a gap of 30 years. Now the VC says nothing happened "after 1986" - but something happened with that record and degree, didn't it? And then you might wish to go digging in to the NZ VUW doings between 1983-1986 that we can guess the VC was excluding for some reason. Well, let me know if you find anything interesting. I'm sure there is, but very difficult to find. And you might wish to ask why that is so? That's about it, and I figure there are some source detectives and researchers here way better at sleuthing than I am. Have fun. Redslider (talk) 07:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

"you might wish to go digging in to the NZ VUW doings between 1983-1986". Nope. We're too busy compiling an encyclopaedia based on published sources... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Venturing into OR, any dissertation that contains ~30 pages of typewritten text (i.e. at most half that if properly typeset) is a red flag in itself. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Stephen, The subject of Pellegrino's thesis, its size or quality, is not at question here. Everybody seems to agree (I've seen no one disagreeing the thesis was officially accepted and filed by the university. Any questions regarding its quality or content are way off topic and not germane. For your own information, there are a plenty of Phd. dissertations much shorter than that (length has nothing to do with qualifying a dissertation). I suggest you google 'shortest Phd' or some such and see for yourself. In any case, it is not a matter for discussion here, nor relevant to his BLP. 71.193.56.126 (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I've seen nobody agreeing, and the university itself seems to strongly disagree that the thesis was accepted. Indeed, PhD theses can be quite short. But at a reputable university, a thesis this length is very unusual, hence the red flag. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Length is not a relevant issue (per

WP:OR). But indeed no-one is agreeing that the thesis was officially accepted. Nomoskedasticity (talk

) 19:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

DRN is not an appropriate venue for issues about sources and that discussion is closed (an attempt to reopen it was reverted). I've read his foreward to the second edition again (an edition apparently not published by his original publisher but as of August 2010 "will be published in four foreign countries as of this writing"[22] although I can't find evidence that happened. He says that certain publications of his had 'Dr.' restored but he doesn't seem to be saying that he officially has PhD, nor does he claim one elsewhere on his website so far as I can see. A bit odd.

talk

) 12:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

yes, doug. I think, before this is all done, "A bit odd." will prove to be an understatement. But there's a ways to go yet. Meanwhile, the question remains, can we continue to malign the man's character in the BLP, given the degree of doubt and new material coming to light? That does real harm. Should I continue to be charged with "vandalism" or "edit war" for trying to correct the record in favor of avoiding an egregious error? Does it now seem like the prudent thing to do, consistent with WP policy, to protect the subject from harm, unless/until proof certain that he does not have is degree is offered? 71.193.56.126 (talk) 22:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I just want to draw attention to Pellegrino's April 2010 "preface", linked (far above) by Glrx. Here's the link again. It doesn't answer all our questions, and since I'm still hoping the Library will respond to my enquiry, I would really rather not have commented yet. But, since Doug asks me to do so, I'll just say that with what's before us it seems possible that the following happened:

1. because of deep disputes with his examiners (and possible political ramifications) Pellegrino's thesis, although initially passed, was not awarded a Ph.D. (This has been known.)
2. His thesis was stored in the library, but not made accessible because it was a failed thesis. (Some libraries do exactly this, including the one where I used to work.)
3. he appealed and got nowhere. (This usually happens.)
4. his book published in the first weeks of 2010 claimed that he had gained a Victoria University Ph.D. (It was technically false, but ...)
5. the university, continuing to regard him as an alien species, denied his claim publicly and helped to kill his 2010 book. (This certainly did happen, on or about 2 March 2010; it's in the NYT and all over the web.)
6. Meanwhile, a very slow legal process of rehabilitating and compensating students who had been disadvantaged during the upheavals of the 80s was taking place. He, as an alien (a US citizen) would be the last to benefit. (This is from his preface: I don't have other evidence.)
7. He published his revised preface in April 2010. By this time some of those qualifications unfairly removed had been restored, but not yet his.
8. In November 2010, his qualification, last of all of them, was restored (as he would see it) or generously granted (as the University would see it). The University felt a bit silly and said nothing about it. (This is normal.)
9. The Library made his thesis available. (This seems to be true to judge by the Library catalogue, which definitely shows this date -- i.e. later than the NYT report.)

If this happens to be correct, it means that our two best sources (the NYT and the Library catalogue) are both true after all ... Anyway, if I get a reply from the Library, I'll report it. Andrew Dalby 21:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Andrew, it actually undermines the NYT version where the VC denies the claim that Pellegrino was stripped of his degree. The secondary sources are getting considerably weaker in their contention. (Incidentally, you might wish to try to find out if/how the NYT article was actually vetted. That's very difficult to do. But I think there are some interesting things to be found there. Btw Rich's specialty is economics, and before that, Home&Garden. Not very specialized in the subject of the article.

