Talk:Gerald Edelman

message: It would be nice if this page contained more about Edelman's antiboy work, rather than only the later brain stuff.
:I put a few links in the article. Also, see his Nobel lecture.--JWSchmidt 03:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've started a section titled "Nobel Prize" to invite some expansion on this topic and his later segue to brain stuff. --Mrwojo 06:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Immunobiology

message: The theory of mind page was modified (needs some cleanup) in order for it to be appropriate to link to it from this page.
I will get the ISBN numbers for Edelman's books.
JWSchmidt 16:30, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I just saw this page, and wonder whether the lengthy treatment of the later work on neuroscience is WP:UNDUE, relative to the immunology work. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I take your point, but respectfully disagree. Edelman's immunology work is clearly important, and it played a key role in the development of his theories in neuroscience, but since (as the main editor of the recent additions) I only have easy acccess to Edelman's neuroscience texts, this has obviously been my first focus in editing the article. The immunology section obviously needs more information and I would invite anyone with access to Edelman's immunology work to get stuck in! Also, this is really only a problem of relative coverage; the fact that there is currently not much info in the article about his immunology work does not IMO justify removing or truncating the sections on his later work, since he is certainly one of the most important researchers in the history of this field of research, who has devoted several decades to it and published many books, both academic and popular. It's just an unfortunate fact that his immunology work is not well known outside the scientific community but, at the risk of sounding glib, I would suggest that if he himself thought that his immunology work was more important, he'd still be doing it. -- Dunks (talk) 01:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

text: I just added some more information about Edelman's immunobiology research. I would argue against any temptation to remove information from what is now the Theory of consciousness section of the article. In the interest of balance, there should be a new page section that describes Edelman's research on cell adhesion and topobiology. I was tempted to start adding citations that illustrate what other scientists (such as Porter) have said about the importance of Edelman's work, but I don't have the patience to do that. There is always going to be a problem for Wikipedia in finding published commentaries that address the relative importance of his work on antibodies, cell adhesion and consciousness. His contributions to all three are important, but there are few scientists who can adequately evaluate the relative importance of Edelman's contributions in these three research domains. Hopefully some day there will be a dozen comprehensive scientific biographies of Edelman, but until then I don't think we can really apply WP:UNDUE to this Wikipedia biographical article. In the absence of a published corpus of Edelman biographies, a good starting point would be to perform an analysis of how frequently Edelman's papers in these three subject areas have been cited by other scientists, but if we tried doing that we would probably be condemned for our original research. --JWSchmidt (talk) 16:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Neurobiology

message: I altered the title and other occurrences in this section as I believe that the term "theory of mind" specifically refers to the psychological concept theory of mind, whereas Edelman's work is more broadly concerned with a general theory of consciousness.
Dunks (talk) 00:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I just saw this page, and wonder whether the lengthy treatment of the later work on neuroscience is WP:UNDUE, relative to the immunology work. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I take your point, but respectfully disagree. Edelman's immunology work is clearly important, and it played a key role in the development of his theories in neuroscience, but since (as the main editor of the recent additions) I only have easy acccess to Edelman's neuroscience texts, this has obviously been my first focus in editing the article. The immunology section obviously needs more information and I would invite anyone with access to Edelman's immunology work to get stuck in! Also, this is really only a problem of relative coverage; the fact that there is currently not much info in the article about his immunology work does not IMO justify removing or truncating the sections on his later work, since he is certainly one of the most important researchers in the history of this field of research, who has devoted several decades to it and published many books, both academic and popular. It's just an unfortunate fact that his immunology work is not well known outside the scientific community but, at the risk of sounding glib, I would suggest that if he himself thought that his immunology work was more important, he'd still be doing it. -- Dunks (talk) 01:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

text: I just added some more information about Edelman's immunobiology research. I would argue against any temptation to remove information from what is now the Theory of consciousness section of the article. In the interest of balance, there should be a new page section that describes Edelman's research on cell adhesion and topobiology. I was tempted to start adding citations that illustrate what other scientists (such as Porter) have said about the importance of Edelman's work, but I don't have the patience to do that. There is always going to be a problem for Wikipedia in finding published commentaries that address the relative importance of his work on antibodies, cell adhesion and consciousness. His contributions to all three are important, but there are few scientists who can adequately evaluate the relative importance of Edelman's contributions in these three research domains. Hopefully some day there will be a dozen comprehensive scientific biographies of Edelman, but until then I don't think we can really apply WP:UNDUE to this Wikipedia biographical article. In the absence of a published corpus of Edelman biographies, a good starting point would be to perform an analysis of how frequently Edelman's papers in these three subject areas have been cited by other scientists, but if we tried doing that we would probably be condemned for our original research. --JWSchmidt (talk) 16:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Theory of mind

message: I am skeptical about the edits claiming he has died. One reference is given, in German, but in searching Google News I can find no other source reporting it. Isn't it odd that there'd be only one source reporting it, especially given that the source is in German and Edelman was American? One would expect to see a variety of English language sources. Everyking (talk) 17:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, someone has provided a source. I still don't understand how an editor reported his death days before any sources appeared. I suppose it might have been a family member or someone who knew him personally. Everyking (talk) 02:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose it's the latter. My guess regarding the absence of English language sources is that news outlets are awaiting further details to include in their obituaries. I suspect the NY Times/LA Times should have something in the next few weeks... Connormah (talk) 03:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The New York Times and the Washington Post had published his obituary. I added them and yes Edelman is dead. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Died?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Gerald Edelman. 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/20100421005310/http://www.usasciencefestival.org/about/advisors/ to http://www.usasciencefestival.org/about/advisors
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150723083207/http://www.sandiego.edu/cas/psy/faculty/biography.php?ID=1339 to http://www.sandiego.edu/cas/psy/faculty/biography.php?ID=1339
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071006072238/http://www.sdjewishjournal.com/stories/xarchive.php?id=417 to http://www.sdjewishjournal.com/stories/xarchive.php?id=417
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) 16:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gerald Edelman. 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/20060508235645/http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed to http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=13889151
*Added  tag to http://nobelprize.org/cgi-bin/print?from=%2Fnobel_prizes%2Fmedicine%2Flaureates%2F1972%2Fedelman-bio.html
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) 02:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified