Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:17, 3 August 2015

Gabor B. Racz is currently a Biology and medicine good article nominee. Nominated by Atsme at 17:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC) An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Science and Academia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages'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 (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 (assessed as Mid-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Texas Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as Mid-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Hungary Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hungary, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hungary on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HungaryWikipedia:WikiProject HungaryTemplate:WikiProject HungaryHungary Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Gabor B. Racz was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 1, 2014 Good article nominee Listed August 3, 2015 Good article reassessment Delisted
	A fact from this article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 25, 2014.The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Gabor Racz fled Budapest in 1956 after the Hungarian revolution and went on to hold a million-dollar endowed chair in anesthesiology at Texas Tech?
Current status: Delisted good article

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gabor B. Racz article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 2 months

COI

Per box at the top of this page, an editor appears to have a COI with regard to the subject of this article. The article need to be reviewed for NPOV and sourcing. Once the article is cleaned by an independent editor, the tag can be removed. If you do that, please leave a note here. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

This is nothing short of harassment. Be prepared to go to ANI. Atsme 23:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Atsme.2C_Earthwave.2C_WP:SELFCITE.2C_Gabor_B._Racz I won't be interacting with you further on this, except to reply once at these various talk pages. Jytdog (talk) 00:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Make that ARBCOM. Atsme 03:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

CV

A few things in this article are sourced to source given as:

• Paula Brashear (March 31, 2008). "CURRICULUM VITAE Gabor B. Racz, M.D. Ch.B. DABPM, FIPP". TTUHSC International Pain Institute. Retrieved April 1, 2014.

But on inspection this looks like the subject's CV hosted on a make-your-own-magazine site. Is that right? Alexbrn (talk) 04:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's right, Alexbrn. I'm not sure a CV on such a site is a good source or if there's a better one out there. I don't know what kinds of sources are best for bios of medical professionals. Some of the paragraphs I've removed were copied from a World Institute of Pain biography (the link is somewhere below), also written by Paula Brashear.

I think the article could use restructuring as well with something like Early Career, Later Career, and Personal Life sections. I don't know what would be best and need to take a look at some other articles before tackling this. Ca2james (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the problem is the reference is misleading since it isn't really "published" by the TTUHSC International Pain Institute nor "authored" by Brashear (who is Racz's secretary?). I'd agree this is a poor source and needn't be used. Alexbrn (talk) 06:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

COI

User:Jytdog, I see you tagged this as COI. I think it's incumbent on you to explain that. It's not obvious to me why User:Atsme has a COI, and to add the tag without reason isn't WP:AGF Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

In the section above, I noted that the explanatory links are in the box at the top of this page (the "connected contributor" section at the bottom of box). I did explain. Jytdog (talk) 05:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

hm - the facebook link is now broken; she must have taken the post down. Well, it was there, and I saved a screencap is case that would be needed. It was on earthwave society's facebook page and it said: "Gabor B. Racz, M.D. - his Misplaced Pages biography is now complete" and had a link to this WP article. It was dated April 14, 2014. I've asked Atsme at COIN (linked in the COI section above) what the connection between Earthwave and Racz is. No answer to that yet. i'm kind of willing to assume that she was using that facebook page as more of a personal blog rather than as news relevant to the organization... but only kind of, in light of the undisclosed COI editing discussed in the COIN thread. Jytdog (talk) 05:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Jytdog, thanks for that. I have to say that I still have concerns that it looks like outing, and I'm not sure that it's a positive move given the history between some editors, including yourself, and this user (just stating a fact, not commenting on the rights and wrongs here). I think that there are some valid concerns with this article, although it was passed for GA by a an experienced independent editor, but the language issues at least are easily fixable. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey Jim. I thought carefully about the OUTING issues and I believe what I have done is in-bounds. I understand that others might think differently and am open to hearing about that. As I reckon you know, the reason across all institutions that people with a COI are obligated to disclose it, is so that reviewers/readers are aware that there might be bias or promotional goals. This article is pretty promotional and I don't reckon it will look much like it does now after WP:MED editors review it. I am not going to do that now, but will do it later when the dust settles from this, if others haven't done it first. And I very much hear you on the bad history between Atsme and me. I am trying (not very successfully) to stay out of this, now that I have raised it. Jytdog (talk) 06:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, I think there is a difference between claiming a COI and effectively outing an editor who denies at least a current COI. It looks worse when you tag a featured article like American paddlefish as COI. For the life of me, I cannot see how the claimed COI detracts from an FA article about a fish, which has been assessed at WP:FAC by many experienced editors. To tag everything User:Atsme has done as COI without clarifying how the claimed COI affects the veracity of the article looks like WP:POINT or settling scores. I invite you to reconsider which of the articles you have tagged are actually affected by the claimed COI, otherwise I'll remove the tags myself where it looks like bullying rather than being relevant. So far, I've only checked the fish, but that's such a poor decision, I think you should look at all those you believe have been adversely affected by the COI to check that that is really the case. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy to continue the discussion, but is this a discussion to have on an article Talk page? Five quick responses though. I have not tagged everything she has done and I don't know why you would say that. On the fish articles, the COI is not about the subject matter, but use of sources and ELs to promote her organization (this happens all the time); on this article, there appears to be some relationship between Atsme/Earthwave and this doctor, due to a) the facebook posting and b) the promotional tone of this article. You don't seem to have read the COIN thread nor seen the community's reaction to using her ELs in 2011 when Atsme did disclose the relationship; disclosure matters. And finally, there is no OUTING; she disclosed the relationship here in WP. Jytdog (talk) 17:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Reads like an advert

This article is full of peacock language. For example:

• "He has pioneered procedures and designs"
• " and pioneered what became known as the Racz procedure, which has been recognized internationally as a substantial advancement in the treatment for lysis"
• "many prestigious honors and awards"
• " innovative work with nerve stimulators"
• This is not supported by the reference "Developments in the lysis of adhesions technique by Racz and his colleagues resulted in the treatment of many patients suffering from failed back and neck surgery and spinal stenosis without the need for additional surgery"
• "In 1982, Racz pioneered what became known as the Racz Catheter procedure"
• This ref is broken
• this content is not supported by the ref provided "Racz designed and patented the Racz Catheter, a flexible, spring-wound"
• "Racz is internationally recognized for procedural advancements"
• And than it appears to contain copyright infringement such as "Racz has published numerous book chapters and journal articles describing his techniques in spinal cord and peripheral nerve stimulation, neurolysis, radiofrequency thermocoagulation and other interventional procedures used in management of pain." from have removed in this edit