And, thank you for this piece of work you did. I knew if some of you researchers kept digging you'd begin to find some interesting pieces in this puzzle. I can say, I've known these things (and somewhat more) for some time. Actually, from before I began questioning the Wikipedia article. But, for unrelated reasons, I have not been at liberty to use a good deal of material I have at hand. So, its been like fighting with one hand tied behind my back. Yes, the case about Charles Pellegrino's degree is "a bit odd" as Doug says. It's what happens when we become so lost in the intricacies of sourcing that we lose sight of why we source things in the first place. Maybe a lesson it that for all. Redslider (talk) 02:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Andrew, it is possible you were right, I was thinking of that when I should have been sleeping. I will note that whatever we do, we can only cite his website, not a second edition of a book as there may never have been a second edition. His website dates the preface to April 2010 but we know that as of August it still had not been published.

But that does not leave us with usable evidence that he has a PhD. And as I've told Redslider, the article cannot claim he was a PhD without a reliable source. He is still ignoring this and deleting anything about the controversy and making the article state he has a PhD. Redslider, this is a BLP violation and your argument that some dead people whose PhDs aren't controversial prove you don't need a source is simply wrong.

Thus without a reliable source (the link to the library needs interpretation, so can't be used) we either leave the whole thing out (which is not a good ideas as it is relevant to his biography and in itself not a BLP violation) or we can perhaps mention briefly the NYT, his claim on his website, and perhaps just a link to the library after a statement such as "his submitted dissertation was filed in the library on date". But I still feel uneasy about this as I still can't find where he's claiming to have a PhD or using the title 'Dr.'. So I'm on the fence at the moment. I really hope we can find out the status of his PhD this coming week from someone at the University outside the library.

talk

) 06:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

All of this is quite interesting -- but I assume that in the end we would not add to the article "he earned his PhD at ..." based on personal communication from the university. What would we put for a reference? It would be rather ironic for this result to come via

WP:RSN, no less. If Andrew's speculations prove correct, I can see that they would throw doubt on the published sources (NYT, etc.) so that we might then leave out the section with claims and counterclaims. Nomoskedasticity (talk

) 08:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree entirely that we can't give him a PhD in his article without something better than a link to the library page or personal communications. Without some firm evidence from a reliable source we can't do that which is why I'm annoyed at Redslider's insistence that his article can assert that he has a PhD. The issue then is whether this controversy should be in the article, and that's probably a BLP issue, not an RSN one.

talk

) 08:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

My reason for setting out that possible history, and the reason why it was a good idea to bring the question to this board, is this. A university library catalogue that enumerates the Ph.D. dissertations of its own university is, in all university systems known to me, a top-class reliable source, and if this board rules otherwise on weak grounds, I think the less of this board. The NYT is worshipped as the God of reliable sources, and even I, an atheist, think it's a top-class reliable source too. So, in my view, we are going to be able to deal with this story properly on the Pellegrino page, in two/three sentences, citing two reliable sources, and get it right as well!

But, as we know, all sources make mistakes, and the apparent contradiction between sources is very striking, and that's why I've asked the Library if they've made a mistake here or if their interface is misleading. It's a reasonable question, I think. Andrew Dalby 09:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's not forget that the contradiction is not, in the end, between the university's library catalogue and the NYT -- the contradiction is between the the university's library catalogue and the university's own VC (per statement reported in the NYT). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll probably regret stepping into the middle of this, but as an academic with a PhD, I've looked at the relevant "thesis" and the library record and it's not a reliable source for claiming that Mr. Pelligrino has (or had) a PhD. 1) There is no signature page on the thesis. Signature pages are required for accepted theses and dissertations and are always bound up with the official copies. At every defense I've participated in, we had to sign at least two copies of the signature page--one for the official copy and one for the library copy. 2) At most universities, the official copy of a dissertation or thesis is not housed in the library, but in the Graduate School Office or other official archive of the central administration. The library copy is a circulating copy (and could be subject to loss), therefore the official copy is registered and archived in a safe, noncirculating place. 3) The central administration confers the degree after the successful defense of the dissertation. There are certainly occasions when the defense of the dissertation is not successful and a degree is not conferred, even though there may be an extant dissertation or thesis. This is why the signature page is critical, even on the library's copy. 4) The official records repository for any university is not the library, but the central administration. If we are interested in hiring a new faculty member, we do not contact the library to see if they have been conferred a degree, nor do we check the card catalog. We call the office of the central administration that confers graduate degrees. Their records are the final (and only) authority. 5) 24 pages? That in itself is highly suspicious. It looks more like a term paper. 6) Finally, the library card itself shows the history of this document. It was not submitted to the library until 2011, 28 years after the supposed conferral of the degree in 1983. Library copies are submitted at the same time as the official copy is submitted to the Graduate School office, and there is usually a 6-week deadline following the successful defense. In other words, the library card is by no means sufficient documentation to demonstrate the conferral of a PhD. on Mr. Pelligrino and the statement by the Vice Chancellor to the New York Times trumps it in spades. The Vice Chancellor, speaking for the central administration and its official records, is the definitive source here. --Taivo (talk) 11:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Tavio, I'm glad you did step in. Particularly since, as a holder of a doctorate, I think you appreciate how serious a matter it is when the validity of a persons degree is called into question. I think you might agree, where their is the slightest doubt the allegations are true, error should certainly fall on the side of the one whose personal and professional reputation is at stake. In fairness, I will say that there are some here who seem to feel that error should fall on the other side and that technical argument about WP's sourcing rules should entirely decide the matter (without saying their interpretations of those rules are correct). To your questions and thoughts:

