This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
I saw this flagged at WikiProject Medicine and commented there, but I know the discussion should be here. As I said there: I had not heard of him, but after skimming the page my impression is that if all the accomplishments and roles are accurately reported (I checked a couple and they were) then the description in the lede seems pretty accurate. Very impressive credentials and contributions, scientifically and publicly. Please provide examples of peacock-y terms you see; I'll admit I am no expert on BLP standards. -- Scray ( talk) 13:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
In checking some of the content for citations, I found that the original bio (and some portions which still remain) are copyvio from his UCSF profile. I suppose SalCorr might have thought that it was OK to do that, since she was writing for UCSF on behalf of Hauser, but it's not. I have neither the time nor the inclination to do the rewrite that is needed; perhaps someone else can. There was extensive matching in the version submitted by SalCorr, and some of it is still in the article-- thing needs careful review and rewriting. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Hauser has organized national and international consortia to accomplish the goal of mapping the common genetic variants underlying susceptibility to MS. In the US, he established and maintained a national MS DNA repository that provides samples from well-characterized individuals with MS to investigators worldwide. His laboratory has carried out or participated in gene linkage studies of MS in multiple affected member families; in genome-wide association studies to identify MS-associated genetic variants; and in detailed mapping studies of the major histocompatibility complex (MHC), the genetic region most strongly linked to susceptibility to MS. citation needed
Hauser is a graduate of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Phi Beta Kappa) and Harvard Medical School ( magna cum laude). He trained in internal medicine at the New York Hospital– Cornell Medical Center, in neurology at the Massachusetts General Hospital, and in immunology at Harvard Medical School and the Pasteur Institute (Paris, France), and was a faculty member at Harvard Medical School before moving to UCSF. [1]
References
Hi Sandy, regarding your notes and concerns expressed here ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Stephen_L._Hauser&diff=592034160&oldid=592034022], I hope I can address them all today. First, thank you for making me look - the page does need maintenance. You are correct that this article has a lot in common with Hauser's UCSF Profile. That's because I wrote and/or edited that too, and I think the Wikipedia article came first. Next, regarding possible COI, please let me assure everyone that Hauser did not ask me to write this. I used Wikipedia to create a comprehensive set of data about Hauser that his fellow scientists could contribute to (or take issue with) in an open space. Regarding the bazillion authors on some of his papers, RandyKitty nailed it (thank you RK). Some of Hauser's papers are authored by a large global research consortium (sometimes two consortia) and the lists of authors can be very long. Rationale for first and last author placement vary, but both are prestigious (and the authors in the middle of the pack are not insignificant). I'm going to add some links today. -- SalCorr ( talk) 00:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Regarding WP:COI, the issue is not whether Hauser asked you to create the article-- you still have a COI by virtue of your position. It is recommended that you suggest changes on article talk and let others make them. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
HI Sandy, may I ask for a reconsideration on the "non-primary source needed"? I'm not a very experienced editor here, but I think Wikipedia's policy allows for primary sources to be used if they are reliable. The two sources listed are a paper in the journal the Lancet (cited over 100 times by peers in the field) and a paper in the New England Journal of Medicine (cited 491 times). These sources seem reliable to me. If you require a non-primary source, can you help me by providing an example of a secondary source that would be acceptable? I'm just trying to understand what works here. Thank you! SalCorr ( talk) 01:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Given SalCorr's position (assuming it's accurately stated, and I believe it to be,) I'd be inclined to accept any statement she makes regarding the copyright status of any of the content on this page. Presumably, she's in the position of being able to license any content that she's written, and Creative Commons is a non-exclusive license. Given that, it would be perfectly acceptable to post the same content on UCSF's site and on Wikipedia even if UCSF's site doesn't mention that it is CC licensed (presuming that SalCorr is in a position to license the content, which she appears to be.) So if she wrote it on Wikipedia before on UCSF's site, it's fine, since she can reuse her work without having to mention the same licensing conditions, and if she wrote it on UCSF's site before Wikipedia, then it's still fine because she can CC license it on Wikipedia without having to mention that fact on UCSF's website. So either way, assuming that her position is correctly stated, there is no copyright violation either way.
