Talk:Eben Byers

WSJ headline
The Wall Street Journal ran a headline reading "The Radium Water Worked Fine until His Jaw Came Off" after his death. This is a lovely headline, but unfortunately the way it’s presented in the text is highly misleading (though not strictly wrong). The article in question is not, as the sentence makes it sound, contemporary, as is clear from the subtitle: Cancer Researcher Unearths A Bizarre Tale of Medicine And Roaring '20s Society and the text: Nearly 20 years after Mr. Bailey’s death in 1949 of bladder cancer, medical researchers exhumed his remains. as well as from the first reference given for the sentence, a 2003 blog post: Years ago the Wall Street Journal recounted the grisly case under a particularly memorable headline: THE RADIUM WATER WORKED FINE UNTIL HIS JAW CAME OFF. The article refers to “a report in today's Journal of the American Medical Association” by Roger M. Macklis (third and fourth paragraph), which is probably either “Radithor and the Era of Mild Radium Therapy”  or “The Radiotoxicology of Radithor: Analysis of an Early Case of latrogenic Poisoning by a Radioactive Patent Medicine”, both published 1990-08-01 and authored by Roger M. Macklis (et al. in the case of the second article). An article from 1990 would indeed be able to report on a ca. 1969 exhumation, and may well be referred to as “years ago” in a 2003 blog post.

I don’t want to remove the mention of the headline altogether, but I can’t think of a good way to phrase it that avoids this false impression. Does anyone else have a good idea? (Radithor would also have to be updated.) —Galaktos (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * This has since been resolved, mainly at Special:Diff/986113168 and Special:Diff/810073340. Galaktos (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Gruesome photo?
There's an image of a gruesome nature:.

Is it appropriate to include in the article? Chumpih t 20:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)


 * 1: Are we certain this is a real photograph of the subject of the article? and 2: Is it freely available for use? If both are true, then 3: Is the image appropriate or needed for use in the article? Ifrit (Talk) 17:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Ifrit It should be included in the article. It is indeed quite gruesome but if nothing else it does justice to his story. Mystman1 (talk) 17:35, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Is the consensus amongst experts out there that the gruesome photo is not of Byers? Kingturtle = (talk) 22:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)