Talk:Nicole Saphier

Jonathan Howard on Science-Based Medicine says she should retract false information she published, says she and Marty Makary were willing to pontificate about the COVID-19 vaccine for children in a national newspaper even though they were completely unfamiliar with the basic facts and datasets on this topic. . --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:57, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Article currently mentions this (with a cite). The name sounds scammy ("I'm something of a top professional, myself") and poking around it looks like a pay-to-play award org. There's nothing at WP:RSP. Does anyone have any further info on it? NapoliRoma (talk) 19:07, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

@NapoliRoma: I suspected it was one of those "professional" organizations myself, but it isn't Wikipedia's call to judge whether it should be included. Unless there is reason to suspect that it shouldn't be included, I don't see it as an issue. The only reason it is on there is because NJ.com, which is a reliable source, mentioned it. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:13, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Maybe more biodata because she is becoming 'a public person'? Her husband seems to be from Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey (before RPI), but some sources say Hackensack, New Jersey. He may have lived in or around Buffalo, New York around 2001MaynardClark (talk) 19:32, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Reportedly, she bore a child before she met Paul Saphier, and together they are rearing three (3) children. Was she previously married?MaynardClark (talk) 05:51, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but after she had the child. Saphier had a child when she was 17. She married an individual, who I won't name, in 2001, from what I could research. I believe she married Paul Saphier, with whom she had two children, around 2008. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:45, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Additional verification or sources is needed to support statement that subject is "an associate professor at Weill Cornell Medical College". Current inline reference is to a USA Today article which makes this statement. However, the subject's personnel page at Weill Cornell describes them as an assistant professor. ~2026-26496-05 (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

It is not Wikipedia's job to say whether a source is accurate based off of independent research. USA Today reported that she was an associate professor. If that is wrong, it will be corrected. Radiology Business refers to her as an associate professor. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:55, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the independent research to corroborate the source. ~2026-26496-05 (talk) 21:28, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Statements in this article about the academic appointment at Weill Cornell Medical College should be removed until the conflict is resolved per guidance found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:These_are_not_original_research#Conflict_between_sources ("If the conflict represents information that is trivial or of limited value to the article, you may also omit the disputed information entirely.")

We have established that there are conflicting sources. The job title the subject has at a secondary employer is trivial or of limited value to this article.

Removing the information is also the best action to maintain neutrality while the conflict is unresolved. The information was not added to the article until today's nomination of the subject to a public office. The dissemination of this conflicting information is not disinterested because the subject (and other parties attempting to advance the nomination) stands to benefit by promoting a disputed title through Wikipedia. ~2026-26496-05 (talk) 22:26, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

WP:NOTOR is explicitly not policy, and it only covers disputes between reliable sources. A personnel webpage that may or may not be accurate is not enough to say that this is needs to be removed. USA Today takes priority. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 07:56, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I am in favor of deleting the statement about her title because there's a clear conflict. We have two verifiable, reliable sources and you have not provided evidence to believe otherwise. The employer who determines the appointment and title is arguably more reliable than a news article statement lacking attribution.

You removed other editor's contributions where they explicitly sourced her personal statements claiming she is an associate professor at Memorial Sloan Kettering. Your stated justification for the terminal was simply to claim it is not possible to be an associate professor at that institution.

A simple search at the Memorial Sloan Kettering website reveals that your statement is false, the institution does appoint numerous faculty to that title. You do not appear objective in your assessment and discount the employing institutions' own online listings of employees' titles. Therefore it is difficult to accept at face value your claim that USA Today takes priority over employment information provided by the employer. ~2026-26580-02 (talk) 14:06, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Reliability on Wikipedia refers to something completely different than what you mean. You provided a primary source, and Wikipedia is clear that you cannot analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, you must refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. The "evidence" here is that there is a source from USA Today, which is reliable per WP:USATODAY, that makes a clear claim, and you are contesting that based on a website that is not a news organization, but rather a webpage that may be inaccurate or out-of-date. This is not how Wikipedia works at all. You cannot use primary sources for original research, to try to reach independent conclusions.

