Talk:Paul M. Fleiss/Archive 1

Archive 1

Unconventional views

I deleted the italicized clause in the following sentence. "Fleiss is best known for his unconventional medical views; he is a strong critic of circumcision, and while he recommends that children in his practice receive recommended vaccines, he does not insist upon it." The juxtaposition of that clause with the statement that he is best known for unconventional medical views is misleading and very non-neutral POV. While he is a strong critic, being critical of circumcision is hardly an "unconventional" medical view. Yes, in the US it's probably an uncommon view, and it's probably very uncommon to have a strong opinion against circumcision there, too. However, when you consider the English-speaking medical community as a whole, such views are probably fairly conventional actually. He's clearly not Andrew Wakefield, but his attitude toward vaccination may very well be unconventional. Being on the board of an AIDS denialist organization does make your views "unconventional" to say the least. Most anti-circ people are against it on moral grounds- that it's wrong to amputate part of someone's body when they can't consent to the procedure (and there isn't imminent risk of major harm). Yes, the article cited did contain a section with similar phrasing to what was in the previous version, but that doesn't mean that it's neutral POV. I would argue that his most unconventional belief is AIDS denialism. That is what should be written after the semicolon, not something abou this stance on circumcision. Also note that there are plenty of other places in the article in which his views on circ are mentioned, so I'm not removing any information. --Prepuce4Life (talk) 08:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Circumfetishists

Circumfetishists keep pointing out that Paul M. Fleiss is a convicted fellon. This is true; but unfortunately however, delibrately misleading; it is devoid of context. He was convicted "in a prostitution ring". Since nothing is wrong with prostitution, Paul M. Fleiss never did anything wrong. Mentioning his conviction of an unjust law, prejustices people against Paul M. Fleiss. Since antiprostitution-laws are unjust and the conviction has absolutely nothing to do with the work of Paul M. Fleiss, it is best not to mention it as irrelevant and biased. ?alabio 04:21, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The problem with pointing out that he's a convicted felon is not that the way in which it is done is misleading or anything. The type of felony doesn't really matter too much here. Certainly whether one is for or against anti-prostitution laws is irrelevant. The problem here is that mentioning it, especially in that way, is a smear tactic, an ad hominem logical fallacy. They're trying to discredit anti-circ beliefs by associating them with "immoral, crime-committing low-lifes." You were correct to say that the conviction has nothing to do with his work. What's important here is that ideas are independent of those who think them--they have merit on their own. This is why I deleted the reference to his circ beliefs in a sentence characterizing his views as unconventional. Including his circ beliefs in that sentence was an attempt to associate his anti-circ stance with his unconventional vaccine stance. Perhaps whoever added that sentence knew that if they also threw in the most controversial view, his AIDS-denying, the gambit would be too obvious (perhaps it's also because the sentence was practically plagiarized from the cited article). Also, while I think the term "circumfetishsts" is a hilarious and easily understood term to characterize the pro-circ'ers, it is probably too non-neutral (even for a discussion page) and tends to discredit you in the minds of the pro-circ'ers. --Prepuce4Life (talk) 08:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

since antiprostitution-laws are unjust

since antiprostitution-laws are unjust, This is a blatant POV. (One that I happen to agree with, but that doesn't matter). I removed the possibly prejudicial "convicted felon" language which, while accurate, possibly introduces a more-than-necessary negative slant. - Hephaestos 04:37, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Quick Fleiss article

Well, well... I just wanted to make a quick on Dr. Fleiss... I knew this great man personally, and my wife new him better. He was her Pediatrician when she was a baby, then became the ONLY Dr. that we would take our girls too. My wife would call him aT NIGHT AT HIS HOME, IN HIS BED, WAKING HIM UP, [sometimes] to ask the siliest things. But I have NEVER met, nor do I feel that I will EVER meet a Pediatrician as good as him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kooligan (talk • contribs) 06:51, September 11, 2005

Absolutely - in the 1970's when my parents where working class poor and me and my brothers came down with somthing he paid my family a house call - unheard of! And when I was misdiagnosed for appendicitis my Mom called him in the middle of the night - he sent one of his associates to check up on me and with the correct diagnosis I was sent to the emergency room. Let me just state what the person above said - I have NEVER met, nor do I feel that I will EVER meet a Pediatrician as good as him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.231.161.94 (talk • contribs) 23:22, December 2, 2006

AIDS

Can someone add a link to the current legal battle regarding Dr. Fleiss's care for Eliza Jane Scovill, the daughter of AIDS dissident activist Christine Maggiore? Eliza Jane died at 3 years old of untreated AIDS infection. This is an ongoing proceeding with the California Medical Board. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.26.135 (talk • contribs) 03:48, April 9, 2007

It was not Fleiss but a Doctor who works as his associate - I do not know the status of the case. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.33.44.66 (talk) 21:48, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

Dubious

Paul Fleiss was born in 1933. Mike Fleiss was born in 1964. It is extremely unlikely that they are brothers. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. I see that it's been fixed. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Removal of sourced info

What is the reason for this edit? The edit summary states "BLP violation, license was preserved following harassment allegations", but this seems rather unsatisfactory, and an explanation would be appreciated. Jakew (talk) 21:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

soory for too brief edit summary. As a living person, who has constantly been accused of stuff as a form of harrassment, trying to get at HEidi, the allegations in this case were found in his favor. Listing allegations at Wiki violates BLP, especially when the medical board sided with him. The case cited in the article was particularly unsavory, given the actual circumstances found. Newspapers report allegations just fine, but if you are not found to have done anything wrong, they do not print any story on it. The medical board sided with him. Tautologist (talk) 22:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Easily fixed - I've gone back to the drawing board and rewritten the article using only reliable sources, and sticking closely to their content. This should hopefully alleviate any WP:BLP concerns. We now cover both the accusations of gross negligence against Fleiss as well as the ultimate resolution of the case, in which the medical board reached a settlement involving oversight and monitoring of Fleiss' practice. I think the facts perhaps contradict the blanket claim that "the medical board sided with him", but with the new and better sourcing the reader can see the details for him/herself. MastCell ^Talk 22:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Putting an allegation of a role in a death in a living person bio is not appropriate, especially when he was found to have had no such role. The person whose daughter died was the major proponent of the view that HIV did not cause AIDS, and refused the tests. So they tried to find something, like they found he loaned his daughter a few hundred dollars, then prosecuted him for tax evasion for not reporting this tiny loan. A person who has one of the most extensive bios in the medical profession should not have isolated harassment allegations included, as they are NN. He has litterally thousnads of publications and speaking engagements, has spent a lifetime doing volunteer work for free, and this is just one of many nuisance suits that he has been forced to settle, with specific no admission of guilt. They simply found some long gone secretary from almost 20 years ago did not keep perfect records. So the matter shuold not be in Wiki as Not Notable. Tautologist (talk) 22:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand your perspective that Fleiss was unfairly targeted in both the Scovill case and in his daughter's case. However, Wikipedia prioritizes verifiable material from reliable sources over personal editorial opinion, for obvious reasons. It is a notable aspect of his biography that he was convicted of several felonies in connection with his daughter's case, and notable that he was investigated in the Scovill case. The notability of these events is evident from their coverage in reliable sources. It may be appropriate to add more material about Fleiss' medical career, publications, and so forth; the first step in doing so is to obtain reliable sources which can be used to document and verify these aspects of his biography. WP:BLP enjoins us from including unsourced or poorly sourced negative material in biographies, but it also mandates that we avoid turning them into promotional press releases, and that well-sourced and notable events be accurately represented even if they potentially reflect unfavorably on the subject. MastCell ^Talk 23:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This doctor has published hundreds, if not thousands of academic papers. He has won large numbers of awards from numerous organizations. He plead guilty to one day, "time served", a standard plea to get on with one's life. The woman who accused him regarding AIDS was notorious as an advisor to Thabo Mbeki regarding NOT doing HIV tests. This article is incredibly unbalanced. Any professional colleague who reviewed his stellare career would likely chuckle if they read it. The reason he was in LA Times was he was famous long before Heidi was, as an early advocate, using scientific evidence, of health bennifits of diet and exeercise, unconventional at the time, but now the standard of the industry. He was also in volumes of news stories as the "pediatrician of the stars", Madonna, DiCaprio, Harrison Ford, DeNiro, Pameal Anderson, Cindy Crawford,......... It is in no way notable for a celebrity to be in a constant court situation with nuisance suits. It is especially unprofessional to list an unfounded allegation like "gross neglegence", when there was no such finding, only very minor check the box stuff from areceptionist 20 years ago. Please go back and look at the article, and see if it is in any way appropriate or balanced given his professional history, massive publishing history, numerious awards, groundbreaking medical methodology, and celebrity as the pediatrician of choice of people who could go anywhere. Also missing is the lifetime of pro bono work, work for the poor, work for free in 3rd world countries, etc. The article is entirely unbalanced and unscholarly. A few hours of his life at a hearing in which they could not find anything, and they dig everywhere they can on celebrities, related to the allegations does not belong in the article even as an appendage to a lenghty article. Just one more example, he was notable internationally for fighting his accuser and Mbeki over refusing to recognize HIV, and is one of the priniciple national spokespersons rgarding overprescribig drugs, and superficial statistical results used to massively sell drugs. Nothing at all on the corporate blocking of breast feeding in order to sell powdered milk to 3rd world countries, nothing on early recommedndations on micronutrients, now basic med school stuff, nothing on a huge career advocating medical care for the poor. This article is grossly imbalanced and unscholarly. Tautologist (talk) 23:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The obvious solution, if you think that the article is unbalanced, is to add reliable sources to the article that discuss some of the points you've mentioned. Jakew (talk) 00:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I would echo Jakew here: sources would be more useful than further argumentation. Regarding the claim that Fleiss has published "hundreds, if not thousands of academic papers": PubMed searches on "fleiss p[au]" and "fleiss pm[au]" each return 28 hits. Most of these appear to be letters to the editor. He published a review article in 1998 (PMID 10195034). In terms of original research, he has a handful of papers (4-8 or so) from the late 70's/early 80's, mostly on the excretion of various pharmaceuticals in breast milk. I'm not seeing dozens, let alone hundreds, of academic papers; is there another source for this? Am I misreading the PubMed results? MastCell ^Talk 03:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

