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

Gabor B. Racz

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That User Atsme states here that copyright infringement never occured [1] I find very concerning. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SJP, I cited 3 sources including this one [2], and yes there are quotes that could be used. We're talking about a couple of sentences in the article now. I did not delve that deeply into his personal life or his escape from Hungary but it may be something to consider for expansion to FA promotion. I think we can both agree that BLPs shouldn't be dry and boring. Just the thought of it makes me cringe. FA criteria expects the prose to be engaging or even brilliant. In fact, I've thought about presenting a proposal to WMF to make our BLPs something on the line of the following: [3], or at least offer some options for a "read". It would help people with sight handicaps. It may even engage more children. We want people to read and use the encyclopedia and to trust its accuracy. Think about all the good Bill Nye, the science guy did with his unconventional approach to engaging an audience. Of course, I'm not suggesting anything that extreme, but the old mindset that our writing must be flat and boring is ludicrous. Innovation is at the very core of Wikipedia so it makes sense that we should be innovative as well to attract more readers and editors. Another thought I had was adding closed captioning to some of the videos. I plan to submit such a project to WMF as soon as this craziness is over. Atsme^📞📧 15:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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