While this is not relevant to our discussion at all, I removed the sentence about Memorial Sloan Kettering because it didn't occur to me that the institution would specifically have associate professors; it was a very late night. I looked into it and it does seem that "associate professor" is a title used by others at the center. Arizona Foothills Magazine is neither reliable nor unreliable, and the article itself is an interview, so its claims did warrant skepticism. That does not mean I am not "objective", it means I made a mistake and I wouldn't object to anyone adding it back. On the other hand, yes, I am absolutely willing to "discount the employing institutions' own online listings of employees' titles". Again, Wikipedia has strict standards for what sources can be used, especially on a BLP, which is what this is. You cannot conduct your own research to try to prove a point on a biography of a living person. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:32, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't believe it's necessary to "analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself" to determine we have conflicting information regarding her appointment.

Please explain how did you determine that she graduated her MD in Dominica when this conflicts with the stated location in the cited AP news sources? As far as I can tell any of the currently cited sources used for her biographical details will say she graduated in Barbados (if a location is mentioned at all). I don't see a secondary source cited stating she graduated in Dominica. There is a primary source that supports the information though, but it has been described as 'a webpage that may be inaccurate or out-of-date."

Please try to be consistent and hold yourself to the same standard that you set for others.

I didn't make a change to the information, I just tagged it as requiring further debate here and I think the contested information regarding the academic appointment should be omitted. It's not that important to the article and a good deal of the sources for biographical details have also omitted this information. ~2026-26580-02 (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

You did interpret material found in a primary source, which goes against Wikipedia's policy on how to use them.

I'm not sure why we're suddenly talking about the Ross University School of Medicine now, but the school was in Dominica at the time. It is in Barbados now, and that can be cited to a reliable source. Radiology Business says that she graduated from the university in 2008; it isn't explicitly a reliable source per WP:RSP, but it isn't a primary source, either. For all intents and purposes, it appears to be a legitimate website with no attachment to Saphier herself. In trying to find a source for the school moving, I incidentally found an article from Inc. covering this exact discrepancy. The source doesn't say that it was in Portsmouth specifically, but I adhere to WP:BLUE. There's no dispute that the university was in Portsmouth based on local news. That is decidedly different than going out to find a primary source to prove a point. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:03, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

The distinction between assistant and associate professor is not trivial. Associate professors generally have tenure, assistant professors do not.The academic institution that grants such titles, Weill-Cornell School of Medicine, lists her as assistant professor on its published page. https://vivo.weill.cornell.edu/display/cwid-nbs2001 This should be considered more reliable than news articles that do not cite sources.

This same website lists the location of Ross Medical School as being in Dominica at the time, a fact also stated in Wikipedia's page Ross University School of Medicine Physician38 (talk) 02:05, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

No one said it was trivial. I think it's more likely that she was an assistant professor, but Wikipedia always follows reliable sources. What you provided is a primary source, which requires synthesis and assumes that the information is accurate. It isn't always accurate. On a biography of a living person, it is practically required to use a secondary, reliable source. USA Today is a reliable source. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:53, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

For unconfirmed nominees, I think it's misleading to have the text "Assuming office." It seems to be built into the infobox officeholder template. In my opinion, it's best to change to infobox Medical Person until the Senate confirms the nomination. ScienceFlyer (talk) 05:13, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, should not list "assuming office" until actually confirmed. Funcrunch (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

This should be discussed at the template talk page for the infobox, not here. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:27, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

The discussion is relevant to which infobox should be used on this page at this time, not what text is included in the infobox template. Funcrunch (talk) 20:02, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, and the traditional way that nominees have been handled is to use the officeholder infobox. If the text is where there is disagreement, the template needs to be changed. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:01, 5 May 2026 (UTC)