1. On the thesis itself. I think the main point is that the thesis, its length, its format, attachments or lack thereof, etc. is of no relevance to the question we are examining, the presence or absence of a awarded degree. All you say may be true, but it is not for us to judge the thesis. That was for the University and the particular advisors and committees at VUW to do, which they apparently did. I will say that I notice the thesis was also published in "Crustaceana" Volume 47, Number 3, 1984 , pp. 251-268(18); which i understand is the leading, peer-reviewed journal in the field (though it is not in my discipline so you may wish to check on that). Yes, this is not the thesis itself, only a reprint in a journal, but its there, and of sufficient quality evidently to get such publication. Ok, hope that puts to rest your first concerns. I can speculatively account for your observations on the library copy, but its not germane, so let's put that aside;

2. On the physical location: The record we have been examining is the one in the Research Archives at VUW. If you drill down the VUW home site, you will notice there are a number of separate libraries and differently located libraries, of which the Research Archives are but one. I have seen records of Pellegrino's thesis in both the Main catalogs of the central library (likely the place where people can handle it, check it out, etc.) and, the one we are looking at in the Research Archives (and, I think, the one that would be most closely scrutinized, carefully handled and protected, given the functions and traditions of a research archive; as well as the specialization of research archivists). I think it is generally agreed by all that we are examining the record which is in the most dependable and reliable collection, so far as its accuracy and security is concerned;

3. I have no knowledge, precisely, what VUWs procedures are with respect to conferring degrees (do you?). Your observations are consistent with my own experience of universities here in the states. But for them, I just can't say. But, let us assume you are correct in the particulars. We can call the graduate registrar, or central administration and get a confirmation or denial from someone. And it is probably likely they got it from the catalog record as well. If they said they couldn't find it, and we said "are you sure? We've got good reason to believe this person was an alumnus and has their degree, could you please check again," they might well go to the special collection to double-check the matter (in this case, that might well be the Research Archive, where the more reliable record might be held, and one that is less disputable.) In the matter of sourcing, the statements of central administration are of little use (though some here have made an exception for statements quoted by a third-party in some newspaper). But the printed, published record is the source that most researches would tend to trust and use. And that appears to be the record we are looking at - the record we've seen in the Research Library catalog. Some have suggested the record is a "primary source" and, therefore, using it would constitute 'original research' or a lessor source by WP rules. Actually, the RA reccord is a secondary source as well. The primary source is actually the various documents from the School, the Department, the faculty, and various other offices of the university (perhaps the comptrollers signoff as well to insure the student had paid all fees and tuitions), which the archivist then examines to create the record (much the same as if some expert had published a book or journal article and we used that as a gold-standard second source.) So that "signature page" and other documents you speculate upon, are part of the primary source record and may not even need appear by VUW processes, and may not even be publicly accessible for all we know. Perhaps they value the signature page more, and tuck it away somewhere else. We have no way of knowing and, as I said, the format of the thesis is of no concern to our purposes;

4. Again, the primary sources may be in the central administration (or scattered in various departments and offices). They may be digitized (presumably they are, with the written documents stored somewhere else entirely). But it is still the secondary sources we are concerned with here, and those are more reliably found in the catalog (and in the Research Archive catalog in particular). When we call someone in central administration, we can't be sure if they are looking at the primary sources, secondary sources or whatever. We have know way of knowing even if they are a valid secondary source (do they really have the expertise to interpret the record and tell us what it means? Very doubtful that they do.) So here, I would disagree with your assessment that "Their [central administration's] records are the final (and only) authority." At least in so far as sourcing goes. In a dispute over the matter the written record is the final authority as provided by a reliable, trustworthy second source (at least by WPs standards). In that, I would also say that the library research archivist would trump all other second sources on the basis of expertise, professional obligation, stewardship of the record, itself, and any other measure we might apply to the reliability of the source. A university might have all kinds of reasons and motives for inaccurately reflecting the actual state of affairs (lack of expertise/training on the part of the person reporting, political or other matters of overriding concern, even distraction and other side issues might come into play). But, when the archivist in charge of the matter tells you the state of affairs, you can pretty much depend that that is the state of affairs. And that is what sourcing is about, is it not?

