Talk:George Siber

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on George Siber. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140819091125/http://www.umassmed.edu/Content.aspx?id=45482 to http://www.umassmed.edu/Content.aspx?id=45482
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140903063114/http://www.chamblycounty.com/Alumni%20connection%20August%202013.html to http://www.chamblycounty.com/Alumni%20connection%20August%202013.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131207012211/http://selectabio.com/company/board-of-directors.cfm to http://www.selectabio.com/company/board-of-directors.cfm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140309044209/http://www.prothena.com:80/company/scientific-advisory-board/ to http://www.prothena.com/company/scientific-advisory-board/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140911001837/http://www.jhsph.edu/faculty/directory/profile/-2023/Siber/George to http://www.jhsph.edu/faculty/directory/profile/-2023/Siber/George
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140910201547/http://www.affinivax.com/founders/ to http://www.affinivax.com/founders/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on George Siber. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140116111726/http://www.laskerfoundation.org/awards/1996clinical.htm to http://www.laskerfoundation.org/awards/1996clinical.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.prothena.com/company/scientific-advisory-board/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Tagging
User:Shadowfax0 has added "notability" and "disputed" tags to the article, but it is far from clear why. Please explain here why you consider the subject not to be notable and what you dispute. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Please see my note below.

Phil Bridger, it is clear at this point you are gaining by removing the "lawsuits' section. They have been sourced time and time again. Define 'Primary Source" and "Secondary Source" because it is clear at this point no matter what is posted you are removing it, most likely because you are being paid to do so. They will be returned. -Shadowfax0 (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * As I have said, the concept of primary and secondary sources is not something peculiar to Wikipedia, but to any field of study. And please either substantiate or withdraw your accusation that I am most likely being paid to make edits. All you need to do to include these lawsuits in the article is to include a secondary source, i.e. a reliable source talking about the lawsuits, rather than the lawsuits themselves. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Shadow, you've obviously been around for a while but have few edits so I'm not sure if we should expect you to understand the difference between a primary and secondary source. Either way, it's your responsibility to learn and no one else's responsibility to teach you.  In addition, primary sources can't be used to establish notability and aren't ideal to use due to the likelihood of only using primary sources implying that the content is WP:OR.  Without secondary sources, there's no indication that society at large considers something noteworthy (what Wikipedia is trying to catalog).  If you only have primary sources, what indication is there that this topic is any different than the color of the subject's car, based on some publicly available DMV record?  How do we know you're not giving undue weight to a topic?
 * I suggest withdrawing your accusation of paid editing, unless you have some sort of evidence. It makes it look like you might have an axe to grind.  The idea is underlined by the fact that your first edit to this article was to add content about a lawsuit that you called "major" while only citing a primary source in what you called a minor edit (it's not, please see WP:MINOR).  Charles M. Steinberg, another article you created, seems to be a puff piece.  I don't even see a claim of notability let alone significant coverage from reliable and independent sources.  I don't want to accuse you of having a motive outside of furthering the project but this all seems weird.  What gives?  WCS100 (talk) 19:24, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Notability
This person, while decorated, has many claims that are no more notable than many university professors not listed in Wikipedia. Additionally, it is clearly written in such a way to best emphasize the personal “accomplishments” while ignoring the groups and other in these organizations. While he was involved in clinical aspects of several products, that by no means indicates he has “invented” these products. The entire article seems highly self-promotional. Shadowfax0 (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The subject satisfies WP:ACADEMIC points 1, 2 (Albert B. Sabin Gold Medal), 5 (see Academic appointments). Arguable a few others.  I'm removing the template.  If you feel that the subject is not notable, please take it to AfD where a formal discussion can be had and a decision made. WCS100 (talk) 20:59, 18 December 2019 (UTC)