Jump to content

Talk:Diane Harper

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


Suggestions

[edit]

I think this article is still a bit lacking in what is a complex subject (HPV vaccines and Harper's sudies and opinions on them). For instance, I think the HuffPo article should be quoted much more extensively in the article, because it gives clear and detailed information, in bullet points, and it is also the most recent interview cited, as well as being the most in-depth.

On the other hand, what is up with all the waffling and wavering Harper has done over the years? "'I fully support the HPV vaccines,' she says. 'I believe that in general they are safe in most women'" says one of the 2009 articles cited. And she keeps waffling and wavering over her opinions of Cervarix and Gardasil, both separately and in comparison with each other. It's all a bit confusing. Plus the Wiki article seems to imply Cervarix is wonderful and she only dislikes Gardasil, which is not the case, if one can untangle that from her contradictory statements. In order to remain NPOV, we have to tread a careful line here. You might consider axing all mention of the tabloid and just going with reliable journalism, in order not to seem to promote Cervarix. Softlavender (talk) 06:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update: The article is increasingly a whitewash of Cervarix and a POV condemnation of Gardasil, enough to warrant a POV tag on the top of the article. Softlavender (talk)
  • Second update: I've removed the tabloid nonsense and the blog quotes. Non-WP:RS sources and quotes do not belong in medical articles. Following these removals, the article is fine, I think, as long as that material stays removed. Softlavender (talk) 15:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The topic of the article is supposed to be a written account of Diane Harper's life, not a forum for summarizing Harper's studies and opinions on Human papillomavirus vaccines. And not just any information about Diane Harper's life. The Diane Harper life information needs to be from third party sources independent of Harper. If no third party sources independent of Harper take the time and expense to write about Harper, then there is no evidence that Wikipedia readers will be interested in the information. Unless her opinions stand out from among other experts in human papillomavirus, then Harper's studies and opinions can be source information for other Wikipedia articles such as human papillomavirus, but not an article on her life events. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The topic of any biographical article is the person's notable work (or else they wouldn't have an article on Wikipedia). If you'd like to add more biographical info to the article, feel free. Softlavender (talk) 22:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I quite agree with Jreferee's comment about not using a person's biographical page as a forum. The Opinion section does not add anything substantial just a she said this, Merck said that. Should we be surprised that Merck did not agree with her opinion? I think the Opinion section should go. I am also concerned about the removal of the Honors section I added earlier. I have looked at the pages of other physicians and there is usually a Recognition section. Maybe her Honors would be acceptable under that section head. Also, a selected list of bibliography could be added. User: popcorn66 —Preceding undated comment added 23:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Popcorn66, your edits were removed because they were clearly WP:COI edits, and they were also uncited. An Honors section has now been added with proper citations and accurate wording. The opinion paper is important because it is one of her most notable published pieces. I've re-ordered the paragraphs chronologically and renamed the section(s) for accuracy. Softlavender (talk) 23:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Softlavender, How were my contributions "clearly WP:COI edits"? I have never even met Diane Harper! The updated entry definitely looks much better. It was not per se the mention of the opnion paper but putting the emphasis on Merck's obvious, and clearly not objective, response that was wrong. Popcorn66 (talk) 02:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"How were my contributions 'clearly WP:COI edits'?" You've already admitted that you have a COI in regards to Diane Harper: [1]. And you were making exactly the same edits as she did, clearly not out of the blue but at her request, a mere 48 hours after she was reverted for COI. Softlavender (talk) 03:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite concerned that this method of editing and correcting the article is biased. My goal is to create an accurate statement.

I am currently the Gradie R. Rowntree, M.D., and Mary D. Rowntree Endowed Chair and Professor in Family and Geriatric Medicine at the University of Louisville.

http://louisville.edu/medschool/news-archive/uofl-names-family-and-geriatric-medicine-chair

From 2009 to 2013 she was Professor and Vice Chair at UMKC....(not a post)

Honors section needs to be re-instated with the following references. http://www.prixmontecarlofda.com/

https://www.stfm.org/about/awards_2013winners.cfm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dianemharper (talk • contribs) 22:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

chairman/chairwoman

[edit]

Since none of the cited sources call Harper a "chairwoman", and since that terminology is not used in academia, to my knowledge, I'm going to replace this as "chairman". If there is an official site from the university that uses the word "chairwoman", then that word can be used. Without that, it's inaccurate. Thanks, Softlavender (talk) 04:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whitewash

[edit]

