Talk:Stephen L. Hauser

Addition of Peacock template

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)

Accurate or not, the article is pretty much uncited, and makes claims not in the sources. If he is who we say he is, it should not be hard to source. And it is original research to use published studies that don't even mention him to make claims about him-- claims about the person should be independently sourced and cited, that is, we don't cite a study on which he was one of a gazillion contributors to make statements about him. And the tone was unencyclopedic ... I cleaned out some more. COI editing, too.[1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the specific examples - that meshes well with my general understanding of policy, but this specific example is helpful for me to learn about application to BLP. -- Scray (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Copyvio

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)

Need to be cited, checked for copyvio, paraphrased

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.

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.

References

Moved from User talk:SandyGeorgia

Hi Sandy, regarding your notes and concerns expressed here (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?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)

SalCorr, if the Wikipedia article came first, then we don't have a copyvio situation ... but I don't know how we can verify that, so I'm not sure what to do next.

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)

OK, I've checked archive.org and the specific UCSF page didn't exist then-- was his 2011 bio elsewhere on the UCSF site (for example, did UCSF change its page layout on faculty)? If we can verify that this article came first, well, then the copyvio issue is going the other direction. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I will request date verification from CTSI about the Profiles page for Hauser. Copyvio in the other direction would not be a problem since the info is presented for the purpose of sharing, but I could ask for a creative commons license if it helps.SalCorr (talk) 02:03, 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)

Yes, primary sources sometimes have a place in articles, but the primary sources used here do not make statements about the person. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 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)

Kevin, I'll be busy a good portion of tomorrow, but if you are comfortable (in terms of copyvio) with restoring the sections I removed (see above), please do so! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sandy - I'm going to try to confirm SalCorr's identity before doing so (I've emailed her UCSF account,) but if she is in fact who her user page says she is, I think that there are not any copyright concerns with it, and I'll restore it once I speak with her. I really doubt there would be any sort of impersonation going on here, but I tend to go with the precautionary principle and doublecheck first. Have a good tomorrow :) 04:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, will leave it in your hands. There are two chunks of text above that I removed. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:30, 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)

• No, absolutely not. There is no duplication of effort: once Dr. Hauser retires, his profile on the university page will disappear sooner or later. However, his notability is not temporary, so this article should stay. Perhaps not directly in the current form, but he's an accomplished notable scientist and we should have an article on him. --Randykitty (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Good point, RandyKitty. Thank you.169.230.219.113 (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

update

• I just wanted to give a minor update. First off, as SalCorr mentioned, they did definitively confirm to me last night that they are who they claimed to be. Given their position, I do not believe that any material in this article has any copyright concerns. SalCorr is in a position where, even if the material were not originally licensed under CC-by-SA, they could license it as such on a whim. SalCorr has agreed to not directly edit any articles related to UCSF in main space, and use talk pages to suggest changes as necessary. I'm a bit slammed workload-wise currently, but I will be looking to restore the removed text as appropriate, copyedit the entire article, and ensure the entire article is adequately sourced within the next week or two.

As a side note... I really wish that our COI rules were more apparent to new contributors - we definitely need to be cautious around COI, but I view it as unfortunate that a lot of good faith COI contributors walk in to what is more or less a trap. I almost want to suggest a dialogue box directly asking non-autoconfirmed users if they have a CoI with the article they're trying to create, and then directing them to something like WP:PSCOI if they said yes. Obviously that wouldn't take care of malicious CoI editors, but it would at least send the good intentioned ones the right way. Thanks to those who helped out on this article; the end result is we have another biog of an eminently notable academic. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)