Talk:Murray S. Hoffman

Untitled

I recently created this page: Murray S. Hoffman and very quickly it showed up on the Google search engine. However, now when I type in Murray Hoffman or Murray S. Hoffman and even "Murray S. Hoffman, Wikipedia" The page is not found by google. similarly, when I type in Hoffman within Wikipedia the page does not show up amongst a list of other Hoffman related pages. Does anyone know why this is? Is it being blocked for some reason?

Thanks for the help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LungImaging (talk • contribs) 02:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

It comes up first in Google for me, not that this should be of any concern to us whatsoever. Theroadislong (talk) 15:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, in now comes up again for me as well. LungImaging (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion continued from Wikipedia Teahouse

This section continues a discussion begun by LungImaging at Teahouse/Questions. Mark D Worthen PsyD 18:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

LungImaging wrote on 28 November 2016 at 21:59 EST (UTC-5): Thank you for taking the time to answer my question. I have taken the time to read both the "Biographies of Living Persons" page as well as the "Notability" page. I continue to believe that the references (including the 23 cited publications of Murray Hoffman) provide sufficient evidence of the voracity of what is presented. I have done an extensive web search and believe that I have provided the references that are available. I am sure that I could find much more by going directly to the Mayo, University of Colorado, American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, the Denver Post and the Rocky Mountain News micro film and paper archives. I note the following portion in the "Biographies of Living Persons" pages: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources."Italic text

I read this to include self verification of the facts presented. I have had Murray Hoffman read the full text of what now sits on Wikipedia, and with his help have assured that all that is said is correct according to his memory and his personal files. His wife has also read the Wikipedia entry, and she also verifies its correctness. Is there a way to use that self verification in the references?

Thank you for your time. 9:59 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5) (Yes, I am an academician)) — — Preceding unsigned comment added by LungImaging (talk • contribs) 18:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm very sorry but there is absolutely no way you can use "self verification of the facts presented" ALL content on Wikipedia needs to be reliably sourced to independently published sources. Theroadislong (talk) 22:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Preface

I should start by noting that even though I have been an intermittent Wikipedia editor for eight years, I still have to look something up, or ask for help, almost every time I edit an article! I do not see this need as representing a faulty system, i.e., I do not blame Wikipedia, I see it as simply the reality when using any comprehensive, high-quality, online co-creation platform.

Keep in mind that the English Wikipedia contains over 5,000,000 articles and averages 800 new articles per day. (See: WP:STAT) If Wikipedia (just the English version, and not counting images) were a print encyclopedia, such as Encyclopædia Britannica, it would produce 2,383 volumes! Also, please remember that practically everyone here is a volunteer.

I will now respond specifically to your most recent post (copied above). I will break up my response into subsections, which will hopefully make it easier for you and other editors to discuss. If you or any other editor has a better way to organize this discussion, please do so. :O) Mark D Worthen PsyD 19:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Veracity and Accuracy

I do not question the veracity of what you have written in the article about Dr. Hoffman. The reasons for the "This article has multiple issues" notice at the top (which I did not place there, by the way), have more to do with style than substance. In other words, I don't think anyone is questioning the truthfulness of what you have written about Dr. Hoffman. We simply want to help you edit the article so that it conforms with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Mark D Worthen PsyD 19:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

It may seem as if other editors question the veracity of your content, but this is probably not the case. Rather, Wikipedia policy requires independent verifiable sources, regardless of another editor's subjective trustworthiness evaluation. Mark D Worthen PsyD 12:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Embedded Lists vs. Prose

With regard to, "This article contains embedded lists that may be better presented using prose", another option for the biographical data is an infobox, using a template such as Template:Infobox medical person. Mark D Worthen PsyD 12:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

General Tips and Suggestions

• Please sign and date your posts on Talk pages (and the Teahouse) by typing four tildes (~~~~). Thanks! Mark D Worthen PsyD 19:36, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• When you get a chance, create a user page for yourself. :^) Mark D Worthen PsyD 12:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• I highly recommend reading Manual of Style/Biographies, and its summary checklist, Biography dos and don'ts . Mark D Worthen PsyD 12:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• I also highly recommend reading other biographies of living persons, particularly physicians, and especially articles of Class B or higher. Such a review will give a you a better sense of how to write and structure this article. For example, as it stands now, the article contains too many details, at least that's my impression. Remember that this is an encyclopedia article for the general public, such that succinct articles receive more readers (which I define as visitors who actually read most of the article as opposed to clicking away after a few seconds) than longer, more comprehensive articles. Mark D Worthen PsyD 12:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Another way to think about it: This should be an informational article, not a devotional piece. Mark D Worthen PsyD 15:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Notability

This person does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Based upon a recent search, it does not appear this person has achieved notable coverage in the literature. His name appears on numerous publications but his name appears first on very few articles. This physician appears to have been accomplished during his lifetime, but it does not appear that he made a notable discovery or development and I am unable to locate an associated eponym. Ewingdo (talk) 00:41, 8 November 2020 (UTC)