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Talking about peacock, let's compare it to David Gorski, ok? Gorski's article, "Blockade of the vascular endothelial growth factor stress response increases the antitumor effects of ionizing radiation", characterizing the effects of angiogenesis inhibitors on the effectiveness of anti-tumor therapies has been cited over 900 times according to PubMed. And how about this one that isn't even cited, The article, Regulation of angiogenesis through a microRNA (miR-130a) that down-regulates antiangiogenic homeobox genes GAX and HOXA5 by Gorski and Yun Chen, into the use of microRNA to regulate angiogenesis led to research by Jason E. Fish's group at the University of California, San Francisco, into the use of microRNA to regulate blood vessel development, limiting tumor growth.? Some of the cited sources there need attention, too. Let's collaborate over there first, and then we can come back here and fix this article so we have uniform consistency throughout the encyclopedia regarding BLPs on medical doctors. Atsme 17:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Not once is Gorski referred to as a "pioneer" or an "innovator" or "internationally recognized"

That article is much more low key. And is not a GA Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

You are correct in that Gorski is not a GA. So let's fix it and make it one. As for not being "referred to", let's just say it is implied. The difference here is that RS refer to this BLP using those terms, therefore it is acceptable to use them. Why do you take issue with reliably sourced material that actually recognizes a person's accomplishments? He did pioneer the procedure, he is an innovator, and he is internationally recognized. What's wrong with that? Atsme 20:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Copy and paste

Our article says

"In October 2012, Racz received a lifetime achievement award for the nation's leading physician in international pain management from the New York/New Jersey Societies of Interventional Pain Physicans at their Symposium held in Jersey City, New Jersey."

Ref says

"lifetime achievement award for the nation’s leading physician in interventional pain management from the New York /New Jersey Societies of Interventional Pain Physicians at their October 19-21, 2012 Symposium held in Jersey City, New Jersey."

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Simple rewording which I've done, and really didn't need to because it's fair use. Rather than spend all this time criticizing, why don't you just fix the prose you have an issue with? I'm beginning to feel like your personal copy editor. Atsme 20:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

We do not allow free use of text on Misplaced Pages generally. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

More poorly supported text

We say "Groundbreaking ceremonies for the new $4.3 million, 12,700 square feet (1,180 m2) Messer-Racz International Pain Center on the TTUHSC campus took place on June 13, 2005. Construction was completed in December 2008. According to Texas Tech Today, the center was named for Gene and Carlene Messer, who made a generous donation to the project, and for Gabor B. Racz." Only the last sentence is supported by the ref provided Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Poorly supported? Well, if you want to avoid copyvio, we need to write the prose in our own words. I added another source to satisfy your concerns. I would also like to know what the purpose is for your criticism of this article when you're actually not contributing anything to help correct the issues. Are you here to collaborate or critique? We already know what brought you here. If your only purpose here is to criticize, may I suggest that you also try writing some of the prose and actually help find the sources? You added the tag for the article to be reevaluated, so let that process take place. In the interim, please help fix the issues you're so boldly pointing out, not all of which are substantive criticisms. Atsme 20:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Other issues

• There's also nothing about the company he started: "In 1985, Epimed International originated in Lubbock, TX by Gabor J. Racz, in an effort to promote the Racz® Catheter"
• References for the Racz catheter, Racz procedure, and complex regional pain syndrome are not MEDRS-compliant
• The Racz procedure is also known as "epidural neurolysis", "epidural neuroplasty", and "percutaneous adhesiolysis" but that's not in the article
• The article lead says "substantial advancement in the treatment for lysis of adhesions" but the treatment is "lysis of adhesions"
• The article says " has also resulted in new Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes and multiple insurance approvals affecting interventional pain management treatments in clinics across the country." A brief search indicates that the Racz procedure is still considered experimental, at least by insurance companies, (I know they're not great sources)

I'm not sure that this article should have received a GA designation at least based on the lack of MEDRS sources. Should this article's GA designation be reassessed (or delisted), individually or by the community, or should we attempt to fix the article and then possibly reassess? Thanks. Ca2james (talk) 17:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Have started the GAR here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Rather than simply criticize the sources, why don't you identify which sources you believe do not meet RS? Oh, and don't forget those situations when WP:MEDRS criteria is malleable and that we can also apply WP:IAR when sources are limited. My mentor at the time, User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah, helped me with the sourcing and getting the article ready for DYK and GA. And since we are now collaborating on medical articles and BLPs, there are other articles waiting in the wings you can help with. I already mentioned David Gorski which is the article I modeled this one after. It has some pretty serious issues like this one. Looks like maybe I picked the wrong role model. Anyway, what I like most about writing BLPs for promotion to FA is that criteria expects the prose to be "engaging" unlike the the dry scientific approach we see far too often. Engaging prose makes the information much more palatable and likely to be read. If my friend hadn't told me about Racz and his work with CRPS, I never would have known such a problem existed. In addition to her own issues with CRPS which she developed from an infected dog bite, she told me about celebrities who also suffer with the syndrome, . Oh, and while we're on the subject of BLPs, there's also an article about a doctor Guy suggested I work on to bring to GA status, Peter_Wilmshurst, so there's another article we can collaborate on. There's also one I have on my list of potential "doctor" articles another friend told me about, Francis Robicsek who I'm pretty sure passes GNC. I guess as we get older, we become more aware of doctors. I am so looking forward to collaborating with medical experts. Atsme 18:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I identified the topics for which the sourcing did not meet MEDRS, which should be enough. Celebrities apparently suffering from a syndrome does not mean the syndrome exists - see Morgellons. Ca2james (talk) 18:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to speak out of school, but if my memory serves, there is a way to detect or confirm the condition by measuring bone rotation. I haven't done the research or gotten that detailed into CRPS because this is a BLP. I don't consider myself qualified to write full-blown medical articles and have no intention of doing so. I prefer to leave that for the experts, but when it comes to BLPs, I am quite comfortable with my ability to do a good job. Also, there are no copyright issues in this article. When this article was reviewed for GA, the Duplication Detector tool was used and there were no copyright violations detected. I've already been over this with reviewers. You deleted 3 paragraphs of my work stating in the edit summary that it was a copy and paste from http://www.worldinstituteofpain.org/site/pages.php?pageid=47. The only thing used verbatim from the source you named in the edit summary was the following statement: Racz has published numerous book chapters and journal articles describing his techniques in spinal cord and peripheral nerve stimulation, neurolysis, radiofrequency thermocoagulation and other interventional procedures used in management of pain. The other two paragraphs were compiled from information in his Curriculum Vitae which is what the World Institute of Pain article actually mirrored. Both sources were authored by Paula Brashear (secretary to Dr. Racz). Inclusion of that material is perfectly acceptable per BLP as a self-published source. You might also want to read regarding fair use. I'm going to restore the material and change the wording of that one sentence since you seem concerned about it. Atsme 19:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

References

1. "Gabor B. Racz, MD, FIPP, DABIPP". World Institute of Pain. Retrieved April 4, 2014.

While it's possible that the world institute of pain bio and this article independently came up with the same wording, it's extremely unlikely. Also, since the WIoP page says Within the next year his vision of education, clinical practice and research will be further fulfilled when the new Racz International Pain Center will open on the campus of Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center in September 2008 in Lubbock, Texas. it's an indication that the WIoP bio was created in 2007 or 2008 whereas this article was created in 2014. Therefore, since the wording in the first two paragraphs of the Recognition section are almost identical to that on the WIoP page, that text is a copyvio in this article and it must be deleted. The information can be included, but the wording must be significantly altered. Ca2james (talk) 20:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not copyvio. Your reasoning doesn't make any sense because you apparently didn't read who wrote the article which I pointed out above. Go back and look at the author of the source and where it originated. Atsme 21:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Using the exact - or almost exact - wording as another source is a WP:COPYVIO The wording in this article copied the wording, sentence structure, and sentence order from the WIoP bio. That's a COPYVIO. Ca2james (talk) 21:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Re: the other issues list above:

1. There's also nothing about the company he started: "In 1985, Epimed International originated in Lubbock, TX by Gabor J. Racz, in an effort to promote the Racz® Catheter" - yes, you are correct. That actually would be promotional.
2. References for the Racz catheter, Racz procedure, and complex regional pain syndrome are not MEDRS-compliant - I added the journals listed in PubMed
3. The Racz procedure is also known as "epidural neurolysis", "epidural neuroplasty", and "percutaneous adhesiolysis" but that's not in the article - This is a BLP. Perhaps you'd like to create a separate medical article about the Racz procedure and include all those medical terms?
4. The article lead says "substantial advancement in the treatment for lysis of adhesions" but the treatment is "lysis of adhesions" - fixed the syntax. See if it works better now.

• The article says " has also resulted in new Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes and multiple insurance approvals affecting interventional pain management treatments in clinics across the country." A brief search indicates that the Racz procedure is still considered experimental, at least by insurance companies, (I know they're not great sources) - I found the following which does indicate limited coverage per BCBS but I'm not sure if this is an acceptable source, or how best to word that passage. It is coded as 64999 - unlisted procedure, nervous system, and the coverage sucks. Atsme 21:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• I undertook the GA assessment of this article in December 2014. One of my first comments was: "My main concern is that the article reads as if it was written not by a neutral observer but by someone too close to the subject." Atsme assured me that was not the case, so I reviewed the article in the normal way and came to the conclusion that it met the GA criteria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• There is no COI, Cwmhiraeth - you didn't do anything wrong. I have been wrongly accused of it. The false allegations of COI (2 articles are involved) are still being evaluated by OS. My volunteer position with Earthwave had nothing to do with my work on WP. I added some external links back 2011 when I was an active volunteer - they were removed. I came back in 2014 and started editing various articles. I was retired and my status with Earthwave was emeritus, not active. I cited some information I obtained from the Earthwave website regarding some ancestral species of fishes because they had the available material and were among the first to start documenting the information. I was also able to uploaded rare u/w footage they allowed me to upload to Commons under CC BY-SA 3.0. Anyway, that's where the claims of COI come into play. Regardless, it had nothing to do with this article. The issues being brought up now are unwarranted. There were two sentences in this article that needed better sources, I added them, period the end. They're picking it apart simply because no one can stop them not that there's anything wrong with the article. What's happening now is POV. Racz is an academic with an "h" index of 29 and a "g" >50. There aren't a lot of sources available when it comes to scholars and medical professionals as you know. I used the best sources out there. I will be working on a few other BLPs about doctors - one that JzG recommended, and another that was recommended to me by a friend. This razzmatazz about COI is all nonsense. Atsme 13:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
• Thanks for your comment, Cwmhiraeth. Setting aside COI, this article should not have been passed as a GA both because it was written in a promotional way and because the sourcing is inadequate. Medical diagnoses, devices, and procedures need sourcing that confirms to WP:MEDRS. The rest of the article relies quite heavily on primary sources. I appreciate that you had good intentions in reviewing the article but going forward, closer attention to sourcing might be something to keep in mind. Thanks again. Ca2james (talk) 19:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• Wow - and your 1700 edits and expertise as a reviewer on WP is what validates your POV. Do you even realize what Cwmhiraeth has accomplished for the project? You couldn't be more condescending to an experienced editor with tenure. Unbelievable. Atsme 19:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• There is no tenure here. I appreciate what the editor has done for the project but the fact is that this article with its poor sourcing (and copyvios) should not have passed GA. Not everyone is familiar with MEDRS, and bringing all that up in a respectful way, which I've done, is not being condescending. If you are unable to address me in a respectful way please stay away from me. Thank you. Ca2james (talk) 20:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

That's your opinion - every criticism you've made here is your opinion and it conflicts with the prevalent consensus and the fact this article was already reviewed and passed GA status. Let the process work. Your personal opinions on WP aren't anymore reliable than mine or the reviewer or the other editors who collaborated to help this article attain GA status. If you can't deal with the criticism then don't edit on WP. If your intention is to tell every editor who criticizes your work to stay away from you, then pack up and move on because you will eventually find yourself alone in a vast wilderness of criticism. And let's not overlook the fact that all you've done since you arrived at this article is revert RS general knowledge and criticize the work of two editors who invested quite a lot of effort into getting this article right. Since you are so willing to hand it out, be prepared to take it. Atsme 21:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Criticism, critique, and disagreement are part of collaboration and I welcome them as long as they're done respectfully if about editor behaviour (ie discussing the behaviour itself and not the person) and focused on content if it's about content (ie not being condescending, not suggesting that the editor lacks competence, and not falsely accusing them of ill-will or harassment). I treat others the same way. I'm asking you to please be respectful in interacting with me, and I'm saying that if you can't or won't do that, to please stay away from me. Thank you. Ca2james (talk) 22:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Based on the edits you've made to this GA, it appears you need a bit more practice before you hack away at an article that was already reviewed and was promoted to GA. You are not making any improvements, in fact you have changed the meaning of sentences, removed identifying titles, removed credentials that belong in the article, and unless you can actually edit to improve, please do not alter this GA. The issues regarding sourcing were corrected. The passages are fine as is.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs) 00:40, 7 July 2015

