This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Science and Academia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the science and academia work group. Medicine: Society Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Society and Medicine task force. Articles for creation This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC This article was accepted on 20 December 2011 by reviewer Chzz (talk · contribs).

I saw this flagged at WikiProject Medicine and commented there, but I know the discussion should be here. As I said there: I had not heard of him, but after skimming the page my impression is that if all the accomplishments and roles are accurately reported (I checked a couple and they were) then the description in the lede seems pretty accurate. Very impressive credentials and contributions, scientifically and publicly. Please provide examples of peacock-y terms you see; I'll admit I am no expert on BLP standards. -- Scray (talk) 13:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Accurate or not, the article is pretty much uncited, and makes claims not in the sources. If he is who we say he is, it should not be hard to source. And it is original research to use published studies that don't even mention him to make claims about him-- claims about the person should be independently sourced and cited, that is, we don't cite a study on which he was one of a gazillion contributors to make statements about him. And the tone was unencyclopedic ... I cleaned out some more. COI editing, too.[1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the specific examples - that meshes well with my general understanding of policy, but this specific example is helpful for me to learn about application to BLP. -- Scray (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In checking some of the content for citations, I found that the original bio (and some portions which still remain) are copyvio from his UCSF profile. I suppose SalCorr might have thought that it was OK to do that, since she was writing for UCSF on behalf of Hauser, but it's not. I have neither the time nor the inclination to do the rewrite that is needed; perhaps someone else can. There was extensive matching in the version submitted by SalCorr, and some of it is still in the article-- thing needs careful review and rewriting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hauser has organized national and international consortia to accomplish the goal of mapping the common genetic variants underlying susceptibility to MS. In the US, he established and maintained a national MS DNA repository that provides samples from well-characterized individuals with MS to investigators worldwide. His laboratory has carried out or participated in gene linkage studies of MS in multiple affected member families; in genome-wide association studies to identify MS-associated genetic variants; and in detailed mapping studies of the major histocompatibility complex (MHC), the genetic region most strongly linked to susceptibility to MS.^{[citation needed]}

Hauser is a graduate of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Phi Beta Kappa) and Harvard Medical School (magna cum laude). He trained in internal medicine at the New York Hospital–Cornell Medical Center, in neurology at the Massachusetts General Hospital, and in immunology at Harvard Medical School and the Pasteur Institute (Paris, France), and was a faculty member at Harvard Medical School before moving to UCSF.^[1]

Hi Sandy, regarding your notes and concerns expressed here (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_L._Hauser&diff=592034160&oldid=592034022], I hope I can address them all today. First, thank you for making me look - the page does need maintenance. You are correct that this article has a lot in common with Hauser's UCSF Profile. That's because I wrote and/or edited that too, and I think the Wikipedia article came first. Next, regarding possible COI, please let me assure everyone that Hauser did not ask me to write this. I used Wikipedia to create a comprehensive set of data about Hauser that his fellow scientists could contribute to (or take issue with) in an open space. Regarding the bazillion authors on some of his papers, RandyKitty nailed it (thank you RK). Some of Hauser's papers are authored by a large global research consortium (sometimes two consortia) and the lists of authors can be very long. Rationale for first and last author placement vary, but both are prestigious (and the authors in the middle of the pack are not insignificant). I'm going to add some links today. --SalCorr (talk) 00:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SalCorr, if the Wikipedia article came first, then we don't have a copyvio situation ... but I don't know how we can verify that, so I'm not sure what to do next.

