Talk:Erika Jensen-Jarolim

OR & unsourced content
I disagree with this edit and your edit-warring reversion of my deletion instead of discussing this on talk per WP:BRD. In my view you are doing original research by selecting some of her publications and deciding to give WP:WEIGHT to them in describing them.

Please also explained why you restored unsourced content] in a BLP.

I will not follow you down the edit-warring road, but please respond. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * See my edit summaries for the rationale behind the selection of 2 refs to her research papers. The removal of the rest was in response to the complaints that the article used primary sources. The summary plus interview that you have also objected to as non-WP:MEDRS-compliant also supports some of the information about the research. You can't have it both (all 3) ways - removing citations to her research and then complaining there are no sources, removing foreign-language sources about her because they are in a foreign language (rather than asking for a translation or even comparing the source and the passages sourced to it) and a summary of her work by a journalist and then complaining that points are unsourced and that there are no 3rd-party sources. More importantly in the short term, this article is at AfD and therefore should not be blanked. And that is where discussion has been happening, as implied by the AfD template. If you go there you will see my discussion there. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I have said nothing about MEDRS. You are mixing me up with someone else in your edit warring flurry.  Please respond to the restoration of unsourced content.  Please actually respond to the concern about WP:OR in your selection and discussion of articles to highlight.  Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You're blanking bits of an article that's at AfD. Please join the conversation there. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * OK you are not willing to discuss the unsourced paragraph. I just removed it, as this is a BLP. Please do not introduce any content that is not well sourced.  Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 19:37, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And so we go round and round - I will now have to reinsert more of her own papers, whereas there is a legitimate point, made at the AfD, that the article relied on primary sources. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I get the feeling you're missing something here, but that her own papers were included in the article is one of the main problems. If her work is notable (in terms of due weight and not Wiki notability) we should have secondary sources summarizing that. We have WP:MEDRS because in especially the medical sciences, a primary source does not tell us whether a claim made in the paper is legitimate. That's why it strongly discourages the use a primary sources because you cannot establish weight from a primary source in this context. Those primary sources are also not independent. We're past the point of determining notability (which is why I closed the AfD), and now we're in different territory of dealing with WP:NPOV. Either way, it's time to slow down as you're up against WP:3RR already. We need a reliable independent source that summarizes her contributions to the field and we should be sourcing that. If we use primary sources, we are engaging in original research by including them as has been in previous versions. Do you see where the issues are now? Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm grateful that you closed the AfD, and I also appreciate Jytdog trying to find additional references, but the two of you are making opposing demands. It makes very little sense to apply MEDRS to an account of someone's research, especially when also removing all primary sources on the research. Her own publications are the documentation that she has published on these things - and that the papers said these things about them. The article has secondary sources establishing her career details and the broad outline of the research - but one editor removed them for being in German and another for being non-MEDRS-compliant. I have now had to clutter the article up with citations of papers again, to avoid losing paragraphs on major focuses of her research. Taken all together, these exclusions amount to blanking or to misrepresentation. I am puzzled by your invocation of OR: the article needs to reference everything she's researched? Then it has to cite the titles of the papers. The article must not have primary sources? Then only the two specifically crucial papers can be there. One or the other. What it cannot do is leave out all the specifics of what she's done. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

for an admin you are behaving very badly. you are writing content that violates WP:TECHNICAL and adding sources that are superfluous - the "AllergoOncology" primary reference does not support the content that she coined the term at that meeting! I don't know why you are editing in this way, and even editwarring over it. Jytdog (talk) 20:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I am trying to maintain an adequate representation of a highly respected researcher who is notable for her research. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * and I am unwatching this article. i am not tangling with an admin who is so so off track!  i am glad we do not cross paths regularly. Jytdog (talk) 21:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As I've been saying all along, we need appropriate sources for that then (primary sources don't cut the cake here). I'm not sure if you've edited in scientific topics dealing with research, but if we're looking for content saying a person has made significant contributions to a field, we rely on secondary sources like literature reviews, respected organizations, etc. to tell us that. That's pretty standard practice for editing science articles. In this case, simply listing all the publications of an author is undue weight. What we should be doing for a biography of a researcher is describing their significant contributions to the field instead through reliable sources. To do that, we need other sources that are saying that is so to establish due weight. Jytdog and myself appear to be approaching this from the same perspective, so we aren't taking opposite approaches here from what I can see. To establish due weight here, the simplest question to ask is, "What do sources say about her and her research?" At this point, I really suggest stepping back for a bit. You've crossed WP:3RR now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Just to address the original research a bit more, I just removed non-MEDRS sources and content in the research section. WP:MEDRS is very clear that we use secondary sources for medical claims (we're addressing WP:NPOV and not subject notability at this point). Basically, we can't cite a primary study for an interpretation of its own findings. Instead of readding this content and looking for a source, we should find a literature review that mentions the work and base any new content on what that source actually says. Hopefully that's clear given all of the above conversations that seemed like there were some misunderstandings. I'm picking out some of the blatant content issues that are set to go unless their sourcing issues are resolved, so if there is a question on why they were removed or how to improve, this is the place to discuss. I'm making a few edits in succession in the next couple minutes, so give it a sec. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

biotech company
so apparently has founded a biotech company and is listed there as Chief Scientific Officer. Vaccines against Her-2 in dogs is one of the things the company is working on ( see here) and her team just published a new paper on that and Messerli put out press releases about it too... neither the paper nor the press release has any declaration of conflict of interest with regard to her role in the biotech company. oy. i am all in favor of entrepreneurship but that was not handled well. Jytdog (talk) 20:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)