• This never was a GA. It was full of promotional phrases and adjectives, duplicate or triplicate treatment of of achievements, and concentration on awards. (There were also the problems with inadequate sourcing for medical claims, as discussed above). The first step to improving quality is to remove this. Ca2james and others have begun, and I am continuing, since my main interest here is in scientific biographies). Racz is distinguished, and is unfair to the subjects of articles for their real accomplishments to be hidden in promotionalism. I am not sure whether it would meet the GA criteria even after the improvements that we are making, but I leave this to others. DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Is that what you think? Then please go clean up David Gorski if you don't want promotionalism. It even includes a link to his off-Wiki blog, and the section advocating his skepticism is way overweighted and a promotion of his advocacy. Atsme 01:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

DGG - I think there's a problem with the way you worded the following: as the Racz procedure for the treatment for lysis of adhesions Lysis of adhesions is the treatment so I think that change may have messed up the meaning of the phrase. I already corrected it after Doc James pointed it out. Atsme 01:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I corrected it, but the butchering of this article has to stop. Editors who want to collaborate here can be of help finding better sources. Chopping away at prose and inserting mistakes in an already reviewed GA is not an improvement and it certainly isn't helpful. Atsme 01:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, DGG. Atsme, I understand that you don't want this article changed but even GAs can be edited; they don't stay as they were when they received the designation. Reverting edits that tag this article as having problems (whether they're at the top or inline), or that attempt to remove the problems themselves appears as WP:OWN behaviour which isn't encouraged here. Ca2james (talk) 02:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• The procedure he seems to have a invented a device to do, is "Percutaneous adhesiolysis". Did a pubmed search for reviews on that; results are here - there are some sources independent of him there which is good. I'll look for information on his company. I like that kind of thing. Jytdog (talk) 03:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

COPYVIO

There is a COPYVIO in this article that I have tried to remove and Atsme has reverted back in, in the Recognitions and Awards section. The words, sentence structure, and sentence ordering appear to be copied from here. As I said above, that text appears to have been written before this article and as a result this text appears to be a clear copyright violation. We're not allowed to use others' words like this.

Atsme has defended these paragraphs by saying that she pulled the information from a CV (which is used as a reference). However, it's extremely unlikely that two different authors would write almost identical words in the same sentence structure and ordering. The correct thing to do is to remove the COPYVIO, which I'm going to do once again.(done Ca2james (talk)) Please don't revert again.

Here is a sentence-by-sentence comparison table between the webpage and this article, in the order they both appear.

Ca2james (talk) 02:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Another one: This sentence in the article It has also resulted in new Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes and multiple insurance approvals affecting interventional pain management treatments in clinics across the country. is the same as this sentence This has resulted in new CPT codes and multiple insurance approvals affecting treatments in clinics across the country. from the cited reference. My research above shows that insurance companies don't automatically approve this procedure. I'm not sure that insurance information should be discussed in a biography anyways; if anywhere, it should go in an article about that procedure. Therefore, I'm going to remove it.(done Ca2james (talk)) If it's restored it needs to be reworded. Ca2james (talk) 02:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Another one that Doc James has already pointed out above: this sentence In October 2012, Racz received a lifetime achievement award for the nation's leading physician in international pain management from the New York/New Jersey Societies of Interventional Pain Physicans at their Symposium held in Jersey City, New Jersey. is very similar to this sentence It was a distinct honor to present Professor Gabor Racz the lifetime achievement award for the nation’s leading physician in interventional pain management from the New York /New Jersey Societies of Interventional Pain Physicians at their October 19-21, 2012 Symposium held in Jersey City, New Jersey. I'm going to reword this one.(done Ca2james (talk)) Ca2james (talk) 02:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

It can be very difficult to rewrite lists of awards and positions, some of this and escape some degree of similarity. We normally avoid this by at least a little paraphrase, even if it only amounts to changing the order of words.

and I think that developing the CPT code in a major field is a major accomplishment, and worth inclusion. It's not "insurance information," which for a physician usually means a list of what insurance company payments he accepts for his clinical work. DGG ( talk ) 03:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction with respect to the CPT codes; I didn't know that it was important. We Canadians don't do things the same way as Americans. In this case I agree that it should be included; I'll reword it. With the awards, I agree that it's difficult to find unique wordings but the article's list doesn't appear to be sufficiently different to me. I'll work on that list offline and see what I can come up with to put the awards back. Ca2james (talk) 03:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm just wondering if some of this discussion should take place on the actual GAR page?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I have commented there. Alexbrn (talk) 06:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes but all of this is supposed to be there. An accessible link will be posted to the talk page that links there. In the event that it passes it will show the extent of the review for anyone to see and in the event it fails it will highlight all of the problems so someone in the future might be able to use that as a guide to get it back to GA quality. Most of this should probably be copy and pasted there or at least all future comments should be posted there.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

There really wasn't all that much to do. I knocked out Doc James' list pretty quickly. Most of my time was spent restoring and rewriting the information that kept being deleting. There were some minor tweaks, adding MEDRS sources and/or quality journal refs, and fixing the spaces and syntax errors that were created from all the reverts and add backs. All the medical collaborators need to keep in mind that this is a BLP and we don't need it to be overly scientific or dry to the point the average reader won't read it. The prose needs to be engaging, it's part of the criteria. Atsme 07:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Text not supported by refs provided

Neither ref mentions the person in question "Racz is internationally recognized for procedural advancements in the treatment of complex regional pain syndromes (CRPS), a long-term disorder of the nervous system which is a challenging pain problem often misunderstood, and misdiagnosed." Please provide quote from a ref if it does. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

1. Golovac S (2010). Mathis JM, Golovac S (ed.). Chapter 17: Spinal Cord Stimulation: Uses and Applications (2nd ed.). Springer. p. 379. ISBN 978-1-4419-0352-5. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
2. Ranee M. Albazaz, Yew Toh Wong, Shervanthi Homer-Vanniasinkam (2008). "Complex Regional Pain Syndrome: A Review". Annals of Vascular Surgery. 22 (2): 297–306. doi:10.1016/j.avsg.2007.10.006. PMID 18346583. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

