This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Erika Jensen-Jarolim article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for deletion on 11 November 2014. The result of the discussion was withdrawn. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
Yngvadottir I disagree with this edit and your edit-warring reversion of my deletion instead of discussing this on talk per WP:BRD. In my view you are doing original research by selecting some of her publications and deciding to give WP:WEIGHT to them in describing them.
Please also explained why you restored unsourced content] in a BLP.
I will not follow you down the edit-warring road, but please respond. Thank you. Jytdog ( talk) 17:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Yngvadottir for an admin you are behaving very badly. you are writing content that violates WP:TECHNICAL and adding sources that are superfluous - the "AllergoOncology" primary reference does not support the content that she coined the term at that meeting! I don't know why you are editing in this way, and even editwarring over it. Jytdog ( talk) 20:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Just to address the original research a bit more, I just removed non-MEDRS sources and content in the research section. WP:MEDRS is very clear that we use secondary sources for medical claims (we're addressing WP:NPOV and not subject notability at this point). Basically, we can't cite a primary study for an interpretation of its own findings. Instead of readding this content and looking for a source, we should find a literature review that mentions the work and base any new content on what that source actually says. Hopefully that's clear given all of the above conversations that seemed like there were some misunderstandings. I'm picking out some of the blatant content issues that are set to go unless their sourcing issues are resolved, so if there is a question on why they were removed or how to improve, this is the place to discuss. I'm making a few edits in succession in the next couple minutes, so give it a sec. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 04:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
so apparently has founded a biotech company and is listed there as Chief Scientific Officer. Vaccines against Her-2 in dogs is one of the things the company is working on ( see here) and her team just published a new paper on that and Messerli put out press releases about it too... neither the paper nor the press release has any declaration of conflict of interest with regard to her role in the biotech company. oy. i am all in favor of entrepreneurship but that was not handled well. Jytdog ( talk) 20:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Erika Jensen-Jarolim article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for deletion on 11 November 2014. The result of the discussion was withdrawn. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
Yngvadottir I disagree with this edit and your edit-warring reversion of my deletion instead of discussing this on talk per WP:BRD. In my view you are doing original research by selecting some of her publications and deciding to give WP:WEIGHT to them in describing them.
Please also explained why you restored unsourced content] in a BLP.
I will not follow you down the edit-warring road, but please respond. Thank you. Jytdog ( talk) 17:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Yngvadottir for an admin you are behaving very badly. you are writing content that violates WP:TECHNICAL and adding sources that are superfluous - the "AllergoOncology" primary reference does not support the content that she coined the term at that meeting! I don't know why you are editing in this way, and even editwarring over it. Jytdog ( talk) 20:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Just to address the original research a bit more, I just removed non-MEDRS sources and content in the research section. WP:MEDRS is very clear that we use secondary sources for medical claims (we're addressing WP:NPOV and not subject notability at this point). Basically, we can't cite a primary study for an interpretation of its own findings. Instead of readding this content and looking for a source, we should find a literature review that mentions the work and base any new content on what that source actually says. Hopefully that's clear given all of the above conversations that seemed like there were some misunderstandings. I'm picking out some of the blatant content issues that are set to go unless their sourcing issues are resolved, so if there is a question on why they were removed or how to improve, this is the place to discuss. I'm making a few edits in succession in the next couple minutes, so give it a sec. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 04:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
so apparently has founded a biotech company and is listed there as Chief Scientific Officer. Vaccines against Her-2 in dogs is one of the things the company is working on ( see here) and her team just published a new paper on that and Messerli put out press releases about it too... neither the paper nor the press release has any declaration of conflict of interest with regard to her role in the biotech company. oy. i am all in favor of entrepreneurship but that was not handled well. Jytdog ( talk) 20:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)