Talk:Hedvig Hricak
Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
|
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
COI editing here
[edit]per tags above and Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Memorial_Sloan_Kettering_Cancer_Center_nest_of_COI_editing Jytdog (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hedvig Hricak. 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://www.webcitation.org/69QeoPgi6?url=http://www.nacional.hr/en/clanak/22504/hedvig-hricak-world-innovator-in-tumor-diagnosis to http://www.nacional.hr/en/clanak/22504/hedvig-hricak-world-innovator-in-tumor-diagnosis
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: 5 June 2024).
- 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) 07:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Reverting vandalism
[edit]I just saw the slew of IP edits over the past few months and the insistent additions on the allegations of plagiarism. I saw that Jytdog, Sphilbrick, and 208.105.47.124 were all kind enough to recognize the problems and revert the content, but some of the unsupported content still remains on the article. Upon looking at the edit history, I found that the contributions came from a variety of different IP addresses, which have at this point all been blocked:
The version of the article from November 1, 2017 has content that is well-cited and neutral. Going back to that version may be the most stable version. Is this something we can agree upon? I don't want to undo anyone's legitimate contributions to the article, but the article as it exists now is stripped down compared to the earlier version, and still filled with unsupported content. Both the references given to support the content in the Criticism section are only links to the mentioned research papers, but don't actually support the claims of criticism, errors, admission of said errors, or invalidation of research. Similarly, in the Plagiarism section, the only remaining references link to:
- A write-up on a singular retraction
- A write-up on a paper that was not retracted
- The retraction of the first paper
- An addendum mentioning an overlap in coverage with another paper, mentioned in link 2
- The editor's note on why the paper in link 2 was not redacted
As far as I can tell, the only potentially legitimate addition since 1 November is the Corporate Relationships section, but that was added by 185.236.202.88, mentioned above, now blocked. Given my COI with MSK, I don't want to suggest its removal just because the IP has been blocked, but I still felt the information was relevant enough to include. @Jytdog: or @Sphilbrick: could you give some input on the matter, or offer some guidance on an appropriate place to discuss this?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 02:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for your note. A question first - are you being paid to work on this? It is just not clear from what you write above. Now a comment. Regardless of whether you are being paid, I often tell people that you are "one of the good guys". Please don't propose reverting to a version without the negative content without proposing something concrete about that. This makes you look.... really not good. and thus me. :( Jytdog (talk) 02:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- I am deeply sorry for having overlooked this. I hadn't realized that I was not explicit with my COI disclosure here, so thank you for bringing it to my attention. I take transparency very seriously, and I'd hate to damage the relationship I have with you or any of the other community members I've worked with. So to answer your question, yes, I am being paid to work on this. I've added the appropriate disclosures above and on my talk page now. And really, thank you for keeping me accountable; it's the only way this works.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 03:17, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for being gracious about that. Would you please propose something with the negative content? thx Jytdog (talk) 04:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Jytdog: Here's what I've managed to whip up. I started with the 1 November 2017 version, added in the content about Ion Beam Applications, and added sources for the content that had been flagged. Here's a link to the diff. Let me know what you think; I'm open to discussion.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 05:04, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for being gracious about that. Would you please propose something with the negative content? thx Jytdog (talk) 04:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- I am deeply sorry for having overlooked this. I hadn't realized that I was not explicit with my COI disclosure here, so thank you for bringing it to my attention. I take transparency very seriously, and I'd hate to damage the relationship I have with you or any of the other community members I've worked with. So to answer your question, yes, I am being paid to work on this. I've added the appropriate disclosures above and on my talk page now. And really, thank you for keeping me accountable; it's the only way this works.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 03:17, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
The article was RETRACTED by HRICAK - THE REASON WAS PLAGIARISM AS PER THE JOURNAL EDITOR. Do not change sections with citations. You are paid by Hricak's institution to revert these changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.225.28.22 (talk) 23:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
PAID EDITORS - WHAT HAPPENED TO COI?
[edit]The following Wikipedia contributors are personally or professionally connected to Hedvig Hricak.