5. Again, the length or quality of the thesis itself is not at issues and is not relevant, no matter what it looks like to you are me (we're just doing original, speculative research ourselves in that case.) But, in addition, I've provided the source (above) of its subsequent publication in a peer-reviewed, scientific journal of some repute. So I hardly think we have a term paper on our hands. As for length (a non-issue too) you may wish to google "shortest Phd" sometime.

6. The dates are, as I have said elsewhere, a puzzle. They concern the thesis itself and it's receipt. As I also stated before, they are not really of concern in the matter of whether the degree was awarded or not; though I will assume, safely I think, that the receipt and acceptance of the thesis had to precede the award of the degree; was a requirement. I will also note that I have viewed an older catalog of the same library in which the "date" descriptor was called "date published" and assume the research library has recently updated its descriptor nomenclature. The dates on both the old form and the new one were both 1983 in Pellegrino's record. The puzzle, of course, is why the discrepancy between that, and the accession and issue dates exists? A gap of thirty years! My first thought was to rule out the possibility that Pellegrino just happened to wander back onto the VUW campus thirty years after the fact and completed some missing requirement. As far as I can tell he left NZ not long after that period, came to the states and has resided here ever since. So, it's a mystery at the moment, but I don't think has any bearing on our sourcing questions. Well, one bearing. Presuming it made it to the library when he was still a student there, it kind of shoots a hole in the VC claim that "nothing happened after 1986" Something happened, sometime. Unless we are to believe the accession, degree award and everything else simply materialized in 2011. Some kind of Twilight Zone hypotheses, wouldn't you agree? So its a puzzle. But for another day. Outside of this discussion, certainly. I would add that the record, and its second-sourced verification, "all degrees conferred" of the archivist, entirely trumps the VC's statement. We don't know what the VC was up to and what his reasons for making the flat 'no-degree' statement he did. But that it conflicts with the record and a confirmation from a reliable second source is evident. I'll go with the second source (not to mention that the VC came to us as a tertiary source via a news report). So, double reason to exercise much caution in taking the VC's statement at face-value as reliable or trustworthy. The remainder of your observations in item 6 I believe are university-specific ones, and we have no idea of how VUW handles such things. It would take considerable original research to find out. I can't see where the answers would change anything about the question before us. I'll leave your first set of questions at that.

My conclusion, then, is that we have pretty good credibility on one side of the matter, and very weak or questionable credibility on all the sources of the other side (as well as some serious questions yet to be examined there.) The main question that remains is, do we wish to continue to risk ruining a man's personal and professional reputation on doubtful materials, especially when there is far less doubtful material, in the record and from a good second source, that the degree is perfectly valid? In that, I would maintain, that Pellegrino's degree should be accepted at face-value until/unless there is hard evidence otherwise, and that he should be treated as any other Phd on Wikipedia. Would you agree?

So, Dr. Tavio, I hope that I have successfully met and exceeded the challenge you presented. Thanks for your taking the time to think about the matter. I hope neither of us regret taking a look at it. Provided there is no thesis required, could I have my degree now? Redslider (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

There's so much discussion above that confusions of detail are bound to happen. This isn't the general library catalogue or [apparently] a circulating copy; it's the Ph.D. catalogue of the Research Archive. [Yes, we see it as part of the Library interface, but that would be the case at many other institutions too.] If the Vice-Chancellor spoke after the catalogue, she would probably trump it (though she would be a fool not to ensure that it agreed with her); but in this case the VC spoke earlier and the catalogue later, and that could be evidence that something changed (like the awarding of the Ph.D.) in between. The brevity is certainly very surprising, but I have seen scientific Ph.D. theses as brief as this. As you know, Taivo, we can't cite a call to the central administration on an encyclopedia page, but we can cite the catalogue, which is a secondary source.

I'm glad to see no legal threat now exists. Andrew Dalby 12:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

