Jump to content

Talk:Esther Lederberg

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

Cleanup

[edit]

I have removed some over-rhetorical language, and some general material on women's role in science that, though justified, are not directly relevant to her biography. This article is being discussed further at the Conflict of Interest noticeboard. DGG (talk) 09:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When not using the full name in a formal context, her name, according to convention for academic is Lederberg or E. Lederberg when necessary to avoid confusion. It is not Esther, which would strike many people as sexist condescension.DGG (talk) 18:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2012 credit etc changes

[edit]

Hi -- User:CatPath has been making a lot of changes to the Esther Lederberg article, at least some of which are around Lederberg's contested contributions to various research otherwise attributed to Joshua Lederberg and others. See diff from Sept 11 to today, Oct 1. I didn't write much of the content, so I can't really assess the validity of the changes or the original material. But, in my capacity as a neutral admin who likes to keep an eye out on possible controversies in scientist biographies, I noticed these changes. Because a lot of the changes revolve around issues of allegedly uncredited work or contributions to other projects, and this page in particular has been subject of previous conflict of interest concerns, I thought it would be useful for future discussions to have some documentation here on the talk page about what is happening and why. If a discussion is needed to be sure the article is fully neutral in its presentation of conflicts, then we should have one. So, specifically, I'm hoping that CatPath could provide a cogent summary of the state of the article prior to the beginning of her/his edits (Sept. 10), and the general effect of the various edits, and I've posted a note to CatPath's user talk page about it. Thanks. --Lquilter (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to address several issues with my edits. First, there have been attempts to smear Joshua Lederberg's reputation and ignore (and even belittle) his contributions to the field of bacterial genetics in this and other Wikipedia articles. Some of the statements are outright lies about Joshua Lederberg's behavior. For example:

"However, Joshua Lederberg himself failed to mention Esther Lederberg's name in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech of 1958."

(Here's the diff.) This assertion is simply wrong. JL mentions EL twice in his speech. He states near the beginning of his speech,"..I have enjoyed the companionship of many colleagues, above all my wife [Esther]." Later on, JL acknowledges EL's scientific contribution: "In accord with Burnet’s early predictions we had anticipated that the provirus for lambda would behave as a genetic unit but Dr. Esther Lederberg’s first crosses were quite startling in their implication that the prophage segregated as a typical chromosomal marker." All of the negative statements about JL found in this and other articles have been inserted by a single editor citing a single website of questionable reliability, http://www.estherlederberg.com/. While the site has an impressive collection of the late Esther Lederberg's writings, a large section is devoted to attacks on Joshua Lederberg with misleading interpretations of his past writings and correspondences. Given the questionable reliability of this website and the potential coi issues with the editor inserting these statements, I felt that it was necessary to immediately remove all negative commentary about Joshua Lederberg from this and other Wikipedia articles. Of course if reliable sources can be found that support this editor's assertions, then the negative statements should be restored.
Second, I realize that EL's contributions are sometimes ignored by the scientific community, but this article does the opposite and gives her credit for findings for which she had no role or gives her sole credit when others were involved in the research. For example, in this edit, diff, I replaced the two cited papers because Esther Lederberg was inserted as an suthor when in fact she was not (see PMID 21001945 and PMID 20251256 for proof). In this edit, diff, I corrected the "mistake" giving EL sole credit for the discovery of the F factor. Even EL herself wrote that Cavalli-Sforza discovered the F factor independently before their collaboration. The earlier version implies that Cavalli-Sforza joined the study after EL discovered F factor when in fact Cavalli-Sforza and EL discovered it independently before their collaboration started. It is true that EL coined the term "F factor" by herself, but she should not receive sole credit for the discovery of the phenomenon of F factor. In the most egregious example (diff), it is claimed that EL "...was a major researcher in elucidating the genetic basis of Galactosemia as well as Maltophilia." If EL were a "major researcher" in these fields, the she would have written some research articles describing her studies of these diseases. Well, my quick search of Pubmed shows that there is not a single research article about Galactosemia listing EL as an author. Amusingly, "Maltophilia" appears to be a made-up disease, another dubious contribution from the website http://www.estherlederberg.com/.
Finally, the science itself is described incorrectly, at times contributing to the first two issues that I described above. Unfortunately these issues extend to a number of other Wikipedia articles where Esther Lederberg is mentioned. Again, the source of these edits is a single editor with a possible coi citing the same website of questionable reliability. I've been working on those other articles as well. CatPath (talk) 17:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, CatPath, for the explanations. It's very helpful. --Lquilter (talk) 22:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Esther Lederberg. 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) 12:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Esther Lederberg/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Aussie Article Writer (talk · contribs) 04:02, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


