Talk:UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy

COI declaration
Much of the information on this page needs to be edited as they are either out of date or not really relevant to the UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy (the sections about the AHEC, for instance). I'm planning to do a major overhaul of the page in the coming days.

Regarding the note about the major contributor having close ties with the school: I do work at the school, which is why I knew that much of the old information in the article was incorrect, outdated, or not actually relevant to the school. However, if you examine the content I've contributed, I think it's pretty obvious all of the information provided are facts (research dollar amount, programs offered, name of buildings, etc.). Uncsop (talk) 14:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I stubified this. it was sourced almost entirely from the school's website and there was lots of copyvio. needs to be rebuilt from independent sources.  i removed the COI tag after stubifying. Jytdog (talk) 13:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Happy Panda 25 (talk) Edits
Added details regarding PhD program.
 * Your justification for edits are unsubstantiated. There is no COI, I am unaffiliated with this program and there are no justification to assume that I am. There is no synthesis of published material, the references used are valid and direct, not indirect. They illustrate that those research areas exist and also a PhD program exists. Your basis for deletion is not valid. Please undo your deletions. This is the second time you have corrected my edits without proper justification since you also did so with theranostics, creating a scientifically inaccurate wiki entry by doing so. Happy Panda 25 (talk) 01:48, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the "COI" claim; I mixed you up with prior editors. The sourcing was poor, and using research papers from faculty to make claims about what they teach at the school generally is an invalid reach. Jytdog (talk) 13:23, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I was using research papers to indicate the research area since in their author affiliation it lists that area. It really did not have to do with the research topic per se of the paper. I really think it is a disservice to the page not to list the program also has a PhD. Happy Panda 25 (talk) 01:25, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah that is not valid. We summarize sources; we don't use them as examples. To have content in WP about the research that goes on there, we need sources (ideally independent, secondary ones) describing the research that goes on there. Jytdog (talk) 01:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)