Kzezulinski Lyjmsk12 Clearanne FacultiesIntact — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.225.28.22 (talk) 23:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Expanding the article
[edit]Since the series of reversions in May, I've been working on improving the current version of the article to something a little more robust. I have a draft here, with some of Hricak's personal information removed (as it had been previously suppressed for privacy reasons), and some information on her research included in a separate section. I also created separate sections for her other roles, past roles, and accolades. Would anyone like to collaborate with me further to ensure that everything is appropriate for Wikipedia? @Jytdog: you do a great job holding COI editors accountable: do you think you have time to take a look?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping but unfortunately I can't help you here much. I don't really know the first thing about radiology or Hedvig Hricak, so I can't speak for comprehensiveness and neutrality of your proposed version. I notice a lot of information is sourced to primary sources, especially Hricak's publications. Secondary sources would be better there, and be careful to avoid WP:SYN. Also, using bulleted lists like that is discouraged, remember that Wikipedia is not for hosting CVs. Daß Wölf 02:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback! You're right to avoid WP:SYN, and that's something I'll try to consider more often.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 00:54, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Edit request 10-AUG-2018
[edit]This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
The article was stripped of a lot of content after a series of contentious edits, which resulted in the current brief and somewhat redundant version of the article. I'm proposing a series of changes to reduce redundancy and expand on her research.
Extended content
|
---|
Hricak's work at MSK focuses on the development and validation of biomarkers derived from cross-sectional imaging and molecular imaging techniques, particularly for genitourinary and gynecological cancers.[17][18][19][20][21][22][23]"
References
Here is a draft of these proposed changes for easier reading.-- |
FacultiesIntact (talk) 18:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Reply to edit request 10-AUG-2018
[edit]Below you will see where proposals from your request have been quoted with reviewer decisions and feedback inserted underneath, either accepting, declining or otherwise commenting upon your proposal(s). Please read the enclosed notes for information on each request. spintendo 19:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Edit Request Review section 10-AUG-2018
|
---|
|
- Thanks for taking the time to review this.
- Regarding note 3: I didn't include specific page numbers, as each of the papers generally covers the topics described.
- As for notes 4-6: I have them staged in a sandbox here, here, and here. Could you review these sections again now that they're more readable?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- Regarding page numbers, this is fine, just point to the general location in the articles where the information resides. In the list of former roles, I was able to Wikilink to the last item on the list, so I've added that. In the list of awards, I'll add the ones that are notable, i.e., they have their own pages on Wikipedia. spintendo 21:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- I've been reading back through the papers, and I'm still not entirely sure how to point out the specific information. Most of the abstracts and purpose/results/conclusions summaries describe that the use of different kinds of magnetic resonance imaging are effective at detailing the level and nature of the particular cancer (in the case of references 10-16) or that MRI can be refined as a non-invasive diagnostic tool (in the case of references 17-23). Is there something I can do to better illustrate that?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 08:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- You may use the quote parameter of the citation template to add the individual statements from each reference. spintendo 08:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for teaching me about that parameter. How does it look now?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- The page numbers are not accurate, and in each instance where her report is cited, the prose doesn't reflect what it says in the quote parameter. In order to do this, you would need to rewrite the article to describe each of her reports and how they accomplished what they did. But if that were done, a larger problem would arise, that of trying to include so many of her reports in an article ostensibly about her. When this is done, you're making the article more about her work than about her. Problems with some of the quoted passages:
- "Prostate cancer: localization with three-dimensional proton MR spectroscopic imaging--clinicopathologic study" - does not say how and in what way 3-D proton MR spectroscopic imaging is able to localize the existence of prostate cancer.
- "CT and MRI performed similarly; both had lower staging accuracy than in prior single-institution studies. Accuracy of FIGO clinical staging was higher than previously reported. The temporal data suggest that FIGO clinical staging was influenced by CT and MRI findings" - Passages such as this which are aligned with "She went on to develop CT and MRI for gynecologic oncology" clearly are attempting to make the page more about CT and MRI then about the person.
- Saying that "She went on to help develop clinical applications of MRI and MR spectroscopic imaging for prostate cancer" doesn't seem to be enough, while inclusion of every report shes ever written seems to be going too far. As another reviewer said earlier, secondary references would be preferred over MS. Hricak's reports.[a] Since a lot of her work is in the area of imaging, I think a compromise sentence about her work in this area may be a good idea.
