Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Gabor B. Racz/1

Gabor B. Racz

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

Result pending

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)