Talk:Richard Axel

message: I have removed the following statement: "He also taught for Duke University's Program in Genetics and Genomics" on the ground that it is not correct.  As the link in the accompanying footnote demonstrated,  Axel merely gave an invited lecture at Duke. (see http://upg.duke.edu/seminars/GenLecture2003.htm.)  Saying he "taught" there implies he served on the faculty, which is not true.
Someone at Duke seems eager to add comments like this about Nobel winners with minimal ties to the school; a while back I removed a similar (and similarly invalid) claim from the article about Joseph Stiglitz.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.99.72 (talk) 03:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I am concerned about the phrasing of the introductory sentence of this article: “molecular biologist whose work on the olfactory system won him and Linda B. Buck, a …the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2004.” (Emphasis mine) I understand that Axel headed the project, but I feel that this wording unfairly suggests that Buck simply tagged along with the project. I personally feel that this phrasing is biased and unfairly diminishes Buck’s contribution to the work. Is there a strong reason behind this choice in phrasing? I am not an expert on the subjects but the wording within the rest of the article implies a fairly equal contribution from both parties. If someone was to skim these Wikipedia pages, they might pick up the idea that Buck’s contribution was insignificant despite the fact that she was also a recipient of the Nobel Prize. From a feminist perspective, this kind of phrasing perpetuates the idea that women cannot succeed within STEM fields. I feel that the page of a Nobel Prize winner gets quite a bit of traffic and introductory sentences like these could perpetuate some biases. Is there a reason that this can’t be phrased in a more neutral way or is the distinction reflective of Buck’s actual contribution to the work?
I am also concerned about the inclusion of some superfluous information within his bibliography. Is the fact that Axel was tall enough to play basketball in high school really worth mentioning in a page about his work as a scientist? I also fail to see the relevance of including his ex wife within the biography.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.242.218 (talk) 10:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Word and Content Choices 

message: Substituted at 04:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Richard Axel. 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://web.archive.org/web/20150601002012/http://juno.cumc.columbia.edu/psjournal/archive/winter-2005/nobility.html to http://juno.cumc.columbia.edu/psjournal/archive/winter-2005/nobility.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://royalsociety.org/people/fellowship/2014/richard-axel/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified