Talk:Robert Kistner

Suicide

On Janet Langhart Wiki entry it states...

Floyd, now Langhart, was married to Kistner from 1978 to 1989. Kistner committed suicide one year later in 1990.

If the above is correct, then I think this page should be updated with this fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.177.168 (talk) 10:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Three different sources say three different things, so I have omitted mention of whether they were married, divorced, or estranged. One obit says she was his wife when he died, one says they were estranged, and her article claims divorce. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Kistner was my surgeon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Sandbox content

I will be adding some content from Memdmarti's sandbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, SandyGeorgia! Memdmarti (talk) 17:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Done, thank you! [1] Next I will massage and expand the text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Excellent additions SandyGeorgia! Dan Memdmarti (talk) 18:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Memdmarti please see this version, and could you check the source? Note that we generally do NOT cite primary sources, but in this case, I am adding courtesy links to the papers only because a secondary source singles them out as notable. I have found (I think) two of them, but one is 1965, not between 58 and 60 as the source suggests. And I can't locate one of them at all. Does the source give better info? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Is it Suppression of ovulation by pseudopregnancy treatment of endometriosis, RW Kistner, R Greenblatt - 1966, which Google Scholar coughs up, but is not Pubmed indexed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, SandyGeorgia for correcting "pages." I will watch for that the next time I use the Ref template.

Why "|vauthors= Kistner RW" rather than "|last1=Kistner |first1=RW"? Memdmarti (talk) 22:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Addendum: Induction of ovulation with clomiphene citrate (clomid) (1965) is from a review journal. I will find the source. It will lilely be referenced in the review. Memdmarti (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@Memdmarti: The citation formatting is not something that matters here, but I will take this moment to explain anyway-- for future reference. I typically work on Featured articles (FA), where it is required that citation formatting be consistent, and almost all of Wikipedia's FAs use the format of vancouver authors from the Boghog citation filling tool. Plug in a PMID, get back a fully formatted citation. Since I always use that format, and since I almost always work on FAs, I tend to use that format for all articles I work on. When an article is not a Featured article, maintaining a consistent citation style doesn't matter, but I still like to keep them consistent, and I HATE working around long citation parameters. Vauthor produces a cleaner, shorter finished product, and less parameters to work around (imagine a string of last1= first1= last2= first2= when there are six or more authors). I also consistently truncate more than six authors to three plus et al. Have a look at the citations at Tourette syndrome or dementia with Lewy bodies, FAs I wrote. Just keeping a consistent style, which is typical for all medical FAs. See Wikipedia:Featured articles#Health and medicine (many of which are dated and need to go to WP:FAR. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Memdmarti although your own research into the matter was sound, this is original research, WP:SYNTH-- no longer stating what the source said. We have added three articles as notable, cited to a secondary source, but now we're on different articles. Even if you know different and better information, we have to stick to what the secondary source said. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, SandyGeorge! the secondary source Kistner (1965) references the 1960 article "Observations on the use of a non-steroidal estrogen antagonist: MER-25." references the 1961 article, discusses that MER-25 is similar to clomiphene, and discusse that MER-25 was part of the pathway to the use of clomiphene.

1. Does the 1960 title "Observations on the use of a non-steroidal estrogen antagonist: MER-25" need to be substituted for "Induction of ovulation with clomiphene citrate (clomid)"?
2. Is a clarification that MER-25 is similar to clomiphene and part of the development of clomiphene needed? Those are discussed in the 1965 article.
3. Does the clarification that clomiphene is Clomid^® need to be added?
4. The reference to that in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kistner#Works is "[7][a]" and the Wikitext has some of my old comments that are saved but not published. This happened when you and I were both in Talk at the same time. Do you want to fix that or let me try? Memdmarti (talk) 01:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@Memdmarti: Here it is important to separate how we write a bio from how we write about a medical topic (condition, disease, procedure, whatever). Here, we aren't looking at the content of his studies as much as we are reporting what OTHERS have to say about HIM. A book states that he wrote three very noteworthy papers early in his career. That's all we need to say here-- and that's all we can or should say, because that's all the source said. We don't really need any further information. I'm not entirely sure what you want to fix; we are talking past each other a bit. Ideally, the footnote would be completely deleted, as it's WP:OR.

Here's a trick you can use when you aren't sure about an edit. Make the edit you suggest. And then self-revert; that way, we avoid the appearance of an WP:EDITWAR, reverting each other, but I can see by checking history what you are wanting to accomplish, and then we can discuss it on talk. When people use this techique, they make an edit with an edit summary saying something like "TEST, will self-revert", and then they revert on the next edit, with an edit summary saying "Self-revert, will discuss on talk". Then I can see what you are hoping to accomplish. But the ideal situation here is to simply remove the footnote altogether, and just say what the source (Duka) said-- which is that paper was noteworthy. Meanwhile-- look at how much you are learning already, including how to better use talk pages! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:06, 19 July 2020 (UTC)