Talk:Richard Axel

Untitled

I have removed the following statement: "He also taught for Duke University's Program in Genetics and Genomics" on the ground that it is not correct. As the link in the accompanying footnote demonstrated, Axel merely gave an invited lecture at Duke. (see http://upg.duke.edu/seminars/GenLecture2003.htm.) Saying he "taught" there implies he served on the faculty, which is not true.

Someone at Duke seems eager to add comments like this about Nobel winners with minimal ties to the school; a while back I removed a similar (and similarly invalid) claim from the article about Joseph Stiglitz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.99.72 (talk) 03:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Word and Content Choices

I am concerned about the phrasing of the introductory sentence of this article: “molecular biologist whose work on the olfactory system won him and Linda B. Buck, a …the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2004.” (Emphasis mine) I understand that Axel headed the project, but I feel that this wording unfairly suggests that Buck simply tagged along with the project. I personally feel that this phrasing is biased and unfairly diminishes Buck’s contribution to the work. Is there a strong reason behind this choice in phrasing? I am not an expert on the subjects but the wording within the rest of the article implies a fairly equal contribution from both parties. If someone was to skim these Wikipedia pages, they might pick up the idea that Buck’s contribution was insignificant despite the fact that she was also a recipient of the Nobel Prize. From a feminist perspective, this kind of phrasing perpetuates the idea that women cannot succeed within STEM fields. I feel that the page of a Nobel Prize winner gets quite a bit of traffic and introductory sentences like these could perpetuate some biases. Is there a reason that this can’t be phrased in a more neutral way or is the distinction reflective of Buck’s actual contribution to the work? I am also concerned about the inclusion of some superfluous information within his bibliography. Is the fact that Axel was tall enough to play basketball in high school really worth mentioning in a page about his work as a scientist? I also fail to see the relevance of including his ex wife within the biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.242.218 (talk) 10:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Richard Axel/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Rated start class for the following reasons: No photograph Lacks inline references; the long list of key papers is currently out of proportion with the length of the article and would probably benefit from pruning or annotating Some information on research interests, but could be expanded Organisation of article could be improved eg putting material into chronological order, adding subheadings External link present which could be used to expand article Espresso Addict 15:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 15:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 04:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Richard Axel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150601002012/http://juno.cumc.columbia.edu/psjournal/archive/winter-2005/nobility.html to http://juno.cumc.columbia.edu/psjournal/archive/winter-2005/nobility.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://royalsociety.org/people/fellowship/2014/richard-axel/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)