Talk:Karen Ashe

Cats
would not a change of this nature require that the allegations are substantiated? Particularly for a WP:BLP? All investigators (NIH, UMN and Nature) are still out. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:16, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Cleaning up recent edits
Regarding this edit:
 * Independent, third-party sourcing is required for claims of this nature (that is, they cannot be cited to Ashe herself):
 * the first mutation linked to a neurodegenerative disease, which has been cited more than 1,000 times. Please see WP:OR; we can't do our own research, rather need secondary sources to cover the number of times cited.
 * Please see WP:CQ, MOS:LQ, MOS:DASH, MOS:PEOPLETITLES and MOS:JOBTITLES.
 * Well cited text was removed, and replaced by original research; in this edit, I restored the cited text, and removed the OR has been cited more than 5,000 times and most cited and influential paper Ashe has published. If there is a secondary source (that is, not related to Ashe or UMN) that states this, please provide it.
 * Unexplained removal of well-cited text:
 * Ashe is the founding director of the UMN's N. Bud Grossman Center for Memory Research and Care.

Sandy Georgia (Talk)  02:22, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:OR (and another unexplained removal of well-cited text). The paper has been cited over 3,000 times is WP:OR; we have reliable sources describing the importance of the paper and don't need to do our own research. This entire passage is original research (as well as unnecessary WP:PUFFERY; again, we have sources already describing the importance of the paper): I have restored the cited text in this edit.
 * All of this is synthesis.
 * More of similar here; the clause beginning with The allegations of the report were problematic because is original research, and have restored cited text which was removed.  Wikipedia does not publishe original research.
 * Why is the 2015 "Quaternary structure defines a large class of amyloid-beta oligomers neutralized by sequestration" singled out in the text; what secondary sources have covered it?

Undue content in the lead
An IP is adding WP:UNDUE content to the lead,  and doing so in a way that breaks citation integrity and introduces terms in the lead that are not defined (Lesne and the 2006 publication). The primary allegations are not against Ashe, although she is a coauthor on the paper with her fellow Sylvain Lesné. If this content is worthy of mention in the lead (I'm not sure it is), the lead needs to be better balanced (this is one small part of an overall successful career), and it needs to be added correctly (with defined terms and without breaking citations). Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:54, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Dates in infobox
I've added years of activity (from MD onward) and an approximate date of birth to the infobox, based on stating that she had both her MD and PhD at the age of 27, and the article dating the latter to 1982. The intent of this is to indicate her position in her career path and seniority relative to her colleagues. &mdash; The Anome (talk) 13:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I've removed it per MOS:INFOBOXUSE, including potential original research. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Please read more carefully before citing WP:OR policy. From WP:CALC: "Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, is almost always permissible." All the information is from cited sources, and the rest is mere calculation, as explicitly allowed by policy. Note that I can now do this from a single source that states she was 57 in 2012: . &mdash; The Anome (talk) 22:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's an improvement over the earlier guesses based on the dates of her degrees, but the infobox was nonetheless added without consensus and is of dubious usefulness. To avoid repetition, similar discussion here. I've not encountered sources discussing her seniority relative to her colleagues. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)