Talk:USC Eye Institute

comments

Cwmhiraeth, first, per your message on my Talk page, I just want to say that it is really ... wonderful of you to re-do this article. What a great wikipedian you are!

Some comments..

• locations of clinics needs sourcing - I added that.
• the content on the the anterior slit lamp research is sourced to a WP:PRIMARY source... what is needed is a secondary source (ideally an independent one, that shows that the research was somehow significant, and what that significance was. We could probably have a hundred or so sentences like this one if we base them on primary sources, and the selection of any one over another is WP:OR. I've removed that.
• uncomfortable with the listing of clinical trials on which the current director was (most of the ones listed there are actually done, and it should say "was") or is PI. Like the above, many many clinical trials happen and it is unclear why these are being mentioned in particular - why they should be given any weight. this is what secondary sources are for. also unclear why we should only discuss the director's clinical research.
• the content "David Hinton and Mark S. Humayun are leading a $19 million study" is not encyclopedic. nothing in WP should be in the present tense; we are an encyclopedia not a newsletter and in a month that could be past tense. better to set this up like "on x date, Y was awarded a grant to do Z" or the like so it is something fixed that will not become untrue at some point in the future,.

I'll make edits to fix these things, and see what else I can add. Jytdog (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

my review of this is done. thanks again for creating this! Jytdog (talk) 18:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Compliments to both of you! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Doheny

As I worked on this I kept coming across references to the Doheny Eye Institute. I finally focused on it and learned that Doheny and USC have been allied since the ophthalmology department at USC was founded, and their histories are completed entwined... and that they just went through a major breakup. The fact that the original article created by ResearchOnCommand (now deleted for being an advert) said nothing about this, makes me even more suspicious that the article was the product of a conflict of interest; the very promotional nature of the original already had me worried. Hm. Jytdog (talk) 18:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Good detective work! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I thought the history was that USC had what could barely be called a department. They had no full time faculty. Then with Doheny money, they built a department, which was a legally distinct entity called Doheny Eye Institute. Later, Carmen Puliafito, dean of the USC Keck medical school and he wanted Doheny control and the eye institute's money. The faculty did not want Puliafito so they broke away and USC Eye Institute was formed (The famous professors went with Doheny and the young faculty with no reputation and no money were hired to form a USC eye institute controlled by USC). About this time, USC also wanted to take over some Doheny building using a city zoning dispute as a reason (and there was/is a lawsuit). Some involved faculty may be able to clear this up better. This info is partly sourced from researching forums online. Disclaimer: I am not a doctor. I have never met Puliafito. I am not even in California. I have met people that have met Puliafito, though. Neutralandnotinvolved (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

it is actually not that complicated in Wikipedia. We can only include in articles, what reliable sources say. See WP:RS. are there any reliable sources describing the stuff you are talking about? Jytdog (talk) 18:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

promo content

Mdraper91101 Wikipedia does not exist for promoting anyone or anything. Please stop adding promotional material to this article and please discuss what you are doing here, instead of edit warring. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Copyright violation, too – see below. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I removed the above tag from the article, because the editor, Mdraper91101 (talk · contribs) was only here for a day and is now gone (presumably). We should be attentive to COI edits, but in my opinion the current version, very short I note, does not display signs of promotion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the independent review; am fine with that. Jytdog (talk) 06:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Apologies for missing the User:WikipediaOphthalmology edit. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I thought it looked much smaller somehow!  :) people representing academic institutions are some of the most abusive wikipedia editors i encounter, and are relentless. i guess it is the reputation thing. the thing that kills me is that on their webiste they recite their glories going back 30 years, and just omit the whole dahaney thing. but here they say :"History corrections - Group formed in 2014, does not share prior history with the Doheny Eye Institute". Just blatantly lying/hypocritical. Jytdog (talk) 07:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://eye.keckmedicine.org/breakthroughs-and-advances/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Nice catch. Jytdog (talk) 09:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)