There were several sources plus a little bit of common sense applied establishes that he is internationally recognized. He is actually globally recognized as well considering the number of books and research reviews and articles the man has written on the subject. I'm surprised you are not already quite familiar with his notability, Doc James. Anyway, I fixed the issues. Atsme 16:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Ca2james - in the following paragraph ": In 1982, Racz pioneered what became known as the Racz Catheter procedure for lysis of adhesions from around entrapped nerves in the epidural space of the spine.....you added a tag. I don't see where the issue is or what you're saying is not supported. Be specific because I don't see where the cited sources don't support the passage. Also, the sources used are perfectly acceptable per MEDRS so show me where it says they are not. Atsme 16:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC) PS: Both you and Doc James are well aware that I have been steadily working to address the minor issues you have raised - not all of which were "issues" - regardless, instead of templating and reverting, please discuss it here first. I am overseeing this article as its creator, co-author, and the editor who was involved in the GA assessment. The issues need to be addressed here first before you go reverting, and templating and deleting prose because it makes it appear that you are not acting in GF. What you're doing to this GA is disruptive, especially after the original reviewer stated he stands by his original assessment. Atsme 16:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I added a non-primary source needed tag for the text Candidates for this procedure are usually patients who have developed scar tissue after a previous back surgery, or are suffering severe acute pain of protruding or herniated disks, or other severe degeneration process affecting the lower back. because this sentence is sourced to a small observational study - aka a primary source. From WP:MEDRS: Primary sources should generally not be used for health-related content, because the primary biomedical literature is exploratory and not reliable - any given primary source may be contradicted by another, and the Misplaced Pages community relies on the guidance of expert reviews, and statements of major medical and scientific bodies, to provide guidance on any given issue. The rare edits that rely on primary sources should have minimal WP:WEIGHT, should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge. Moreover, it looks like the referenced study included patients with scar tissue, disk problems, or lower back degeneration, and that this one study's inclusion criteria is used in the article to generally define candidates for the procedure, which is OR.

The issues that have been raised by myself and Doc James are not minor and remain mostly unfixed because you're reverting both the changes that draw attention to the problems and the changes that attempt to fix them. Ca2james (talk) 16:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I should include the diffs from Kombucha wherein Doc James states MEDRS are malleable? That article also reflects passages that were challenged but still remain in the article even though they were sourced to challenged sources exactly like what's happening here. Is there a double standard? I added the additional sources - they are RS per MEDRS - The rare edits that rely on primary sources should have minimal WP:WEIGHT - a brief sentence is minimal weight. What you are asking is for nearly every sentence in the article to be sourced and that is ridiculous. The reasons provided for not accepting the sources I provided have not been substantive, and the result is that you are being disruptive. I have been trying extremely hard to address the minor issues brought to my attention but this is getting to be ridiculous. Atsme 17:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Still spammy

This article still reads like spam. I have warned User:Atsme for removing this tag again. They have not fixed the problems. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

You can't just generalize with such a comment, Doc James. I disagree that it is "spammy" since the sources do support the passages. Is this a doctor to doctor issue when you say "spammy"? State the passages you consider spammy, because without doing so is disruptive. What I'm trying to do is prevent this article from being chopped up beyond recognition after a confirmed experienced reviewer supported its assessment twice. Atsme 17:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

It is still full of peacock terminology. The concerns have not been fixed. The sources used to support the spammy text like spineuniverse are sort of spammy themselves. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

General statement and POV. The sky is blue doesn't have to be sourced. The fact the man is an internationally renowned expert on the subject is what makes him notable. How is that spammy? Atsme 17:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

See WP:SPAM because your allegations of spammy are unwarranted. It is not "peacock" when it is sourced. Also see WP:PEACOCK which clearly states for example: Just the facts: Dylan was included in Time's 100: The Most Important People of the Century, where he was called "master poet, caustic social critic and intrepid, guiding spirit of the counterculture generation". By the mid-1970s, his songs had been covered by hundreds of other artists. So here are the facts, Doc James: Gabor B. Racz is a notable expert for many reasons including his work and treatment of CRPS, and he has been recognized globally for it. He works with and is a founder of the World Institute of Pain which common sense tells us he is recognized around the world. He also travels, teaches, and gives lectures. That isn't "peacock", that is factual information. There aren't a lot of scientific journals that recognize such accomplishments of individual researchers, so if you're expecting MEDRS compliant sources, you're asking the impossible. All that is required in the case of a BLP are reliable sources and that includes self published. See WP:BLP because you are actually the one being disruptive here. Were it not that this article is a prior reviewed GA that was again recently confirmed by the original reviewer, your challenges may have been substantive. But as it stands now, and according to PAGs, they are nothing more than your POV as is the tag you keep adding without merit. Since you are a doctor critiquing the BLP of another doctor that has already passed GA and was reconfirmed by the original reviewer, I can't help but question the possibility of an unintended bias (with absolutely no disrespect intended toward you) but I have to ask you to reconsider your involvement here. It's one thing when you're editing articles about treatments and drugs etc. but this is a BLP. Atsme 18:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes this sums it up nicely Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Puffery. You have "pioneered what became known as" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Here User:DGG removed some puffery which User Atsme returned Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Atsme:

(1) I see you said above "a founder of the World Institute of Pain which common sense tells us he is recognized around the world. " Do you really think that anything called "World Institute of..." is necessarily recognized around the world by common sense? I've listed this particular one for deletion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/World Institute of Pain. I see you've worked on it also.

(2)In the sentence: "The University Medical Center named him to a $1 million endowed chair in recognition of his 'greatness in patient care, teaching and research' what information exactly is added by the "in recognition of his 'greatness in patient care, teaching and research'" ? This is pure puffery.

(3)The repeated use of "some" patients makes the statements meaningless; it might mean 1 in a 1000, or it might be a vague claim based on nothing specific, Even as a quotation, it may represent what was said, but it's meaningless. Picking quotations if done to support a POV can very easily be puffery.

(4)If we can a category for "BA",a Bad Article so promotional as to make the actually notable subject appear as someone in need of unrealistic publicity, I'd nominate this one. It's not just puffery, it's pointless puffery.

