Talk:George Billman

Disclosure
I have written this article (outside mainspace) while having a conflict of interest as the subject's son. I was not asked to write the article, and indeed the subject does not yet know it exists. I have taken the same care to be neutral as I do with all my contributions (more so, actually). I have also asked for an independent review for neutrality before it is moved to mainspace. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "I think this seems like a fine and balanced article and, unless you're married to him, mere relation as a COI seems really quite tangential anyway. I support moving this article to mainspace."


 * "But there's nothing in the article that would give me cause for concern - certainly no promotionalism or undue weight. I'd throw my support behind it being moved to mainspace."

I will document further (post mainspace move) additions/significant changes to the article here. I am confident that one or more COIN regulars watching this page will review each for bias and make changes if necessary...
 * Additional material on baroreflex studies & application to humans: --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Added some material on cocaine studies: --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Creation
This article was moved from draft space to article space by agreement at this discussion. Feel free to contact me or ping me if further discussion is required.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 07:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

COI
I do not think that should continue to directly edit this article, per WP:COI. Jytdog (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ThaddeusB went to great lengths to have other independent editors review this article. His editing is being watched.  Both positive and potentially negative content have been added based on reliable sources.  The scientific results are not controversial and accurately represent the research. --I am One of Many (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If its really an issue, I can post significant changes here for "review" first. I know that is best practice, although I don't see any practical difference between posting at talk and posting directly to the article (with disclosure at talk).  Let me know if really think this necessary.
 * I have been proactive in seeking third party input - I could have simply put a disclosed COI template on talk and fulfilled by policy obligations, and no one would have ever noticed most likely. Instead I went above and beyond the policy requirements by making my connection explicit and I sought out input at COIN.  I also could have "finished" the article in my user space where edits would have gotten less scrutiny (i.e. only once on move instead of continuously as I made change).  I have not touched the vast majority of changes made, even though I disagree with the shortened lead, for example.  Do you really think I am trying to push a POV?  If I was, I would have only done the minimum policy requirements and made all edits in userspace.  Most likely, zero changes would have been made to the text if I took that route. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thaddeus WP:COIADVICE is very clear that you should not be directly editing the article. It is great that you have been transparent but that doesn't give you license to directly edit where you have as COI.  Just like you drafted this in userspace and had someone else post it, you should indeed post edits here and not directly edit the article.  If you agree to do that I will agree that the COI tag can come off the article. Jytdog (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I will post major changes here. I, of course, am allowed to make minor changes without input and entitled to post major changes if there are no objections. (Strictly speaking, I am allowed to edit the article in any form - best practices are not requirements after all - but will voluntarily comply with your request.) I also reserve the right to make GA recommended changes when the time comes. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! yes it is fine by COIADVICE to make minor factual changes. If you make any major edits I will revert them and copy them here til they can be reviewed, in whatever context they come.  You do not own this article, and you do have a COI and you should remain very very clear about that.  With this, I am OK with the tag coming off the article. Jytdog (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no policy basis for this. Please provide a policy basis for this or strike it. --I am One of Many (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * COI is an absolutely essential guideline. I never said it was policy. Jytdog (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I want to re-iterate that I think it is beautiful thing - really! - that ThaddeusB wants to have a good article for his father, as a tribute. I am happy to help with that.  But every user agrees per the Terms of Use to abide by WP's policies and guidelines - and the tribute should not be marred by violating COI in letter or spirit.  Do it right! Jytdog (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * He is doing it right. He is a long-time and respected editor here who went out of his way to disclose and have checked his COI. I think it is quite appropriate to WP:GOODFAITH.  The reason I'm concerned is that I reviewed this article looking very carefully for COI issues as did User:DocumentError and User:Stalwart111. --I am One of Many (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * the COI issue is not the article as it was drafted, which was indeed reviewed, but rather the intention to keep adding content now that the article is in mainspace. and while i appreciate ThaddeusB's experience, PAG applies to everybody regardless of how long he or she has been here. you seem to be suggesting that some editors are "above the law" and that is not a happy notion. Jytdog (talk) 19:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting that ThaddeusB is "above the law". I do think that absent clear policy violations, we should assume that experienced editors will follow policy and do the right thing.  That's why I think we should let ThaddeusB work on the article for a few days without reverting major additions.  If there are factual errors or promotional language, those edits should be removed or edited, but otherwise, let's let him develop the article and then evaluate it.  I know the only basis for my argument is WP:GOODFAITH, but reverting edits only on the basis of COI (proposed above) is really not the right way to go. --I am One of Many (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "doing the right thing" with regard to COI means not editing articles directly where you have a COI. It is very clear. i am hopeful that everything will play out correctly and there will be no need for reversions.  Jytdog (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Mid-way up the following thread, ThaddeusB said he plans to make only minor changes moving forward and post content changes here for review by non-COI editors and Jytdog said that seemed fine. I'm unclear what the basis is for continuing this debate since the situation seems to have self-resolved with that compact. DOCUMENT  ★  ERROR  23:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * agreed! Jytdog (talk) 00:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, no need to discuss further - I am happy to post changes here for review before making them... I did want to point out that I asked Jytdog previous if he would be willing to review future changes and he said "I am watching the article so will see any future contributions you make"  which I read, perhaps incorrectly, as "go ahead and make changes directly and I'll fix/flag anything problematic".  I certainly did not anticipate complaints over further direct editing, but I also do not think I am "above the law".  (I certainly complied with the ToS - guidelines are just that, guidelines, not absolute requirements.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't want to continue the discussion above but I wanted to say that I haven't watch-listed this article and I don't intend to. I reviewed the initial draft and published it. I don't think it is appropriate for me to also police the article on an ongoing basis. I will say this though - COI guidelines are exactly that; guidelines. Like serving suggestions. They are not policy and you generally cannot be blocked, reprimanded, or otherwise sanctioned for "breaching" them. COI-related blocks usually involve other issues like edit-warring, promotion, inappropriate usernames or sock-puppetry. Thaddeus has every right to edit this article as long as his edits are in line with policy. The community would prefer if he also edits in line with guidelines. Everything about his editing history and his comments above suggest he will.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 08:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Promotional edit based on weak sourcing
