Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:07, 6 September 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

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)

New GA nomination

I see that this article has been re-nominated as a GA. I don't think it's ready for GA as it's still missing info about the regional pain procedures he's involved with as well as info about his company, which means the article incomplete. The prose, sourcing, and structure also need work. I am working on all of this but it's going to take time to improve this article. Thanks. Ca2james (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Doc James already said it was ready. The article laid idle until I nominated it for GA today, and now you suddenly show up to destabilize it? Please stand down. Pain procedures belong in a separate medical article about such procedures. We don't need such detail in a biography. As for company information, we've mentioned it enough for this biography. If you want to create a spin-off article about the company go ahead. Furthermore, the additional information needs to be RS, and it can always be added later to expand the article for potential FA promotion. One step at a time - let the GA process proceed without further disruption, and stop eliminating biographical content. Atsme 21:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Doc James said that it is way better than it was, which is not at all the same thing as saying it's ready for GA review. If you want to remove the pain procedures, go ahead; I expanded them because they were already there. There's still nothing in the article about the company he started, and there probably should be, because that's part of his history.

The article still needs a lot of work because I'm still finding problems with it. For example, references didn't support that Ian McWhinney helped him - one said that he received unnamed help and the other was an acknowledgement for unspecified help in a book. Putting them together to state that McWhinney helped Racz is OR. Also, the name of the co-director in the article, Mark Boswell, was not supported by references.

But whatever. I'm going to continue to work on the article to improve it (I hadn't noticed that you'd re-nominated it until I was a few edits in) and we'll let the GA review process go ahead even though I think it's way premature. Ca2james (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Adding: I'm wrong about him starting a company, and I apologize for that confusion. According to the company's history, the company was started by Gabor J. Racz, and this is Gabor B. Racz. This is great news because it means the article isn't lacking in this way. Ca2james (talk) 00:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I prefer to not remove anything that is informational and actually hope we can find more to expand the article. As you may already be aware, it's difficult to find MEDRS quality for biographical content, especially for academics, so we use the best we can find including self-published, local newspapers, CVs, etc. The article needs to be rebuilt to where it was before so much of his biographical material was removed. The prose needs to be engaging, not flat as what some have suggested. Flat works with medical articles, not biographies. Fortunately, GAs don't have a minimum prose requirement but if we ever hope to get it promoted to FA, it needs more content. FA reviewers don't like outlines. They want to know the what, why, where, and how. Example, he fled Hungary. Really? Why? With whom did he leave? How did escape? Where did he go? How did he get there? What did he do when he got there? I'm not saying to include trivial info but we do need more biographical content. Once we have it all together, we can start paring it down by tightening the prose. See . Atsme 01:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I see your point. I do think we have to be careful not to turn the article into something dramatic. I think you're very talented at writing stuff for TV to convey a message but here we're trying to be neutral in relating what happened. So we don't want to use the kind of language that TV does - we want to describe what happened without the dramatic context.

With respect to the positions be held at SUNY, my principle objection is with the phrasing "duties included" because that reads like a resume or cv. I admit that I jumped the gun in removing that sentence as it can be reworked, and I apologise for that. Going forward, I'll try to rework something before outright removal. Please know that when I've removed text that isn't supported by its refs I have looked for a new ref.

I agree that there aren't alot of great sources for articles like this so we'll work with what we have. Ca2james (talk) 03:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Your response is so uplifting, I'm at a loss for words. Thank you!! It represents everything I'm accustomed to in GF collaboration. You made my day, Ca2james! Atsme 23:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The two paragraphs on medical procedures are inappropriate. WP is not a surgical textbook. Nor are the references for them acceptable.MedRS applies to medical content: Refs 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 20, 21, and 22 should not be used here for any purpose. Ref 16, is OK; it illustrates some of the exceptions: it documents the original report on new technique that is shown by secondary sources to be notable.

Additionally,all the book references need some context, as usual with printed book. It is necessary to show that they are more than mere mentions. Thisis especially the case when the ref is to a single page or a pair of adjacent pages.

I am not sure there is sufficient usable material here to ever be GA; in any case I am quite sure that at present there is not. "there aren't alot of great sources for articles like this so we'll work with what we have." is unacceptable for medical topics, and unacceptable for GA. GAs have good sources. DGG ( talk ) 23:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, DGG. I'm not so familiar with MEDRS and I didn't realize that those sources were inappropriate so I appreciate your input. When I said that there aren't a lot of great sources I was referring to his life and career, not the medical techniques. Not that poor sourcing for his life is much better! There just isn't much of anything out there on this doctor. Aside from the bios written in journals and the books he's published (and I don't know whether those are considered RS) there are a few articles in the Texas Tech paper and the local Lubbock paper but that's it. He did develop the Racz catheter and the Racz procedure but those facts don't seem to be written up anywhere. He's also one of the founders of WIP, but again that's not written up in independent sources. I'm at a loss as to what to do with this article; based on your comments I think most of it should be gutted. Is that right? I'd appreciate any advice or help you can give. Thanks. Ca2james (talk) 23:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree with DGG. See the following for my reasons:

• Robert_Cade
• George_Schaller
• Schwester_Selma
• Robert_White_(Virginia_physician)

Gabor B. Racz is a world-renowned physician and academic. It would be an absolute shame to slight any medical practitioner who has accomplished the milestones in pain medicine that he has accomplished. Atsme 23:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

One of the differences between those GAs and this article is that there are quite a few independent sources describing those people's notability. In this case, most of the sources describing Racz' accomplishments don't appear to be independent but are instead bios in journals and books. He might well be the greatest physician since sliced bread but we need independent sources telling us that.. and although I've looked for them I haven't seen them. Ca2james (talk) 00:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

As usual, I consider using really notable people to prove the notability of less important ones in the same profession an absurd line of argument. I'm going to give some advice--trying to bring this to GA was an error of judgment, for it merely called attention to its inadequacies. DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the excess surgical descriptions and the refs listed above as unsuitable. Because the reference numbering has now changed, I've copied the old refs here so that we know which ref is paired with which original number. Ca2james (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

McWhinney helping Racz

The references provided do not support the fact that Ian and Betty McWhinney helped Racz. The Acknowledgements page says I wish to dedicate this book to Ian McWhinney, M. D. and his wife Betty ... all of who helped and made my professional life possible at those times when help was most needed. There's no indication there that this help was to get him into medical school. Therefore, we cannot conclude that McWhinney and his wife did help hget into medical school. The other ref says that an unnamed someone helped him get into medical school. To conclude that it was McWhinney based on those two sources is OR.

Since the refs don't support this fact, I've removed that text again. If there is a source that specifically says McWhinney helped him get into medical school then the text could be re-added with that source. I couldn't find one, though. Ca2james (talk) 03:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it was OR and you fixed it; so have gone back to your text. Alexbrn (talk) 03:52, 4 August 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