Talk:Richard H. Ebright

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Richard H. Ebright article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography: Science and Academia 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 (assessed as Low-importance). United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Viruses Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses 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.VirusesWikipedia:WikiProject VirusesTemplate:WikiProject Virusesvirus articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. project's importance scale .

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Edits made by the below user were last checked for neutrality on 13 November 2022 by Shibbolethink. Barton1234 (talk · contribs)

This is the most extreme example of

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)[reply

]

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

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)[reply

]

@

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)[reply

]

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

WP:BLPN just to solidify consensus for inclusion.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:17, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

@