I reverted this edit by ThaddeusB, which I view as based on very weak sourcing (every policy in WP urges us to use WP:SECONDARY sources) and puts UNDUE weight on Billman's contributions in this field. I reverted in this dif and I am one of many reverted in this dif. I generally find that editors pushing a POV or promoting a topic typically reach for bad sourcing like this. The edit should not stand. Jytdog (talk) 17:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Especially when it comes to scientists, it is a shame that we don't have more articles that go into the scientific discoveries that have been made. The sources are all reliable.  Some are primary sources, but peer-reviewed sources are remotely comparable non-peer-reviewed articles.  I also don't see what basis there is for WP:POV here? --I am One of Many (talk) 17:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said on your talk, I do not understand why you view this as a primary source. It is a journal article by someone unaffiliated with Billman (as near as I can tell) who cites him as the source of said information.  The original paper in question is widely cited, so the same information can be sourced to additional secondary sources, if desired.  I'm also not sure why you view it as promotional - I would hardly consider (some of) the mechanisms driving death from cocaine overdose to be a super important find.  It does, however, fill in the "missing years" between the baroreflex studies and the start of the omega-3 studies. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ThaddeusB please read Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine). It is a primary source.Jytdog (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * to both of you, a reliable source for biographical information would directly discuss Billman's contributions to the field of cocaine pharmacology. Scraping the refs from a primary sources is really OR for noteworthiness of this topic.  The article should discuss major contributions, not everything Billman studied.  For a humorous explanation see WP:FART.  Jytdog (talk) 17:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "A primary source in medicine is one in which the authors directly participated in the research or documented their personal experiences. They examined the patients, injected the rats, filled the test tubes, or at least supervised those who did. Many, but not all, papers published in medical journals are primary sources for facts about the research and discoveries made." It is a primary source for O'Leary's work, certainly, but its not a primary source for the background material he cites.  O'Leary did not "inject the rats" (dogs), but rather read the previous research and decided it had enough merit to cite it.  That makes him a secondary source for said information.  While it is not a review article, and therefore not a "gold standard" source, it is an acceptable source for a small paragraph filling in the details.
 * A direct consequence of the widely accepted guideline that academics can be notable for their work is that we can't expect traditional biographical sources for articles like this. Instead, we must rely on people summarizing the work of the academic...  A good biography should cover all major aspects of the subject's career and Billman's study of cocaine is a major phase of his career.  He has studied more than a dozen novel drug candidates - including all those would be unnecessarily trying to document every aspect of his work.  Including his cocaine studies is not. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * and to be frank, this is exactly the kind of response that advocates for a topic always say. this discussion is not about Billman himself, it is about X within Billman's life so WP:NACADEMIC is not relevant to this discussion.  if X is not directly discussed in secondary sources, you should take that as a sign that X is not noteworthy. Jytdog (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you are being highly unfair to me. I would post exactly the same argument regardless of my connections.  This is a secondary source for the info in question and it is a consequence of NACADEMIC that an academic bio will cover the work of the subject.  Saying Billman studied cocaine is not advocating for him in any way - it is a verifiable fact.  If this is how someone is treated when they make every effort to have their edits reviewed for neutrality, discussing any disagreements calmly, is it any wonder that people normally try to hide their COIs? --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @Jytdog I cannot find a basis in policy for any of the arguments being. There just isn't any serious issue with this article, though there are millions of articles in Wikipedia with serious issues of all kinds. --I am One of Many (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thaddeus this is what I mean. You really really want to cover your dad's career completely, and that means that if no secondary source directly discusses his work on cocaine (as in "Billman's work on cocaine was blah blah") you will use a source in which another scientist just referenced his work in footnotes, and didn't discuss him directly.  You came in with a predetermined goal to discuss his work in cocaine, and this is a ludicrous source for that.  Really!  You would never do this otherwise.  It is not how we do things, and you know that. Jytdog (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * something like this is a much better source for some of the content. It is not only a review (a secondary source) but it directly mentions him. Jytdog (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And what I mean is your are making assumptions about my motives that you likely wouldn't make otherwise. Believe it or not, I did not predetermine I was going to discuss cocaine - if I didn't find anything I considered a secondary source, I wouldn't have written anything.  I don't think it is helpful to make guesses about my motives or what I would do elsewhere. Moving on...  Thank you for providing this new source, that was very helpful of you.  I will post a suggested revision using it tomorrow.  How did you find the source - my method of tracking down secondary sources (look at citing papers at random) is not very efficient and I haven't found a good way to do searches on any of the academic paper databases I have access to in order to find sources directly.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments
I noticed some mild-edit-warring between user:I am One of Many and user:Jytdog. I don't believe the COI tag is warranted, because the article is - by a significant margin - better than most Wikipedia pages we have. OTOH, there are plenty of Bright-Line produced articles that do indeed warrant one. I wish we had an option for more tasteful disclosures that do not necessarily indicate problems with the article. OTOH, if Jytdog can show at least a few examples where sources were mis-represented, we can reasonably presume there are more and a tag would be justified.

All the editors involved seem excessively distracted by the COI disclosure and I find myself wishing such a disclosure was never made, as it tends to distract editors and corrupt the editorial process; editors begin to rationalize their edits based on their relationship to the editor, their beliefs about COI and COI conduct.

The source in question here does appear to be a reliable, independent source not affiliated with Billman and does cite Billman's studies throughout the article, but does not actually directly support the statement that "During the early 1990s, Billman's work focused on the cardiovascular effects of cocaine." This appears to be original synthesis.

