Talk:Vera Byers

Need better refs

The current ref being used is a primary source and not reliable in that it is her recollections. Surely we can find something better. Also I can find no mention of "she helped develop a monoclonal antibody for use as an anticancer treatment, specifically against osteogenic sarcoma" as it pertains to osteogenic sarcoma. There is nothing in the wikipedia article for monoclonal antibody about it being used for this but maybe I just missed it. In any case it's not on pg 864 of the transcript and needs to be referenced or removed. --Daffydavid (talk) 20:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Immunologist?

Should we refer to her as an immunologist if she hasn't taken the required boards? This seems to be the same as referring to someone who went to law school but was never called to the bar as a lawyer. They would have a degree in law but wouldn't actually be a lawyer. Your thoughts? --Daffydavid (talk) 20:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a good point, but I think it is fair to call her one insofar as she has published lots of scientific papers on immunology. However if you so desire you can change the first sentence to say "...Byers is a retired professor of medicine at UCSF..." or something like that. Jinkinson (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by "taken the required boards"? The word "immunologist" simply means someone who carries out research in immunology, as opposed to "lawyer" which, in most jurisdictions, has a legal definition as someone licensed by an officially recognised professional organisation rather than a researcher, who would be described as an "academic lawyer". Phil Bridger (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

It means she represents herself as "board eligible", however the American Board of Allergy and Immunology neither uses nor recognizes that term and she has not taken the boards to join this Organization. It would be fine to accept your definition of what an immunologist is if there was no board and she wasn't playing fast and loose with her resume.--Daffydavid (talk) 02:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, now I see that this is some sort of soapbox rather than any attempt at a neutral encyclopedia article, and I see why you are trying to include an utterly trivial exchange of words in the article as if is was a significant part of the subject's biography. I am going to remove that sentence again per WP:BLP, which requires that we base negative content about living people on reliable secondary sources, not on personal interpretation of primary sources such as court records, or personal opinion about what is significant. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Only person soapboxing here is you Phil. The quote is sourced to Paul Offit, admittedly it needs to be fleshed out but I don't have time to dig out the book right now and I didn't add it. As per WP:BRD please discuss this using actual arguments not assumptions you are making about other editors and ignoring the actual content.--Daffydavid (talk) 16:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. I hadn't heard of Vera Byers or the trial in question before I saw this article the other day, so how can I be soapboxing? And your use of phrases like "playing fast and loose" betrays that you are soapboxing. I rather suspect that my view of the whole MMR/autism kerfuffle is similar to yours, but we can't include a single exchange of words without explaining how it is a significant part of Byers' biography. This article is about Byers, not MMR and autism. And I am following WP:BRD. The content was boldly added to the article and I reverted it. Now we are discussing, but you have breached BRD by putting the content back. I see that another editor has fleshed out the citation beyond the completely uninformative "Offit, p. 100" that was here originally, which is a good start. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

So I'm WP:SOAPBOXing because I used a Colloquialism rather than proper British English? I disagree but you are entitled to your opinion. When one looks up Byers on Google the returns are rather sparse, which is why I nominated this page for WP:PROD. It was then that it was pointed out that she actually had some published articles. The mention of these needs to be added to the article as she appears to be notable for both these and her appearance at the Autism omnibus trial. Not terribly notable, but that's just my opinion. --Daffydavid (talk) 18:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

her name

Most results I can find either refer to her as Vera Byers or Vera S Byers. Do we have a ref for Katherine? Her initial "S" seems to stand for Vera Steinberger Byers but I can't find an RS source for this. Given that she is referred to as Vera or Vera S Byers I think we should change the title and her name to Vera S. Byers. --Daffydavid (talk) 01:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The only ref for Katherine is her theses [1] They may not be hers, but I was, when I created this article, highly skeptical that there were multiple immunologists named Vera Byers. But if she said in the omnibus trial that her middle name started with an S, then that's probably the most reliable source and the article should be changed accordingly. Jinkinson (talk) 02:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Also I found another source for Steinberger (though it may not be reliable: [2] )