(5)and, of course, I strongly encourage DocJames to frequently contribute his expertise on evaluating BLPS of people in medicine. Far too many of them need attention. DGG ( talk ) 04:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh well, I too tried dealing with some of the problems in the early life section (including the incorrect information that Racz was married when he fled Hungary), but was reverted. Smells of WP:OWNership. Alexbrn (talk) 06:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

So far, the change I made to specify that he and Enid were unmarried when they fled has not yet been reverted. However, I tried to modify the text to remove the sensational wording and that was reverted as "Not an improvement". The scent of WP:OWNership is heavy in the air. Ca2james (talk) 15:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

And the clunky repetition of "fled" has come back - which is also not right since when moving from Austria to the UK, Racz was no longer "fleeing". Alexbrn (talk) 16:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

He fled from Hungary to the UK. It wasn't a casual move. All you're doing now with the snarky criticisms is confirming a behavioral pattern of incivility. I see an IP has joined in with an edit summary reflective of another's editor's style. Hmmm. Atsme 16:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

If you believe someone is socking, then file an WP:SPI. Ca2james (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Your change was not an improvement, and it has nothing to do with ownership. I did not revert your change to "then-girlfriend" but not without reservations because Enid is his wife. Whether they were married at the time is irrelevant. The infobox shows Enid as his spouse so I'm thinking perhaps the connection will be made. Other editors can weigh-in on that point. I have no problem with collaborators who want to improve this article, but my past experiences with you as a collaborator have demonstrated a pattern of POV pushing like you did at WP:AVDUCK, even though consensus was against you. In retaliation you nominated the essay for a 3rd MfD, after you participated in the two priors and pretended to collaborate in GF, so please stop trying to make me look the bad guy. Atsme 16:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

To say that she was his wife at the time they left Hungary is to misstate the sources because the source clearly states that they weren't married at that time. I've changed it to Alexbrn's wording - future wife - because that's clearer. Every edit I have made on Misplaced Pages is in good faith and has been made to try to improve the encyclopaedia. Please strike your personal attacks against me and in the future please restrict your comments to content only. Ca2james (talk) 17:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The only derogatory comments made here were PAs against me. You're the one who needs to do the striking. Atsme 17:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

GAR

Gabor B. Racz

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Consensus is for delisting DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Article has serious issues including a lot of promotional language, poor references, and copyright issues. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any "promotional" language in this BLP. Everything is well sourced, and it doesn't include anything that isn't also included in the BLPs of other accomplished medical professionals, like David Gorski for example. Perhaps the OP would like to contribute in a collaborative manner to help resolve the issues he believes exists considering those same issues exist in the Gorski article as well. In fact, I used that article as a model when writing this one. Atsme 17:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• Promotional language, poor sourcing, iffy health information, repetitive prose, copyright violations, the lurking suspicion of a COI taint, and - with a flurry of recent edits - the article is now unstable. Couldn't be a clearer case for de-listing, really. Alexbrn (talk) 06:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

False accusations of COI may very well result in you being blocked, Alexbrn. I advise you to strike that comment. There is absolutely no COI involved here, and I take offense to your allegations. Atsme 06:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• Poor sourcing is still an issue. medcn tags requesting MEDRS-compliant sources for medical claims have been removed with no change to the sourcing. Some promotional language has been removed but much remains. The copyright violations found so far appear to have been addressed although the entire article still needs to be checked carefully. This article should be delisted and once it's fixed and stable, resubmitted. Ca2james (talk) 07:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The criteria for delisting due to instability in a GAR is set to two weeks. It's been two days. There is no apparent COI or reasonable suspicion of COI so why don't we drop that stick.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• I was the original reviewer of this article. At the time I had some reservations about the way the article was written, seemingly by someone too close to the subject, but after reassurance from the nominator on this, I decided it met the GA criteria. Looking at the article now, I think this still is the case. I do not like, nor do I want to take part in, any behind the scene allegations and recriminations. The article was stable enough before this reassessment was proposed and instability should not therefore be used as a reason to delist it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• No one is doubting your good faith in reviewing this article. It is possible for one to write a promotional article without having a connection to the subject which appears to be what has happened here. Ca2james (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I have no connection - NONE - and if you accuse of COI one more time this is going to ANI. I very weary of the false allegations and I've you to stop. This is nothing but pure harassment and you may get blocked for it. Atsme 20:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I misread and struck my comment. The continuing allegations of promotion are worrisome. Reviewers know what is and isn't promotional. I hardly think an editor with 1700 edits would have better insight than a reviewer who has reviewed and written more articles than you have edits. You're not making a strong case. I've gone through as have a few other editors and removed what might be considered promotional. Listing a reputable doctor's certifications is not promotional, especially a doctor whose been around for a long time and has accumulated quite a few certs and achievements. Excuse but that's what makes him notable. Atsme 21:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The use of words and phrases like "pioneered", "recognized internationally", "devoted" and sentences like "In November 1956, a young Racz and his wife, Enid, fled Budapest with his sister and her husband at a time when hundreds of thousands of Hungarian refugees fled the country in fear of Soviet reprisal, taking nothing but the clothes on their backs." and "His techniques ... have been described in numerous books and published journal articles." read as promotional, especially since there is a lack of independent sources confirming these characterizations.

I don't understand why you're focusing on my edit count. I know I still have lots to learn, but recognising promotional language and seeing problems doesn't require thousands of edits. Ca2james (talk) 15:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Read your comments and criticisms. They explain why. Words like "pioneered" and "recognized internationally" are facts, not promotion. When writing prose, it needs to be accurate, RS, engaging and when an editor has a subject like Racz to write about, it's easy to be engaging because the facts speak for themselves. I agreed with you regarding the need for MEDRS citations - that's done. I rewrote the list of credentials that you were so concerned over copyvio when there was no reason for it. You want to strip the article of everything that confirms his notability and that is just plain ludicrous. WP articles are not supposed to read like a scientific journal entry which are a long way from engaging readers, say for example an impressionable 15 yr. old with aspirations to be a doctor. --Atsme 15:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

The words, phrases, and sentences I identified are WP:PEACOCK words which are promotional. If there were independent sources that verified those words then they could be used. One of the "pioneered" uses is sourced to a book without page numbers or chapter identificaton so it can't be verified as independent from the subject. Could you please check the book and cite the chapter and page number supporting the statement? Each chapter has different authors.

Also, prose can be engaging and interesting without using promotional language. This is an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper article or an essay and the facts need to be stated as neutrally as possible, without adding unsupported promotion or drama. A phrase like taking nothing but the clothes on their backs isn't neutral because it's designed to evoke an emotional response. A better wording might be left all their belongings behind or took nothing with them. If I thought my edit would stay I'd make the change but you've reverted most of the edits other editors have made so I'm not going to make it now.

The journal articles you've added don't appear to be review articles, which are available and which should be used instead of these primary sources - so no, those sources aren't MEDRS-compliant. The guideline is malleable but that's no excuse not to use the best possible sources.