I also noticed my tag for an indiscriminate list of "selected" journals was removed. I am not that experienced in medical articles, but this space should probably be reserved for those primary self-authored sources that are significant enough to his biography to be included in the article using secondary sources. CorporateM (Talk) 01:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I do agree with you that, ironically, the COI disclosure interfered (I don't think corrupted) with the editorial process. I removed the indiscriminate list tag. The reason I did was because after looking through the list, I saw that the articles were first-authored articles on the topics covered in the article. Such lists shouldn't be too long and they should provide the reader with good sources to examine in-depth.


 * Finally, I think cases of COI editing have to be taken in context (and I believe you agree with me on this). The serious COI editing we have on Wikipedia primarily comes from paid editors or SPAs.  I think with well-established editors with a good record, we should assume they intend to follow policy, so if we think there is some bias in a section or a sentence my involve synthesis, I would recommend bringing it up on the talk page or directly with the editor rather than immediately tagging the article.  There is nothing wrong with tagging a problem, but if communication can solve the problem, it makes for a friendlier working environment. --I am One of Many (talk) 01:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh yah, paid editors are AWFUL (*cough cough, snicker, snicker). At-a-glance my original look at the article did suggest that it was far too detailed, as suggested by Jytdog. Maybe his tag was a bit hasty, maybe removing it was hasty too, if it was warranted. I can't say for sure right now. My original look at the article did suggest that it was far too detailed and I trimmed it quite a bit already. However, I stopped trimming when I got to the point where it was beyond my expertise level with regards to medical topics and those norms. Editors are expected to provide reasons for their tag on Talk, which he did, and those reasons are aligned with what I was noticing at first and were supported by the use of a source that did not support the article-text, something he was trying to remove. I don't see any reason to do anything differently than just edit the article the usual way. CorporateM (Talk) 02:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * My disclosure has indeed been a major distraction. Had I not made it or at least not publicized it, I could have saved a lot of trouble.  (The COI tag is a type of neutrality tag and shouldn't be used just because an editor has a COI, as I'm sure you know.)  In the end the article will be better for having the eyes on it and that is my goal...  A non-controversial fact like "He studied cocaine in the early 1990s" doesn't really need a citation.  It is a "filler" sentence that connects ideas to make the article flow better.  Anyway, I am working on a rewrite of that paragraph as we speak, so its a moot point. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's true that low-quality sources are acceptable for non-controversial information, such as date of birth, job titles and dates the title was held. I would even support original research for a date of birth, though many would not. But to say that his work focused on a particular area for a decade - that is not a non-controversial fact at all and absolutely requires a strong secondary citation. BLP would require immediate deletion without discussion, whether the unsourced content is controversial or not. I do unfortunately find many smaller articles must be left choppy, because they rely on what can be pieced together and do not have enough strong source material to provide the analysis that creates better transitions and summaries. CorporateM (Talk) 04:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't really consider drawing together dates from various papers to be original synthesis, and would certainly do similar on any article - and my editing has never been questioned for synthesis before.  But, like I said, it's a moot point. I would, however, prefer that if you are going to delete material you should at least fix the context.  The way you left it made no sense since the later sentences depended on the first for context. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And with all due respect, if you don't know if something is important or not (per your edit summaries), perhaps you shouldn't be removing it just because I put it there. These fellowships are certainly significant and would be the lead item on most anyone's CV. --ThaddeusB (talk)
 * I think WP:SYNTHNOT provides a useful checklist when thinking about synthesis. I view "He studied cocaine in the early 1990s" as clearly not synthesis and a fact that can be observed from the dates and contents of Billman's publications.  Regarding detail, adding relevant sourced details should be encouraged rather than discouraged.  I think ThaddeusB would probably like to see this article become a good article, which isn't going to happen without sufficient detail.  That is one of the problem with so many of the articles on academics on Wikipedia, there isn't enough detail about what they do or did. --I am One of Many (talk) 06:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed cocaine paragraph rewrite
If there are no objections, I'll move this to the article in a day or two. Or any interested party can do it themselves (just say something like "text by User:ThaddeusB copied from talk page" in the edit summary to comply with the CC-SA-BY.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Sourced, neutral, no promotional language. So I moved it to the article.--I am One of Many (talk) 06:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * This article appears on the road to becoming an example of how COI harms WP. The above content is poorly sourced and makes Billman appear to The Man Who Figured Important Stuff Out, as opposed to one of many who contributed to the field, and with  acting as a rubber stamp, this article is going to be a poor product driven by COI - in my view something as ugly as any paid editing product. COI is COI.  I was willing to help but I am uninterested in edit warring, which appears to be One of Many's MO (as opposed to discussing in GF to reach consensus).  So I am unwatching.    Jytdog (talk) 13:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry to hear you'll be unwatching... If you'd explain your objection, I would have been happy to address it.  I honestly don't understand what you mean by "poorly sourced" - those are review articles and mention Billman by name, exactly what you said I should use.  As to the makes him look important bit, I again don't know what you are referring to.  I would think that it is a straightforward description of his contributions.  Of course it doesn't mention the many, many other people made contributions to the field - why would it?  --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Like I said I would have been happy to help you - I think the tribute is a lovely idea.  I work with scientists like your dad everyday and could have been very helpful.  But with I am One of Many rubber stamping and edit warring, helping you goes from being something fun and good to something ugly and unpleasant. I have zero interest in interactions like that.  And I want to add that your statement that you would go ahead and add it to the article if there were no objections, is also ugly to me.  You have a COI and you need to follow the rules.  YES that makes editing different - YES it makes it slower and more clunky.  But that is our system.  Your continued bitching about that, and claims that you will blow  off the guideline if you don't get feedback fast enough to suit you, are ugly.  And you seem unable to even see that.  You made this choice - you chose to play the COI-editing game - and if you saw that clearly  you would follow the COI guideline, gracefully.  You have no privilege here based on your experience.  Nobody does.  Jytdog (talk) 14:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * @Jytdog, I'm sorry to hear that. What I do not understand is why there is so much resistant ti ThaddeusB building this article?  The only reason given is COI.  That is not a basis for removing sourced content that conforms to Wikipedia policy. --I am One of Many (talk) 15:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Um, you have totally misinterpreted what I said. I didn't "bitch" about anything, and certainly I am not "continually bitching".  There was initially a misunderstanding where I thought you were saying "go ahead and make changes directly and I'll look them over".  When you made your position clear, I agreed to propose changes here instead.  As to "blowing off" the guidelines, I fail to see any difference between "I'll make this change if people approve" and "Please make this change yourself if you approve".  I certainly was not saying "I will make this change regardless and am just posting it here because I have to" or some such.  My desire is to discuss article improvements (the reason we are all here in theory), not my COI, but that is very hard to do when most every comment on talk is about me. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I would like nothing better than to have worked on content here, but the process is too flawed. What you actually wrote was "If there are no objections, I'll move this to the article in a day or two." Clear as day.  