While a call to the central administration is not a reliable source, we do have two sources: 1) a library record and 2) a statement by the Vice Chancellor quoted in the New York Times. The library record, unless the university considers that to be the official repository of the central administration, is still not definitive, especially since the approval signatures are not affixed to the document, which is standard practice. It is certainly not "weighty" enough to overrule the Vice Chancellor. While it may be suggestive (as your above scenario outlines), it is simply not definitive evidence. If degrees were, indeed, being awarded 28 years after the fact in New Zealand, there should be some public record of that and a listing of the degrees thus awarded. --Taivo (talk) 12:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly my point. Unfortunately we don't have a date for the "awarded doctoral thesis". The "copyright" (formerly "publication") date, the accession and issue dates, all apply to the thesis itself. So what's the chance that the doctorate was awarded 28 years after the fact? Near zero, I'd say. And the record definitely contradicts the VCs statement as quoted in the press. I couldn't find any record concerning post-hoc awards of degrees; and a gap that long certainly should raise some flags. So the VC is shaky and the record? I'd go with that, and the archivist (don't forget them). In fact, since the VCs statement that "nothing happened after 1986" is so clearly wrong, I'd bet the degree was awarded at the same time the thesis was issued, 1983, which is the normal procedure, give or take the few days for record keeping and updates. I think one of the things we are missing here is the difference between 'authority' and 'fact'. The VC (I presume) has the authority to speak for the university. They can say anything they like, but that doesn't make what they say factual or trustworthy (though, as you point out, they'd be a fool to contradict their own records). But university presidents do that all the time (politically, its part of their job). So, while their authority may permit them the license to speak for the university, does conscientious sourcing permit us to ignore the potential unreliability of the source? Is sourcing to be attached to "authority", or to actual expertise, practice, peer-review, records fidelity and other indicators of the accuracy of the information, not simply the title and authority of the informant? What does 'trustworthy and reliable' mean?

but I am really more concerned with the other matter. And I am puzzled why no one in any of the lengthy discussions has mentioned it except me, not even when I ask directly as I have. Where sources leave serious questions, or even a modicum of doubt, is it permissible to permit those sources to be used to continue to ruin a person's reputation? Do we permit sources to be used in such fashion, under such circumstances as this? That is a fair sourcing question, too. But so far no one seems to want to address it. Some kind of hot-potato? A taboo subject? Because if that is true, that we sit on our hands and wrestle over the minutiae of sourcing evidence, and leave someone to suffer the consequences in the light of serious doubt (our own discussion is proof enough that there is considerable doubt), then I'm out of this discussion. I am only concerned with preventing what appears to be unjustifiable harm to someone. That's why I took this matter up in the first place. If we're not moving on to that, to what ought not be permissible in the application of reasonably doubted sources, I'm out of here. Redslider (talk) 00:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Excellent point [I add, to retain clarity in this complex conversation, that I was responding to Taivo here!]. Why the scandalous non-existence of the Ph.D. is the last relevant incident in the New Zealand press, if in fact the Ph.D. was granted soon afterwards, I can't suggest. Andrew Dalby 13:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I see now that the copy that's catalogued is a circulating copy; however, the pdf that we can download would not have the signature page or record of approval that several of us were hoping to see. This page explains. Andrew Dalby 13:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that link Andrew. Apparently this New Zealand university only requires the submission of one copy, unlike most American universities, which require the submission of (at least) two copies. I would still have to stress, however, that the records of the central administration will always trump the library collection, as Mangoe noted below. --Taivo (talk) 17:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

My thanks too. Although I think it's of limited value. It was updated last December and I expect these processes undergo revisions frequently, perhaps several times a year. No idea what their handbook specified in 1983. Nothing like this one, I expect. We're still left with conjecture. Redslider (talk) 00:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I did find an xls data sheet that appears to be his research summary (no personal identifier but I'm fairly certain it's his.) dates are interesting - research project seems to start 20 years before, in the '60s with latest dates in 1983 at wellington. call letters AS741 VUW PhD TZ 81 1983 . OOPS - the link seems to come up on the "WP Blacklisted sites list" don't see why, came up for me fine, xls file, no viruses. google the call letters and you should find it. Its the MarineBioblitz site. I pulled up the copy. I'm not to swift on these technical things. There seems to be a copy of the thesis in the biological science library, too. Redslider (talk) 01:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

You waste your time thinking that people will actually read all that stuff that you post. It's repetitive and isn't convincing. It's very simple, Redslider--the central administration of every university is the repository of official student records. The only statement that has been published by the central administration of that university is the statement by the Vice Chancellor in the New York Times, a reliable source quoting the only official source of university information. That's the end of the story until the central administration publishes further information. A library card catalogue entry is not definitive--only a statement from central administration is definitive. When the two sources have conflicting information, the central administration always trumps the library. --Taivo (talk) 03:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

And, Redslider, your whole notion that Wikipedia will "ruin a man's career" is completely laughable. In order to be on Wikipedia in the first place, a person must have a reputable, established career to begin with. He or she must already be notable outside Wikipedia or else we need to delete their entry. The notion that Wikipedia will somehow have an effect on their reputation is completely and totally wrong. If Wikipedia might have that affect on a person's career, then they should not be listed here. Mr. Pellegrino needs to fix the public record himself if it is that important to his career and reputation. It is not our job at Wikipedia to do the work. There is a single

original research. Primary sources never override secondary sources in Wikipedia. All that primary source says is that there exists a document that at one time was submitted for a PhD; it does not verify that the PhD was ever conferred. --Taivo (talk

