Talk:John Macleod (physiologist)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

I have removed the "rumour" that MacLeod did not participate in the discovery of insulin and was on holiday when it occurred. John Waller's Fabulous Science describes the way Charles Best attempted to discount the contributions of the other scientists involved - Best and Banting only obtained good results once MacLeod started advising them on experimental technique, and the crucial use of alcohol in extracting insulin was entirely MacLeod's suggestion. --Andrew Norman 17:28, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

That MacLeod was on vacation in Scotland while Banting and Best did their initial experiments in the summer of 1921 is not a rumour. It's a fact. However, whether Banting and Best's results from the summer of '21 were good enough to constitute the "discovery" of insulin without MacLeod's input and supervision is a separate question. (JGDo (talk) 08:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

There is also a short bio of MacLeod in The Canadian Encyclopedia that states "Contrary to Banting's and Best's later distorted accounts, MacLeod was an active, essential supervisor of a research effort that, by the spring of 1922, had resulted in the discovery of insulin." –panda (talk) 20:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name[edit]

Hi does anyone know how to change the spelling in the title? It should read "Rickard" not "Richard". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lecapitain32 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. MacLeod's third name is "Rickard." (http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0004986). I don't know how to edit it, though. But I wish somebody would. (JGDo (talk) 08:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I had been bold and moved this page to correct spelling of the gentleman's name as per previous comments and numerous other sources, including the Nobel biography, a memorial plaque in Toronto and the obituary in Exp Physiol. — Yerpo Eh? 16:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:John James Rickard Macleod/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zad68 (talk · contribs) 03:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Status = Not listed for GA at this time[edit]

Starting review... Looks like an interesting scientist. Zad68 16:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finished first read-through. Without making a comment about the actual factual history as found in reliable sources, this biography reads like it is pushing a POV, namely something along the lines of "Although it's most commonly reported that Banting had the biggest role in the discovery of insulin, really Macleod's contributions are underappreciated, and besides Banting was a jerk and a liar." This may all be 100% true, but that's how it feels and it really should not for a GA article. I'm sure you've heard the saying "An article is written with NPOV when you can't tell where the author's sympathies lie," and that's not the case with this article, I feel the article author's POV. There's also some usual realtively easy to clean up grammar bits. Haven't looked through the sourcing yet but I see this article is using Rosenfeld 2002, which Insulin#History doesn't use. Can I get your feedback on this? Zad68 16:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Banting acted exceedingly emotionally and that he deliberately tried to minimize Macleod's role is well supported by all available sources. I honestly didn't know anything about this controversy before starting to research, and this is the genuine impression one gets from written accounts on the subject. Insulin#History is rather light on sources and background, but for example the reference Bliss (1993) in there says essentially the same: that Banting had serious emotional issues and that Best went quite far to ensure his role was glorified at the cost of Macleod's and Collip's public image after Banting died. This is factual history, and if you have any suggestion on how to make it feel less "involved", I'd be happy to hear it. I even left out some of the most juicy parts, such as Banting describing Macleod as “grasping, selfish, deceptive, self-seeking and empty of truth … unscrupulous … a coward and a skulking weakling…. ”, because that would really be over the top.
As for going into excessive detail about insulin research... that is simply by far the most notable period of his life. Not much is written about the rest in sources that were available to me (it was quite difficult to piece together the period from 1903 to 1920), so this is in accordance with WP:DUE. — Yerpo Eh? 18:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, a perfectly reasonable response. I'll read the most-used sources and try to figure out a way to get the prose a little more detached. Zad68 18:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments below describing the reasons why I think there's more work and time needed than is normally allowed for during a GA review, and so I'm leaning toward not listing this as GA at this time. Zad68 21:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not listing this article for GA at this time per the discussion below--generally due to concerns about GA criterion "stays focused on the topic". Zad68 17:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA table[edit]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Some issues to fix
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Some issues to fix
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Seems like other areas of Macleod's life should be expanded
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Is there too much detail about the history of insulin?; biography section needs to be recast to be focused on Macleod
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. The biography narrative sides with Macleod over Banting a little too obviously
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Talk page and article history quiet
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. Not listed for GA at this time

Notes[edit]

Note -- the number in parentheses before each item corresponds with the numbering of the GA requirement listed in the GA Table above.