Neither or I nor any volunteer here marches to your timeline.  That is exactly what I mean about not seeing your COI. You should not directly edit the article other than to make minor changes. That is the COI game you have chosen to play.  I think I probably could have worked with you; it is One of Many who doesn't understand the subject matter, nor, apparently the heart of our COI guideline.  Whatever. I think editors who have a COI via money or via a personal connection can be tremendous contributors to WP by proposing content for review. Interest drives production.  But objective review by unconflicted editors is absolutely essential. Rubberstamping content subverts the whole process. Jytdog (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not our COI policy. And we have a thing called consensus.  I do not rubber stamp any ones content on Wikipedia.  What subvert the whole process on Wikipedia is to continually push points that are not based on policy. --I am One of Many (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * you copied the content above and pasted it into the article, with no changes. you didn't even fix the fucking typo. (singular "problem" in the last sentence). zero care in reviewing = rubber stamp. everything - every fucking thing - you have done or written on this page - is preventing effective management of Thaddeus' COI and edit warring to keep it that way.  ugh. there is no room for review and discussion. Jytdog (talk) 23:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Look, I care about Wikipedia too. I care about how editors are treated. I try never to make assumptions about editors without good argument.  Yes, ThaddeusB has a COI, but I cannot find any evidence that it is producing a significant bias in this article and so I see no reason to inhibit his writing of this article.  I analyzed the paragraph below.  I pointed out to your response that there are no footnotes other than reference notes in some of the articles.  Reference notes in those articles are like references in Wikipedia: the text referenced is about Billman's research. --I am One of Many (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Analysis of paragraph
Every aspect of this paragraph is sourced by independent and reliable sources. Each sentence makes a factual assertion about Billman's research except the last sentence, which based on the independent and reliable review article, places some of the research in context. There are no violations of Wikipedia policy to be found here. --I am One of Many (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * As mentioned above, using a source that just refers to Billman in a footnote is indefensible and something nobody would generally even think do. And it is done twice here. Jytdog (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * First, there is nothing wrong with using sourced footnote material. Second, and most importantly, there are no footnotes in these articles only reference notes.  Is it possible you confused the two? --I am One of Many (talk) 23:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are talking about, but I do not believe you are engaging in good faith. All done. Jytdog (talk) 00:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming that you are behaving in good faith, and there are no footnotes in those articles only reference notes. It is the text in the articles referenced to Billman that is relevant. --I am One of Many (talk) 00:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Source 2 was suggested by you, so I assume it is acceptable. Source 4 is very similar, so I assume it is acceptable.  Sentences 1-3 are supported by ref 2.  Sentences 4-5 are supported by ref 4.  Surely additional references backing the material, even if they don't mention Billman by name, do not decrease the overall reliability.  That leaves the last 2 sentences.  Surely the last sentences, which is providing context and not talking about Billman does not need to mention him by name.  That leaves "In a 1995 review article, Billman listed ..."  How about we change the last two sentences "Secondary cardiovascular effects subsequently attributed to cocaine include coronary vasospasms, myocardial infarction, and ventricular fibrillation.  Cardiovascular problems are the main source of death from cocaine overdose."   Would that be leaving the context about what the primary effects cause while not attributing it to Billman in any fashion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Use of sources where the article-subject is merely the author of a cited study used in the citation, but where the study is not discussed in the article being referenced on Wikipedia and Billman is not mentioned, or is just briefly mentioned. Seems like an excuse to use primary sources, but allege it is a secondary source by using another source that just mentions the self-authored source in passing. CorporateM (Talk) 01:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A secondary source is by definition one which "contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." This is exactly what a review article does, by definition.  The length of coverage in no way determines if something is primary or not.   One discussing Billman's work is certainly a secondary source about Billman's work.  Whether that discussion is one paragraph or 50 has zero relevance to what kind of source it is.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you may not understand how text is referenced in scientific sources. The reference notes cite the source of the text.  So, if such and such a study is described and a reference not follows that means that the study was conducted by the cited author and the description in the text is the independent sources description of the text. --I am One of Many (talk) 01:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Removing sourced content solely based on COI
Sourced content that conforms to Wikipedia policy should not be removed based solely on COI. --I am One of Many (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * user:Jytdog and I both oppose the edits. We both seem to be leaning towards trimming, not expansion. I provided a detailed edit-summary, which did not say anything about COI. I believe this is heading towards counter-consensus edit-warring. CorporateM (Talk) 16:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That is not true. Jytdog has zero about length.  You can't just assume he agrees with you. His reasons seem to be completely unrelated to yours. You have decided a priori the article should be shorter and are editing with that aim in mind.  Jytdog has expressed doubts about a specific source.  That is not the same thing at all. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Presumably if the sources he contests are removed, the article would therefore be shorter; the sources being the same reason I was leaning towards trimming. Maybe he can jump in himself to clarify. I wish both of you would stop speculating about an editor's motives as a means to justify edits and whatnot. CorporateM (Talk) 16:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, he didn't oppose any of the things you removed - you actually reverted to reinclude the source he actually expressed doubt about. Citing Jytdog as agreeing with those edits, or any of your previous removals, has no basis. He might agree or he might not; there is no way of knowing unless he changes his mind about continuing his efforts here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * CorporateM, Wikipedia articles are not short blurbs about topics and subjects. They are intended to go into encyclopedic depth on topics.  You have no consensus for removing the content you removed.  There was no policy based reason for removing the content.  I think you should do the right thing and self revert. --I am One of Many (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The length of an article depends on the volume of source material available - there is no intended length. The sources were just brief mentions or references. Regarding an RFCU, you may want to read POV railroad. The proper way of establishing a consensus would be an RFC. CorporateM (Talk) 16:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * My comments on ThaddeusB's talk page were about an RFC and not an RFCU. And as I said, perhaps one is needed regarding COI, sources, and content in this article if we can't come to an understanding. --I am One of Many (talk) 16:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * An RfC is an option, of course, but I would think we can reach agreement without going to that length if we can simply discuss things calmly. For example, an honors\awards list is a fairly standard part of a biography (and usually is "redundant" to text in the body of the article).  Is it essential, no, but including it or not including it has nothing to do with POV - it is a matter of style preference...  --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I would like to start by discussing the proposed changes to the cocaine paragraph. "Brief mentions" are of course valid sources. They don't establish notability of a subject, but that isn't under discussion. The suggested changes improve the article because they 1) better explain Billman's contributions (the current text could be seen as inflating his importance through vague language) and 2) are better quality sources in general. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * CorporateM and I think similarly on several things. One thing we both do is trim content if the sources are not good. Thaddeus you really do want to be reaching for great sources.  and btw, the best kind of sources for history of science, for recent science like your dad's, is likely to be chapters in edited books.  Those sometimes discuss the recent history of a given field in really useful ways, that name names, and put people's work in context.  What questions was the field pursuing?  Who provided great tools with which to get answers to those questions, who answered questions in whole or part, and who raised new questions?  Science is incremental and a community effort, and to the extent that you can't put your dad's work in context, the resulting content is going to be skewed and PROMO.  Your dad would probably be aware of best sources for the history of the fields in which he worked.  be careful not to do WP:OR and construct the history yourself - that's not what we do here. Jytdog (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Jytdog, I fully understand your concerns and I think your intentions are in the best interest of Wikipedia. However, I think you have too narrow an interpretation of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.  We are not limited to paraphrasing historians of science when writing an intellectual biography of an academic.  Good encyclopedic work requires bringing together content from different sources. We we must not do is an historical interpretations to these various sourced facts.  ThaddeusB has not engaged in WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.  When I get back, I'll go through the paragraph above sentence by sentence to show why each meets policy. --I am One of Many (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * if sources exist that contexualize Billman's science, then we as editors have sources to work with, that we can paraphrase. that is what WP editors do. if those sources don't exist, then the work of contextualizing the science becomes original research, which WP editors cannot do. Jytdog (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The removed material is not about the science, but what I would normally consider routine facts such as society membership, Billman's ancestors, and so on...
 * If there is any hope of progress, I think it best to discuss one item at a time, so I picked one to try to refocus the discussion: You suggested I rewrite the cocaine paragraph using review articles and supplied one as an example.  I used that and two others I found to rewrite it.  The suggested change does not significantly change the material, but instead explains it better with stronger sourcing.  Now you are telling me the sources are not good.  I am very confused at what you want.  You have only offered broad statements like it is "poorly sourced" and "makes Billman look like The Man".  The paragraph uses 4 journal articles as sources, 3 of which are review articles, and 1 of which you suggested would be a better source - and the non-review article doesn't support anything on its own.  And, it is certainly not my intention to inflate importance and don't think I have done so at all.  (If I read something similar to what I wrote in another article, I certainly would not be thinking "wow, think guy is important" but rather "sounds like a normal scientist with some interesting discoveries".)  Such statements don't help me understand your perspective in the slightest.  I can't address a vague complaint.
 * I could certainly add more context about cocaine (i.e. explain in the context of other discoveries), but that goes against CorporateM's goal of making the article shorter. It is also not the way I would typically write ANY biography.  Maybe that is a defect in my writing, or maybe the demands being made here are indeed out of the ordinary.  Regardless, I am would like to work things out peacefully, on the talk page, but you guys are pulling me in all kinds of different directions and not explaining your reasoning in a way that allows me to do anything about it.
 * If you are willing to help, great, I will accept whatever help you care to give. I would even accept something radical like moving the article back to userspace, as I am not trying to force anything through.  If not, I don't understand why you are still posting here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * as i said before, i would be willing to help you but I Am One of Many seems committed to adding whatever you write to the article and edit warring to keep it in, and that is not going to work for me. Jytdog (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You might want to assume a little good faith here. I don't know ThaddeusB, but I came across this article in DYK.  Why I'm involved here is that I'm repeatedly seeing material removed from this article that has no basis in policy.  Other than COI or WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT arguments, I'm not seeing sound policy applied here. --I am One of Many (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It is your behavior on this article I am one of many, that makes me not want to work here. I could probably work with Thaddeus. Jytdog (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You don't have to like another editor to work on an article with them. I try my best to stick to policy.  I provide policy based reasons for my actions and I expect the same in return.  You can count on that. --I am One of Many (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * that is totally true. but other editors have to be following policy and guidelines in good faith, which you do not.  really, last comment here. i am too frustrated with your lack of WP:COMPETENCE in the subject matter and in PAG.  I need to leave, for good. Jytdog (talk) 00:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I watchlist Jytdog's user talk, which is how I came here. It seems to me that the sections of the page on "Model of sudden cardiac death" and "Cocaine and omega-3 research" are much longer than they ought to be. If the material is notable enough to be covered in that much depth, then it should go on the pages about sudden cardiac death and about cocaine, and be written subject to WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS. By having the content here on a biography page, there is the risk of it being a WP:Content fork, and that is what leaves the page vulnerable to criticism over COI and the like. Better to focus on the biography, rather than on the scientific details. I'm making this comment in the spirit of trying to help with the disagreements, and not as a criticism of anybody. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a risk of going into too much detail on a scientific topic in an academic biography, but as long as it sticks to one's scientific contributions and is not too long, I don't think we are risking a content fork. I don't believe WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS apply in this case because he is a physiologist and all of his research is on animals as far as I can tell. --I am One of Many (talk) 00:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The SCD material is primarily about Billman's model, which has been covered in depth in several high quality academic sources. It wouldn't make much sense to discuss his model in depth at the SCD page, but it does make sense here.  There are only a few sentences on the findings from his research uses the model, which I would think would be an appropriate amount...  There are only 3 sentences about cocaine in the article right now.  And when I try to summarize like I did with "Billman studied cocaine in the early 1990s" I am accused of synthesis and the sentence is removed from the article.  I can't both not summarize and provide less details...
 * As to the biographical material, there was a lot more but CorporateM removed it because it was sourced to Billman's biography at Frontiers in Physiology, a journal which he is editor-in-chief for. I would think sourcing, for example, areas of work and society membership to a not-completely-independent source such as that would be acceptable under WP:NACADEMIC which states that once notability is established "non-independent sources, such as official institutional and professional sources, are widely accepted as reliable sourcing for routine, uncontroversial details."  What do you think? --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll reply to a couple of things, in the order that they were said to me. The reason I raised the issue of a content fork is that there is an overall subject matter about sudden cardiac death and an overall subject matter about cocaine, so the content here is just one portion of those subjects; by highlighting the significance of Billman's work, the emphasis here becomes different than what we would have at the main pages on the subject. Now if Billman were, for example, the most important thinker behind the largest parts of those subjects, then what is here would simply parallel what is at the main pages. But there are tons of other, more influential, neuroscientists and addiction scientists who have worked on cocaine, for example, so yes, this is a content fork, particularly to the extent that it presents Billman's work as important.