) 17:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Tavio, do you even realize what you are saying? Do you know, for instance, that one of Pellegrino's books was pulled from the shelves after publication by a major publisher? (there were some minor errors of fact, which he immediately admitted and corrected, but a substantial reason was the doubt cast on his degree begun and sourced to an editor on his BLP and first repeated there). there is other serious damage that has been done. I'm not going to research it for you, go do your own. But the fact is, such charges, brought up here or elsewhere, can do serious damage to person's personal and professional reputation. That is why there are any number of polices and pages here on Wikipedia warning everyone to stay away from doing harm or injury in a BLP, (again, do your own research). Its why a BLP is distinguished from a BDP. The single "reliable published source" you refer to is actually a tertiary source - a quote from an unvetted article in the NYT, by a non-expert source, from another, now tertiary, source (the VC) who is not expert in such matters, may have political and other motives for making the statements he does and, in any case, is unreliable despite the fact that he may legally speak "for the university". Add to, that that there is internal contradiction (check other's statements in these discussions) in the quote from the VC, and you get a source - the one you claim "reliable" - that is virtually worthless. Nearly trash, in fact. On the other hand, you have the written record (a secondary source, actually - the primaries are the documents from which it was created by research archivists, very reliable sources), and confirmed by a gold-standard secondary source, the research librarian in charge of those records. You can't get much better than that. And, it is the research archivist who confirmed that the record shows that "All degrees are conferred" not simply that "some thesis was shelved". And you wish to prattle on that the doubtful source trumps the sterling one? I tell you, the thing that seems to be getting more questionable all the time are your remarks. They are beginning to verge on nonsense. You made some good points before; and I took pains to answer each of them with great care. But you have rebutted none of mine. You are simply parroting your original statements, plus adding a new one, equally silly. Your certainly losing your credibility with me. I haven't time to waste with such unsupportable statements. As I suggested, do your own research. Redslider (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Resdidler, there is now one single, solitary source for any information concerning an alleged PhD for Mr. Pellegrino and it is the NY Times article. There is no longer an erroneous library catalogue entry for a "PhD". It doesn't exist, therefore, there is zero evidence for him having a PhD. Your "sterling source" simply no longer exists; it was only fool's gold and not 24ct as you had hoped. And Mr. Pellegrino's problems are not the result of Wikipedia. Get over it. You have convinced no one. --Taivo (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, Tavio, I see your now down to complete conjectural fantasy. The original campaign of Dbrennan and his unsource is trash; the unvetted NYT (your sterling lean-to) is trash, the VC's remarks are self-contradictory, tertiary and trash; The degree is there in 1983 and disappears; 30 years later it pops up and is confirmed by the archivist (solid 2nd source); then there's a flurry of inquiries from here to the library and lo&behold, it disappears again (only it doesn't; we're just locked out of accessing now - suspicious?) and then what; oh its ad hominem attacks on me. Great, Tavio, that should convince someone. Wikipedia not involved? What do you think would have happened if Mr. Brennan hadn't run his unsourced campaign against Pellegrino in the first place? I'll tell you, Tavio, we wouldn't even be here, and their would be no trumped up invalidate Pellegrino cmapaign either. Why don't you do a little research on Brennan and find out who he pals around with - its public knowledge all over the internet - he sourced some of it right here. Then ask yourself, what kind of stake do they have in nailing Pellegrino? Check his conversations with Pellegrino, for that matter. No, that would be too obvious, wouldn't it? But your own theories are pretty much trash now. What's next, some new conjecture? I wouldn't be a bit surprised.Redslider (talk) 07:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

at this point, I can see no point whatsoever in doing anything other than telling Redslider to take a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut. This is either pure trolling, or a total lack of clue. Either way, Redslider has proven utterly incapable of doing anything other than wasting our time over questions we shouldn't be involved in in the first place. If Pellegrino has a dispute with VUW over whether they ever awarded him a doctorate, he should argue it with them. It is none of our business to try to figure this out for ourselves. The university Vice Chancellor says it didn't, and that is good enough for us. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Please! can someone with the necessary WikiMojo shut down this bloody topic. I'm getting really tired of this shit cluttering up my watchlist. Thanks. Roger (talk) 14:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Belaboring the matter

This discussion seems to me to have passed beyond any reasonable response to the original question. The university says flatly, No, he doesn't get a degree from us. No other source could trump that; even presentation of a diploma, under the circumstances, would lead to the suspicion that the latter was faked. The only thing an entry in a library catalog can ever be strong evidence for is that the work in question once did exist. Realistically, if you got the head librarian and the registrar in the same room and presented them with these facts, nobody can seriously doubt that the former would defer to the latter. This is exactly the kind of eccentric conclusion-drawing that

