Talk:Sylvain Lesné

She?
"As of July 22, 2022, Lesné had not commented, and Ashe had declined to comment on the investigation conducted by the University of Minnesota, but **she** stated via email that:...."

SHE? This is a man surely? Rustygecko (talk) 05:37, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "She" is correct. Dr. Ashe is a woman. 69.141.228.31 (talk) 13:22, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I added a semi colon to better distinguish between him and her, here. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:35, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Amyloid beta star 56
might one of you be able to create a stub, or write a sub-section somewhere, about Aβ*56 ? Also, review the terminology I've used in this article? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:49, 23 July 2022 (UTC)


 * PS so far I have only started Amyloid beta star 56, which I'm not even sure is how we would name the article or article section, and where we would place that content. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:04, 23 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Does this not belong in Amyloid? Graham Beards (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Graham, I just found this ... scroll far enough down to read Ashe's response in the comments ... I think you should be able to sort if from there ? Alzforum response from Ashe. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * PS it is interesting that she refers to him as a former colleague, but I am not going to use an alzforum post to add such content to the article. Also, a number of the associated researchers have responded on that alzforum thread. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:35, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't decipher how we decide what goes at amyloid from what goes at amyloid beta. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  20:49, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Alerted WT:MED here. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Also Abeta56. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:39, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi. If it is so important, why wasn’t Ab*56 mentioned in Biochemistry of Alzheimer's disease ? (I am not a specialist) —Lewisiscrazy (talk) 15:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)


 * That is precisely the basis of my curiosity on the delay in reporting from the reputable US outlets, and my urge for caution in getting too far ahead on this breaking story. Is the Science article overhyping the significance of this one finding, because of the related facts: a) why didn't Ashe see this, b) why the NIH continued to fund Lesné after the whistleblower report, c) the other issues occurring in Alzheimer's drug research, and d) how much of the current drug research is really about *56 ?  I'd like to know a lot more about how crucial this one protein is to the big picture, aside from what may turn out to be the obvious and typical waste of US taxpayer money coming from the NIH.  For example, The Daily Kos was so hyperbolic that I hope we won't see edits extending into that territory until we have better sources and more coverage (independent from what Piller is reporting).  And it looks to me like, so far, the UK outlets are basically mimicking Piller. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * And to that aspect, this is an important nuance :). Thanks for that, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @SandyGeorgia I will try to answer some of your questions, once I have time later this day. You might wish to read this tweet-thread in the meanwhile. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ; yes, good thread, that re-iterates eloquently what others were saying, and shows why I advocated that we not get too far ahead on this. The hyperbole is apparent, as are the real consequences to some individuals and institutions).  I suspect once the major US media outlets kick in and someone does a serious investigation of the investigation, we'll have sources we can use to put it all in better context.  For now, I think we've stayed on the straight and narrow, so as not end up with content that doesn't stand the test of time?  But still need to know where to add star 56 in what article ... thanks for the help. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  08:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Response from Alz Society UK. Between this, and all other new sources, I'm coming to the conclusion this whole story is about what happened at U of M, and we don't need an article, or section, about AB*56 at all. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:fr
I see you have added an interlanguage link See also to the French Wikipedia at amyloid hypothesis (awesome!); once we get sorted where to park additional info about star 56 in an en.wiki article, are you able to write the French articles? I notice it is well covered in the French blogs ... and wonder who speaks French and can monitor coverage at the French Wikipedia (I'm good for Spanish only). Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I am French, I contributed to Hypothèse amyloïde but I saw no coverage on the major French media so far. And nothing on wp:fr except a couple of discussions. —Lewisiscrazy (talk) 17:22, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yep, it seems to be mostly in blogs and the like ... happy to know someone is on it :) Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * are you able to tell me where the 1974 birth date is coming from in the French article (now created as a translation from here)? It seems to be uncited there, but my French is minimal (I can read it to the extent it is a romance language and I am fluent in Spanish). Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I can’t tell, but maybe User: Archibald Tuttle can. —Lewisiscrazy (talk) 17:55, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thx; I've been roughly following the talk discussion at the Fr Wiki and so far we seem to be on the same page. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:42, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * isn't this a Wiki (not a reliable source)? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Here https://www.idref.fr/069067929 —Lewisiscrazy (talk) 19:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Got it, thx, will add next. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:36, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * We also have this official looking thingie, which I've never encountered before: Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:36, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Le Monde
in Le Monde today https://www.lemonde.fr/sciences/article/2022/07/25/recherche-sur-la-maladie-d-alzheimer-des-soupcons-d-inconduites-scientifiques_6136080_1650684.html --Lewisiscrazy (talk) 17:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I can't see the whole article (paywall); is there anything we don't have (that is, any new news)? Curious we still have nothing from major US outlets.  Thanks, . Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I sent it to you by email. It is mostly about the simufilam story. Regarding Ab*56 they quote researchers who say that nobody could ever reproduce the 2006 results anyway ; and that the amyloid hypothesis remains solid. --Lewisiscrazy (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