This statement would then be given as a reference one or two of Hricak's most relevant journal articles. I believe this would work because the statement attests to what work she has performed and in what areas of research and the journal article would confirm that. Saying that someone has "performed work in the fields of" seems more appropriate than saying she has "developed clinical applications of" because while the former only requires her own research as a reference, the latter would require secondary sources to confirm. Please advise on your opinions on this. Thank you spintendo 02:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)A large portion of Hricak's work has been in the fields of imaging, where her and her colleagues have examined different techniques including ____ and ____ (insert one or two top variants), used in the treatment of _______ (insert main target of her imaging studies).
- The page numbers are not accurate, and in each instance where her report is cited, the prose doesn't reflect what it says in the quote parameter. In order to do this, you would need to rewrite the article to describe each of her reports and how they accomplished what they did. But if that were done, a larger problem would arise, that of trying to include so many of her reports in an article ostensibly about her. When this is done, you're making the article more about her work than about her. Problems with some of the quoted passages:
Notes
- ^ Another issue here is that Ms. Hricak's studies into these questions are not her own. In every instance, reports done on this subject were made in the names of her and several other researchers working in tandem along with her. The fact that the COI editor, through their suggestions, wants to make these discoveries about her alone by not sharing the names of Hricak's many colleagues in the main prose of her article, preferring to relegate the mentioning of their contributions to only the references section, is troubling.
- As you expressed, it's difficult to strike a balance to between being as accurate as possible while also staying succinct. I think what you've proposed is a great compromise.
- I'll go ahead and rewrite the content you deem as biased towards Hricak's contribution in her field. Do you agree on this wording?
A large portion of Hricak's work has been in the fields of imaging, where she and her colleagues have examined different techniques including the use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), cross-sectional imaging and, molecular imaging in the treatment of genitourinary and gynecological cancers.
- --FacultiesIntact (talk) 21:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
I like this wording very much. Would any other editors like to weigh in? I'd like to ping Jytdog who is well versed in sci/med matters, to get his opinion/concerns regarding this statement being added with a few of Hricak's relevant articles as references for it. Note: If I'm not mistaken, this statement would be a compromise addition, chosen instead of adding a large listing of Hricak's published work with individual claims attached to each article, as was originally requested. spintendo 01:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- Spintendo and Facultiesintact, the content about her research, sourced to a pile of her own papers, is not OK. That is not what we do here. We need secondary sources for this stuff. This interview has a brief description of her work. There is this but it somewhat excessively fawning.
- Also how is it that there is nothing about the plagiarism? ref, ref? Jytdog (talk) 02:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- Jytdog raises excellent questions, and I thank them for providing the links regarding issues of plagiarism. To the COI editor: It would appear that there are some concerns to be had with the listing of Hricak's articles here. With the understanding that on Wikipedia criticism is inevitable, I can't rule out the possibility that listing the articles here may invite additional claims from other editors regarding the character of those articles. (If you haven't already, you should familiarize yourself with the claims made in the links provided by Jytdog.) In light of this, I think the best course of action for now is to stick with the status quo, and leave the article as it is. spintendo 05:18, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- Spintendo's suggestion is fair. I can accept the article content as is. Jytdog has a point about the inclusion of criticism. However, the lack of high-quality credible third-party sources is enough of a reason to consider the validity of the use of the term "plagiarism". Until we can come to an agreement on balanced and quality-sourced content, shall we just keep it as it is?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 23:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- Jytdog raises excellent questions, and I thank them for providing the links regarding issues of plagiarism. To the COI editor: It would appear that there are some concerns to be had with the listing of Hricak's articles here. With the understanding that on Wikipedia criticism is inevitable, I can't rule out the possibility that listing the articles here may invite additional claims from other editors regarding the character of those articles. (If you haven't already, you should familiarize yourself with the claims made in the links provided by Jytdog.) In light of this, I think the best course of action for now is to stick with the status quo, and leave the article as it is. spintendo 05:18, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- Biography articles of living people
- Start-Class biography articles
- Start-Class biography (science and academia) articles
- Unknown-importance biography (science and academia) articles
- Science and academia work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- Start-Class Croatia articles
- Low-importance Croatia articles
- All WikiProject Croatia pages
- Articles with connected contributors
- Talk pages of subject pages with paid contributions
- Implemented requested edits