Talk:Doris Taylor

COI
As per comment here, the creator of this page has a COI with respect to the article's subject - Rwendler is a PR person for the Texas Heart Institute in Houston. This article is promotional and am recommending it for deletion.Jytdog (talk) 18:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * dramatically revised this instead of nominated for deletion. Jytdog (talk) 19:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

RWendler does not state that he is a PR person as you suggest, but is instead a website writer/editor. I read his entry and found it non-promotional and informative with verifiable sources. Scientific discoveries are credited as much to Duke University and the University of Minnesota as they are to Texas Heart Institute. Students in my classroom used the article to complete a research project, though I cautioned them against Wikipedia. But RWendler's sources were accurate, so I ultimately consented. In the interest of advancing public knowledge, awareness and education, the article should be restored.

Also, although the following verbiage taken from Wikipedia's own website at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_cry_COI discusses paid editors which are not always a bad thing, RWendler is not a paid editor, but falls within the classification of "expert." All the more reason to restore the page:

From Wikipedia: "Although, yes, they are paid to edit Wikipedia, and that by nature may make some dislike them, paid editors frequently have more knowledge of a subject than the average layman. They are more qualified to write articles than most Wikipedians, who when writing about an article they have no knowledge of, frequently just regurgitate what they find in sources." — Preceding unsigned comment added by OQMoore (talk • contribs) 15:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I took care of the COI issues by verifying sources and removing puffery. Much of the original article was nonencylopedic, but instead was like a typical profile written by a university PR office.  Please see other biographies of scientists in Wikipedia for examples and you will see that the article now is like them.Jytdog (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Expanding?
The article as it is now edited is noticeably shorter and more incomplete than other scientists' Wikipedia pages. I will ask my students to weigh in with additional information and restore the article back to a more informative version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OQMoore (talk • contribs) 16:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Look you are new to Wikipedia. There are ways to do things here, and you are not following them.  What you just said you are going to do - have your students come in and overwhelm the article, is called canvassing and is very, very against the rules here.  As a teacher, you shouldn't be teaching others to ignore Wikipedia's polices and guidelines!  Please do carefully read the policy on Biographies of living persons, the policy on what Wikipedia is, and what it is not, the policy on verifiable content, and the guideline on reliable sources.  There is no problem with expanding the article, at all.  There were problems with a) nonencyclopedic content (like the quotes) and b) unsourced content. I fixed both. The article can surely be expanded with encyclopedic content that is reliably sourced.  Jytdog (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Inviting others to contribute factual and verifiable content to an underdeveloped article is not canvassing. You are misinterpreting Wikipedia's guidelines. I took a few moments to search Jytdog and have now learned more about you, your reason for using a fake name and profile, as well as your conduct in the past, i.e. Monsanto, etc...., uncivil posts, abuse of editing power, dismantling of others' verifiable submissions, bullying, etc... Per the warnings I see when I search your group's fake name, you are hereby ignored. This is a good lesson for my students and for that I thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OQMoore (talk • contribs) 18:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Please comment on content, not contributors, as per WP:NPA.  By the way, there is a noticeboard for conversations about BLPs, which we can turn to, to get others' thoughts on this article.  It is here: WP:BLPN. Jytdog (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Heart in a jar?
The Tissue engineering article links to Doris' "heart in a jar" as if this is a well-known way to reference her work.I don't want to interfere here, just a question whether the phrase is often applied to her work? and if so, I respectfully request that you consider adding it? Thanks. Ukrpickaxe (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)