Regarding WP:COI, the issue is not whether Hauser asked you to create the article-- you still have a COI by virtue of your position. It is recommended that you suggest changes on article talk and let others make them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've checked archive.org and the specific UCSF page didn't exist then-- was his 2011 bio elsewhere on the UCSF site (for example, did UCSF change its page layout on faculty)? If we can verify that this article came first, well, then the copyvio issue is going the other direction. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will request date verification from CTSI about the Profiles page for Hauser. Copyvio in the other direction would not be a problem since the info is presented for the purpose of sharing, but I could ask for a creative commons license if it helps.SalCorr (talk) 02:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HI Sandy, may I ask for a reconsideration on the "non-primary source needed"? I'm not a very experienced editor here, but I think Wikipedia's policy allows for primary sources to be used if they are reliable. The two sources listed are a paper in the journal the Lancet (cited over 100 times by peers in the field) and a paper in the New England Journal of Medicine (cited 491 times). These sources seem reliable to me. If you require a non-primary source, can you help me by providing an example of a secondary source that would be acceptable? I'm just trying to understand what works here. Thank you! SalCorr (talk) 01:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, primary sources sometimes have a place in articles, but the primary sources used here do not make statements about the person. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given SalCorr's position (assuming it's accurately stated, and I believe it to be,) I'd be inclined to accept any statement she makes regarding the copyright status of any of the content on this page. Presumably, she's in the position of being able to license any content that she's written, and Creative Commons is a non-exclusive license. Given that, it would be perfectly acceptable to post the same content on UCSF's site and on Wikipedia even if UCSF's site doesn't mention that it is CC licensed (presuming that SalCorr is in a position to license the content, which she appears to be.) So if she wrote it on Wikipedia before on UCSF's site, it's fine, since she can reuse her work without having to mention the same licensing conditions, and if she wrote it on UCSF's site before Wikipedia, then it's still fine because she can CC license it on Wikipedia without having to mention that fact on UCSF's website. So either way, assuming that her position is correctly stated, there is no copyright violation either way.

That said, SalCorr: I would highly encourage you to read WP:PSCOI, and to suggest any further changes to Hauser's article (or the articles of anyone else affiliated with UCSF) through talk pages rather than directly making them yourself. Generally requests to add/modify content to a page that you have a conflict of interest for are handled relatively quickly. The person making the changes directly might not make the changes exactly as you would've preferred, but that is in the interests of the neutrality of the encyclopedia. I also agree with Sandy that a source other than the two papers currently used to claim that Hauser was part of the team that identified the role of humoral immunity in the pathogenesis of MS lesions is desirable. I'm not sure that Sandy would agree with me about this, but I would think that an acceptable source for such a claim would be Hauser's bio on UCSF's website - I don't view it as an exceptional or especially self-aggrandizing claim, and think that a cite to UCSF's bio of would be fine. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin, I'll be busy a good portion of tomorrow, but if you are comfortable (in terms of copyvio) with restoring the sections I removed (see above), please do so! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy - I'm going to try to confirm SalCorr's identity before doing so (I've emailed her UCSF account,) but if she is in fact who her user page says she is, I think that there are not any copyright concerns with it, and I'll restore it once I speak with her. I really doubt there would be any sort of impersonation going on here, but I tend to go with the precautionary principle and doublecheck first. Have a good tomorrow :) 04:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, will leave it in your hands. There are two chunks of text above that I removed. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your efforts on this and for your thoughtful communications over the past couple of days. I confirmed to Kevin last night that I'm not an imposter (Sal is a widely used nickname for me). He has asked me to stop editing the page because of the COI issues, and I am happy to do so. The reason I put the Wikipedia article up in the first place was to address a growing need for information about Dr. Hauser (after his appointment to the Presidential Commission); the UCSF website at the time didn't have a comprehensive bio page for him. Now that Profiles (the online bio system) is robust and well maintained, it seems that the Wikipedia article is no longer necessary. While I hate to see it go, would it make sense to take it down? Seems like a duplication of effort. I appreciate your thoughts on this.SalCorr (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No, absolutely not. There is no duplication of effort: once Dr. Hauser retires, his profile on the university page will disappear sooner or later. However, his notability is not temporary, so this article should stay. Perhaps not directly in the current form, but he's an accomplished notable scientist and we should have an article on him. --Randykitty (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, RandyKitty. Thank you.169.230.219.113 (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I just wanted to give a minor update. First off, as SalCorr mentioned, they did definitively confirm to me last night that they are who they claimed to be. Given their position, I do not believe that any material in this article has any copyright concerns. SalCorr is in a position where, even if the material were not originally licensed under CC-by-SA, they could license it as such on a whim. SalCorr has agreed to not directly edit any articles related to UCSF in main space, and use talk pages to suggest changes as necessary. I'm a bit slammed workload-wise currently, but I will be looking to restore the removed text as appropriate, copyedit the entire article, and ensure the entire article is adequately sourced within the next week or two.