MOS compliance[edit]

General[edit]

  • (1a) There are sentences with introductory clauses or phrases that aren't set off with commas, for example "In 1905 he became interested in carbohydrate metabolism...". I think for correct grammar there needs to be a comma after the introductory clause or phrase: "In 1905, he became interested in carbohydrate metabolism..."
    • Usage guides no longer recommend this, except where the omission creates a "garden path sentence" (such as "In 1905 men from the 1st batallion ..."). I can provide a couple of references for this if you wish. --Stfg (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (1a) watch uses of the phrase "apart from" as sometimes "additionally" is meant
    • Fair enough; it might be a bit colloquial too. I've rephrased all three instances. --Stfg (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (4) Read Insulin#History, it's a totally different story... I'm not sure which is the correct account
    • It isn't all that different, only less detailed and with a slightly different focus. The few parts that might be understood as contradicting this article are unsourced. — Yerpo Eh? 17:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

  • (4) "most controversial acts" -- "most" isn't exactly supported, it's hard to quanatify amounts of controversy to come up with a defensible relative evaluation like "most", consider removing it
  • (1b) "according to many" -- "many" is a WP:WEASEL word here, can those who make up the "many" be specified?
  • (1a) "an independent revision acknowledged" -- is "an independent review acknowledged" meant?

Biography[edit]

  • (1a) "In 1903 Macleod" --> "In 1903, Macleod"
    • Please see above. --Stfg (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • any reason why "Case Western Reserve Univserity" isn't also wikilinked?
  • (1a) "During World War I he" --> "During World War I, he"
    • Please see above. --Stfg (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (1a) "After the war he" --> "After the war, he" ... more like this
    • Please see above. --Stfg (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (1a) "on the subject since then" --> "on the subject afterwards or later" or "and later published a series of scientific papers and several monographs on the subject."
    • Replaced with "from then on", which I think is the meaning intended. --Stfg (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (1a) "Apart from that, Macleod actively engaged in education: he was a popular lecturer and an influential contributor to the development of the six-year course in medicine at the University of Toronto" is clunky and a bit excessively wordy, consider: "Additionally, Macleod was a popular lecturer and an influential contributor to the development of the six-year course in medicine at the University of Toronto."
    • Yes, much better. Done. --Stfg (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (1b) "got on extremely well with each other" -- "extremely well" sounds like editorializing and "got on with each other" is a bit too informal for an encyclopedia
  • (4) "impulsive Banting"... the biography is starting to side a little too obviously with Macleod over Banting
  • (1a) "Macleod refused co-authorship" -- why?? it would seem important to know
    • I'll leave this to the nominator, as this is more to do with content than with prose. --Stfg (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed. — Yerpo Eh? 17:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (1a) "only Banting and Best were listed" -- listed as authors?
  • (1a) "enough extract" ... by this time I've forgotten what kind of extract we were talking about, "enough pancreas extract"
  • (1a) "Together, the team" -- I'm confused at this point, is Macleod still part of 'the team'?
    • I'll leave this to the nominator, as this is more to do with content than with prose. --Stfg (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (1a) "Collip threatened to leave ... and only because of the encouragement ... did they calm down" ... I think it should be "did he calm down", this sentence is talking about Collip right?
    • Leaving this to the nominator, as it could include Banting too. (I agree it needs clarifying.) --Stfg (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It included everybody. Fixed. — Yerpo Eh? 17:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (1a) "In the summer of 1923 Macleod, Collip and Best resumed other research, while Banting remained in Toronto" -- where did Collip and Best go?
    • I'll leave this to the nominator, as this is more to do with content than with prose. --Stfg (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I made this part more Macleod-centric. — Yerpo Eh? 17:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (3), (4) Clearly Macleod's involvement in the discovery of insulin was important, but was only three years of his career, he was only one of several working on a team, and yet this history takes nearly all the Biography. Is undue weight being placed on this here? This section is looking rather WP:COATRACK or WP:POVFORK as compared to Insulin#History.
  • (3) -- On rereading this, I think the issue here is that you've written a really good and interesting history of the discovery of insulin, and the personalities involved in the discovery, but this article's content as it currently stands isn't working as a biography of Macleod. The actors in the history section are the others, mostly Banting. The whole paragraph starting "The first human clinical trial was unsuccessful. Banting..." doesn't have Macleod as the main actor in it at all. What needs to be done is to work the very nice content you have developed here about the history of insulin into Insulin#History, and to recast the section in this biography of Macleod to be Macleod-centered. This will probably make the history section here much shorter, which is OK. I think this part of the article has developed this way because it summarizes Rosenfeld's Insulin: Discovery and Controversy which is about the history of insulin and not the history of Macleod in particular. I think this would also make fixing the POV issues I was describing much easier to fix. To do this properly would, I think, require more effort and time than is normally expected during a GA review so I am leaning toward not listing it as GA at this time so that you can do a proper job without the time pressure. Would that be acceptable to you? Zad68 21:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have a point, but unfortunately I don't have time nor energy right now to do a Macleod-centered summary. I still feel that events around the discovery of insulin deserve prominent treatise in this biography as well (for reasons stated in my first reply), but if you think that the current version is over the top, feel free to reject the nomination. I won't be holding grudges over it. — Yerpo Eh? 17:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Appreciate it and glad you understand. I just can't in good conscience list it as GA as-is, and as you state you're busy with other things, the right thing to do at this time is to not list it until you've got the time you need. I agree with you that that Macleod's involvement in the discovery of insulin was indeed the most important thing in Macleod's career and should feature prominently, but for this biography article it needs to be recast to center on Macleod's actions. Take a look at how the Royal Society's obituary does it. When you have time, do come back to this and nominate it again. I hope it doesn't languish in the queue for too long like it did last time... if it does and you'd like my involvement again, let me know and I'll pick it up. If you'd rather another reviewer handle it, that's fine too. Thanks for all the work you've put in on this. Zad68 17:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Works[edit]