There is new information there: because I don't speak French, I will excerpt my planned additions for scrutiny here on talk, before adding them to the article. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:47, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

might you check the Google translate below and see my six questions under the bits I'd like to work in? Thanks in advance, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  20:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)


 * 1) Is the Google translation of the Le Monde article title correct (Research on Alzheimer's disease: suspicions of scientific misconduct)?
 * 2) Is it correct that Le Monde is stating that he was a post-doctoral fellow at U of M at the time of the 2006 paper?  Piller (Science) says: Selkoe recalls Ashe talking about her "brilliant postdoctoral fellow" who devised it, but does not specify a date.
 * 3) What, where, who is Cyceron?
 * 4) Piller (Science) reports that Vivien "broke off all contact with Lesné", and now we have him speaking to Le Monde, also saying he "decided to stop all scientific and personal relations a long time ago".  This seems relevant to add, now that we have another independent source: is the translation above correct?
 * 5) Is this link correct for the institute?
 * 6) Is the Checler bit translated correctly?  I would like to use it because it explains why his work was suspect earlier.

Sandy Georgia (Talk)  20:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)


 * 1, 2 : yes
 * 3 : cyceron is a research platform/unit https://www.unicaen.fr/laboratoire/ums-3408-cyceron/
 * 4,5,6 : yes. —Lewisiscrazy (talk) 20:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Lewis; I will work on the new text (after I eat). Sandy Georgia (Talk)  20:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Stopping there for now, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  23:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Doctoral thesis
I am unconvinced his doctoral thesis belongs where it is, in the main body of the article, until/unless a secondary source discusses it. Does anyone have P or G guidance in that respect? User:PamD? I could be underinformed. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's relevant for academics as it shows what they spent 3 years of their life working on, so I tend to add it to the "education" section if I can find it. Pam  D  15:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Whereas I hesitate to add anything like that not covered by secondary sources, as UNDUE. I have never come across a policy- or guideline-based discussion on this, so more feedback could help. The only primary source I have added to the article is a mention of/link to the explicit Nature study, as it is so clearly the subject of secondary review. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I moved it to External links; we already know he spent years of his life working on it, by the fact that he has a PhD; I'm uncomfortable with primary sources in articles that aren't discussed in secondary sources. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it is relevant and appropriate in the "education" section: it's just one stage on from saying what subject someone did in their BSc and MSc, the thesis topic is the subject of their PhD studies. But I don't have the energy tonight to argue (I feel a mild case of "Ownership" here) though would be delighted if anyone else stepped in with an opinion (especially if they agreed with me, of course). Pam  D  19:44, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * But "we already know he spent years of his life working on it, by the fact that he has a PhD"? No. We know he spent 3 years doing something, but some people do a PhD and then move out into a different field altogether. That's why I think it's relevant to describe someone's PhD, whether the title is, or is not, in the area of their later work. Pam  D  19:46, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * An external link seems like a good idea, unless there's some independent coverage to lend weight. Not a biggie. Alexbrn (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I already added it back; we need more feedback. I can't recall ever seeing this kind of weight given to a doctoral thesis; could be my memory, though, and I'd sure like this to be based on some P&G guidance, rather than personal preference. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * And "External links" is no place for a link to a catalogue record. If there was a "Selected publications" section, it could go there. I'd be much happier if you would self-revert and put the thesis title back where it was. (Or, does anyone know of a resource for online access to full-text French doctoral theses, the way there is to many UK and US ones?) Pam  D  19:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Will do, with regret, as adding primary sources never leads good places in content (I have been unable to find a link to it anywhere ... Have been looking as it apparently is the source for his birthdate). Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I've found a record for Lesne's thesis at theses.fr, which doesn't have full text but does have an abstract (no date of birth!). I got the impression, en route to finding that site, that it had full text of later theses (2005 onwards or thereabouts), but this one was too early. Pam  D  20:16, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That's OK; in the meantime, we got his birthdate covered anyway, so that's good! Sandy Georgia (Talk)  20:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Protein redundancy