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. The prose is as crisp and clear as any article I’ve read. No spelling or grammar issues, no words to watch. Excellent work.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. The structure is excellent. However:
  • I suggest that the lead should at least mention she encountered gender discrimination
  • please incorporate the references in the leaf into the body of the article. The lead is a summary and really should not have anything that needs sourcing as all of that material should be in the main article body
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).
  • Lead: all citations verified
  1. Early years: citations check out
  2. Contributions to microbiology and genetics: all citations check out
    1. λ bacteriophage: all citations check out (I managed to snag a copy of Portraits of Viruses: Bacteriophage Lambda and was able to verify this one myself).
    2. Bacterial fertility factor F:
      • What is the source for "In terms of testing available markers ... the data showed that there was a specific locus for lysogenicity. ... In the course of such linkage [genetic mapping] studies,...one day, ZERO recombinants were recovered....I explored the notion that there was some sort of 'fertility factor' which if absent, resulted in no recombinants. For short, I named this F. A number of experiments were designed to clarify these observations" ?
    3. Replica plating: the references I can check are verified (I can't check the book as it's not online)
    4. Plasmid Reference Center: verified (except the NY Times article, which I can't access)
  3. Professional honors:
    • What is the source for "1969 American Cancer Society Dernham Postdoctoral Fellowship in Oncology (Senior Fellowship)"
    • What is the source for "President of the Stanford Chapter of Sigma Xi"
    • the rest check out fine
  4. Professional challenges: gender discrimination:
    • Is the link to "Records" soemthing that is cited from another source?
    • the rest of the citations check out fine
  5. Other interests: sources check out
  6. Personal life: Can we get the best source for "She married Matthew Simon in 1993." (there are a few in her obits)
2c. it contains no original research.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. I must preface this by noting I am not a subject matter or domain expert in the field the subject worked in. In fact, I am a total ignoramus in many ways. I did read a few articles online to check her history, and from what I can see all points are covered. Note: I have just purchased the book Women in Microbiology and there are some gaps in her history:
  • It would be nice if a brief explanation is added of what is involved in plating, given this seems to have been a major revolution in pathology and research (hope this is correct). I found this and have added it.
  • There is no mention of her going to Canberra's Symposium on Bacterial and Viral Genetics.
  • There is no mention of her talk at the 10th International Congress of Generics in Montreal.
  • There is no discussion of the fact that she was seen as a "Laureate's wife", even though her work was integral and incorporated throughout the work of her husband, Beadle and Tatum.
  • There is nothing discussing that she seems to have been given the job directing the Plasmid Reference Center almost as a consolation prize, given she did not make tenure. This is specifically commented on my Rebecca Ferrell in her piece Esther Miriam Zimmer Lederberg: Pioneer in Microbial Genetics".
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. NPOV issues were discussed in 2012, and cleared up with a decent explanation of what the issues had been. However... I am a bit concerned that there is no discussion of the fact that she was seen as a "Laureate's wife", even though her work was integral and through the work of her husband, Beadle and Tatum.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.

