Talk:Karl Deisseroth

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Karl Deisseroth. 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/20150901025834/http://www.fnih.org/work/lurie-prize-biomedical-sciences to http://www.fnih.org/work/lurie-prize-biomedical-sciences

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) 13:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Primary sources

This WP:BLP article includes too many statements which rely on primary sources. Content which cites Deisseroth's own research does not establish notability (WP:N) for inclusion. Only research which has been covered in secondary sources such as news, books or academic reviews is notable enough for inclusion. Wikipedia relies on secondary sources. I attempted to rectify this by adding a simple template stating the article relies on too many primary sources which was twice inappropriately reverted. The use of primary sources in this article simply does not meet the requirements at WP:PRIMARYCARE, they would only be useful if getting direct quotes or as a source alongside a secondary source (which establishes their notability). All content relying on his own papers in journals is not notable and should be removed. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:05, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@Zenomonoz, I've never engaged in a discussion regarding primary/non-primary sources, so it's likely you know more about Wikipedia's protocol on this topic than I do. Having said that, it seems to me that Deisseroth's research, based on his own credentials, would be notable regardless of where it was published. I suggest simply tagging the primary-sourced content individually (this is actually what I had in mind as a more useful alternative to placing a template at the top of the article, which seems non-specific and not overly helpful to readers). Let me know your thoughts. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

You can restore the removed content by finding secondary sources that cite the removed studies. E.g. check on Google scholar if books or academic reviews cite his study and discuss it, then they become notable. That would establish notability for inclusion. Otherwise, single studies are not necessarily notable enough for inclusion in an encylopedia. Zenomonoz (talk) 01:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

@User:Generalrelative, what do you find contentious about the primary-sourced content you have removed from this article? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

We generally only consider details notable if they have been discussed in reliable, independent, secondary sources. There are some exceptions, especially for basic biographical information. But keeping things rooted in secondary sources is one major way that we prevent BLPs from sprawling into curricula vitae. Generalrelative (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Portrait Photograph

Hi. I am the photographer who made all the versions of these photos. After I posted the images, Dr Deisseroth asked me to pull that image from the photoshoot. So, I chose another. I was not hired by Dr Deisseroth, I am making photographs as a volunteer for the National Academy of Sciences and licensing them for others to use freely. Cmichel67 (talk) 02:05, 24 December 2025 (UTC) Cmichel67 (talk) 02:07, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

@Cmichel67, is there a reason why that image should not be used in the infobox? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:09, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Revirvlkodlaku,

Thanks for the clarification. I understand the concern about edit warring and agree that discussion is the right place to resolve this.

To answer your question directly: yes, there is a specific reason the earlier image should not be used in the infobox. After publication, Dr. Deisseroth reviewed the images from the shoot and asked that that particular photograph not be used, as he felt it was unflattering due to lighting effects around the eyes. I am the photographer who created all of these images, and the alternative image I uploaded comes from the same session and was selected with the subject’s explicit preference in mind.

I recognize that Wikipedia does not defer to subject approval alone, but in this case the replacement image is of equal quality, equally encyclopedic, freely licensed by me, and avoids an image the subject has directly requested not be used. My intent was not to override another editor without explanation, but to respect that request while keeping a suitable public-domain image available.

I’m happy to discuss this further and defer to consensus, but I wanted to clearly state the rationale for preferring the newer image in the infobox.

Best,

Chris Cmichel67 (talk) 02:14, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

The first image has a technical flaw. The studio lights hit the subject in a way that created a distorted look. Karl called it bug eyes. He is right. It is a biological fluke of the flash and not a true representation of his face. It is an unkind likeness. As the creator of both files I can tell you the second image is more honest. It captures the man without the startled glare of the first shot. Cmichel67 (talk) 02:35, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

@Cmichel67, thanks for the clear explanation. I would normally be tempted to invoke WP:COI, but this seems like an inconsequential issue. I actually don't see the problem with this image, and I personally like it better, but ultimately, they are very similar to each other, and I suppose if I were in Deisseroth's shoes, I'd be pleased if my preference were honoured, so go ahead, switch it back :) Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:41, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

thank you so much! Cmichel67 (talk) 03:47, 24 December 2025 (UTC)