, thank you for picking up one of my (many, habitual ) typos here. Regarding "redundancy" here, we shouldn't force readers to click out to get context for jargon used, and describing it as an amyloid protein was intended to help in that regard. Can you suggest an alternate approach to provide some brief context, or a way/place to work back in amyloid protein? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi. Ab*56 is fully defined (as an amyloid protein oligomer) in the previous sentence, so in my opinion we don’t need to help the reader further here. That’s what I meant but I am fully open to suggestions, feel free to proceed. —Lewisiscrazy (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * We have it fully defined down here, but not in the lead. Could we work that back in to the lead? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:25, 24 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I have tried to. —Lewisiscrazy (talk) 15:40, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, looks good to me (not a neuroscientist). Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:42, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Slow and steady wins the race
Overall, I urge that we wait for more sources to cover the topic before going too much further in depth than I already have, so we don't get too far out ahead on this until we have an abundance of scientific sources. I think it curious that we have so far heard from major UK news outlets, but none in the US (eg New York Times, Washington Post), and I've already seen a few instances of minor contradictions in what is reported so far, along with a hugely sensationalized report in The Daily Kos, which draws what preliminarily appear to be hyperbolic conclusions. Let's try not to repeat what could turn out to be laypress inaccuracies and make sure what we write will stand the test of time. The basics are in. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:43, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It was covered quite thoroughly on the main UK national radio news, BBC Radio R's "Today", yesterday morning, 23rd (oh, or possibly 22nd - unreliable memory!). There was an Alzheimer's expert commenting, but I can't remember who it was - possibly the same Sara Imarisio from Alz Soc. Pam  D  15:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It was also well covered in the. Science Podcast (see External links), but I'm still intrigued about the delayed hard-print coverage in the US, eg NYT, WaPo, Los Angeles Times, and the like. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Category change
please see my query here. These articles are both BLPs; we must exercise caution. So far, all investigators are still out (NIH, UMN, Nature), and we have allegations by Science. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No response, and 20 mins is too long to leave a BLP issue in place; I have reverted. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Impact on research
Re this revert of an IP edit, there are no new sources saying anything different. There are many marginal sources that are re-iterating the Science paper and adding their own hype, but basing it on no new input (as occurred with Le Monde, which did go out and interview some people). No credible source (that is, one that isn't just regurgitating the Science report while adding a sensational headline) has surfaced that says anything different. So far. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  20:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Fraud, image manipulation
In July of this year it was discovered this person may have falsified research with large implications. 74.81.173.42 (talk) 01:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)


 * And ? This talk page is for discussing changes and improvements to the article; what are you suggesting be changed in the article, and based on what source ? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Regarding lead citation
regarding this citation tag, please note that Wikipedia leads do not need to be cited when the content is summarizing text already cited in the article. In this case, that text is cited in the body to at least eight high quality sources. See also WP:CITATIONOVERKILL; demanding citation of well cited text is poor editing. Burdening the lead with citation overkill to deal with POV pushing is also poor editing. Because of the tag, I have replicated in this version of the lead all eight citations that are already in the body. The tag is gratuitous, and based on no prior discussion. Please justify the tag with some policy based reasoning so the citation overkill can be removed. To the best of my knowledge, I have read every source that has come out since the allegations surfaced, except some in languages I don't read. I have seen not one credible or high quality source that states anything different. If you insist on keeping well cited text summarized to the lead burdened with citation overkill, please provide high quality reliable sources that say anything different. Hint: For medicine, that does not include The Daily Kos and the like. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)


