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)

.

Why are you people reverting edits? AniiiCo (talk) 12:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

yeah its such a pain when you spend time on it and its simply revert 103.49.54.130 (talk) 10:14, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Richard H. Ebright

Has Richard H. Ebright, the American Scientist, ever been a 'scout of the year'? 223.179.152.90 (talk) 09:44, 13 April 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)

Possible COI by User:Barton1234

@Barton1234, do you have any connection to the article subject (Dr. Ebright) or his institution (Rutgers) ? 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)