Talk:Annegret Hannawa

Secondary sources

@BlackPantherDesert: This is in response to your post at my talk. Discussion about this article should occur here, not at user talk pages, however, I responded about the COI issue at my talk.

The current article (13:59, 29 April 2021) looks good and it was correct to remove some of the earlier material. For example, consider the edit at 11:02, 28 April 2021. That added several points similar to "In 2020, Hannawa received third-party funding from the Draeger Foundation for a research project...". The problem with that is that every active academic has a similar story–if they're not entirely focused on teaching they are receiving third-party funding for research projects (or they are looking for another job). If a secondary source notes the research, the material may be due for inclusion. Otherwise, an article which simply lists projects is indistinguishable from an resume. New editors can ask for help at WP:Teahouse although you would need to be brief such as asking for opinions on my comment here, or opinions on whether a particular edit needed a secondary source. Johnuniq (talk) 07:38, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I see that, thanks. Okay, so that section stays out, I agree. How about the section on Hannawa's scientific innovations that was deleted, I would think that this section was an essential part of this person's uniqueness and notability as an academic. There are plenty of secondary resources talking about Hannawa's "SACCIA" concept, which is one of four inventions (as proclaimed at http://usi.to/nx2). The notability of this invention is apparent here: See https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2516043518777582, https://www.egms.de/static/en/journals/zma/2017-34/zma001128.shtml, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1071181320641273. There are also four scientific books about this concept, several research articles, evidently numerous speeches, and also a large grant that is funding her SACCIA concept for implementation at hospitals: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/history/NCT03855735?V_3=View. I consider these references "secondary sources" that meet the "notability" criterion. Please check and correct me if I'm wrong. Otherwise, please add this section back into the article. Thanks, --BlackPantherDesert (talk) 08:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

The wiki way to proceed would be to post a new section at this talk with a proposal to add certain text with certain sources. You would briefly explain why that would be desirable and how the sources are independent of the subject in a way that makes the material WP:DUE. You would wait at least 48 hours and if no objection, make the edit. Often the only way to find out if others object is to make an edit, but the ideal procedure is what I just said. After that (if reverted), politely discuss the issue here and attempt to get views from other editors. That can be difficult because everyone has something to do, but the theory is outlined at WP:DR. Also, WP:Teahouse really is useful. Johnuniq (talk) 10:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay, will do that, thanks! --BlackPantherDesert (talk) 10:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)