  • Green tickY

Awards and honours[edit]

  • "His contribution to science is now recognized by the broad public, even in Canada." -- 'even in Canada' sounds like editorializing
    • As implied by the rest of the text, Macleod's reputation in Canada was hit the worst. This was in part because Banting was regarded a hero (the first Canadian to have received the Nobel prize and all), but explaining this would detract from the subject even further. — Yerpo Eh? 17:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also[edit]

  • Green tickY

Media[edit]

  • Green tickY Nice and appropriate selection of images, good captions, no apparent licensing and copyright problems

References[edit]

  • Green tickY

External links[edit]

  • Green tickY

Sourcing[edit]

Sources table

In this table:

  • Source lists the source as cited in the article
  • Seems WP:RS? means, "Does this source appear to meet WP:RS for reliable sourcing?"
  • Use OK? means, is the source used appropriately in the article? For the review, a few selected sources will be spot-checked to ensure they aren't plagiarized and support the article content. ? indicates the source was not spot-checked.
  • Notes will summarize problems found and what needs to be done to fix them
Source Seems WP:RS? Use OK? Notes
<ref name="Bliss1989">{{cite journal |author=Bliss, Michael |year=1989 |title=J.J.R. Macleod and the discovery of insulin |journal=Quarterly Journal of Experimental Physiology |volume=74 |pages=87–96}}</ref> style="background: #EEE; vertical-align: middle; white-space: nowrap; text-align: center; " class="table-Un­known" | ?
<ref name="Bliss2002">{{cite encyclopedia |author=Bliss, Michael |year=2002 |title=Macleod, John James Rickard |url=http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/john-james-rickard-macleod |encyclopedia=Canadian Encyclopedia}}</ref> style="background: #EEE; vertical-align: middle; white-space: nowrap; text-align: center; " class="table-Un­known" | ?
<ref name="Cathcart1935">{{cite doi|10.1098/rsbm.1935.0023}}</ref> style="background: #EEE; vertical-align: middle; white-space: nowrap; text-align: center; " class="table-Un­known" | ?
<ref name="ExpPhysiol">{{cite journal |author=A.H. |year=1935 |title=John James Rickard Macleod, 1876–1935 |journal=Experimental Physiology |volume=25 |issue=2 |pages=105–108 |url=http://ep.physoc.org/content/25/2/105.full.pdf}}</ref> style="background: #EEE; vertical-align: middle; white-space: nowrap; text-align: center; " class="table-Un­known" | ?
<ref name="Rosenfeld2002">{{cite journal |author=Rosenfeld, Louis |year=2002 |title=Insulin: Discovery and Controversy |journal=Clinical Chemistry |volume=48 |pages=2270–2288 |url=http://www.clinchem.org/cgi/content/full/48/12/2270}}</ref> style="background: #EEE; vertical-align: middle; white-space: nowrap; text-align: center; " class="table-Un­known" | ?
<ref name="Shampo2006">{{cite doi|10.4065/81.8.1006}}</ref> style="background: #EEE; vertical-align: middle; white-space: nowrap; text-align: center; " class="table-Un­known" | ?
<ref>{{cite journal |author=Banting, Frederick G. & Best, Charles H. |year=1922 |title=The Internal Secretion of the Pancreas |journal=The Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine |volume=7 |issue=5 |url=http://www.icmr.nic.in/ijmr/2007/march/classic2.pdf}}</ref> style="background: #EEE; vertical-align: middle; white-space: nowrap; text-align: center; " class="table-Un­known" | ?
