Talk:Steven M. Paul

Comments

I am responding to a request for comment here: Mostly looks good. What is the encyclopaedic point for this sentence "He took the unusual step of consulting with the authors of the original paper before publishing." ?? It reads as if to say, this guy has such a great personality because he consulted the authors before publishing.... I am probably missing something.... Another query: While he has clearly done a lot of positive work; Is there any controversy with this guy? He was involved in the development of Zyprexa, a drug which obviously has important therapeutic value but the manufacturer got into a lot of legal trouble and bad press for suppressing negative effects of Zyprexa such as diabetes and I think from memory also inappropriate or illegal off-label promotion. Was this guy involved in any of this negativity? I am just asking for the sake of NPOV.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 06:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing!

I have no objection to removing the "consulting with the other authors" thing -- the underlying NYT article called that behavior out, which is why I mentioned it at all.

I started this by searching the NYT and there were no connections made there between the marketing scandals and Paul. i actually looked for bad stuff. Jytdog (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Selected publications

I'm not fond of seeing this list which is chosen subjectively (not knowing why they are notable) from what appears to be nearly 800 publications. Better to summarize by numbers and/or citations in subject categories, use author impact factor, and mention most-cited reviews and books. --Zefr (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I never know what to do with those sections. I picked papers that were discussed in the content, mostly. No objection to removing. Jytdog (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly, but I'm not a fan of such lists either. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, out it goes. Jytdog (talk) 23:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it looks better now. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I like the paragraphing. Better style. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

RfC about updating biographical information in the introduction section

COI disclaimer: I am a colleague of Steven M. Paul. My proposed edits to the Steven M Paul page is to provide accurate and up-to-date information. I have declared this COI on my User page. If there are ever any concerns about my contributions, please let me know.

I would like to propose updating Steven’s introductory paragraph to the following: Steven M. Paul is an American neuroscientist and pharmaceutical executive. Dr. Paul currently serves as the CEO, president and chairman of Karuna Therapeutics . As of 2020, he had co-authored more than 550 papers and book chapters , and according to ISI was among the fifty most-cited scientists in the field of neuroscience between 1980 and 2000.[1]

Please let me know if anyone has an opinion or any feedback on the proposed changes. Smith.A33 (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Those are not reliable sources. Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, Bloomberg Profiles are to be avoided. And considering that Paul has a relationship with Third Rock, it is not a reliable source. Beyond that, per WP:LEDECITE, it's preferred if references aren't included in the lede. ~ HAL333 00:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Much of the requested change is "routine" or "unexceptional material". Routine facts of education etc. can be obtained from CV. My source for this is User talk:DGG under the discussion of Robert Peckham (historian). DGG usually exudes WP authority, so I assume this is correct. Indeed, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Bloomberg_profiles reads "Should only be used as a source for uncontroversial information. There is consensus that these profiles should not be used to establish notability." I figure the Bloomberg profile is therefore OK to use for "unexceptional material". Notability is established by membership in National academies, so not an issue here. Jaredroach (talk) 02:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Process note: I have replaced the RfC tag with an edit request tag, which is a better way to request an edit to an article with which you have a conflict of interest. Regards, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jaredroach: Thanks for the feedback on sources. I’ve compiled some additional sources to accompany the proposed updates for Steve’s introductory paragraph to help make sure it is up-to-date with his professional info. Would you be able to take a look at the proposed updates?

Steven M. Paul is an American neuroscientist and pharmaceutical executive. Dr. Paul currently serves as the CEO, president and chairman of Karuna Therapeutics . As of 2020, he had co-authored more than 550 papers and book chapters, and according to ISI was among the fifty most-cited scientists in the field of neuroscience between 1980 and 2000. .

Smith.A33 (talk) 17:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@HAL333: Thanks for the feedback on sources. I’ve included some different sources to accompany the proposed updates for Steven’s introductory paragraph to help make sure it is up-to-date with his accurate professional information:

Steven M. Paul is an American neuroscientist and pharmaceutical executive. Dr. Paul currently serves as the CEO, president and chairman of Karuna Therapeutics . As of 2020, he had co-authored more than 550 papers and book chapters, and according to ISI was among the fifty most-cited scientists in the field of neuroscience between 1980 and 2000. .

Please let me know if anyone has an opinion or any feedback on the proposed changes. Smith.A33 (talk) 16:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I updated the first sentence. Note that the word "currently" does not belong in an encyclopedia article. It is out of date immediately the time unit advances. Also WP does not use honorifics like "Dr." in the body of articles. The second sentence about citation impact, IMHO, is not necessary. Anyone can quickly check that with Google Scholar. It can be relevant when deciding whether a subject meets WP criteria for notability, but that isn't an issue here. The subject is clearly notable. Jaredroach (talk) 21:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@HAL333: Thanks for the feedback on that previous update. I would like to propose adding onto the first paragraph of Steven’s Boards and Memberships section to help make sure it is up-to-date with his accurate professional information:

He is also an elected fellow emeritus of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ACNP) and served as ACNP President (1999) . As of 2020, he was on the board of directors or is a trustee of several organizations, including serving as Chairman of the Board of the Foundation for the NIH (FNIH) and as a Director of Alnylam Pharmaceuticals , Sage Therapeutics , Voyager Therapeutics and Karuna Pharmaceuticals . He has also served as a member of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS)

Please let me know if anyone has an opinion or any feedback on the proposed changes. Smith.A33 (talk) 15:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jaredroach: Would you mind reviewing the previous edits I proposed for the first paragraph of Steven’s Boards and Memberships section to help make sure it is up-to-date with his accurate professional information?

Please let me know if anyone has an opinion or any feedback on the proposed changes. Smith.A33 (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)