 * And now converted to Harvnbs to avoid citation overkill. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:23, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Corrections to August 10 edits
, in this edit, you started a new paragraph without naming the (pronoun) subject, and added incorrect use of bolding; I've correct both. In this edit, you duplicated a citation for the Science article by Charles Piller (the sentence is already cited to Piller), and you added a webforum as a source (a source that was already in the article, so you should have used the already named ref ). The webforum is not a fact-checked source; it is only used in this article when secondary sources refer to it or under the specific circumstances where a primary source can be used. I've removed both of those sources.  It might be more helpful for you to discuss your edits on talk and get feedback before making them. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  00:03, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

, in this edit, you again added a webforum source to content that is already amply cited. That is not an optimal source for that content, and is not needed, but I've left it for now, so that you can have a look at Help:Footnotes. That source is already named in the citations. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:48, 11 August 2022 (UTC)


 * SandyGeorgia, the 'webforum' you have criticized is not actually a webforum, it just includes 'forum' in its name. The source is a charity dedicated to publishing news on Alzheimer. The link contains an article with the large title 'News' and the landing page contains a news stream. I acknowledge that the source was already present however, I did not see it. Rara929 (talk) 19:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * thanks for visiting the talk page! What is relevant about the Alzheimer's Forum is that it is a primary source.  It is not peer reviewed, and does not have an independent third-party publisher.  Hence, we must use it cautiously (even more so for a |biography of a living person).  Before your edits, I had only used it as a backup source to what Ashe had stated and to supply detail on one other instance, only because secondary sources referred to the forum comments.  We can't do original research using primary sources, and shouldn't use a cite like that to source content (in this case, we don't need to anyway, as third-party, independent secondary sources already cover the content where you add the web forum). Regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:05, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * PS, please read this section carefully so you can avoid using sources incorectly; I have not "criticized" the Alzheimer's Forum (there's nothing wrong with the Forum, only how we use it), rather explained to you Wikipedia's policies and guidelines about sources. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  20:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

"Retracted"?
Is the paper actually formally "retracted"? It's still published, albeit with an editorial note, on the Nature website. While many would regard this as being as-good-as-retracted, should we describe it as such here? I've changed the text in the lede as "since retracted by all its other authors" to reflect this. &mdash; The Anome (talk) 10:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


 * No, I don't believe it is .... I've already corrected four errors in recent edits, but am iPad typing from hotspot in car, so can't catch up with all of them. My understanding is that they intend to retract it, but Nature has not yet stated what they will do. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. We should be careful not to say that it's actually retracted. But it certainly seems as close to being retracted as something can be without actually being so. &mdash; The Anome (talk) 22:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Now retracted, and article updated. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Infobox use
WP:INFOBOXUSE is not a blanket permision to remove infoboxes at whim, but says that the usage of infoboxes is to be determined by discussion. so here we go. I added the infobox because Lesné's age and seniority relative to his peers is highly salient here. Please discuss. &mdash; The Anome (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


 * You added an infobox here without discussion.
 * I deleted it here as part of four corrections, including in edit summary: "4) remove MOS:INFOBOXUSE which adds nothing useful".
 * Without prior discussion, the second time, you reinstated it here with the edit summary "restoring infobox: please take this to talkm and actually read WP:INFOBOXUSE, which says use is to be determined by discussion, which that certainly wasn't - please don't cite policy if you aren't going to abide by it".
 * MOS:INFOBOX is not policy (it's guideline)
 * See WP:ONUS (which is policy): " Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. ... The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.
 * See WP:BRD (which is neither policy nor guideline, but is just good practice)
 * So, while I appreciate the acknowledgement that the infobox was added without discussion, I note it was added without consensus or establishing its usefulness.   More relevant, it appears that your contention is that the infobox adds something useful to the article. That usefulness seems to be that "Lesné's age and seniority relative to his peers is highly salient". Could you provide a source to assure this is not original research or UNDUE?  It's been well over a year since I read every source written on the subject and topic, but I don't recall coming across such information. Thanks in advance, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)