Actually, your little thought experiment has it backwards. In a matter concerning the records, the Registrar would defer to the librarian, especially if they were a research archivist, more especially if they were the person in charge of the particular records collection in question. It is the archivist who has the expertise in the matter, not the Registrar. The Registrar might head out to the front-desk to inform the person asking the question, but it is the archivist who had the information and could properly interpret it and relay it. But, let me put another thought-experiment back at you. If you were at a meeting of the graduate committee in charge of overseeing matters of procedures and records and you were discussing matters concerning the handling of those records, their forms, the meanings the processes of creating them and so forth, who do you think would be more likely to be at that meeting, the archivist from the research library, or the Registrar or Vice Chancellor of the university? Actually this isn't a thought-experiment, its an actuality. I've been at such meetings. Regestrars and VCs weren't there, nor were their representatives. But a whole lot of specialized librarians were. Very boring meetings, too. Belabored? You ain't seen nothing. Redslider (talk) 23:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

No, Redslider, you are wrong. The central administration is the only official source for official records and the librarian would always defer to the central administration. --Taivo (talk) 03:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with trying to figure out the details. Some of the discussion above is admittedly "merely academic", but it's still interesting to us academics. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

One person at the university, albeit the VC, said "No.", (the other university 'spokesperson', the one that initiated all the other sources, was unsourced and tertiary. There may also be a conflict of interest in the person who sourced them and was referenced in the BLP), and that source is both tertiary and has been called into question by several others here. A gold-standard source, on the other hand, expert in the matters, trustworthy and reliable and with senior responsibility for handling the records in question, has said, "In answer no Thesis is included in the Research Archive that has not already been awarded. All degrees are conferred." - M. Parry, Co-ordinator of VUW Research Archives Digital Initiatives - (that's "all degrees conferred", not just a thesis). If you wish to argue about the source as an email communication or something else, that's a separate issue. For now, it should be more than enough reliable and trustworthy source to stop ruining a man's reputation. Redslider (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia uses published sources - which the e-mail isn't. And as has been pointed out to you umpteen times already, this isn't a source for a statement about whether a particular doctorate was awarded or not, since the question wasn't asked. As for the rest, your opinion on which source is more reliable is just that - opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Well I promised I'd report back. I got the following answer:

Hi there Andrew,

The Research Archive url in your e-mail doesn’t work for me: however, I’ve searched the Research Archive, and our library catalogue, and there’s no record of a PhD for Charles Pellegrino.

[signed]

So there we go, and if I ever said I thought this library catalogue was reliable, I now deny it and eat (h)umble pie (I like game pie, actually.) It was a good thing the librarian couldn't access the catalogue entry I sent him, because he has done an independent search instead. I now agree with all those who say we would need to cite an independent source (e.g. issued by the University Registry) before claiming Pellegrino has a Ph.D. Without that, our presumption must be that the NYT report is still the latest news, he still hasn't; and we should certainly mention the controversy on the Pellegrino page because (a) it was very notable at the time, (b) it affected the republication of his major book. I consider that we should give a link to his revised preface under external links, but I never thought we could treat it as a reliable source until it's reliably published, and, so far as we know, it isn't. Andrew Dalby 09:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand that the thesis was in the collection and had been since 1983, however it should never have been accepted. The catalogue entry and the research archive entry have been removed by admin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.195.179.116 (talk • contribs) , 18:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, the entry appears to now be inaccessible. I've previously been able to access the record and examine the pdf of the thesis, but now it appears to be inaccessible. If the record no longer exists, then this whole discussion becomes moot and the only reliable source is the Vice Chancellor's comment in the New York Times that Mr. Pellegrino never received a PhD. --Taivo (talk) 19:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Fascinating. Though it has no bearing on how to edit the article, I'm now curious to know how the PDF copy of the document ended up on their system -- this being a file format that did not exist in 1983. I suppose the library was probably just scanning old dissertations -- which might explain how a catalogue record was created late last year (thus a misimpression leading to the comment "all degrees are awarded"). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it may well have happened that way. And it looks as though our enquiries (Redslider's or mine or the mere fact that there was so much interest all at once) led them to revise their rules on access to the catalogue or to this bit of it. The result I now get is "the item is restricted" -- login required. An odd instance of the power of Wikipedia. Andrew Dalby 09:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting that this type of issue can be so problematic on WP. Such cases were discussed a few times during recent long discussions about the wording of WP:V. A lot of people commented. I believe I am right in saying that there was broad consensus that common sense and reasonable doubts, if there is some reasonable consensus about them, even if they come from synthesis and original thinking, CAN BE a valid basis for raising doubts about what NOT to include in an article, especially if that article is about a living person. So for example by my understanding the letter can be discussed as relevant, but only in the negative sense that it might perhaps raise enough doubts to suggest that Wikipedia should not try to explain too much due to lack of sources.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Catalog entry withdrawn

According to a post today on this talk page, the VUW media contact has said " The University library catalogue was incorrect and the references have been removed. Sorry for any confusion." Which of course explains why it is no longer accessible. Which explains it all.

