Talk:Zbyszek Darzynkiewicz/Archive 1

Archive 1

Note

User:Zbigniew Darzynkiewicz this is not really ready for mainspace. Would you be OK with making this a "draft" while it is improved? This will remove the speedy deletion thing. Jytdog (talk) 20:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

i just went ahead and did it. Jytdog (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion during review at Articles for Creation

The submission of my page is rejected based on the lack of "notability". Trying to be objective (obviously writing about myself this is impossible) - however I am "trying" as much as I can. I am researcher, MD,PhD. I understand that quantity of the publications (I have ~700, PUBMED) itself is not adequate. The number of Google citations (I have <43,400, h index 104) also may be inadequate, because Google includes also the non-peer reviewed articles). However my Web of Knowledge h-index is 174 and the number of citations, excluding self-citations is 220,140. http://apps.webofknowledge.com/CitationReport.do?product=WOS&search_mode=CitationReport&SID=4DnSmB4YG6mgxGe3qkB&page=1&cr_pqid=3&viewType=summary&colName=WOS .

After reading the Wiki instructions I realized that while trying to cite as many achievements as possible perhaps I "diluted" the most important ones with the not so important ones, making the former less "visible". Among the former I have to mentions the following: (1) I was the President (and the Congress Program Chair) of the International Society for Advancement of Cytometry (1994) the Society of over 2,000 members from over 45 countries; (2) I am the principal author of the papers that introduced the key method to detect cell death by apoptosis commonly known as the TUNEL methodology. My several papers describing this method and its key applications have over 10,000 citations; (3) Another widely used methodology detects DNA susceptibility to denaturation and DNA fragmentation in infertile sperm cells was accepted as one of the methods to test male fertility by WHO. I am best known author (Google Scholar Citations) in the fields like "cytometry" (#1,http://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=search_authors&hl=en&mauthors=label:cytometry), "DNA damage" (#1, http://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=search_authors&hl=en&mauthors=label:dna_damage , "fluorescent probes" (#1, http: //scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=search_authors&hl=en&mauthors=label:fluorescent_probes; "cell cycle" #3, http://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=search_authors&hl=en&mauthors=label:cell_cycle. I think that collectively these achievements may place me above the threshold for the acceptance to be listed in Wikipedia Zbigniew Darzynkiewicz (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Zbigniew Darzynkiewicz (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Zbigniew. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. I think you hit the nail on the head near the beginning of your posting here -- it is indeed impossible to be objective when writing about yourself. So much so that writing autobiographies here on Wikipedia is extremely discuouraged (and see WP:AUTO for more discussion of this). But with regard to your particular question, your posting here doesn't address the major concern raised by the person who reviewed your submission -- you haven't shown that you've attracted substantial notice from reliable third-party sources. And being cited by other researchers is not what we mean by "substantial coverage".

When assessing the notability of researchers, we often look to the criteria under WP:NACADEMIC. My quick reading of your draft didn't satisfy me that you have met any of those criteria, although I did think twice when I saw that you were a member of the Polish Academy of Sciences, because we sometimes view membership in a selective national society as strong evidence of notability. But looking deeper raised questions. Although the PAS limits itself to 350 national members, the most recent membership data that I could find (late 2016) shows that the Academy hasn't reached that limit (having only 316 national members). So, there's a question of just how much selectivity is actually being practiced by the Academy. But there's another problem -- the limit applies only to "national members", and your status with the Academy is as a "foreign" member. I could find no limits on the number of foreign members that are admitted to the Society and the only requirement that I could find was the assembling of a certain small number of recommendations (and if that were a sufficient indication of "notability", we'd have millions of articles on academics).

In all, I think the reviewer was correct in declining your submission. I recognize that this is not the response that you were hoping for and, if you have any further questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:54, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I did not realize that being the member of the Polish Academy of Sciences (PAN) makes me more "notable" that my other, scientific achievements and I did not emphasize this point. . Please notice that all the Foreign Members of PAN (except of me) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Academy_of_Sciences are listed in Wikipedia. In fact The list of Foreign Members is more inclusive that the list of "ordinary " members. Please notice that all foreign members except me are listed in Wikipedia. I am also the Fellow of the American Institute for Medical and Biological Engineering (AIMBE), and the Member of Polish Academy of Learning (PAU, Krakow)which is as inclusive as the PAN. Zbigniew Darzynkiewicz (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

NOTE: The foregoing was copied here from the Articles for Creation Help Desk for June 23, 2017. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@Zbigniew Darzynkiewicz: Hello again, Zbigniew. I've copied the discussion from the Help Desk over to here because this is the more appropriate place to hold an extended discussion. Regarding your response, I found it astoundingly misleading. There are almost 200 "foreign" members of the Academy and only about 10 of them have articles here on Wikipedia. I continue to believe that the reviewer was correct in declining your submission. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:10, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Very good ref

This ref

• Demidenko, ZN; Studzinski, GP; Blagosklonny, MV (May 2004). "From cytometry to cell cycle: a portrait of Zbigniew Darzynkiewicz" (PDF). Cell cycle (Georgetown, Tex.). 3 (5): 525–8. PMID 15107608.

is very good, and a section on contributions should be generated from it. Jytdog (talk) 20:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Changing SPS and then citing it

Am noting this here. The birthdate and place of birth were not on the SPS a few days ago.