1. Why was this sentence deleted, Laura Huxley called Fleiss the man most like Aldous Huxley.? There was a whole segment on hism at the three day Symposium. He has volunteered on Huxly's Children Are Our Ultimate Investment organization since its inception. This is but one sentence from a long tribute at 4th International Confernece of the Aldous Huxley Society. 2. You have not addressed the inappropriateness of a gross neglegence allegation involving an AIDS death, made by one of trhe world's foemost advocates of the ridiculous position that HIV is a hoax, and there were no findings of any remote role, as the aarticle says. This is more like a National Inquirer article than an encyclopedia article on a major contributor to medical literature and proactice. Tautologist (talk) 03:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Re your first question, the citation given is rather confusing. Are the proceedings in a work published by Huntington Library? If so, what's the ISBN, and on what page may the quotation be found? If not, is it an unpublished manuscript held by Huntington Library? That would seem questionable as a reliable source. Re your second question, neither the article nor the sources seem to confirm your statement that Fleiss had no role. See the 'culpability' and 'disciplinary order' sections of the Board's Decision, for example. Also, several mainstream news sources have discussed the complaint, so I don't understand your argument that it isn't noteworthy. Incidentally, I found this statement (from the Seattle Times) rather fascinating: 'Fleiss, who said he could be "convinced either way" on whether HIV causes AIDS...'[1] Jakew (talk) 13:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It is the transcript of the proceedings, available from Society director Bernfried Neugel germany. The proceedings included scholars from all over the world, diversley ranging from Sangjuka Dasgupta, Chair of the English Department at Calcutta, to Bernhard Trout, professor of chemical engineering at MIT. Yes, he could be convinced either way, with adequate scientific data, as Fleiss commonly says, but Fleiss is publicly scathing in his derision of the silly HIV assertion, as in his talks before the skeptic society at CFI West. Recall that Fleiss was an early public proponent of notification of the potential for HIV transmission in breast feeding, and won nuemerous awards for this early notification (La Leche, etc.) He commonly says the same thing about religions, that "I could be convinced either way, but you have not porvided any convincing evidence." A problem of being a pediatrician for many of the biggest celebrities of Hollywood is tabloid-like coverage of medical positions. (Incidentally, I am usually the guy who is on the other side from Fleiss in dabates, especially thinking he has too open a mind, wasiting time examining kooky medical claims with a serious eye looking for possible science behind unusual claims.) Tautologist (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

HIV and breast milk

Incidentally, I found this statement (from the Seattle Times) rather fascinating: 'Fleiss, who said he could be "convinced either way" on whether HIV causes AIDS...'[2] Jakew (talk) 13:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Re - HIV above - (My personal “def of alternative medicine” is – “stuff that didn’t work when tested” or “an oxymoron with the word medicine in it”) -

Recall Fleiss was an early advocate for alerting the public to possible HIV transmission in breast milk, and even more early advocate of health benefits of breast feeding when the world culture favored convincing 3rd world mothers not to breast feed and instead buy corporate powdered milk, both positions born out.

If anything, a criticism of Fleiss might be that he is not instantly dismissive of alternative medicine claims. When a normal person might be dismissive of the claims at the outset and ignore them, Fleiss carefully reads the study and finds what is actually wrong the reasoning, both on alternative claims and on exaggerated “effectiveness” claims produced by biased “for profit” pharmaceutical and surgery industry “studies”. As a good practicing pediatrician, he also listens carefully to children’s claims to find grains of information, and in a non-dismissive way. Most medical associations recommend when a patient comes in with an “alternative” belief, the practitioner is advised not to be dismissive, but to try to incorporate the alternative belief into a framework supplemented with real medicine, else the advice is likely to be ignored if there is a conflict with pre-existing belief. This is a matter of practice methodology, not acceptance of the alternative beliefs. If such advice is picked up out of context by the tabloid press, it could sound like the doctor is a kook or religious fanatic, when they are only practicing per best professional standards, so patients do not ignore science based medical advice. Fleiss may carry this to an extreme, but the assertion that he in any way does not recognize HIV is way off. Tautologist (talk) 16:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Criminal Biography Project

I don't know all the policies, but should he really be in this portal? I'd argue that the only people who should be in a portal for "criminal biographies" are those who are primarily notable for their criminal records. It seems clear that Dr. Fleiss is not primarily known for the 1-day he served in jail. It seems like this is just another attempt to discredit his ideas by discrediting him. --Prepuce4Life (talk) 08:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed replacement for "neutrally balanced" content

• Re- Wikipedia content balance - I was at a celebrity dinner party on 8-19. I had previously described a conversation I had with a Caltech professor regarding her mathematical analysis of the progression of colored “contour lines” on soap film and applications to space based solar mirrors. A well known producer quipped in retort that there is a new reflective-film face-spray that causes a flash to cover a celebrity’s face for privacy when a paparazzi shoots a picture with a flash bulb. When I later cited Wikipedia as a source on another topic, the producer’s wife laughed loudly, and everyone looked at me with a derisive sneer as their opinion of Wikipedia as my “source”. When I began to contribute to articles to Wiki a few weeks later, I was pleasantly surprised to find an unexpected rigor toward content, and a strong attempt to achieve neutrality through balance of content, in Wiki editors, with an attempt to omit a tabloid POV in favor of a scholastic tilt as in a “real” encyclopedia. I talked to Fleiss about the article, and he seemed like he could care less about the imbalance of coverage of his bio, with a “so what else is new” attitude, having already been the unwilling subject of paper selling tabloid content stories for decades. So neutrally balancing this article is more of a concern to Wikipedia contributors than those who are the subject of the articles.

• I think adding the tabloid stuff to a scholarly encyclopedia article, makes it closer to a tabloid newspaper article than an encyclopedia, especially given its exceedingly minor weight compared to long teaching career and voluminous history of scholarly medical publishing, as well as his lifelong volunteer work in a profession dominated by profit driven practitioners (and his soft spoken and low key personality). If there is insistence that the two tabloid events must be included, here is some suggested wording, which more accurately describes them.

“Due to inherited celebrity status from his daughter and high profile celebrity clients, including Leonardo DiCaprio, Madonna, Harrison Ford, Pamela Anderson, Robert DeNiro, and others, Fleiss was victim of harassment actions. Fleiss faced felony charges associated with a relatively small loan to his daughter, whereby an attempt was made to force his daughter to reveal alleged clients, as a parallel to charges brought against her, for which she was ultimately acquitted. This resulted in a “punishment” in name only, as part of a plea agreement to end the litigation costs, whereby he was given “1 day, time served” and required to continue for one year his already ongoing pro bono medical work for the poor, working as pediatrician in impoverished areas of Mexico, as a one year term of probation. A former client, known for her controversial belief that AIDS was not caused by HIV, made charges associated with her belief before the medical board. The medical board made no finding associated with the charges, but the board scrutiny of historic office medical records uncovered a minor technical record keeping violation from 15 years earlier made by his former receptionist, and he agreed to an outside review of his practice’s current record keeping for a period of two years as settlement. ”

I have had my own disagreements with Fleiss, having debated him twice, but they are related to scholarly methodological issues, such as the role of profit and hair splitting findings of effect in pharmaceutical drug testing of vaccines and other drugs, excessive prescription of drugs and surgery, and on the role of diet and exercise in health. Time found that he turned out to be correct in these debates, and I was not. I will replace the relevant sections with this wording, without deleting any of the references already in the article, unless there is objection here. Thnx. Tautologist (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Your proposed text is highly editorialized, and violates our verifiability, neutrality, and original-research policies. We have appropriately reliable sources; we've carefully, neutrally, and conservatively interpreted what they have to say. We cite absolutely no tabloids. There is no "tabloid coverage" in this article, unless you consider the New York Times and LA Times to be tabloids. Other venues may be more appropriate for telling this story from a point of view strongly sympathetic to Fleiss, but Wikipedia requires a neutral point of view. It appears clearly documented that there are legions of patients who have strong praise for Fleiss, and information of this sort could be added provided it is appropriately sourced (I tried to do this by noting the reams of supportive correspondence received by the California Medical Board when they considered sanctioning him recently).