I was removing the section on awards not because I thought they didn't belong (although many are professional affiliations, not awards), but because they were a COPYVIO, as I discussed at length on the article Talk page. The appropriate thing to do when a COPYVIO is determined is to rework or remove the material. I needed time to rework it so I removed it; I figured that the article wouldn't suffer too much without that section and that incomplete was better than COPYVIO. You've replaced the section and changed the order of some of the sentences. However, much of the wording is the same as before and so that problem isn't solved either.

tl;dr:This article still has problems. Ca2james (talk) 04:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

That's your opinion. You have never reviewed an article and you are disputing the assessment of a long time reviewer who has performed numerous reviews. How many reviews have you been through? Should we believe the assessment of a fairly new editor with 1700 edits, or the assessment of an experienced reviewer and editor who has earned 2 Half-Million Awards for getting 2 articles promoted to FA, and a Million and Qtr Million Awards for getting 2 articles promoted to GA, not counting all the other GAs and FAs. Do you know what I'm referring to and what it involves? WP:CIR Please spend some time reading some GA and FA because there are two editors who have created and collaborated on GAs and FAs who disagree with you. You need to take that into consideration. Atsme 05:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The refs do not support the content of the article is an additional problem. The promotional wording remains. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

That's a pretty general statement, Doc. What refs are you referring to and what statement? When I went back and reviewed it, I didn't see it. Are you here to collaborate, or are you acting as a reviewer of the GA reassessement? I realize you challenged the GA promotion, but you are being rather general in your "challenges" and haven't been attempting to fix what are minor sourcing issues. It appears you want citations on almost every single sentence which is unreasonable. Atsme 17:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Concerns are mentioned on the talk page Talk:Gabor_B._Racz#Text_not_supported_by_refs_provided Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

It is not unreasonable to expect that WP:PEACOCK words would be sourced. When sentences are challenged it is reasonable to expect them to be cited to an appropriate RS. If he is truly internationally recognized for something, that can be found in, say, textbooks on that subject rather than a bio on spineuniverse (that was most likely provided by the BLP subject or a member of his staff). Ca2james (talk) 18:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes there are lots of sources MDs can pay to promote themselves. We should not be using those sources as refs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• Delist Article has ongoing issues with peacock references. Low quality references are present. Had content not supported by references and likely there's more issues. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose delisting This appears to a retaliatory request which is not being made in GF. It may also be a case of bias (unintentional perhaps). They are calling established facts promotion, which goes beyond ridiculous. When we say "internationally recognized for his work" that is not promotion. He is internationally recognized and the sky is blue - it doesn't require a citation. The man is a founder of the World Pain Institute. These two editors are creating issues that don't exist and it is based on POV. The man is nearing 80 and has accomplished so much in his career that it would be impossible to list all of it. Any of the sources in the article already establish his notability. It is not necessary to cite each individual sentence. Atsme 19:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome to your perspective. However states like "it doesn't require a citation" sort of contravene WP:V Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

More generalizations with nothing to back it up. We don't source every single sentence in a BLP. This is not a medical article. I provided sources for all of it and they are RS. Your arguments are not substantive. Read your own comments about sources at Kombucha. Atsme 19:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

We specifically do source every controversial point in a BLP. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• Delist article is WP:PROMO per reviewers instincts as described here, and the medical content is not well handled or sourced, all as described on the Talk page.Jytdog (talk) 20:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• Delist due to promotional content and poor sourcing. Note that author is reverting almost all changes to the article. Ca2james (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I can only offer that with the specific participation it would be best to seek an official close. Most everyone here, if not everyone here, has previously had a dispute with Atsme. The situation as it is, I wouldn't call anyone uninvolved.

Atsme, I'd ask you to calm down a moment and consider what's being said. This article is not about Kombucha or Gorski. The English Misplaced Pages is a very large project with numerous contributors. There are numerous rules and their application can seem to vary wildly but the rules are not hard and fast. The way things have unfolded over the past few I could see you as reasonably annoyed. Let me ask you though if right now your response are because you are annoyed or because you actually disagree.

Everyone else I ask that you consider waiting for a few days before seeking an official close.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• Delistor it makes a farce out of the whole GA system--and--much worse-- will contribute to the general growth of promotionalism in WP by making it appear to newcomers as if it were a model to follow. It's actually a very helpful illustration of what to avoid. The reason why Atsme might be "annoyed" at what has been happening is if she had believed it also, in which case he too is among those who have been confused by bad reviewing and our previous tolerance of promotionalism. The time for tolerating it is over, and we need to make that clear. This should never have been approved as a GA in the first place, her recent changes have made it worse, and his resistance to edits by others gives the appearance of ownership. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing being promoted in the article. I've already worked over the sources. If the arm chair coaches think they can improve them even more, then we're on our way to FA. The man is nearing 80, he earned a Lifetime Achievement Award, he is world renowned, and he has improved the quality of people's lives. Facts are not promotion. The original reviewer didn't fall off a pumpkin truck yesterday. He stands by his original assessment and also noted, "the behind the scenes allegations and recriminations". What is the purpose in delisting this article? It has nothing to do with improving the encyclopedia. Atsme 05:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I will second that the at least a majority of the group of those seeking to delist have had various issues with Atsme in the past. It just doesnt look good. AlbinoFerret 17:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Many of us have had interactions with a large majority of the editors on Misplaced Pages. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
    • It was more than just simple "interactions" - it was ill-will, some of which dates back to WP:AVDUCK. I have always been cooperative and reasonable about addressing substantive issues and I have done my best to be polite. What is happening here now is over the edge retaliation. Atsme 17:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, drama aside, have you reviewed carefully what has been said? Involvement doesn't prevent participation. A uninvolved closer is going to review the facts presented and not personal issues that may have been involved.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, why are you saying " If the arm chair coaches think they can improve them even more" when you revert the changes? That's WP:OWNership. If you want this to be kept as GA, it might be wise to stay away from it for a while and let others work on it. DGG ( talk ) 19:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

That User Atsme states here that copyright infringement never occured I find very concerning. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• Keep GA status According to everything Cwmhiraeth writes above, especially "The article was stable enough before this reassessment was proposed and instability should not therefore be used as a reason to delist it". Albino is correct too, it doesn't look good. This can be shown by a review of the iVotes in the two or three attempts to delete her "Advocacy Ducks" essay, ano other more recent articles in which she has been active. petrarchan47คุก 19:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

stable, yes: stable, and of low quality. I would have rated it C at the highest. At this point, it's beginning to look like a candidate for AfD. DGG ( talk ) 00:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

You aren't getting the point, DGG - when an entire section is reverted claiming copyvio (it's a list of credentials from a CV so copyvio is ridiculous to begin with), I accommodated the reason for removal which is why you see: *https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gabor_B._Racz&diff=670089362&oldid=670075539 (restore and reword passages)] That isn't a revert - that's accommodating the criticism even though I disagree with it. I reworded it;