 * MEDMOS and MEDRS do apply to animal studies that are about human health issues. Clearly, the subject matter is about using animal models to better understand human sudden cardiac death and human adverse effects of cocaine. I don't even think that this is a close call. If editors here have differing opinions, though, I'll be happy to put a note at WT:MED and get some more fresh eyes on the question.


 * The argument that it would not make sense to discuss the Billman model in depth at the SCD page is a big problem with respect to content forking. If it is not an important aspect of the overall SCD subject, then it is a content fork to present it as important here. I count four and three paragraphs of significant length in the sections to which I am referring. Summarizing is not the same thing as SYNTH, so I'm sure we can work together so that won't be a problem.


 * There is nothing at all wrong with using sources associated with a person for biographical information about a person, and that's something Wikipedia does all the time. The only problem is when such sourcing is used to make claims about importance. It's really a matter of WP:SELFPUB, which trumps WP:PROF in this case. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help, Tryptofish. There are multiple, largely unrelated questions here.  I certainly wasn't trying to say MEDRS doesn't apply, but at the same time it is not unusual to provide more details about a subject at one place than another...  I suggest we answer the easiest question first.  CorporateM has removed the following information on the basis on the source not being independent (Frontiers biography), but I would say it all is completely routine and not at all bold claims:

Also info on Billman's ancestors, which can be sourced to a genealogical journal article author by Billman (previously sourced to a online summary rather than the journal). I find it very hard to believe this could be a bold claim either as no one outside the family would care:
 * Billman was elected a Fellow of the American Heart Association in 2001. In 2010, he was elected a Fellow of the Heart Rhythm Society.
 * He is also a member of The Physiological Society in London, the American Physiological Society, the International Society for the Study of Fatty Acids and Lipids (ISSFAL), and Sigma Xi.
 * He has studied the effects of exercise training and novel pharmaceutics on the test subject's susceptibility to fatal cardiac arrhythmias.
 * He has performed experiments on live research dogs and using isolated ventricular myocytes.
 * Through his research, he determined that his ancestor, Hans Theobald Billmann, who emigrated to the United States in 1752, was unlikely to be the son of Hans David Billmann (emigrated 1732), a finding at odds with conclusions drawn by previous amateur researchers. He coordinated a Y-chromosomal genetic study, and the analysis done Oxford Ancestors confirmed the two Billmanns were unlikely to be related (ancestors shared 0 of 10 genetic markers tested).
 * I know I am One of Many feels the above material is worth inclusion and is satisfied with the sourcing, while CorporateM is against it based on the sourcing. I would not hesitate to add such information with similar sourcing in any other article (and have done so many times w/o complaint).  If you could offer your opinion, on whether non-independent sourcing is appropriate for these items, then we can quickly knock out one area of contention and move on to more complicated questions of detail level. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to try to help. About MEDRS, I was replying to what I am One of Many said, not what you said. I was responding to I am One in the first two paragraphs of my comment, and to you in the last two. Sorry that wasn't clear. I think everything that you listed in bullet points is appropriate to include on this page, and it does not require sourcing independent of the subject. The material about genealogy, I'm ambivalent. It seems very personal, and not of particular encyclopedic interest, but it's not particularly objectionable from a policy perspective. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I made the above (re-)additions in a draft at User:ThaddeusB/George_Billman. If you agree they are acceptable, would you mind moving them to the live version (with an edit summary stating the copied from location for copyright reasons)?   I consider the genealogy to be an interesting tidbit to round out the personal life section. This is why I included it, but feel free to make your own judgement, of course. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've done that, but with a (subjective!) shortening of the genealogy material. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Maybe I'm reading the description of his work too much from a scientist's perspective. Perhaps I'm just automatically putting his contributions into scientific perspective and I'm not seeing the implicit advocacy of importance?  Also, I don't disagree about the application of MEDRS to animal studies, but as I understand it, in this case it pretty much boils down to claims about the implications of animal models for human help should not, in general, be made. --I am One of Many (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not enough that the page does not make an explicit claim about extending the conclusions from animals to humans. I think that readers from the general public could reasonably interpret what is currently on the page as saying that, for example, omega-3 dietary supplements could reduce the risk of cardiac death and maybe reduce the adverse effects of cocaine. That doesn't mean that they would be reading the content correctly to think that, but Wikipedia's consensus is that content that might be understood medically must be held to a very high standard. I am very sure that the overwhelming majority of editors at WP:MED would object to this content, and would insist that we only source such content to peer-reviewed secondary review articles that survey the literature. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting, not an area of Wikipedia that I have familiarized myself with that much, but it does make a lot of sense. @ThaddeusB, this recent review article attributes a couple of points of "outstanding interest" to Billman's work on Omega 3 fatty acids.  