<ref>{{cite journal |author=Henderson, Velyien E. |year=1935 |title=Obituary – John James Rickard Macleod |journal=[[Science]] |volume=81 |issue=2102 |pages=624}}</ref> style="background: #EEE; vertical-align: middle; white-space: nowrap; text-align: center; " class="table-Un­known" | ?
<ref>{{cite journal |url=http://www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/5/1/Weber101-105.html |author=Weber, Mark |title=The Priority of N.C. Paulescu in the Discovery Of Insulin by Ion Pavel |journal=The Journal of Historical Review |volume=5 |issue=1 |pages=101–105}}</ref> style="background: #EEE; vertical-align: middle; white-space: nowrap; text-align: center; " class="table-Un­known" | ?
<ref>{{cite journal| author=Murray, Ian |year=1971 |title=Paulesco and the Isolation of Insulin |journal=Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences |volume=26 |issue=2 |pages=150–157 |doi=10.1093/jhmas/XXVI.2.150}}</ref> style="background: #EEE; vertical-align: middle; white-space: nowrap; text-align: center; " class="table-Un­known" | ?
<ref>{{cite news |title=Health Care Heroes Named to The Canadian Medical Hall of Fame |date=2011-11-02 |work=Vaccine Weekly |accessdate=2012-09-06}}</ref> style="background: #EEE; vertical-align: middle; white-space: nowrap; text-align: center; " class="table-Un­known" | ?
<ref>{{cite web |url=http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1923/macleod.html |title=John Macleod – Biography |year=1923 |publisher=Nobel Foundation |accessdate=2011-03-30}}</ref> style="background: #EEE; vertical-align: middle; white-space: nowrap; text-align: center; " class="table-Un­known" | ?
<ref>{{cite web| url=http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1923/ |title=The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1923 |publisher=Nobel Foundation |accessdate=2011-03-11}}</ref> style="background: #EEE; vertical-align: middle; white-space: nowrap; text-align: center; " class="table-Un­known" | ?
<ref>{{cite web| url=http://www.cdnmedhall.org/dr-john-james-rickard-jjr-macleod |title=Dr. John James Rickard (J.J.R.) Macleod |publisher=The Canadian Medical Hall of Fame |accessdate=2012-09-06}}</ref> style="background: #EEE; vertical-align: middle; white-space: nowrap; text-align: center; " class="table-Un­known" | ?
<ref>{{cite web| url=http://www.diabetes.org.uk/About_us/Medals/John-Macleod-Medal-70-years/ |title=John Macleod Medal (70 years) |publisher=Diabetes UK |accessdate=2011-03-31}}</ref> style="background: #EEE; vertical-align: middle; white-space: nowrap; text-align: center; " class="table-Un­known" | ?

Post-GA suggestions[edit]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John MacLeod (physiologist). 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 07:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Known for codiscovery of Insulin"[edit]

He wasn't supposed to be credited because it's just his laboratory that was used while making experiments.

All he did was judged the experiments but wasn't really present when the discovery was made by Banting and Best. 2001:4453:39F:CF00:A865:9A:A533:1B79 (talk) 10:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not true, as explained in the article and supported by scholarly references cited. Do you have better sources that dispute this? — Yerpo Eh? 20:14, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Macleod_(physiologist)&oldid=1208672842"