However, I would like to see a stronger emphasis on appropriate sourcing, and less emphasis on personal opinion. You noted, above, the importance of strong sourcing to Wikipedia, but your proposals ignore this fundamental aspect of the encyclopedia. MastCell ^Talk 22:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes

Resolved

I reverted the edits referred to and the article was rebuilt from before these edits. Iam putting a resolved tag up, but please take it down if this is in error. I'm not sure I agree with this set of recent edits. They seem rather promotional and unbalanced, if not outright misleading. Anything remotely negative has either been systematically removed, or else transmuted into language so vague as to be essentially devoid of meaning. Meanwhile, a bunch of dubiously sourced or completely unsourced peacock language has been added. Obviously the article shouldn't be excessively negative, but it's currently moving in a completely unencylopedic and promotional direction, and is closer to a press kit than a serious encyclopedic biography. MastCell ^Talk 04:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Primary sources, such as unproven accusations in a medical board complaint, have no place in a BLP. This person has a very long career in academia and was one of the most saught after doctors in Southern California. This does not mean his beliefs in alternative medicine that being saught are rational or good, but that is an objective desciription of him. The artilce as I found it had primary source citations of accusations by an AIDS denier, and minor news coverage of it, which have no place in a BLP. It also had grossly WP:UNDUE coverage of an incident related to his daughter, which is an insignificant part of his stature meriting an encyclopedia article on a scholar and academician (a notbale one, but not necessarily a good one), famous in his own right, not derivatively via his daughter. WP is not an entertainment rag. An encyclopedia article about an Academician and Scholar should not pander to prurient interests of readers of newspapers. PPdd (talk) 05:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a stretch to say that Fleiss is a notable academician and scholar. His scholarly output is rather limited (as best I can tell from a PubMed search for "fleiss pm[au]") and certainly doesn't sustain the rather grandiose picture you're painting of his academic contributions to medicine. His connection to his daughter is a relevant part of his biography, although of course it should not be the sole component of it. MastCell ^Talk 07:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I've corrected some of the worst of the recent changes. Jakew (talk) 09:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Re MastCell's comment "I think it's a stretch to say that Fleiss is a notable academician and scholar" - The LA Times describes him as "Pediatrician, scholar and lecturer", and the cited Mothering Magzine describes him as "He is the author of numerous scientific articles published in leading national and international medical journals." What is your source that these sources are making a stretch? PPdd (talk) 06:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, we try to be careful about just repeating what the popular press says about medical topics - we don't always take their statements at face value. Doing a little editorial due diligence is not a bad thing. Can you point to a few scientific articles Fleiss has published? II | (t - c) 06:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is a secondary source on it - "He is the author of numerous scientific articles published in leading national and international medical journals." - Mothering: The Magazine of Natural Family Living, Winter 1997, pp. 36-45. A Google Scholar search produces 100 results, with an average of many citations each. That is a hundred articles ande thousands of citations of them, and this is all very late in his career, after most others stop publishing. From his age and date of birth, most of his publications would be expected to be in the 1960's and 1970's, so are not available online. He appears to be a prolific publisher even in his late years. PPdd (talk) 07:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

According to Google Scholar, he has only 38 publications, and many of those seem to be letters. "Prolific" is probably a bit of an exaggeration. Let's tone it down a bit. Jakew (talk) 08:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, the "Mothering" article you mention isn't a good source. It's a two-sentence bio at the start of one of his own articles (reprint here); magazines often ask authors to provide this biographical material themselves, so it's unlikely to be independent. It's also in the interests of the magazine to promote the author of their articles, which raises additional concerns about reliability. Jakew (talk) 09:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

This article is terrible and reads like an entertainment rag

Resolved

Paul Fleiss is a famous and sought after pediatrician in his own right. He was famous and massively published long before anyone had ever heard of his daughter. The article should be weighted towards the extensive international publications, extensive international lectureships, and the basis of his fame and popularity.

That does not necessarily mean the article would appear positive to all readers, especially if the basis of his popularity is promotion of alternative medicine or other pseudoscience. But as it now reads, it is as if he barely existed before his daughter came to notoriety, and the content is more appropriate to grocery store entertainment or scandal rags, not to an encycopedia. The section of the accusation by the bizarre Aids virus denier should be deleted altogether, since all that came of it was discovery of a minor technical violation in record keeping by his secretary, which is certainly WP:UNDUE in the context of a massive career of academic publication and international lectureships. It would likely never have even been investigated at all if not for the notoriety of the daughter at the time, and is more an appeal to scandal than what should be in an encyclopedia article on a scholar and academician doctor. PPdd (talk) 06:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem I'm having is that the language you're using here, and inserting into the article, is far more grandiose than I can find in actual independent, reliable sources. What sources do you have in mind which detail his extensive international publications etc.? His publication record in PubMed seems relatively limited, as best I can tell, but I may be missing something. MastCell ^Talk 07:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Re "extensive international publications" - "He is the author of numerous scientific articles published in leading national and international medical journals." - Mothering: The Magazine of Natural Family Living, Winter 1997, pp. 36-45. That is a secondary source so is dispositive. A Google Scholar search produces about 100 online articles, with about 1000 citations, but that is original reasearch, and we should stick to the secondary source I just quoted. PPdd (talk) 07:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Like MastCell, I can't see evidence of a "massive career of academic publication and international lectureships", and would ask you to source those claims. Fleiss appears to be notable in large part because of his controversial nature. It seems to me that being placed on probation by the state medical board is a notable event; it seems hard to justify its exclusion. And, as far as I can tell, it isn't an accusation by an AIDS denialist; rather, the medical board made the accusations in a case involving an AIDS denialist (the statement that "Fleiss, who said he could be "convinced either way" on whether HIV causes AIDS"[3] is of interest, I think.) Having said that, I would also agree that there is evidence that Fleiss is a very popular pediatrician with his patients, and that should also be included. Jakew (talk) 11:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Re evidence of a "massive career of academic publication and international lectureships", that is not the language in the article. I was unaware of international lectureships. Are there any? The article does not say "massive career of academic publication", but it is supported by "He is the author of numerous scientific articles published in leading national and international medical journals." in Mothering: The Magazine of Natural Family Living, Winter 1997, pp. 36-45.

I am very familiar with the statutes governing the California Medical Board and its authority. I have brought multiple cases before it. Someone makes a complaint (maybe it was someone other than the AIDS denier, they investigate, and they may make sanctions against the medical license if they find violations of medical laws or practice beneath the standard of care, or they make a referal to the district attorney if the violations are criminal. These are their only powers. They don't make "accusations", since what they say is not a mere accusation, but an actual finding that an accusation by another is true. In the case of Fleiss, the finding was "beneath the standard of care", by settlement agreement. I am not certain, but as I understand it, the issue was that Fleiss recommended antiviral medications to her, but the well known Aids virus denier refused to use them, because she was a denier and a well known one. When her kid died, Fleiss was accused of not having made a record of her refusal to do what he recommended. He was supposed to "insist" and strong arm her into it. It was a "prevailing standard of care" accusation that was made against Fleiss, not a law violation. The standard of care is to note when your patient refuses to do what you recommend. This is not a law, but a measure of what is normally done, called the "prevailing standard of care". PPdd (talk) 06:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

BLP violation, construction tag interference

Resolved

Jakew, why did you replace my placement of inline sources with quotes from the RS in the reference, with unsourced claims in a BLP, such as in the first sentence here, and delete my work just hours after I placed a construction tag? It is a BLP violation to put unsustantiated and unsourced negative information, and grossly WP:UNdue material in an article. PPdd (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

You'll have to be more specific, PPdd. You've linked to a diff showing the net effect of 22 revisions by two other users in addition to myself. Consequently it is impossible to understand which edits you find objectionable. I removed some of the material which you added because of problems that, generally speaking, I explained in my edit summaries. I did not delete all of your work, and I actually provided sources for some of the unsourced material which you added.

I see that you've performed a blanket revert; I trust that you'll redo the non-problematic edits shortly. Jakew (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I find any unsourced negative material in a BLP objectionable, such as the "circumcision" material you put in the opening sentences. I also find that putting material that appeals to prurient interests and would otherwise never be in an encyclopedia article about a famous scholar, lecturer, and pediatrician, widely famous long before his daughter, as being objectionable under WP:UNDUE. If you want to help improve the article, you might start by reading the 93 academic publications listed in the next section, then read the thousands of other academic articles that cite these publications as secondary sources. PPdd (talk) 18:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

So the only specific change that you seem to object to is the description of him as an "anti-circumcision activist". I made that change in this edit, which replaced one unsourced statement with another, as you can see from the diff, so your description of this as "replace my placement of inline sources with quotes from the RS in the reference, with unsourced claims" seems misleading, to say the least. The description is, moreover, trivial to source (take "Dr. Paul Fleiss, is a popular pediatrician in my neighborhood, known for his anti-circumcision/pro-family bed theories."[4] or "Paul Fleiss, the anti-circumcision crusader and tax-evading father of Hollywood madam Heidi Fleiss"[5]). Jakew (talk) 18:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I mainly object to the grossly WP:UNDUE unencyclopedic nature and history of this previously massively BLP violating article. When his daughter came to fame, he was accurately described as being widely known as a "pediatrician, scholar, and lecturer", and "one of the most saught after physicians". So the article should look like an article about a "pediatrician, scholar, and lecturer". It turns out that he was saught after because of many alternative medicine beliefs, which I poersonally consider to be dangerous, but which he rode the wave of to fame by the time of the stories on his daughter. The article should be mostly about his own achievements, and the academic world reaction to these in citations of his publications, with at most a small secion on his daughter. An 80 year old widely published and cited doctor and speaker, with thousands of citations of his publications and speaking engagements on hundreds of topics, with a single medical board finding of poor record keeping by his secretary, would never have this medical board finding in an encyclopedia article on them except at Wikipedia. The only reason the article looks as it does is because editors at WP tend to read easy newspaper stories, rather than hard academic publications and citations. But this is an article about a "pediatrician, scholar, and lecturer", and should be edited by either those with knowledge about these areas, or who tries to get such knowledge. Again, I personallhy would find it most helpful if you helped me read at least some of the abstracts of his publications and speaking engagements found in GOogle Scholar. (Incidentally, his father is even more interesting to write a BIO on, and I utterly disagree with just about all of his unconventional beliefs. PPdd (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I would like to point out, PPdd, that you've just reverted several hours of my cleanup work, citing unspecified BLP violations. There is nothing improper about doing so, provided that you are willing to explain in detail why the edits you reverted violated policy. So far, you've identified three words which were hardly negative by any reasonable definition and which, as I've shown, are trivial to source. With that exception, you have utterly failed to identify any specific violations of BLP or any other policy. Instead, you've made vague statements about what you think the article ought to be about. (That issue have been discussed in two above sections and one below; making the same point multiple times does not make it any more convincing.) Editing to take the article in a direction which you don't like isn't a BLP violation. Jakew (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

1. I will try to find work you did and put it back in, but it is likely best not to do hours of "cleanup" work immediatly after a construction tag is placed by another editor.

2. I meant by massive BLP violations the many sentences that do not have any citations at all. In a BLP this is not allowed. The uncited line must be immediately removed if there is a possible negative interpretation. For example, the sentences about circumcision and breast feeding may be true (are they?, I don't know.), but if it not sourced, they must be deleted.

3. My other main objection is WP:UNDUE regarding using scandal stories in the news to outweigh thousands of academic citaions. For example, where a medical board finding of a secreatary not making adequate records, especially by an 80 year old doctor with a history of being a famous scholar cited in thousands of academic publications, appears in a prominent way. Also that they convicted him of a felony for depositing a tiny amonunt of his own daughter's money in his own account and did not file a tax return was utterly slammed in the media I saw (I was 400 miles away and did not know the parties), as being an obscene abuse of prosecutorial discretion, especially a prosecution of a person famous for being honest and giving. It is hard to imagine a father anywhwere who deposited a small amount of their kids money in their own account reporting it on a tax return. And this is just a passing news story, tiny in the life of a scholar and pediatrician. PPdd (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding point 1, I would like to point out that the construction tag clearly states "You are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well". Don't you think it is reasonable to expect editors to do so? Nevertheless, I appreciate your willingness to restore my corrections.

Regarding point 2, that's fine. You've identified some specifics, so I will restore this information, with sources, in the near future. I won't do so in the next few hours, though.

Regarding point 3, I don't agree that it's UNDUE to cover the controversies that Fleiss has been involved with, since they constitute a substantial fraction of the secondary sources that have discussed Fleiss. (Remember that the appropriate weight for a subject in WP is that given by sources.) Your characterisation of events is also inaccurate, I fear. What source stated that the medical board found that his secretary failed to make accurate records (and why, then, did Fleiss admit culpability, and why was his licence revoked)? What source stated it was a "tiny amount of money"? (The NY Times says he "pleaded guilty to helping his daughter launder hundreds of thousands of dollars" — I wouldn't personally call that "tiny", but perhaps you're richer than I.) On the same subject, what source states that "his felony prosecution for this minor role was widely viewed in the media as an abuse of prosecutorial discretion"? Not the cited source for this claim in the article (ref 7), which says nothing of the kind. I corrected all of these problems in my edits; I trust you'll correct them again. Jakew (talk) 20:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Some specifics

Sentence #1 *"Paul Murray Fleiss M.D. (born September 8, 1933) is an American pediatrician, breastfeeding advocate, and anti-circumcision activist based in Los Feliz, California." The lead sentence should summarize the article and define the subject. "breastfeeding advocate, and anti-circumcision activist" is not only unsourced as a fact (so should be deleted automatically), even if there is a source, there is nothing to indicate why to pick these two views he holds out of the hundreds of views expressed in publications, speaking engagements, and lectures, as defining the man, so the specifics should not be in the lead sentence. See WP:MOS (lead section) on the lead and on the first sentence.

Sentence #2 *"Fleiss is best known for his unconventional medical views". That sentence is unsourced, and appears to be actually false. He is now likely best known as the father of Heidi Fleiss, or as "Pediatrician to the Stars" as he is constantly referred to on television. He used to be well known as a popular pediatrician in the media, according to the LA Times, and who knows what he is best known for in academia, since there are no sources. We cannot just make stuff up about a person at WP, even if it is positive.

Sentence #3 "He recommends that children in his practice receive vaccines, but he does not insist upon it." This sentence in the lead first paragraph violates WP:MOS as being too specific for the first paragraph and for the lead, and why put it in the lead at all, or in the article at all, when weighed against the totality of his expressed views. I kept the sentence but still object to it on these grounds. It might appear in a section on his medcical views, but it would be swamped amoung tens of other views.

There is an entire section on the medical board complaint, which was only in the press, and only pursued, because his daughter was famous. It is grossly WP:UNDUE against the background of his career, being a medical record keeping finding in the context of thousands of meaningful speeches, publications, and citations.

In summary, I suggest first a section on his publications with subsections, a section on his views as they might differ from the norm with possible subsecdtions, a section on his lectures and speeches, a section on why he is a celebrity doctor, a section on his family, a section on the prosecution against him, and a section on his practice which might have a swentence mentioning that it was found late in his life that a recent new secretary kept bad records. Then the lead should be built according to MOS standards. What do you think about this proposal, and do you have other suggestions for structure? (incidentally, I have not read his publications and am not looking forward to doing so, but I will if you help with it.) PPdd (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Let me address these in turn.

Sentence 1. It's trivial to source these statements, and as soon as one makes the effort to do so it becomes clear that these are significant facts about the man. Take, for example, "Dr. Paul Fleiss, is a popular pediatrician in my neighborhood, known for his anti-circumcision/pro-family bed theories."[6] If he's "known for" these views then that seems a good reason to include them early in the article, perhaps not in the first sentence, but certainly early. And yes, that seems entirely consistent with WP:MOSLEAD.

Sentence 2. Okay, you've a valid point about "best known", but as noted in the preceding paragraph, he is known for some of these views. Let's say "known".

Sentence 3. It seems reasonable enough to include this information in the lead, given the discussion of unconventional views.

Regarding the medical board complaint, which one? The 1996 complaint involved his daughter (and I'd be grateful if you could cite your source that tells us that it was only pursued because his daughter was famous). The 2007 complaint was unrelated to his daughter; it was about his handling of Scovill. As noted, these controversies have occupied a significant amount of coverage in sources about him, hence it is due weight for us to do the same.

Regarding your proposal, I'm not sure that it's realistic. His lectures themselves would be primary sources, so for coverage you'd need to find secondary sources about his lectures. I'm not sure that you'll find many, if any. A similar problem exists regarding his publications. Jakew (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Current problems

Resolved

resolved since the "current" article referred to was reverted back to the previous stable article after this section was started. If this resolved tag should not be here, please remove it. Here are some of the problems in the current version of the article:

• "Fleiss is a widely published and cited academician in numerous areas of medical science" — unsourced.
• "He also lectures widely on social issues" — unsourced.
• Refs 3 and 5 are to the same source, and the reference itself is incomplete. Page numbers? Publisher? Author? Editor? Or URL?
• "Fleiss is is an early advocate of what were at the time considered unconventional medical views, but are now somewhat standard." — unsourced.
• "These include his being an early advocate of breast feeding and opponent of powerdered milk, being an early advocate for diet and excercise as essential components in health care, advocating preventive medicine, and aqdvocating minimization of invasive surgery and other medcical interventions, especially those with a his profit factor for the medial community." — unsourced. Also note basic spelling mistakes (bolded).
• "His career has been characterized in the media as a celebrity pediatrician, with the Los Angeles Times describing him as "Everyone's Favorite Baby Doctor" and "30 years as one of Southern California's most sought-after physicians"" — the LA Times have also described him as "a doctor with a history that includes a felony conviction in 1995, a public reprimand and a one-year term of probation from the Medical Board of California in 1996 ... [who] began another state medical board probationary period Monday". This should be included for balance.
• He is also known in the media as the "Pediatrician to the Stars" — unsourced and too broad. This edit needs to be repeated.
• "in his private life, he was characterized by Laura Archera Huxley as being an altrusit as" — not recognisable English.
• "He gained additional press attention as the father of Heidi Fleiss, called Hollywood Madam in the press." — remove one or other of the two references to "press", and source. Bear in mind, however, that the Scovill case was also a source of press attention.
• The "Family" section is entirely unsourced. See this edit for some sources.
• "In 1994, Fleiss was charged with depositing a small part of his daughter's money in the bank withuot declaring it on his tax return." — that's not what the sources say. Ref 7 says "The 14-count Federal indictment also accuses Ms. Fleiss's father, Dr. Paul Fleiss, a 60-year-old Los Angeles pediatrician, of helping to conceal his daughter's income from the authorities." Ref 8 says "Dr. Paul Fleiss, the father of the Hollywood madam Heidi Fleiss, today pleaded guilty to helping his daughter launder hundreds of thousands of dollars to hide the income from her prostitution ring."
• "His daughter Heidi Fleiss was accused of being a Madame in a prostitution ring but acquited." — unsourced.
• "His felony prosecution for this accused minor role was reported in in media commentary as an abuse of prosecutorial discretion in the context of his popularity in the public for his practice and charitable works." — the cited source (ref 7) says nothing of the sort.
• "His sentence was to continue to do free medical care for children in Baja California that he was already voluntarily doing prior to his conviction" — the cited source (ref 6) doesn't even mention Baja California.
• "His career has been characterized in the media..." — this paragraph is identical to that in the lead.
• "In 2005, Fleiss, was accused of gross neglegence by a person who denied the existence of the Aids virus, after her daughter died because she took no precautions in breast feeding." — this is unsourced and wrong. He was accused by the Medical Board of California (see here).
• "He or his secretary failed to make a note in the medical record" — the cited sources make no reference to his secretary.
• "The Medical Board of California placed Fleiss on probation for 1 year" — the cited source states that he was put on probation for 35 months for this event. It states that for the previous (1996) event he was placed on probation for 1 year & criticised for unprofessional conduct and dishonesty.

Jakew (talk) 21:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

My apologies I have only just seen this, but I think my edits may have addressed a very few of your concerns, obviously LOTS more to do!Theroadislong (talk) 22:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I am repeating Jakew's bullet points above with numbers below as a scratch pad for all to use. Please feel free to strike lines below as they are addressed, or comment directly under each numbered point as to that point.

• 1. "Fleiss is a widely published and cited academician in numerous areas of medical science" — unsourced. (Note, this can be additionally verified by a simple Google Scholar search, then a citation search for each publication, and with a number of introductions on lecture and speaking engagement brochures.) PPdd (talk) 00:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
• 2. "He also lectures widely on social issues" — unsourced. (Same parentthetical remark as in #1 above)
• 3. Refs 3 and 5 are to the same source, and the reference itself is incomplete. Page numbers? Publisher? Author? Editor? Or URL?
• 4. "Fleiss is is an early advocate of what were at the time considered unconventional medical views, but are now somewhat standard." — unsourced.
• 5. "These include his being an early advocate of breast feeding and opponent of powerdered milk, being an early advocate for diet and excercise as essential components in health care, advocating preventive medicine, and aqdvocating minimization of invasive surgery and other medcical interventions, especially those with a his profit factor for the medial community." — unsourced. Also note basic spelling mistakes (bolded).
• 6. "His career has been characterized in the media as a celebrity pediatrician, with the Los Angeles Times describing him as "Everyone's Favorite Baby Doctor" and "30 years as one of Southern California's most sought-after physicians"" — the LA Times have also described him as "a doctor with a history that includes a felony conviction in 1995, a public reprimand and a one-year term of probation from the Medical Board of California in 1996 ... [who] began another state medical board probationary period Monday". This should be included for balance.

Finding an arrest record statement in the news for a university professor is grossly WP:UNDUE in a BLP. For example, many in the 60's and 70's were arrested and convicted either in civil rights protests or anti-war protests. This is instant news at the time, but is essentially irrelevant to their historic place as academicians. As another example, Bertrand Russel was in prison as a pacifist, but this is an extrementlhy minor fact about him.

• 7. He is also known in the media as the "Pediatrician to the Stars" — unsourced and too broad. This edit needs to be repeated. Yes, the suggested edit is an improvement and has been made.
• 8. "in his private life, he was characterized by Laura Archera Huxley as being an altrusit as" — not recognisable English.
• 9. "He gained additional press attention as the father of Heidi Fleiss, called Hollywood Madam in the press." — remove one or other of the two references to "press", and source. Bear in mind, however, that the Scovill case was also a source of press attention.
• 10. The "Family" section is entirely unsourced. See this edit for some sources.
• 11. "In 1994, Fleiss was charged with depositing a small part of his daughter's money in the bank withuot declaring it on his tax return." — that's not what the sources say. Ref 7 says "The 14-count Federal indictment also accuses Ms. Fleiss's father, Dr. Paul Fleiss, a 60-year-old Los Angeles pediatrician, of helping to conceal his daughter's income from the authorities." Ref 8 says "Dr. Paul Fleiss, the father of the Hollywood madam Heidi Fleiss, today pleaded guilty to helping his daughter launder hundreds of thousands of dollars to hide the income from her prostitution ring."

The newspaper says she laundered hundreds of thousands of dollars. He plead guilty to helping her launder PART of that. He was accused of failing to report "at least" $500.00, the reporting cutoff amount. He deposited at least $500 in his bank account and did not declare it on his income tax return, which is technically a crime. Regarding the other counts in the indictment, they were not proven and so have no place in a BLP.

• 12. "His daughter Heidi Fleiss was accused of being a Madame in a prostitution ring but acquited." — unsourced.

Secondary sources would be the recoirder's transcript of the appeal.

• 13. "His felony prosecution for this accused minor role was reported in in media commentary as an abuse of prosecutorial discretion in the context of his popularity in the public for his practice and charitable works." — the cited source (ref 7) says nothing of the sort.

You are correct. The source was dragged down from the original article as I found it and ended on that sentence in error, leaving the sentence unsourced.

• 14. "His sentence was to continue to do free medical care for children in Baja California that he was already voluntarily doing prior to his conviction" — the cited source (ref 6) doesn't even mention Baja California.

Correcdt. Wrong source. I will get the recorder's transcript of sentencing.

• 15. "His career has been characterized in the media..." — this paragraph is identical to that in the lead.

Yes, per WP:MOS (lead), the lead is simply supposed to summarize the material in the body of the article.

• 16. "In 2005, Fleiss, was accused of gross neglegence by a person who denied the existence of the Aids virus, after her daughter died because she took no precautions in breast feeding." — this is unsourced and wrong. He was accused by the Medical Board of California (see here).

That source is not reliable, as would be any source stating "accused by the Medical Board of California". The Medical Board of California does not make accusations. It listens to accusations by others, and investigates accusations by others. It makes findings and may make licensing decisions, and the findings may be used to make referalls to local law enforcement or the state attorney general for criminal . It does not make "accusations". The news source does not know anything about California adminsitrative medical licensing law, and is therefore unreliable, as would be any news source that wrote this.

• 17. "He or his secretary failed to make a note in the medical record" — the cited sources make no reference to his secretary.

The proceedings and testimony refer to the secretary. If we find a news source that we knoiw misstates facts in a primary source, we cannot include it in a BLP. Wording in a BLP has to be very carefully done when major accusations are occuring.

• 18. "The Medical Board of California placed Fleiss on probation for 1 year" — the cited source states that he was put on probation for 35 months for this event. It states that for the previous (1996) event he was placed on probation for 1 year & criticised for unprofessional conduct and dishonesty.

I did not put this sentence or source in the article, but found it there. I have not read that source. PPdd (talk) 01:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Please provide a source for this stuff about blaming his secretary for the failure to keep adequate documentation (#17). In general, physicians are responsible for documenting patient encounters and medical decision-making, not secretaries. The board complaint and agreement seem to implicate Fleiss alone in the documentation problems. I see no mention of a secretary; am I missing something? MastCell ^Talk 01:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

MastCell, you are correct that the physician is responsible for the note taking of the secretary. The secretary was mentioned in the transcript, but Fleiss is unltimately responsible. I still maintain that a person with hundreds of publications and thousands of citations of the publications, and a medical practice so famous that the LA Times writes him up as a "everyone's favorite pediatrician", who has only a single minor record keeping violation complaint in his entire medical record, especially in a lawsuit happy Hollywood, is more notable for his NOT having a large number of medical findings against him, than for having this minor one. It is simply WP:UNDUE in the massive context of the body of his achievements, and occured at a stage of his career when he was of an age that other physisicans are already retired. Academician celebrities in their field get in the entertainment news for minor scandals because it sellss newspapers, but this is unencyclopedic information, meriting at best a small mention at the tail end of the article. PPdd (talk) 01:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll respond to just a few of these points:

Re points 1 & 2: Google searches are original research.

Re point 6, balance is required per WP:NPOV. Remember, the appropriate weight is that given by reliable secondary sources, not your personal opinion of what's important.

Re point 11, what's your source for the $500 amount? I couldn't find it in any of the cited sources.

Re points 12, 14, and 17, transcripts are specifically classified as primary sources in WP:BLP#Misuse of primary sources.

Re point 15, there is a difference between summarising something and repeating it. The latter is simply poor writing.

Re point 16, please read the source. You're paying too much attention to the word "accusation" and too little to the the fact that the investigation was started by the medical board, and not have anything to do with an accusation by Maggiore.

Re point 18, you moved this source from the right section to the wrong section. This could easily have been avoided by taking more care to check the source. Please do so in future. Jakew (talk) 10:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Lead

Resolved

The entire article now looks good. I am striking this sections proposal. Proposed new lead -

Paul Fleiss is an American pediatrician. He is known for his unusual popularity as a pediatrician in Southern California, and his promotion of alternative medicine. He is a prominent advocate of breast feeding and proper diet for health, of "natural" remedies over conventional [[pharmacology|pharmacological] ones. He is a leading opponent of circumcision and intrusive medical procedures. He is also known for having a large number of major Hollywood celebrity clients as patients and parent of patients.

Fleiss initially trained as a pharmacist, then trained and received a license in osteopathy, a kind of alternative medicine based in part on considerations of the relationship between mind, body, and spirit, and emphasizing the body’s own healing abilities over intrusive medical interventions. Legislation in California (later repealed) allowed him to convert this license and degree to that of an MD without formal medical school training and residency. He was assistant clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Southern California, has published numerous scholarly articles, and has been a public speaker and lecturer on social causes, especially those concerning what he asserts are unnecessarily intrusive medical procecdures.

He has been frequently interviewed on local television news for his medical opinions. These views have sometimes been portrayed by the media as being controversial. He received widespread international coverage during the highly publicized prosecution of his daughter, Hollywood Madam Heidi Fleiss, after it was charged that he allowed her to deposit some of her money in his own bank account without declaring it as his own personal income, and for his role in assisting her in getting a loan. He was prosecuted for this assistance, but received only a very minor sentence in a plea agreement, and only verbal sanctions against his medical license. He received press coverage late in his career when his patient, a prominent AIDS denier with HIV, failed to take proper precautions leading to the death of her daughter. Fleiss claimed he advised her to take precautions, but failed to so note in her medical records. He received minor sanctions from the Medical Board.

This suggested lead still massively weights the daughter incident and AIDS virus denier incident in relation to his 40-50 year long and highly publicized career as the "go to guy" on alternative medicine in the media. This may correct itself, with additions of information from that career. Please discuss, suggest sources, and suggest rewording, additions, and deletions.

(no indentation, sorry) There are some problems here:

:*"a pediatrician, known for his unusual popularity as a pediatrician" is poor writing (he's hardly likely to be known for his popularity as a jellyfish). Why not simplify it: "is a popular American pediatrician"? Jakew (talk) 09:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I reworded it.PPdd (talk) 01:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC) Reworded per Jakew and striken. Please raise again if there is an objection to the rewording.

• I don't think we have sources re advocacy of proper diet & opposition to intrusive medical procedures. (If you have some, please add them to the "medical views" section.) Jakew (talk) 09:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You are correct as to the lack of secondary sources so far in the article. There are a MASSIVE number of primary sources on this, and countless testimonials (not reliable by WP standards). We might just go with WP:COMMON since his publication history is so clear, or put the clearly true and descriptive sentence in the lead, with a citation needed tag, inviting others to find the RS in the mass of sources all saying the same, some primary, some not reliable, and maybe some secondary and reliable. PPdd (talk) 01:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

If we don't have sources, it's best not to say it. Jakew (talk) 12:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, can you list the sources you do have, primary or otherwise? Then at least we'll be in a position to discuss their inclusion. Jakew (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• "He initially trained as a pharmacist, then trained and received a license in osteopathy". Do we have a source saying that he did so in that order? Jakew (talk) 09:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The source the other editor put said he got a BA in pharmacy, then an ostopathic doctor degree. One has to have a BA in order to start training for a DO. So we can include it under WP:COMMON. See the section below contradicting this as being his degrees. We all need to do some better research, since the sources are all pretty "iffy", even the LA Times, which makes errors on a daily basis. PPdd (talk) 02:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• "a kind of alternative medicine based in part on mystical considerations of the relationship between mind, body, and spirit, and emphasizing the body’s own healing abilities over intrusive medical interventions". I'm not sure that it's acceptable to describe osteopathy as "mystical" under NPOV! In any case, this is far too long for an off-topic sentence in the lead. Wikilink osteopath and let readers follow the link if they wish. Jakew (talk) 09:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

LOL. You caught me. I struck the "mystical" word. (Although it likely would improve WP and help users to include it.) PPdd (talk) 01:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I probably wouldn't oppose something if it were a bit more concise. Jakew (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC) Striken as resolved by implementing Jakew's comment.

• "especially those pertaining to issues criticizing abuses and profit incentive in the medical system." What's the source for this? Jakew (talk) 09:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

That is from my own watching of local television news, especially in the 1970's and 1980's, or from seeing advertisements at venues describing him as a speaker in the 90's. I assumed there would be sources since there were so many times I saw him on TV. PPdd (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

We can't cite your memory, though. We need to be able to cite specific sources. Jakew (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You are correct, which is why I put it here on the talk page, not in the article. I have often seen him on television and in advertisements for talks around LA, but you are right that we need to find RS for this. PPdd (talk) 02:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

There's little point in discussing it unless sources can be found. Jakew (talk) 12:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• "He has been frequently interviewed on local television news for his medical opinions since the 1970's". Source? Jakew (talk) 09:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

None yet. I put it on the talk page in hopes others might have seen the news shows I saw, and know were RS is for it. (It might even be since the 1960's, not just since the 1970's). PPdd (talk) 02:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Then it seems that proposing to include it in the lead may have been premature. Jakew (talk) 12:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• "He received significant press coverage after he deposited some money from his daughter, Hollywood Madam Heidi Fleiss, in his own bank account, and was prosecuted for not delcaring it on his own tax return." I'm not sure how accurate that is. According to this source: "Prosecutors charged that over three years Dr. Fleiss, a pediatrician, lied on loan applications and falsely claimed his daughter as an employee in his medical practice. [...] The father and daughter were charged with conspiracy, false statements to a bank, money laundering and false statements on an income tax return, among other crimes." Jakew (talk) 09:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

We cannot put "charges" on WP. Per the media coverage at the time, including comments from client witnesses interviewed on television, his daughter Heidi did work for him in his office, as did his other daughter and adopted daughter (who were also prosecuted, as was the other daughter's boyfriend, and one sister was threatened with a huge sentence for a tiny infraction if she did not tesify againsg Heidi Fleiss, according to the television news. My recollection of the media coverage was that they stretched information in the loan applications in a way suggested by the banker, which is not uncommon as demonstrated in teh Bush housing disaster. He deposited "over $500" of daughter Heidi's money in his own account, and did not claim it on his income tax return, and the threshold for "money laundering" is $5000. The DA "stacked charges", resulting in the vague "other charges" quote. The statement of the charges was severe, but the acts were very insignificant, and so common that according to media at the time, they were never prosecuted except for the celebrity of the daughter. It was the DA who proposed the minimal sentence, in the context of being smashed in the media and by feminists, just to get a conviction, and P. Fleiss took it in the context of all of his kids (even the son Jesse, a minor at the time), stopping the mass attack by a DA on his children. This iw why I think this stuff is best in the Heidi Fleiss article, and that the Paul Fleiss article should focus on what he really does that causes his notabity, i.e., uncritiacally promote alternative medicine

in the face of contradictory scientific evidence, and with his super-celebrity clients used by the media to back his promotion. The prosecutor could also charge he was a pedophile, and repeating such allegations should never happen at WP. I wrote what I saw reported on television almost every day in the 90's, so there should be good sources for it. The upshot of the reporting was that normal family activities were blown out of proportion by a DA in order to get publicity, that the real power brokers who were all males were never even investigated, and this "saintly and beloved" doctor was being attacked just to get publicity. My own thinking was "'saintly', LOL. This guy is a doctor only in the most fringe sence, and is a major spokesperson for alternative medicine, which I view as a kind of fraud." I think the article should present his alternative medicine promotion in a neutral way, and insofar as the Heidi Fleiss stuff is about him (it is really about her), the article should accurately reflect how the overwhelming television news coverage presented things as him being the good guy being prosecuted for what normally occurs in any family, indirect proof of which is the single day sentence for time served, and an order to continue the community service he did his whole life. I do not regard giving out homeopathy prescriptions as any kind of "service" to the community, but that is how the secondary sources report it. PPdd (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC) PPdd (talk) 02:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's any rule against putting charges on WP, as long as they received sufficient attention from secondary sources. Also, "was prosecuted for" is a description of charges. In any case, description needs to be consistent with the cited sources. Jakew (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

