Talk:E. Converse Peirce II

Relevance of publication list

This article appears very much like a CV for Dr. Peirce. Is this level of detail necessary? Dlodge 04:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just getting started, and have been filling in the facts that are ready at hand. The details that I've provided have been verified in the Science Citation Index and other reputable sources. I will organize the bibliographic data as I work on it. I have a lot more to do on this article, and didn't expect to produce a polished article in one day. I just started it yesterday. My intention is to work slowly, building the facts as I gather more information and begin to arrange and edit it. FoxezandHedgehogs 07:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a subpage E._Converse_Peirce_2nd/Publications and moved the entire publication list there. Dlodge 20:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Membrane vs. bubble oxygenator

Please see Talk:Membrane oxygenator Dlodge 04:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

The claims to notability here are pretty weak - invented the Peirce-General Electric Membrane Oxygenator, a term that shows up only in articles published by Dr. Peirce or by his co-workers at Mt. Sinai and not at all, otherwise, on google or google scholar. As the discussion on the Talk:Membrane oxygenator page suggests, his role in "paving the way" for open-heart surgery seems grossly overstated.

That being said, this man's most notable work appears to have been done in the 50s and 60s, so the web may not be the best source for info on him. I'll give 30 days for a reliable external reference before nominating for afd. Irene Ringworm 00:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the above comments seem bizarre, in view of the publication record. The papers are what establishes notability for scientists--see WP:PROF, (I simplified things by extracted the most relevant) , the biographical directory--a selective one-- is the source for details, and the secondary source for verifying the papers is PubMed and Science Citation Index., both the most RSs possible. DGG 04:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre? In light of the information on the original page there was no claim to notability other than an obscure invention and a long list of publications with no additional information. 150 pubs over a 40+ year career but none of these articles have any particular claim to notability. If you could explain your criteria for choosing "famous" articles it would be appreciated. My (brief) perusal of this gentleman's work finds that he and his colleagues cite themselves extensively but that there are few external sources that cite him. Irene Ringworm 05:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also notice that DGG removed the {{fact}} tag from the still unverified claim that Peirce's work paved the way for modern open heart surgery, a claim which has been effectively refuted on the Talk:Membrane oxygenator page. I have reinstated this tag until an external source can be found which gives Peirce this credit. The kidney transplant bit seems overblown as well. Again, where is the external source that gives Peirce this credit? Irene Ringworm 05:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a/c the published articles he certainly worked on it. I'm sure others did as well.

Working on it does not make one a pioneer. To be a pioneer requires recognition by an external source, of which none apparently exists. The breadth of his citations (as you have demonstrated below) is plenty to establish notability - no need to resort to exaggerated claims of importance. Irene Ringworm 06:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

as for citations

The objective standard for the influences of work in science is citations. His most cited article was cited 462 times, and then in order, 268, 118, 107, 65, 61, 46, 46, 44, 40. I've added them to the list. Very few biomedical scientists have 462 for a research paper. If he is more cited than the average, even, this is considered notability for scientists. The advantage of discussing N for scientists over those in most other fields is the availability of the Web of Science data. You may now say that X Y and Z dont consider him important, but the number speak for themselves. So do the academic appointments. The particular claims made for specific influences are of course more complicated to evaluate, and additional information is welcome. But the basic N is shown by appointments--full professor at major med school, and publications. . DGG 05:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Tone down the exaggerated and unverifiable claims about him "pioneer in organ transplants" and "paved the way for open heart surgery" to properly contextualize him as a well-referenced, well-published notable medical professor and I think you've adequately asserted notability. I'll take a crack at an edit. Irene Ringworm 06:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]