Sorry—which talk page did that statement appear on? It's not that I doubt the veracity of the statements (yours or the other poster's) or the plausibility of the explanation, but I can't find the message to which you refer. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Charles R. Pellegrino - I copied the email I received, in full.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

We might look at what was said in Sarek's post of the email:

Just received the following email from the media contact at VUW:

Hi Garrett,

Please excuse the delay in responding to your email. The University library catalogue was incorrect and the references have been removed. Sorry for any confusion.

Thanks

Maria

I believe that should settle the issue. (P.S. - Madeleine Setchell is the contact listed on the webpage, but she's on parental leave, which is why the email above is signed "Maria".)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, this is evidence that the university is engaged in a cover up. Gamaliel (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

So, we have further reason to question any reliability on university spokespeople, no matter how high up on the food chain they are. And, with Gamaliel (the librarian) questioning what's going on, it appears the consensus claimed on this might be beginning to falter. Meanwhile, a person's professional and personal reputation is being maligned in a BLP. Redslider (talk) 19:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

What someone might want to do now is go back to the original BLP (the one Sparthorse reverted from my attempt to correct the record) and ask, "What was in the text of the material sent to the media in the first place? And what, if anything, did that do to condition how the reporter posed their question (what was their question?) to the VC?" To paraphrase Deep Throat, "Follow the Source." Redslider (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that, given Gamaliel's earlier comments, his suggestion of 'a cover up' was intended as irony. I'll notify him of this thread, so he can clarify this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Redslider, you have failed to convince a single person on any of the venues to which you have posted that the article should be edited in the way you prefer. The consensus here is entirely against you: no one thinks that Pellegrino has a PhD -- certainly not after hearing from the university that the catalogue record was an error and has now been removed. I don't suppose a simple "give it up, already" will do the trick? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Redslider, it is pretty obvious that Gamaliel wasn't serious. And we are not going to try to investigate the media report. That isn't our role, and I hope you aren't going to start reverting because we haven't found out all the background to every report you don't like. I'm not sure what you mean by 'BLP', if you mean BLP violation then please say so, but don't attack Sparthorse for removing "Controversy regarding the validity of Pellegrino proved to be baseless. Questions regarding the validity of his degree were circulated around the internet and in the news media based upon false and unauthenticated information propagated by some of his detractors, including editors of recent prior editions of this Wikipedia biography" (see the rest at [23] which was clearly an attack on other editors and a BLP violation in itself.

talk

) 19:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to Andy for notifying me of this sillyness. My comment was obviously a joke and should not be taken in any way seriously. I think we've given this issue far more time than it deserves. We have gold-standard secondary sources, the only primary source (and calling it that is a stretch) that could be remotely considered as contradicting the secondary sources has been corrected, so we are done, finished, the issue is dead, pushing up daisies, joined the choir invisible. To insist this go on any further without new evidence or reasoning would be in my opinion just trolling, and for us to indulge this any further would be to reward this behavior. Gamaliel (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I really hope that Redslider will understand this. I see he still insists on his talk page that the subject is 'Dr. Pellegrino'. Perhaps some uninvolved editor can close this to make it formal.

talk

) 20:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) Although we might speculate about what happened and the various motives, that is not our function here. As was pointed out earlier, there are two BLPs at issue - Pellegrino's and the Vice Chancellor's. We must tread carefully in either direction. We need reliable sources to make statements in the article. We cannot indulge in

WP:SYNTHESIS (such as concluding a library record implies Pellegrino's version is correct). Emails from the University staff (no matter which side they support) are not reliable sources. (BTW, I consider the library record a primary source; it is not an independent source that weighs in on the degree controversy.) If one wants to get another RS, then an email to the NYT would be better as it might trigger a new article about the University's claims and the claims by Pellegrino (such as of a subsequent restoration). Note that the existence of a thesis by Pellegrino has never been in doubt by either side, so the existence of that thesis is not compelling evidence either way. Glrx (talk

) 20:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

At this point, all we have for reliable sources is the NYT article stating that he doesn't have a PhD from VUW. We have no source, including the library catalog now, that states he _does_ have a PhD. Therefore, the contents of the email are irrelevant, except to explain to us what's going on.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Having been following this for the past few days, articles on Wikipedia ultimately must rely on what the reliable sources say. There's an interesting backstory to all of this, but for the article itself, that story doesn't matter. We can (must!) go with what we can reference. If the NYT or some other source wants to report in more detail on this then perhaps it can be added. There have been claims about harm to article subjects, but that should only offer any weight in extreme cases. This isn't such a case. Harm is also done by NOT reporting what is available by giving false weight to unsupported claims that may lead readers to a different view of the subject than they would otherwise. Presenting a correct view is NPOV, not presenting a white-washed, only positive view.

Ravensfire (talk

) 22:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)