Discussion

[edit]
  • CatPath, I have finished reviewing this article. It's a really excellent article, but it has gaps and I feel there is a bit that needs filling in, and I think there is still some material that needs covering for balance and neutrality. Can you address these concerns? Note that if you need me to send you material from the book I purchased (Women in Microbiology), I am happy to provide it. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 08:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • CatPath, the original GA reviewer is no longer active on Wikipedia, unfortunately. I've agreed to pick up the review where he left off. When you return from your break and get the changes just like you want them, just ping me and we'll see what else, if anything, needs to be done for promotion to GA. Thanks for your work on the entry! Larry Hockett (Talk) 16:46, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Larry Hockett: It's been more than a month…typically, when there have been more than seven days of inactivity, GAN's are closed to be reopened at a future date. I think you should fail this review and wait for CatPath to re-submit. This review has been going on since July. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 00:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Larry Hockett: My apologies, but I should have pinged you earlier. I believe I have addressed all the concerns of the original reviewer. Am I supposed to give a point-by-point response to each concern? CatPath meow at me 03:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    CatPath, I apologize for letting this fall off my radar. I didn't intend to rely entirely on your ping to come back and check the progress. There is no need for a line-by-line reply to the feedback. I just need to verify that the feedback has been addressed. My home internet connection has been down this week and I have been restricted to editing from my phone, but tech support is coming out tomorrow. Once I can edit from my computer again, I'd like to take one more look for any outstanding issues. One thing I notice: Near the end of the Early Years section, there's a mention of Yale's Osborne Botanical Laboratory. Does this refer to a botanical lab at the Osborn Memorial Laboratories? If so, check the spelling and consider a link to our article. Larry Hockett (Talk) 07:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for catching that. I removed the "e" at the end and wikilinked the lab name. CatPath meow at me 20:52, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remaining concerns

[edit]
  • "graduating at the age of 15" - the cited source says 16 - did this come from a different reference?
  • Lambda phage is mentioned in the opening of the second section in the body, but it is linked on the second mention rather than the first.
  • I'm wondering if the bullet points in the Professional Honors section would be better presented as prose. I also wasn't sure whether emeritus status is really considered a professional honor, but I won't hold up GA status for either of these issues.
  • Overall, I think the references are formatted pretty well, but I notice in the Professional Challenges section that the first source (a Stanford news piece) could be fleshed out a bit more - right now it's just the URL and title.
  • In the last paragraph of that section, I wonder if the link to second-wave feminism would be more helpful than the existing one to feminism.
  • Same section - Does "a drop in position" refer to a demotion?

I think that's all I have. I made a few minor edits myself. Larry Hockett (Talk) 02:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed most of the remaining concerns:
* She indeed graduated at the age of 15. The cited source was incorrect, so I replaced it with a different source that states her date of graduation.
* I linked the first mention of lambda phage and removed the link from the second mention.
* Regarding the Professional Honors section, I have to check other sources. I can't find any source that says Lederberg ever went to work in Australia with a Fulbright Fellowship. The source may be incorrect in that it may have been her husband that was awarded the Fellowship, not her - but I'll check further. I also can't find any source that says she was a "fellow" of AAAS, but I'll check further. I agree with you that her emeritus status is not really a professional honor. I will remove that one.
* I expanded the Stanford news piece citation.
* Yes, a "drop in position" refers to a demotion. I reworded the sentence.
CatPath meow at me 23:41, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Larry Hockett:: I have addressed all the concerns. I removed the "Professional Honors" section and moved the mention about the Pasteur Award under "Contributions to Microbiology and Genetics." The other honors listed in the section were either incorrect or insignificant. For example, AAAS awarded her a certificate for being a 50-year member of AAAS, which I don't think is worth mentioning in the article. She was not a "fellow" of AAAS, as the previous version of the article claimed. CatPath meow at me 22:42, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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. Good work here. I made a final pass for some light copyediting.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. I edited a small part of the lead to reduce the redundancy, but even the previous version met the relevant guideline.
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. Spot checks of references did not turn up any issues.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. The only "hits" from Earwig's tool resulted from extremely common phrases, specific job titles, and the limited use of direct quotes.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Good job incorporating the feedback from the initial reviewer here.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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. One image; has appropriate license information.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. Good work. Thanks to the nominator for seeing this process through and for working well with both reviewers. Larry Hockett (Talk) 23:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Esther_Lederberg&oldid=1208124971"