There are no "rules" at all at WP, only essays, policies, and guidelines. But in my opinion, there is only the good faith efforts of editors like us to write the best article we can, and try to follow the community accepted policies and guidelines in letter and certainly in spirit, as best as we can. (There actually is something somewhere about "charges", or allegations in a lawsuit, as I found out when I tried to put information in an article from a news story on a lawsuit being filed as a secondary source, and I listed the allegations, then got shot down with the citation of the policy or guideline. Those other editors were right, and I was wrong, but they were also convincing in their argument as to why they were right. PPdd (talk) 02:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• "The news coverage was extremely favorable to Fleiss, depicting him as a victim of a media seeking malicious prosecution." Sources? Jakew (talk) 09:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I did not source this, but they are plentiful from memory, so we should be able to find them easily. Even the article you cited as "characterixzing him as a felon", only said that as a "hook", and did so to lead into a very positive about him (ignoring the fact that he promotes alternative medicine). PPdd (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

A good idea at this point would be to find sources. Jakew (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I put it on the talk page hoping someone who saw the television coverage might recall where they saw it. The media portrayal was summed up in the movie "The Good Doctor". PPdd (talk) 02:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• "and to continue the community service he was already doing prior to the conviction" Still haven't seen a source re this, though I did ask you previously. Jakew (talk) 09:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

That is from memory from watching this drama in the news. PPdd (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

This is exasperating, PPdd. We need to be able to cite specific sources, not something that you vaguely remember having seen on TV. If you can't cite specific sources, don't put it in the article. Jakew (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not intending to be exasperating, but only to suggest a lead that is consistent with what I thought would be self-evident to those who closely followed the coverage, then to find sources were they were lacking by discussing on the talk page before putting it onto the actual article page. My other method of editing is to do this on the article page with a construction tag up for a while, then clean up anything without good sources after construction slows down. PPdd (talk) 02:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Neither is a good method. A better approach would be to gather sources, and then propose material that cites those sources. And if you don't have sources, don't propose material or add it to the article. There's nothing wrong with saying something like "does anyone know of any sources re XYZ" from time to time, but most of your edits (talk page or otherwise) should be based on sources, not personal knowledge or vague recollection. Jakew (talk) 12:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• "He received minor press coverage" Minor? Jakew (talk) 09:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

::OK, that is editorializing on my part. Compared to the internationally covered Heidi Fleiss stuff, it was pretty locally covered and in a minor way even in local coverage. PPdd (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

That is a bad word. I meant to contrast it with the giant international coverage of the daughter incident, which was portrayed as being another example of prosecutorial excess in America, and of American prudishness causing a beloved and saintly doctor to be prosecuted (they buy the alternative medicine junk science even more in Europe than in America).PPdd (talk) 02:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

So you keep claiming, without any evidence... Jakew (talk) 12:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• "when a prominent prominent denier of the existence of the AIDS virus" There isn't an AIDS virus. There's an HIV virus, and a syndrome called AIDS. Jakew (talk) 09:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You are correct. Please suggest wording. PPdd (talk) 02:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• "failed to take antiviral precautions leading to the death of her daughter" I've already explained above that this is wrong. Please read other people's replies. It's exasperating to have to correct you repeatedly. Jakew (talk) 09:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I will check again above. PPdd (talk) 02:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The details are in the Medical Board's complaint, pages 3-7 from memory. Jakew (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you have the exact wording of the plea agreement? It was my understanding that it was a typical plea agreement entered into for very minor charges, i.e., strong wording to satisfy the prosecutor's resume, but no real teeth because it was such a minor issue. But I may be wrong. I cannot find it in your post above. PPdd (talk) 03:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

It was a Medical Board investigation, not a criminal prosecution, but the order reads: "It is hereby ordered that Physician's and Surgeon's Certificate No. A28858 issued to Paul Fleiss, M.D. is revoked. However, the revocation is stayed and respondent is placed on probation for thirty-five (35) months on the following terms and conditions." See page 4 [www.casewatch.org/board/med/fleiss.pdf here]. Jakew (talk) 12:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

(unindenting) I note that you've rewritten the proposed lead above. This will confuse anyone trying to read the discussion, who will naturally presume that my responses related to the proposal at the start of the section. Please restore it to its former state, and insert a new proposal at the foot of this section, in a new subsection if you wish. Also, please ensure that it is fully sourced. Jakew (talk) 09:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Construction Tag

Resolved

When another editor placed a construction tag and places a number of new section headers, please don't undue his work in construction[7]. PPdd (talk) 04:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I removed empty headings because they made the article look cluttered and made it more difficult to read. I've no objection to restoring them, as long as content is added at the same time.

The construction tag explicitly invites other editors to edit. I don't know of any tag that allows one to assert temporary ownership over a page. Jakew (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

OK. Usually if an editor puts up a construction tag and some blank sections, it means they are coming back to them. The invitation to edit is usually to add stuff, and temporarily loosen standards for keeping stuff in while a construction is done. Since you seem to be meaninfully and actively reading and researching for RS, I will just leave the thing alone and add back in when I get stuff, and discuss it here as much as possible before doing anything (temporarily) off strict WP standards, like I usually otherwise do during a construction tag. PPdd (talk) 00:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of Lead per MOS

Lead First Sentence

From Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section - "If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition". Absent the scandal involving his daughter, Fleiss appeared in academic and media sources as a medical scholar, as having views considered alternative at the time but later becoming mainstream, as a speaker on social issues, especially those involving medicine, and as a highly popular pediatrician who was also the pediatrician for a number of major celebrities. This defines Paul Fleiss as a notable person. PPdd (talk) 03:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Lead First Paragraph

From Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section - "The first paragraph should define the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being overly specific... It should also establish the boundaries of the topic". I included the specific about daughter Heidi Fleiss because it was so prominent in the media. Others may disagree, since numerous historic scholars had personal legal problems, but these problems are at the tail end of any encyclopedia article on the scholars, if it even appears at all. PPdd (talk) 03:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Lead second to fourth paragraphs

From Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section - "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview." I structured the lead to follow the structure of the article body sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PPdd (talk • contribs)

Per WP:LEAD, it should "summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies". Jakew (talk) 10:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I still think an accusation of failure to note that a person is an AIDS denier is incredibly minor, and UNDUE for the lead. This is a guy who everyone in LA in the 80's saw as the "go to" pediatrician and health food craze doctor, with always a mention of his celebrity patient roster. The AIDS denier incident is pretty trivial, and is more about her than about him. The bit you found about his osteopathy short cut to get an MD which you cite in the next section would be much more appropriate for the lead, and a paragraphs on publications, and a paragraph on speaking engagements. What he is most known for, however, is being the pediatrician of the biggest celebrity stars, and father of the HOllywood Madame PPdd (talk) 02:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

He wasn't accused of failure to note that Maggiore was an AIDS denier. He was accused of (among other things) failing to note that the mother was HIV positive, failing to have the child tested for HIV (or note the parents' refusal to do so), failing to advise the mother to stop breastfeeding (or note refusal), failing to offer (or document having offered) antivirals to the child, failing to document developmental milestones & keep detailed documentation of the child's history & examinations, and failing to address the child's failure to thrive. (All this is paraphrased from the complaint itself.) Jakew (talk) 09:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I am editing this article as an exercise for myself in WP:Enemy, since I think views, such as his prescription of homeopathic remiedies are not only nutty, but outright false. That said, I followed this story in the television news. It seems that he had a world famous nutball as a patient, and did not bother arguing with her about her utter refusal to deal with her AIDS in reality. His arguments about the AIDS virus that he stated on television, that he "could go either way", were arguments about causality in an abstract way. The correlation between the virus and disease is missing something in a major way, that is likely a more central as a cause that needs to be found and halted. The television news does not convey this subtley, and for a celebrity doctor, takes his words into strange directions by its soundbite methods. PPdd (talk) 03:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Conspriacy and bank Fraud conviction, re Hollywood Madam Heidi Fleiss incident

The most accurate, most helpful to the reader, most WP:MOS (Use plain English) satisfying, most WP:UNDUE satisfying, least sensational, and still equally neutral wording would be

"Hollywood Madam Heidi Fleiss incident"

• A user of Wikipedia would instantly know what the section was about.

• They would not be in for the surprise about the facts of the "conspiracy and bank fraud conviction" being a plea bargain for depositing over $500 and fudging loan documents for his daughter, with only a one day time served sentence and community service.

• The title "Conspiracy and bank fraud convictions" violates MOS (Use plain English) because it is a technical legal wording from a criminal code. In legal code language, these facts are technically "money laundering" (he did not declare it as income), "conspiracy" (it did involve more than one person), and "bank fraud" (much of the country committed this same kind of "bank fraud" in the Bush housing bubble loan crisis).

