Talk:Jessie Gruman

Fair use rationale for Image:Dr-Jessie Gruman.jpg
Image:Dr-Jessie Gruman.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits
I'm one of the more long-time Wikipedia editors. I probably know you in real life, so let me try to be helpful. I think Jesse Gruman was very important so I want to get this right.

These recent edits don't follow Wikipedia style and violate many Wikipedia guidelines.

First, they violate WP:Conflict of Interest. You're not supposed to edit subjects that you have an interest in. There's also a problem with single-purpose accounts. But let that go.

Second, you're supposed to explain the reason for your edit in the edit box. You should particularly explain the edit when you delete a significant amount of material, as one of you did. If you delete something without giving a reason, any Wikipedia editor can (and should) revert it.

Third, they violate WP:NOT The thrust of your changes is to delete anything that describes her (sometimes provocative) ideas about health policy, and to turn it into a CV, or memorial.

Jesse Gruman was important because of her ideas. What were her ideas? She caught my attention because of the idea -- based on her own data -- that most patients don't want to research the medical literature and make MD-level decisions. She rejected the fad of consumer-driven health care -- based on her own data. That's quite an accomplishment, in these days when people make policy decisions without data.

If somebody looks up Jesse Gruman in an encyclopedia, what are they likely to be looking for, or interested in -- the fact that she was a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences? Or the problems she found with consumer-driven health care?

The entry about Albert Einstein doesn't just tell you about his awards. It tells you about relativity.

I think that when somebody dies, the best memorial for them is to perpetuate the ideas they worked on during their life. What did she say that was important?

What about her death? Were're writing about someone who studied life-threatening and terminal illness. How did she respond to her own terminal illness?

Another problem is that you've violated some of the rules of sourcing as explained in WP:RS. You have a lot of edits with few inline citations, and the sources were blogs and web sites. But let that go.

It's also not a good Wikipedia style to give a long list of citations under "Bibliography". (I'm more willing to ignore that rule than most people, but I would at least like to have links to online material that I can follow.) If a book or article is important enough to cite, then it should be important enough to summarize the conclusions briefly and include them in the Wikipedia entry.

One problem is that in its present state, it might not meet Wikipedia criteria for WP:Notability. if you turn this into a bland memorial page or CV, there are a lot of Wikipedia editors who would come along and mark it for WP:Speedy deletion. Then we'd have to start over from scratch.

One thing you could add is an open-source photo. --Nbauman (talk) 19:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)