Talk:Karl Deisseroth

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.

Biography: Science and Academia

	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.

California: San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	San Francisco Bay Area portal This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Low-importance).

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Karl Deisseroth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150901025834/http://www.fnih.org/work/lurie-prize-biomedical-sciences to http://www.fnih.org/work/lurie-prize-biomedical-sciences

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources[edit]

This WP:BLP article includes too many statements which rely on primary sources. Content which cites Deisseroth's own research does not establish notability (WP:N) for inclusion. Only research which has been covered in secondary sources such as news, books or academic reviews is notable enough for inclusion. Wikipedia relies on secondary sources. I attempted to rectify this by adding a simple template stating the article relies on too many primary sources which was twice inappropriately reverted. The use of primary sources in this article simply does not meet the requirements at WP:PRIMARYCARE, they would only be useful if getting direct quotes or as a source alongside a secondary source (which establishes their notability). All content relying on his own papers in journals is not notable and should be removed. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:05, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zenomonoz, I've never engaged in a discussion regarding primary/non-primary sources, so it's likely you know more about Wikipedia's protocol on this topic than I do. Having said that, it seems to me that Deisseroth's research, based on his own credentials, would be notable regardless of where it was published. I suggest simply tagging the primary-sourced content individually (this is actually what I had in mind as a more useful alternative to placing a template at the top of the article, which seems non-specific and not overly helpful to readers). Let me know your thoughts. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can restore the removed content by finding secondary sources that cite the removed studies. E.g. check on Google scholar if books or academic reviews cite his study and discuss it, then they become notable. That would establish notability for inclusion. Otherwise, single studies are not necessarily notable enough for inclusion in an encylopedia. Zenomonoz (talk) 01:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Generalrelative, what do you find contentious about the primary-sourced content you have removed from this article? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We generally only consider details notable if they have been discussed in reliable, independent, secondary sources. There are some exceptions, especially for basic biographical information. But keeping things rooted in secondary sources is one major way that we prevent BLPs from sprawling into curricula vitae. Generalrelative (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]