I have reverted edits by Softlavender due to that fact that the quality of the references that were replaced are in most cases inferior than the original references, in particular HUffPo. Also several factually incorrect items were added -- Harper was NOT the principal investigator of Cervarix AND Gardasil, and NVIC is most definitely an anti-vaccine group. I could go on but I'm curious to hear what Softlavender has to say in support of her(his?) edits. --Daffydavid (talk) 07:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Softlavender has been notified on their talk page about the need to adhere to WP:BRD, thus far they continue to re-insert the edits with absolutely no discussion. --Daffydavid (talk) 07:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Daffydavid, welcome to this Talk page. If you would, please use a case-by-case basis and discuss what exactly you are referring to and what you disagree with rather than deleting extensive changes and many edits en masse. Thanks. That the NVIC questions the safety of vaccines is accurate (and last time I checked that's what their official website stated; the site is down at the moment). "Anti-vaccination" is a POV term (in fact that term re-directs to Vaccine controversies on Wikipedia); one can question the safety of vaccines without being anti-vaccine in totality (in fact that appears to be what Diane Harper herself advocates, using vaccines, but with informed consent). By the way I've been editing to keep this article neutral and accurate since the beginning, both from COI pro-Harper edits (see above) and also POV edits and WP:OR that are anti-Harper. The point of an encyclopedia article is to present the facts of the subject matter (in this case, a person and her statements/beliefs/actions) neutrally and without bias or debate one way or another. I left this article alone for a while until an SPA clearly biased against Harper and unclear on Wiki policy stopped edit-warring. My long absence left a bit to clean up. I replaced the info about Harper being PI on the Gardasil and Cervarix trials because someone had removed "Cervarix" from the sentence and had also removed any citation from the sentence, which I replaced. If you can find a refutation of that information, fine; otherwise, I'm not aware of any claim that she did not do what she explains in the HuffPo article, and I see the mention of her being PI on all of those early trials in the NYTimes and Dartmouth. etc. If the information is incorrect, then please provide a reliable source; there were lots of trials over many years for both the Merck and the GSK vaccines. Softlavender (talk) 08:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Daffydavid: Two things:
  • 1. I agree that the NVIC should be described as an anti-vaccine organization, since Michael Specter says so in his book Denialism (page 7).
  • 2. However, I do not agree that Harper, as you stated above, "was NOT the principal investigator of Cervarix AND Gardasil." In fact, according to Dartmouth Medicine Magazine, she was "a principal investigator for clinical vaccine trials for both Merck and GlaxoSmithKline—each of which has developed an HPV vaccine." The vaccines in question are obviously Gardasil and Cervarix, respectively. [2] Jinkinson talk to me 14:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Softlavender, while I agree I could have gone through step by step and revert individual edits that would have taken much more time than I had available at the time as conflict edits you made afterwards necessitated manual edits. This does not explain your blatant violation of WP:BRD, especially since you did so without edit summaries. Have you read the part about "do not revert even if you believe you are right"? A quick trip to your user page indicates that you are an experienced editor which makes your violation of WP:BRD (and your attempted justification of removing anti-vaccine from the description of NVIC using their own website as your reason) all the more perplexing. I will come back and provide the information you requested in my next few edits, but I am travelling and this may not be an instantaneous process. Also I see Jinkinson has provided the information for one of my objections. Thank you Jinkinson. --Daffydavid (talk) 04:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, Daffydavid (though I thought you would remember me from when you posted on my talk four days ago). As for the stuff about me violating BRD, I have no idea what you're talking about since I haven't edited this page since February, and I don't think either of us have ever reverted either of each other's edits on this page. Good night. Jinkinson talk to me 04:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies Jinkinson, I was referring to Softlavender, but I didn't read my comment prior to posting. I have edited it correct the error. Here is one source that directly refutes the fact that Diane Harper was the "principal investigator", http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2009/oct/10/sundayexpress-express-newspapers --Daffydavid (talk) 04:27, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NVIC is described as anti-vaccine at the NVIC article here on Wikipedia and your assertion Softlavender, that the term is somehow POV just won't fly. I'm not going to copy and paste all the links here but let's just say it was discussed extensively over at the NVIC talk page and the conclusion is that NVIC is "anti-vaccine". I cannot understand your replacement of the Slate ref with a HuffPo Blog, not only is it not superior it is a discredited article as discussed in the link I provided in my last comment. To summarize - Ms. Harper says she was misquoted and filed a complaint about the article which interestingly enough is not even written by the HuffPo blogger(she just copied the article - so much for RS). I suspect the same thing for NYTimes and Dartmouth - copies of the original article which has been disavowed by Ms. Harper, but I will follow it up when I have more time. --Daffydavid (talk) 04:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A direct link to Ben Goldacre's piece, rather than linking through another link http://www.theguardian.com/science/2009/oct/10/ben-goldacre-cervical-cancer-jab?guni=Article:in%20body%20link Also note, this is on the Guardian website, not a blog. --Daffydavid (talk) 04:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One final comment on the Huffington Post "interview", it didn't even appear on HuffPo originally, it appears as a blog post, and the comment is taken out of context to the article as a whole. --Daffydavid (talk) 05:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Diane Harper. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 12:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Diane Harper. 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: 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) 22:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fact tag

[edit]

@Bilby: I saw you put a "citation needed" tag on the part that says but since 2009, Harper has questioned the safety of Gardasil, and has appeared at the International Public Conference on Vaccination, At the end of the sentence is a source (denialism), I don't have this book, but I assumed the content you fact tagged was cited to it, is it not? Tornado chaser (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the book - it doesn't mention Harper at all. - Bilby (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, i've removed it per BLP. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's true and will be relatively easy to source, so I will. Guy (Help!) 21:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the part about The Greater Good not due to a lack of sources, but due to a lack of context, pro-vaxers (eg Offit) were in this film too. We can't insinuate about a living person based on them appearing in a film(the wording implies that she is antivax because she appeared in an antivax film), we need to describe her role in the film. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If only we had an article on The Greater Good (film) to establish the context. Oh, wait! "Though there are pro-vaccine interviewees, this film has a clear agenda in encouraging skepticism toward vaccination". Guy (Help!) 22:17, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@JzG: What I am referring to is context regarding Harper's role in the film, not just what the film was. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is well established by the significant coverage in the SBM source. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@JzG: the SBM source is Gorski speculating about Harper's veiwpoint, hardly a legit source for a BLP. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be reading between the lines, because on its face it does not speculate at all. Guy (Help!) 07:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Education timline

[edit]

I am a little lost following her school timeline. I just want to confirm that the schooling goes MIT for chemical engineering, then KU for her MD then residency, then Stanford and Harvard for medical decision making. Is that the case or is Stanford Harvard between MIT and KU?AlmostFrancis (talk) 05:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Diane_Harper&oldid=1257870909"