If you can't access the article, let me know and I'll email it to you. --I am One of Many (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Good, thanks. Hopefully, we can work on this aspect of the page. I looked at that link to the review article, and we really do have to be careful here, because that source gives a nuanced assessment of the medical benefits, and we must not oversimplify it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I just looked at omega-3 fatty acids, and I think we have to be very careful indeed about the weight that we give that review. That page cites two other reviews in JAMA, which is a much more prominent journal than the one above, that find no overall benefit. We have to consider the source material in total, and not just one source that may be an outlier. I'm OK with citing sources that state that Billman's work was important, but I'd rather we stay clear of implying conclusions about health benefits. Again, this really gets back to what I said first: focus on the biography, and not on the scientific details. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like we've decided to talk about Omega-3s next. I very much agree that we have to be careful to put the research in the proper context.  You'll note that I have attempted to do just that - the second paragraph is mostly about conclusions drawn by others including that there is currently inconclusive evidence about whether dietary omega-3s help or not.  (I tried very hard to determine the current consensus on my own - and concluded there isn't one.  I later talked with my dad and he agreed there is not a consensus at this time - it is still an area of active research, not a "settled question" in the field.  His own recent work, e.g., reflects this.)  I may not have done a perfect job, but I did make an attempt to reflect scientific consensus in the article.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * On a side note, I have been considering starting an article on Omega-3s & the heart. It would examine the history of the research and of course reflect current consensus on the effects or lack thereof (lowered heart rate is widely accepted, most others are disputed) and only use high quality review articles as sources.  Tryptofish, do you 2) think it would be an appropriate Wikipedia topic?  and 2) think it would be appropriate for me to write it? --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll start with #2: yes, I think that you should feel quite free to edit in those areas. You've been meticulous about respecting the COI policy, and the farther you get into the field as a whole, the less concern about COI there is. Besides, editors should be able to edit where they want, within policy, and any edits you make will always be subject to revision by other editors. Now for the first question, that's the tougher one. Personally, I would rather we not have a page like that, to the extent that I would regard such a page as a candidate for AfD. It seems to me that the place for it is as a section of omega-3 fatty acids, and not a separate page. That's my honest opinion. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @Tryptofish, I don't think there will be a problem as long as claims are kept to the domain of animal research. The two JAMA articles are meta analyses of human studies and a point of interest is that animal study results have not been replicated in humans, which is not surprising. So, I think if the focus remains narrow and to the point, we are treading on safe ground in briefly describing his work. If you look at the end of the review article I mentioned, the reviewer notes several sources as being "of outstanding interest". In the context, there are two useful points the reviewer attributes to Billman that could be useful:
 * "Basic research showed that ω-3 FA have potent effects on ion channels and calcium regulatory proteins that vary depending on the route of administration. (p. 87, )"


 * "Both heart rate and heart rate variability are well known predictors of ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death. (p. 88, )"


 * I expect that by searching through reviews focusing on animal research, sufficient information will turn up for a narrowly focused description of his research. --I am One of Many (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with content about effects on ion channels and calcium regulatory proteins. Anything about ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death has to be treated very carefully, because it's about humans and not molecules in a laboratory, and it needs to reflect all of the mainstream literature and not just a few selected papers. And, that paper by Kromhout – the link you provided is for a different paper! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help Tryptofish, I am going to start a new section of Omega3s below so we can discuss it more clearly. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no idea how I linked the wrong article. Anyway, I removed the link since the doi is enough.  I struck the second quote because it really is headed in the wrong direction.  Descriptions of Billman's research over the years seem fine.  I think the connection with the results of a particular study and the popular news media should be fine?  Perhaps one way to reduce the appearance of a content fork would be to consider removing the explanatory diagram? --I am One of Many (talk) 01:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I agree with you. I particularly agree with removing the image, also because, per the cite, it's a probable model, but not yet proven as a mechanism. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for compromise on how to handle COI
I'm withdrawing this proposal with the hope that we all just focus on content. --I am One of Many (talk) 01:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC) I would like to propose a compromise that assumes good faith on the part of everyone and allows the writing of this article to go forward. Let's let ThaddeusB work on the article. Unless there are blatant violations of policy, let's bring any issues to the talk page. If there is consensus, then the text under discussion will be changed or removed. This way we don't have to revert each other and we operate with the assumption that ThaddeusB is acting in good faith and is a competent editor. --I am One of Many (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Support as proposer. --I am One of Many (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose There is obviously a need to discuss changes first (COI or not) at this juncture and the editor has already voluntarily accepted the restriction. CorporateM (Talk) 01:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have stated multiple times that I don't plan to make substantial edits to the article, so this is rather pointless. Frankly, I am much more likely to request g7 deletion/userification than make substantial edits.  Can we please discuss content instead of my COI over and over again. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

