Talk:Richard H. Ebright

Total WP:OVERCITE

This is the most extreme example of WP:OVERCITE ive ever seen. Im not saying these refs are not useful, but do we really need multiple citations on every sentence, including one which has 11? Perhaps we can cut this down a bit? Bonewah (talk) 19:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree, it's awful. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is to be read by humans, not merely a repository of facts and references. Also, a devoted section to his views on COVID-19 is undue WP:RECENTISM. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm gonna go ahead and condense those citations into an endnote of some kind. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay I think I've mainly fixed the WP:OVERCITE problems, check my work and see what you think. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:51, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

@Barton1234, See above discussion regarding WP:OVERCITE. The consensus here is to remove these many multiple redundant citations. What specifically do you have issues with? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 11:51, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

DOB

@Barton1234 and Ponyo: Basic biographical data on Ebright can be found in multiple editions of American Men and Women of Science published by Thomson Gale (e.g. 1998,2005, 2008) and several editions of Marquis Who's Who directories (e.g. 1994, 1998, 2010). These directories can be found in libraries across North America, so it's not like the information is particularly obscure, even before the Internet Archive digitized them. WP:RSPSOURCES does not cover Men and Women of Science but indeed states Marquis Who's Who directories generally unreliable. However, it also states As most of its content is provided by the person concerned, editors generally consider Marquis Who's Who comparable to a self-published source. Per WP:DOB Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. I think it's reasonable to infer that biographical data was provided by the subject to both publications, which should satisfy WP:BLPSPS, and the repeated appearance in multiple editions is evidence the subject does not object to the information being widely published. DOB and other personal info appears to have been first added in August 2019, without any sources whatsoever, and persisted until my good-faith efforts to verify them. I don't think parents or other family members need inclusion, but date and place of birth seem well sourced and appropriate. Note also that a Science news feature listed his age as 45 in 2005. I think full name, date and place of birth should be added. Objections? --Animalparty! (talk) 00:35, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I think in cases like this when there are only compendia-type tertiary sources such as encyclopedias of indeterminate reliability, it's always best to err on the side of caution. The Science article is a much stronger source; I suppose it could be used for the birth date. But herein lies the problem - below Shibbolethink is calling out Barton1234 for having a conflict of interest. If that's the case, and Barton1234 is removing the full date of birth and middle name, then we can't "infer that the subject does not object to the details being made public". So in this case, the next bit of WP:DOB would apply, that is only including the year of birth. If you really feel that the sourcing is strong enough to include the full DOB and the middle name, it may be best to run it thorugh WP:BLPN just to solidify consensus for inclusion.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:17, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, but we don't necessarily know the extent or connection of the COI. could be he's somebody in Ebright's lab, or a marketing person. But I'm not sure that the benefits of including this information necessarily outweigh the costs. I am overall ambivalent. Agree that BLPN would be a good place to take this. I think with that sourcing it's actually really good for the DOB, so the only hangup is potential BLP issues. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:55, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Possible COI by User:Barton1234

@Barton1234, do you have any connection to the article subject (Dr. Ebright) or his institution (Rutgers) ? You have been asked this once before by others, and declined to respond. It appears your contributions are singularly focused on this article, and his various papers/citations. If so, you must declare that connection here on the talk page (and strongly consider ceasing editing the article), or be in violation of WP:COI. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 11:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

capitalization of "Junior Fellow"

@User:Barton1234: See MOS:JOBTITLE-- They are capitalized only in the following cases...When a formal title for a specific entity (or conventional translation thereof) is addressed as a title or position in and of itself, is not plural, is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article), and is not a reworded description... — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:11, 9 November 2022 (UTC)