• "Conspiracy and bank fraud" is unhelpfully ambiguous in that they apply to a very wide range of activities, some relatively minor with minimal sentences (as with Fleiss), and others very serious with decades long prison terms, as with a mob boss stealing tens of millions of dollars from many victims. A reader not familiar with the criminal code definitions, but used to reading these same words in mob crime hreadlines, might not know the same technical words apply to both a mob banker stealing tens of millions of dollars from victims in a bank fraud crime ring, as well as to fudging loan documents and depositing over $500 of a daugher's money without reporing it on a tax return. Titling the article section with this broad stroke in technical language and not plain English violates WP:MOS and introduces an unnecessary ambiguity.

• It is best to have the most accurate and helpful neutral section title, not one that might leave the complete wrong impression about the contents actually in the section.

• Even if it did not violate MOS, the reader should have the least ambigous and most halepful section title.

PPdd (talk) 04:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC) There are literally tens of thousands of news stories on the incident with his daughter, especially television news stories. What the world saw was a media seeking prosecutor, who went after a 22 year old female, but did not prosecute a male, not a single major politician, not a single Hollwood power broker, not a single bank president, and not a single police officer or member of his own staff, all of whom were involved. The limelight seeking prosecutor was then be grasping at straws after the conviction for prostitution he got was overturned by a higher court. The media portrayed him as then attcking her entire family, her father, her sister, her kid brother Jesse Fleiss, and all for things that almost any family does, depositing into each other's bank accounts and not report it as income. I would be very surprised to meet a single Wiki editor who reported money from a relative as income to the IRS. It is very unbalanced and secnsationalistic to characterize this indicent as "Conspiracy and bank fraud conviction". That sounds like a section in an article on a mob banker. A less misleading title would be "Plea bargain to stop prosecutorial abuse and one day sentence", which is what everyone in the world saw. This section needs a balance and perspective as to what really happened, and to have it otherwise is a disservice to users of this encyclopedia. (That said, much is needed to be added to the article that is actually about Fleiss, a world class alternative medicine promoter. PPdd (talk) 04:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with pretty much everything you've said, but I don't think it makes much difference since you don't seem to be listening to anyone. MastCell ^Talk 06:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

That is not specific enough to reply to, and violates AGF. PPdd (talk) 19:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Fine: (MastCell's comments below have been WP:RTPed into subsections for clarity)

RS for Major media prosecution for minor infraction, and portrayal as such in the media?

• 1. "What the world saw was a media seeking prosecutor... The limelight seeking prosecutor was then be grasping at straws [sic]..." etc etc. You assert this at every opportunity, both here and in the article, but have yet to provide a single reliable source to substantiate it. You're actually violating WP:BLP by continually alleging malfeasance and nefarious motivation on the part of the prosecutor without providing a single supporting source. MastCell ^Talk 19:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You are correct better sources are needed for this assertion. I struck the comment and reworded the opening. We need to source the fact that the international media overwhelmingly made fun of a prosecutor, who was in the news every day for prosecuting a very minor and commonly occuring crime of the bank deposit and loan doc fudging (and sinecure "employment" of a family member), and essentially gave in by proposing a plea agreement of time served and community service, for a doctor already famous for a career filled with voluntary community service. (I personally object to the characterization of the following as a sentence to "community service" - Fleiss went on a vacation with his family to Baja California's beaches and taught the impoverished families there to believe in alternative medicine and homeopathy. But my opinion is of course not something to put in the article.) PPdd (talk) 03:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

RS for prosecution of entire family?

• 2. "The media portrayed [the prosecutor] as attacking her entire family... all for things that almost any family does..." Again, you keep repeating this, but have provided no reliable sources to back it up.MastCell ^Talk 19:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, RS is needed for this as per my comment in the subsection above. PPdd (talk) 03:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Most informative, helpful, summarizing, accurate, and neutral section title?

• 3. "A less misleading title would be 'Plea bargain to stop prosecutorial abuse'..." No, that's clearly a leading title, unsupported by any reputable sources you've provided, and yet another WP:BLP violation in that you are alleging professional malfeasance without any sort of corroborating sources. MastCell ^Talk 19:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I struck the comment. I was not being serious.

I am suggesting "Hollywood Madam Heidi Fleiss incident".

I cite WP:MOS (Use Plain English) as a basis.

• This is the most informative to a user of the encyclopedia. They immediately know what the section is about.
• It is entirely neutral.
• It does not introduce the ambiguity that "Conspiracy and bank fraud conviction" means one thing in technical legal language, and another thing in ordinary usage.

In technical legal language it means that it could either be a major felony conviction with serious prison time, like a 20 year prison term, or could be a very minor thing with only time served and community service". In ordinary usage it brings to mind newspaper headlines in a multimillion dollar mob banker prosecution with serious victimizaion. In ordinary usage it does not bring to mind "failing to declare over $500 from ones kid as personal income on a tax return and fidging loan docs". The suggested wording best improves WP in helping the reader know what the section details, being precise rather than very broad, being plain English rather than "technicaly correct in legaleze".PPdd (talk) 04:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

That's a start. You're violating WP:BLP, and you show no signs of stopping nor interest in listening to any points raised by any other editor. You keep making inflammatory assertions without providing supporting reliable sources, which is a guaranteed way to drive other editors batty.

I would strongly suggest the following: limit yourself to one new thread and a handful of posts a day (there is no deadline here, and you're exhausting and exasperating your fellow editors with the sheer volume of posts). Instead of rapid-fire posts repeating the same unsourced assertions, take some time to read up on policy and try to understand where other editors' objections are coming from. Then look for actual independent, reliable sources before you make a bunch of assertions. Link to the sources and explain why they support the specific article content you'd like to see. Then wait for a response and try to show some evidence of actually reading and considering it before responding. Is that more specific? MastCell ^Talk 19:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

::::Did you follow this story in the news? I had been assuming the editors here had done so, and wrote an article in a deliberately slanted way, focusing on some minor (one day time served, probation and classes on record keeping) issues, and not on who this guy is and why he is so popular. (He is likely not so popular among scientists and skeptics, who would likely never take their kids to him). This was a violation of AGF on my own part. PPdd (talk) 20:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that's a response to my post. You've just, once again, repeated your standard assertions about the insignificance of the Medical Board findings etc. Could you please present and discuss independent, reliable sources? MastCell ^Talk 20:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

(unindenting) PPdd, please would you not rewrite your posts after someone has already replied? You radically changed the above after MastCell had responded. Jakew (talk) 09:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I give up. MastCell ^Talk 17:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't give up. Instead, AGF. PPdd (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

"Pediatrician to the Stars" and "Everyone's Favorite Baby Doctor"

Resolved

This person was repeatedly referred to in the television media in the 1970's and 80's as "Everyone's Favorite Baby Doctor" , and in the 80's and 90's as as "Pediatrician to the Stars". These standardized characterizaions should be in the lead, since they were so common that he was sometimes referred to in the media just by these expressions, without even stating his name (like his daugher appearing as sometimes just being called "Hollywood Madam"). There were sources for these expressions being used that were found and put in the article by another editor, but they are now gone. PPdd (talk) 18:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think these media descriptions belong in the article at all let alone in the lede, this is an encyclopedia after all.Theroadislong (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

When someone says (or used to say in the 1980's and 90's) "the man called the pediatrician to the stars" in Hollywood, people instantly know think of Paul Fleiss because that is his intro in the television segment. (I personally think I am about to hear more alternative medicine nonsense being promoted by celebrity associations in the media by Paul Fleiss, but that is my own opinion and not for the article.) It is like not putting "Bugsy" in the Benjamin Siegel article, or not putting "Hollywood Madam" in the Heidi Fleiss article. Are you suggesting modifying these articles to remove the information, too? In the lead to the Heidi Fleiss article, the first paragraph appropriately says "She is often referred to as the Hollywood Madam". Why do you think that a person who is known as a Hollywood celebrity in their field, by a phrase or expression as a moniker, should not have that moniker in an encyclopedia article about them? (Incidentally, the article has recently improved greatly regarding sourcable content, less WP:UNDUE and better balance, and in NPOV neutrality, after the recent edits by you and other editors.) PPdd (talk) 22:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I was responsible for sourcing the "pediatrician to the stars" statement. I have to say, the available sources are far from overwhelming. Searching for the exact phrase "pediatrician to the stars", I found 5 results in Google News, two of which referred to Fleiss (the others referred to Jay Gordon, Michael Cohen, and Harvey Karp). Repeating the search in Google returned a number of other names, including Arthur Grossman and Jayme Holstein, but none of the results on the first page of Google's results referred to Fleiss. So I can't see any real evidence that the phrase is synonymous with Fleiss in any meaningful sense. Jakew (talk) 10:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I suggested it from having mostly heard these monikers on the entertainment type television shows (which appeared to be promoting fad alternative medicines) in the pre-internet 70's to early 90's, so there might not be much in serious sources post-internet. The fact that you found a reliable source independent of my memory of a completely different set of references confirms my recollection. The media coverage of him was dwarfed when his daughter made the scene, and apparently took the wind out of his alternative medicine media sails. I could not find much in conventional sources since his daughter hit the scene. (PS, the article now looks very good, sounds just like I remember the media characterizations being firsthand, and I have no suggestions to further improve it, except to add stuff I have yet to find, and will put on the talk page for discussion before adding it.) PPdd (talk) 02:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)