As a side note... I really wish that our COI rules were more apparent to new contributors - we definitely need to be cautious around COI, but I view it as unfortunate that a lot of good faith COI contributors walk in to what is more or less a trap. I almost want to suggest a dialogue box directly asking non-autoconfirmed users if they have a CoI with the article they're trying to create, and then directing them to something like WP:PSCOI if they said yes. Obviously that wouldn't take care of malicious CoI editors, but it would at least send the good intentioned ones the right way. Thanks to those who helped out on this article; the end result is we have another biog of an eminently notable academic. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• What I think should be changed:

I would like to suggest that the 'close connection' and 'promotional content' maintenance tags be removed from this page.

Full disclosure, I work at UCSF and am a colleague of Dr. Stephen L. Hauser. This current page is accurate, but largely out of date. I plan to suggest additional edits in the near future, but am looking to first clear some of the old maintenance tags that I believe have already been resolved.

• Why it should be changed:

Regarding the close connection tag, while the original content for this page was created by a different colleague of Stephen L. Hauser, the page looks to have been edited and reviewed by numerous unassociated editors in the nine years since this tag was added.

Regarding the promotional content tag, it appears that content in question has since been removed.

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

ABarnecut (talk) 00:58, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify your relationship to the subject further; are you are a friend or a colleague making this request on a personal basis, or are you making this request as an employee of UCSF on a professional basis and are being paid for it, broadly construed? Melmann 21:14, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, happy to help clarify. I am a current employee at UCSF, part of the administrative team for the UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences, to which Dr. Hauser serves as Director. As such, I do work closely with the subject. I am seeking to make these edits on a professional basis. I am not being paid nor specifically tasked to make these edits. I simply want to help make this page more current and accurate. Happy to address any additional questions or concerns as needed. Thanks! ABarnecut (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to assist with improving and stabilizing this article. I am not affiliated with Dr. Hauser or UCSF and have no personal or professional connection to the subject. I am volunteering to help ensure this article meets Wikipedia's standards for neutrality, verifiability, and biography of living persons (BLP) policy.

@Melmann — I do not see promotional language or "peacocking" in the current version of the article, and the references appear to be verifiable, including citations from major journals and institutional sources. Based on the Talk history, the article was originally created over ten years ago by a UCSF colleague of Dr. Hauser. Although that editor stated it was not commissioned or compensated, it still qualifies as a conflict of interest (COI) under Wikipedia guidelines. That said, it’s clear the article has been substantially edited and reviewed by multiple independent editors since then. Dr. Hauser fulfills the notability requirement.

At this point, I believe it is appropriate to revisit the maintenance tags. I propose collaboratively improving the article with proper citations, rewriting for tone where needed, and restoring verifiable, well-sourced content that was previously removed. I am happy to do this and welcome input from other editors as part of this process. Zamphere (talk) 15:17, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest and willingness to help improve this article. I also very much appreciate you taking the time to evaluate the current need for the maintenance tags.

Is there a preferred process for me to start suggesting edits? Would it be best to submit in smaller increments, or shall I attempt suggesting more widespread updates? I am very new to wikipedia and doing my best to learn as I go. Thanks again! ABarnecut (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @ABarnecut — happy to collaborate. If you're planning to suggest updates, smaller increments are generally easier for others to review and discuss. I recommend using this Talk page to propose edits section by section. For each proposed change, please include reliable sources, ideally secondary ones that are independent of the subject, per [WP:BLP] and [WP:RS]. If you're copying or paraphrasing from UCSF or institutional materials, just be sure to rewrite in your own words to avoid copyright and tone issues.