• [https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gabor_B._Racz&diff=670090721&oldid=670089362 (add pubmed citation) - that means I added the citation where the inline template was added;
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gabor_B._Racz&diff=670097038&oldid=670090896 (add source) - again, accommodating the criticism, and jumping through hoops held by the armchair critics;
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gabor_B._Racz&diff=670102114&oldid=670098510 (fix syntax) - again, accommodating what Doc James pointed out in his list, then you came back and reverted it in error, so it isn't me reverting, it's you.
• DGG removed what he termed as promotionalism What you did was make the prose unreadable and reverted back to the mistake I corrected.
• Example of what's being called promotionalism - "In November 1956, a young Racz and his wife, Enid, fled Budapest with his sister and her husband at a time when hundreds of thousands of Hungarian refugees fled the country in fear of Soviet reprisal, taking nothing but the clothes on their backs." DGG changed that sentence to read, "In November 1956, Racz and his wife, Enid, fled Budapest along with hundreds of thousands of other Hungarians." Oh really? Why did they flee Hungary? Please don't pick my work apart when what you're doing is hacking up this article. I'm not going to go through each and every revert. What's happening here is retaliatory and it began with a false allegation at COIN. BTW - check the ARBCOM emails when you get a chance. Atsme 01:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
• I just finished adding the last two citations (citation needed & not in source templates). Doc James tweaked the words he felt were peacock - for example, "pioneered" to "developed". I still believe some of the man's credentials should restored. Alex removed that he was a founder of the World Institute of Pain saying it wasn't notable. Sorry, but I disagree. If he was a founder of a neighborhood pain clinic, maybe, but the World Institute of Pain? Atsme 03:53, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
• atsmePromotionalism may not be the best word but it's direct. Them fleeing budapest seem is written sensationally and in wikipedia voice specifically. Maybe you could use text attribution to quote Racz specifically about his life story. Care has to be written in how things are written in wikipedia voice. I think that may have been the point that was trying to be made by.. Who called it promotionalism?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The fleeing part is actually toned down. It was an historic event and it should be engaging. For example, In June 1956, a violent uprising by Polish workers in Poznań was put down by the government, with scores of protesters killed and wounded. Responding to popular demand, in October 1956, the government appointed the recently rehabilitated reformist communist Władysław Gomułka as First Secretary of the Polish United Workers' Party, with a mandate to negotiate trade concessions and troop reductions with the Soviet government. After a few tense days of negotiations, on 19 October the Soviets finally gave in to Gomułka's reformist demands. News of the concessions won by the Poles, known as Polish October, emboldened many Hungarians to hope for similar concessions for Hungary and these sentiments contributed significantly to the highly charged political climate that prevailed in Hungary in the second half of October 1956. Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956 A featured article, as well it should be. Atsme 05:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The Soviet occupation of Hungary is well known. There is no denying it. There's alot of interesting history tied to it as well, I'll add. This article should indeed be engaging but not sensational as it is a BLP. BLP places extra emphasis on specific polices and guidelines. Has Racz perhaps discussed this time in his life? What are his words on the subject? Perhaps you could quote him. You will be attributing this information to him and not be speaking in wikipedia voice. That's an option to discuss here.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:53, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The Soviet occupation of Hungary is indeed well known. The subject's role in it was as one of many refugees, and warrants only a mention, and a link to our article, for the benefit of those who want to check what happened then. Elaborating on it here is absurd. It affected his life, the same as for the hundreds of thousands of others, but only the same, not in any noteworthy way for the point of view of any reader here. DGG ( talk ) 03:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

SJP, I cited 3 sources including this one , and yes there are quotes that could be used. We're talking about a couple of sentences in the article now. I did not delve that deeply into his personal life or his escape from Hungary but it may be something to consider for expansion to FA promotion. I think we can both agree that BLPs shouldn't be dry and boring. Just the thought of it makes me cringe. FA criteria expects the prose to be engaging or even brilliant. In fact, I've thought about presenting a proposal to WMF to make our BLPs something on the line of the following: , or at least offer some options for a "read". It would help people with sight handicaps. It may even engage more children. We want people to read and use the encyclopedia and to trust its accuracy. Think about all the good Bill Nye, the science guy did with his unconventional approach to engaging an audience. Of course, I'm not suggesting anything that extreme, but the old mindset that our writing must be flat and boring is ludicrous. Innovation is at the very core of Misplaced Pages so it makes sense that we should be innovative as well to attract more readers and editors. Another thought I had was adding closed captioning to some of the videos. I plan to submit such a project to WMF as soon as this craziness is over. Atsme 15:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

A comparison of the article on some medium-important scientist to Einstein, and used to justify similar detail, makes it evident that the article is intended as puffery; I cannot believe the ed. doesn't realize the relative importance. This happens frequently enough that it needs a name: perhaps we should call the argument Einstein's Law of WP. When people look in an encycopedia, they typically want great detail about the most important subjects. This is the difference between writing an encyclopedia article that fits in anomy the many other articles in an appropriate fashion, and writing a free-standing biography, where one usually does take the opportunity to include everything one can, even if they are just historical events that happened at the same time--because usually there isn;t enough material otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 03:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Your comment is a head scratcher for sure. I don't know how you came up your summary, DGG, but it doesn't even remotely resemble the point I made or what I was I suggesting. Atsme 04:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

This seems to have abruptly just stopped. Prolly a good idea to seek an official close at this point. Anyone have any further comment?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Racz procedure

Just wanted to say that from a layperson's perspective, the rewrite of that section is clearly an improvement. Good job!! Atsme 20:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Thanks also for tweaking the wording a bit. Apologies for taking so long to get those changes done; I had to learn about the procedure and everything before I could write about it and that takes time. I think there's still more to say about the catheter and its development, use, and reception (including the company he founded to manufacture it). I've seen some reports on problems with the catheter (apparently the tip can sometimes break off) but I think that information would belong in an article on the catheter itself, if one exists. Ca2james (talk) 15:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

You are quite welcome. I can't think of anything more satisfying than GF collaboration. GF collaboration can be quite satisfying. It's all about the syntax. Atsme 15:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Good article nominees
• Good article nominees on review
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class biography articles
• C-Class biography (science and academia) articles
• Low-importance biography (science and academia) articles
• Science and academia work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class medicine articles
• Low-importance medicine articles
• C-Class society and medicine articles
• Mid-importance society and medicine articles
• Society and medicine task force articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• C-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• C-Class Texas articles
• Mid-importance Texas articles
• WikiProject Texas articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• C-Class Hungary articles
• Low-importance Hungary articles
• All WikiProject Hungary pages
• Delisted good articles
• Misplaced Pages Did you know articles