That said, SalCorr: I would highly encourage you to read WP:PSCOI, and to suggest any further changes to Hauser's article (or the articles of anyone else affiliated with UCSF) through talk pages rather than directly making them yourself. Generally requests to add/modify content to a page that you have a conflict of interest for are handled relatively quickly. The person making the changes directly might not make the changes exactly as you would've preferred, but that is in the interests of the neutrality of the encyclopedia. I also agree with Sandy that a source other than the two papers currently used to claim that Hauser was part of the team that identified the role of humoral immunity in the pathogenesis of MS lesions is desirable. I'm not sure that Sandy would agree with me about this, but I would think that an acceptable source for such a claim would be Hauser's bio on UCSF's website - I don't view it as an exceptional or especially self-aggrandizing claim, and think that a cite to UCSF's bio of would be fine. Best, Kevin Gorman ( talk) 02:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you both for your efforts on this and for your thoughtful communications over the past couple of days. I confirmed to Kevin last night that I'm not an imposter (Sal is a widely used nickname for me). He has asked me to stop editing the page because of the COI issues, and I am happy to do so. The reason I put the Wikipedia article up in the first place was to address a growing need for information about Dr. Hauser (after his appointment to the Presidential Commission); the UCSF website at the time didn't have a comprehensive bio page for him. Now that Profiles (the online bio system) is robust and well maintained, it seems that the Wikipedia article is no longer necessary. While I hate to see it go, would it make sense to take it down? Seems like a duplication of effort. I appreciate your thoughts on this. SalCorr ( talk) 18:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Good point, RandyKitty. Thank you. 169.230.219.113 ( talk) 20:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
I saw this flagged at WikiProject Medicine and commented there, but I know the discussion should be here. As I said there: I had not heard of him, but after skimming the page my impression is that if all the accomplishments and roles are accurately reported (I checked a couple and they were) then the description in the lede seems pretty accurate. Very impressive credentials and contributions, scientifically and publicly. Please provide examples of peacock-y terms you see; I'll admit I am no expert on BLP standards. -- Scray ( talk) 13:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
In checking some of the content for citations, I found that the original bio (and some portions which still remain) are copyvio from his UCSF profile. I suppose SalCorr might have thought that it was OK to do that, since she was writing for UCSF on behalf of Hauser, but it's not. I have neither the time nor the inclination to do the rewrite that is needed; perhaps someone else can. There was extensive matching in the version submitted by SalCorr, and some of it is still in the article-- thing needs careful review and rewriting. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Hauser has organized national and international consortia to accomplish the goal of mapping the common genetic variants underlying susceptibility to MS. In the US, he established and maintained a national MS DNA repository that provides samples from well-characterized individuals with MS to investigators worldwide. His laboratory has carried out or participated in gene linkage studies of MS in multiple affected member families; in genome-wide association studies to identify MS-associated genetic variants; and in detailed mapping studies of the major histocompatibility complex (MHC), the genetic region most strongly linked to susceptibility to MS. citation needed
Hauser is a graduate of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Phi Beta Kappa) and Harvard Medical School ( magna cum laude). He trained in internal medicine at the New York Hospital– Cornell Medical Center, in neurology at the Massachusetts General Hospital, and in immunology at Harvard Medical School and the Pasteur Institute (Paris, France), and was a faculty member at Harvard Medical School before moving to UCSF. [1]
References
Hi Sandy, regarding your notes and concerns expressed here ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Stephen_L._Hauser&diff=592034160&oldid=592034022], I hope I can address them all today. First, thank you for making me look - the page does need maintenance. You are correct that this article has a lot in common with Hauser's UCSF Profile. That's because I wrote and/or edited that too, and I think the Wikipedia article came first. Next, regarding possible COI, please let me assure everyone that Hauser did not ask me to write this. I used Wikipedia to create a comprehensive set of data about Hauser that his fellow scientists could contribute to (or take issue with) in an open space. Regarding the bazillion authors on some of his papers, RandyKitty nailed it (thank you RK). Some of Hauser's papers are authored by a large global research consortium (sometimes two consortia) and the lists of authors can be very long. Rationale for first and last author placement vary, but both are prestigious (and the authors in the middle of the pack are not insignificant). I'm going to add some links today. -- SalCorr ( talk) 00:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Regarding WP:COI, the issue is not whether Hauser asked you to create the article-- you still have a COI by virtue of your position. It is recommended that you suggest changes on article talk and let others make them. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
HI Sandy, may I ask for a reconsideration on the "non-primary source needed"? I'm not a very experienced editor here, but I think Wikipedia's policy allows for primary sources to be used if they are reliable. The two sources listed are a paper in the journal the Lancet (cited over 100 times by peers in the field) and a paper in the New England Journal of Medicine (cited 491 times). These sources seem reliable to me. If you require a non-primary source, can you help me by providing an example of a secondary source that would be acceptable? I'm just trying to understand what works here. Thank you! SalCorr ( talk) 01:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Given SalCorr's position (assuming it's accurately stated, and I believe it to be,) I'd be inclined to accept any statement she makes regarding the copyright status of any of the content on this page. Presumably, she's in the position of being able to license any content that she's written, and Creative Commons is a non-exclusive license. Given that, it would be perfectly acceptable to post the same content on UCSF's site and on Wikipedia even if UCSF's site doesn't mention that it is CC licensed (presuming that SalCorr is in a position to license the content, which she appears to be.) So if she wrote it on Wikipedia before on UCSF's site, it's fine, since she can reuse her work without having to mention the same licensing conditions, and if she wrote it on UCSF's site before Wikipedia, then it's still fine because she can CC license it on Wikipedia without having to mention that fact on UCSF's website. So either way, assuming that her position is correctly stated, there is no copyright violation either way.
That said, SalCorr: I would highly encourage you to read WP:PSCOI, and to suggest any further changes to Hauser's article (or the articles of anyone else affiliated with UCSF) through talk pages rather than directly making them yourself. Generally requests to add/modify content to a page that you have a conflict of interest for are handled relatively quickly. The person making the changes directly might not make the changes exactly as you would've preferred, but that is in the interests of the neutrality of the encyclopedia. I also agree with Sandy that a source other than the two papers currently used to claim that Hauser was part of the team that identified the role of humoral immunity in the pathogenesis of MS lesions is desirable. I'm not sure that Sandy would agree with me about this, but I would think that an acceptable source for such a claim would be Hauser's bio on UCSF's website - I don't view it as an exceptional or especially self-aggrandizing claim, and think that a cite to UCSF's bio of would be fine. Best, Kevin Gorman ( talk) 02:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you both for your efforts on this and for your thoughtful communications over the past couple of days. I confirmed to Kevin last night that I'm not an imposter (Sal is a widely used nickname for me). He has asked me to stop editing the page because of the COI issues, and I am happy to do so. The reason I put the Wikipedia article up in the first place was to address a growing need for information about Dr. Hauser (after his appointment to the Presidential Commission); the UCSF website at the time didn't have a comprehensive bio page for him. Now that Profiles (the online bio system) is robust and well maintained, it seems that the Wikipedia article is no longer necessary. While I hate to see it go, would it make sense to take it down? Seems like a duplication of effort. I appreciate your thoughts on this. SalCorr ( talk) 18:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Good point, RandyKitty. Thank you. 169.230.219.113 ( talk) 20:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)