Feel free to ping me when you're ready to share a batch of suggestions. I'm happy to help format and review them for sourcing and neutrality. Together we can get this article into strong shape. Zamphere (talk) 21:42, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic, thank you @Zamphere! I look forward to collaborating. I will start organizing some proposed edits, section by section as you suggest, and reach out when I have them posted and ready for review. My plan is to lead with some edits to the introductory paragraph, and based on any feedback, I can adjust my approach for any subsequent section edits. ABarnecut (talk) 00:46, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

COI: I am an employee at UCSF. Additional clarification provided in previous entries on this talk page.

• What I think should be changed:

Proposing edits to the opening paragraph on this page.

@Zamphere Thank you in advance for your consideration of these edits!

• Why it should be changed:

Proposed replacement text:

Stephen L. Hauser is an American neurologist and neuroimmunologist. He is the Robert A. Fishman Distinguished Professor of Neurology at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), and Director of the UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences.^[1] His research has led to key discoveries on the genetic basis, immune mechanisms, and treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS)^[2], most notably the development of B cell therapies for MS patients^[3][4], a powerful class of therapeutics that treat all forms of the disease, including the first therapy of proven efficacy for progressive MS.^[5]

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

ABarnecut (talk) 23:19, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ABarnecut: Thank you for your suggestions. Please feel free to implement your proposed edits. I have adjusted some language to align with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy, reducing promotional tone. The article appears to meet the criteria outlined in the Notability guidelines and does not seem promotional. I have removed the tags. Zamphere (talk) 03:47, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review and improvements to the page! I've published the proposed edits to the introductory paragraph. ABarnecut (talk) 23:31, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

COI: I am an employee at UCSF. Additional clarification provided in previous entries on this talk page.

• What I think should be changed:

Proposing edits to the Service section on this page. @Zamphere I welcome and appreciate your continued consideration of these edits!

Proposed replacement text:

Since 2016, Hauser has served as director of the UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences, an umbrella organization that links the clinical and basic neurosciences at UCSF to accelerate research against neurologic diseases.^[1] Previously, he served as chair of the Department of Neurology at UCSF from 1992-2017.^[2]

From 2010-2017 he served on the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues for the Obama administration, charged with advising the President on bioethical issues arising from advances in biomedicine and related areas of science and technology.^[3] He also served as Chair of the Committee on Gulf War and Health Outcomes for the National Academy of Medicine (formerly Institute of Medicine)^[4][5], and later as Chair of the Research Advisory Committee for the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs^[6].

He is currently an editor of the textbook Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine^[7] and past editor-in-chief of the Annals of Neurology^[8].

• Why it should be changed:

This section was largely out of date.

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

ABarnecut (talk) 00:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

COI: I am an employee at UCSF. Additional clarification provided in previous entries on this talk page.

• What I think should be changed:

Proposing edits to the Awards and Honors section on this page. @Zamphere I welcome and appreciate your continued consideration of these edits!

Proposed replacement text:

Hauser is recipient of the Javits Neuroscience Investigator Award.^[1] He received the John Dystel Prize for Multiple Sclerosis Research in 2008^[2], and Charcot Award in 2013^[3], for his earlier studies on MS genetic susceptibility and role of immune B cells in MS. He later received the Taubman Prize for Excellence in Translational Medical Research in 2017^[4], and Scientific Breakthrough Award in 2022^[5], for his career research advances leading to development of B cell therapies in MS.

He is a fellow and past president of the American Neurological Association^[6], American Academy of Arts and Sciences^[7], American Academy of Physicians^[8], and member of the National Academy of Medicine^[9].

• Why it should be changed:

This section was largely out of date.

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

ABarnecut (talk) 00:33, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]