Talk:Masonic Medical Research Institute

Paucity of sources for "Scientific achievements"
A section that is central to the notability of this article and which (if the article's subject is indeed notable) should be the easiest section to source using high-quality secondary sources is the Scientific achievements. Each of the listed achievements should have a citation to the WP:MEDRS yet they are almost completely lacking. &mdash; soupvector (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * soupvector, the section likely would not be difficult to substantiate by someone who has access to medical journals and who understands them, but as far as I know, no one has tried. The inexperienced editor who created the draft didn't realize that the references should be to articles not written by the institute staff, and I have a poor understanding of biology.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 23:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Not easy due to the way it's been written - it's very promotional and tends to conflate basic findings (which are cited in MEDRS like ) with therapeutic inferences that are not as easily sourced. Will need a complete rewrite - something for which I don't have time at the moment. Perhaps someone else will take a stab before I can - but I'll try to return. &mdash; soupvector (talk) 01:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess the theraputic influences could just be removed until someone finds references. soupvector, there was already a mention of the controversy you added in the article, Perhaps you would like to combine the two sentences and remove any duplication.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 01:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, a lot of fishing. I'll take a stab when I get a chance. Thanks for pointing out the duplication, which I've self-reverted. &mdash; soupvector (talk) 01:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)