Talk:Leo Paquette

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Chemistry Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

does anyone know why the fact that this scientist has been accused of misconduct has been erased a few times?? Why is this not relevant?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.177.54 (talk) 09:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. "Cases of scientific misconduct" still links here, however the editor 24.247.121.82 has consistently removed this relevant information and has written a rather glowing biography of the subject. I realise that biographies of living people are legally sensitive, esp. after that Kennedy assassination libel, but this is a well documented case resulting in a paper trail, which I believe was properly cited and attributed.131.111.184.95 (talk) 02:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who was plagiarized, I am confounded that only a minor slap on the hand was all that was enforced. He destroyed my opportunities for an academic career and significant contributions my proposal would have given to science. Dr. C M Adams

Undue[edit]

The charges appear undue since there is no mention of what the charges are, this is a living person biography and undue weight to something not explained MUST be removed. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, but as the controversy was real, and documented, it is simply a case of the whole of the article being unsourced. As good sources are compiled on the article's subject, there will be ample material to support both the estimable and controversial. Le Prof 50.179.252.14 (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dead external links[edit]

Should anyone wish to attempt to revitalize these now extinct URLs, here they are:

I am focusing instead on amassing good, revelatory secondary sources on the subject, so I and others can move it toward being encyclopedic. Cheers. Le Prof 50.179.252.14 (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]