Talk:Salk Institute for Biological Studies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject San Diego (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject San Diego, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to San Diego and San Diego County 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


Is this a joke? Who could question the notability of an institution that: "Five of the scientists trained here have won the Nobel Prize. Four of the Institute's current resident faculty members and three nonresident fellows are Nobel Laureates."

Reverting. Litch 07:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not revert the unreferenced tag again. I know the Salk Institute for Biological Studies is a notable company, I am not disputing that. If it were not notable, I would put it up for AfD. However, this article does not prove it's notability (per wikipedia guidlines), that is why I put up the tag. Please read Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations)#Primary criterion for further information on how to prove notability.—User:Christopher Mann McKay 16:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
The Salk institute is not a company - it is a not-for-profit research institute. Surely it belongs therefore to the same category as universities?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 14:20, 5 May 2007.
I am not sure if it should be under the same category as universities; you might want to ask Wikipedia:Help desk for clearification. The title of the the article is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), so I believe non-profits classify as an organization and should use the same notability guidelines; that is why I used that tag. —User:Christopher Mann McKay 00:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

You placed a vandalism warning on my talk page for removing your ridiculous assertion? Have you never heard of assuming good faith? Are you incapable of doing a google search for: salk institue to find multiple second party citations or are you so removed from the subject that you really are unaware of the notability of the institution? You might want to stick to subjects you have more expertise in, like remedial education.

Here are some of those citations:

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Litch (talkcontribs) 11:48, 9 June 2007.

any modern biology text or class will probably cite the Salk Institute on something or other. See Campbell & Reece 7e, in Chapter 48 citing Fred Gage's work and in Chapter 39 Joanne Chory. That should be enough for a secondary source requirement. 22:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Litch, I placed a vandalism tag on your page because you removed the company-importance tag. Removing content without proper reason is considered vandalism. I placed another vandalism tag on your tag page today, as you removed the company-importance tag again. Yes, I have heard of assuming good faith, but you are not doing that. I am fully aware of the notability of the organization, as stated above; did you read my previous comments? Why are you listing references on this talk page, instead of on the article? If you properly cite the article with primary sources that are relilable, then the company-notability tag can be removed. Do you understand this? —Christopher Mann McKayuser talk 22:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

You both need to cool down. Referring to the letter of the guideline. The guideline demand secondary sources. Secondary sources have been provided. References on talk pages may not be the ideal location but its a perfectly valid one (assuming there's no danger of missattributing a copyrighted source). Notability has been proven. The consensus here is that the institute fulfils the criterion for notability. Christopher if you believe the salk institute is notable, and that those sources are valid ones to prove it is so, then your position appears to be going beyond even being pedantic. 23:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I added some prestigious links and removed the tag. By the way did you read your own tag?

{{Notability|Companies|date=April 2007}}:It says cite sources on the talk page... 00:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I feel really stupid now... Did I not even read the template? I'm sorry. —Christopher Mann McKayuser talk 00:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to apologize on my talk page and then please avoid me if at all possible. Litch 03:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I apologized on your talk page also, and removed the second of the two warning I gave you. Sorry again, I do feel foolish about this. —Christopher Mann McKayuser talk 17:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)