I am not going to revert it, as a place and date of birth are not that big of a deal and are fine per SPS but absolutely do NOT do that for anything significant. Jytdog (talk) 16:22, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again. I am learning Wikipedia - your corrections are helpful. If you feel that the "Research highlights" are not needed it is OK. However, I can provide the evidence (Google citations and/or other citation matrix) to support each of them.Zbigniew Darzynkiewicz (talk) 22:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC):::

Since there are two "Dzisna", one in Wilno Voivodeship and another in West Pomerania Voivodeship (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzisna). Therefore please add after Dzisna(1), Wilno Voivodeship 2(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilno_Voivodeship_(1926%E2%80%931939)) Thanks, ZbyszekZbigniew Darzynkiewicz (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

The link makes it clear which is meant. Jytdog (talk) 01:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

This article is not the place to rehearse the geopolitics of eastern europe in the 20 century. The article on Dzisna makes it clear that it was part of the Wilno Voivodeship (1926–1939) when you were born. Jytdog (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, ThanksZbigniew Darzynkiewicz (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:OR or unsourced

The following is either unsourced or is original research, analyzing primary sources and making claims about them, that are not supported by the source itself.

Moved here per WP:PRESERVE. Per WP:BURDEN please do not restore without finding independent reliable sources, checking the content against them, and citing them, and ensuring that this content has appropriate WP:WEIGHT in the article overall.:::Included is presently the primary evidence (the original publication) that outlines the mentioned methodology and the second evidence (independent and reliable source) confirming it. Specifically, this is the Google website that lists citations of the publication (in thousands or hundreds) that either utilize this methodology or use the methodology to back-up their findings.Zbigniew Darzynkiewicz (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

References

-- Jytdog (talk) 19:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that the papers serve as their own sources for their existence. To say what are the most widely recognized findings and the methodologies... a secondary source or sources would be needed, i would think, but if it were changed to simply "Selected publications by" then I am not sure if any additional sources would be needed. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah but we don't need to strain that way. This was written by the subject who doesn't know how to work in WP, and was written like he would do if we were writing a paper - saying something and then providing "proof" via a citation, not actually summarizing the source. The paper mentioned below is all we need, actually. Jytdog (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, if all we need is a proper cite to and summary of that paper, great. But I don't think of it in straining. In dealing with other original works, we treat them as their own sources all the time. I don't need to cite a secondary source to say that Dickens wrote A Christmass Carol nor to quote a line of dialog from it -- the book is its own source. To say what the significance of a character is or what the theme of the book is requires a secondary source. The same principles should apply here. I see "selected publications of" in Wikipedia biographical article about academics all the time with no secondary source cited. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Calling out the importance of some paper and the role of a specific technology in it, and then citing that paper, is WP:OR on two levels. People do this in review papers. It is not OK here. Editors do not have that authority. This is why we need secondary sources that say this kind of thing. If it is just listing some papers that is different, but that is not what is going on above. Jytdog (talk) 22:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC):::Thanks. I was trying to follow the advices. As a secondary proof I added the citations (in hundreds or thousands per each paper) from Google.Zbigniew Darzynkiewicz (talk) 18:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC) Please see the text below:

unsourced

The following is unsourced and was moved here per WP:PRESERVE. Per WP:BURDEN please do not restore without finding independent, reliable sources, checking the content against them, and citing them, and ensuring that this content has appropriate WP:WEIGHT in the article overall.

From 1992-94 he was President, the International Society for Advancement of Cytometry, In 1994 he was appointed Honorary Editor, Cytometry Research (Japan) & in 1995 became an Honorary Member, Cytometry Society of Japan. He also holds honorary membership in the Polish Cytometry Society, and the Iberian Cytometry Society.

-- Jytdog (talk) 19:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC):::Hello Jytdog, OK, you are right. On the other hand, my I add to my page "...received the prestigious Maria Sklodowska-Curie award from the Jozef Pilsudski Institute of America The text is in Polish but this Institute and the award are very prestigious. Pls let me know whether I can include it to my page?Zbigniew Darzynkiewicz (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)