We don't rewrite guidelines on article Talk pages. Editors don't edit war because it is against policy. Jytdog (talk) 00:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not proposing new policy. I've simply clearly proposed we use WP:COIADVICE: "If another editor objects for any reason, then it's a controversial edit. Such edits should be discussed on the article's talk page." --I am One of Many (talk) 00:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Notability Rational?
- There seems to be a lot of primary sources here. Out of curiosity, what's the rationale for notability here? Notability_(academics) #5 based on the fellowships? NickCT (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I think you are mistaken about the sourcing - almost all the content is supported by secondary sources now... Thanks for asking.  Notability would be an obvious case under criteria #1; based on AfD experience no one with an H-index above 30 is ever deleted, and I couldn't find any case above 20 deleted.  Fellowships is also arguable (under criteria #3). While not an official criteria, AfD consensus is pretty much that full professors are always notable under criteria #1. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Since you brought up the notability criteria, I will also mention that it states "once notability has been established through independent sources, non-independent sources, such as official institutional and professional sources, are widely accepted as reliable sourcing for routine, uncontroversial details." Here, routine information (e.g. society memberships, area of work) have been removed based on the sourcing, seemingly in contradiction of what is normally considered acceptable use of non-independent sourcing.  Specifically, OSU and Frontiers sourcing for such information has been removed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Based on the sources I've seen so far, I have not identified any secondary sources that cover him in-depth, however many of the journal sources are difficult to access. A lot of the content I looked through cites an encyclopedia "American Men & Women of Science" and a lot would depend on if it is actually edited and verified content, or if the source is merely a directory of standard bios. I would need time to vet the rest of the article before I could really say if an AfD is warranted, but it seems like a reasonable discussion. OTOH, I am led to understand that we have some very loose criterion for academics. CorporateM (Talk) 22:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, we have "very loose" criteria for academics, as you say, because we judge them on their work as opposed to requiring biographical material. I can assure you that it would be kept at AfD.  I would not have written it if I was not 100% sure of that - and I do have plenty of experience on deletion discussions.  If you don't believe me, search past academic AfDs... As to American Men and Women of Science we have an article on it which should tell you all you need to know. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I would add based on reliably sourced material that Notability_(academics) #1 #3 and #7 are all satisfied. #7 is based on all the national and international coverage he received during the late 1990s and early 2000s regarding omega-3 fatty acids.  I also believe he satisfies WP:GNG because of the  omega-3 fatty acids coverage and that he was a target of PETA, which received broad coverage. --I am One of Many (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh I almost forgot - yes the sources used for the PETA protests are pretty standard media sources and he is the focus of those protests. One could reasonably argue WP:ONEEVENT, but we do usually use some primary sources to fill out such pages to make it biographical rather than focusing exclusively on a single controversial event. CorporateM (Talk) 23:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You probably don't access to search resources I have, but there was also national and international coverage on fish oil (e.g., see the Chicago Sun-Times and USA Today ).--I am One of Many (talk) 00:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * - Without commenting on the notability of Dr. Billman, I think cases like this highlight the problems with WP:NACADEMICS. The criteria are so incredibly subjective, that you could make an argument that Ms. Marple my kindergarten teacher could qualify since she once wrote an article on counting jelly beans in National Geographic Magazines for Kids (surely passing Criteria #1 for a significant contribution to the field of number theory). Marple was also elected head of the local book club, which is highly prestigious, scholarly and selective. So surely then she passes criteria 3, right?
 * Shenanigans. If we're going to put stuff like "a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association" into policy, you've really got to spell out exactly what that means. For instance, is being a fellow at the American Heart Association, which I believe is something you pay to become, prestigious? Is it as prestigious as the National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society? How many people are really in a position to competently assess that?
 * Frankly, a lot of these criteria are so subjective, that they might as well be called void for vagueness.
 * All that said, this rant is probably more focused at WP:NACADEMICS than Dr. Billman. Perhaps I ought to go to the appropriate talk page......  NickCT (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The written criteria may be vague, but the application of them at AfD is actually quite consistent - much more so than the deletion/non-deletion of a company page, for example. Anyway, as you say, this is a discussion for Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics), not here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * - Saying a vague rule gets applied consistently seems logically inconsistent. It's like arguing that the vague rule "Make pancakes which are sorta large", when applied somehow consistently makes right sized pancakes. NickCT (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What I mean, is those with experience in the area know what the rules mean and consistently apply them, even if the meaning is not clear just by reading the guideline. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Omega-3 material
There is some question about what is appropriate to cover in the Omega-3 section of the article due to medical article guidelines and such. So, here was my thinking with the current text: If I correctly understand what is saying above, the advice here is to make it more biographical and make it more clear that the research hasn't been demonstrated people should start taking omega-3 supplements. Would (in principle, exact text to be determine) something like: work better? Any additional thoughts you have about specific problems in the current text are welcome. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Billman's 1994 study attracted a lot of attention, including in the popular popular media (both at the time and later histories of the topic). That and his follow up studies constitute many of his most cited papers.  Thus, from a biographical standpoint it seems appropriate to write some words on it, certainly.  So what I did was briefly describe the experiment and its conclusions (as reported by secondary sources).
 * I was certainly not trying to say/imply Billman was "the man" in this area, but he is an important researcher (one of many) on the subject. For example, he has been asked to edit a full length book and write several book chapters on the subject.
 * I agree that the article must reflect current scientific consensus on the subject. This is what I attempted to do in the second paragraph.
 * 1) describe 1994 experiment
 * 2) mention popular media attention
 * 3) say Billman' subsequent work has focused on determining the mechanisms behind the observed effect
 * 4) make it clear that human research by others has shown some effect, but not consistently demonstrated cardiac benefit derived from dietary Omega-3s
 * Yes, I agree with all of that. As I said above, I'd also like to see the image deleted. I think the key idea is to emphasize the influence and the context of the scientific work, as opposed to the experimental details, and to be careful about unintended implications about human health. I've got the page watchlisted, and I'll be happy to help revise the content. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A photo of Billman working in his lab with say a piece of equipment may be very helpful by visually directing the reader to the view that the research section is about his research and not general research on these topics. In general, it would help to reinforce the view that the article is a biography and not in any way intended to be a content fork. --I am One of Many (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's an excellent idea! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Great. I will work out new text and propose it here within the next couple days. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)