| Revision as of 00:36, 8 July 2015 editAtsme (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers42,818 edits →Skepticism section: sig← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:05, 8 July 2015 edit undoJytdog (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers187,951 edits recruiting tagNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Recruiting}} | |||
| {{Talk header}} | {{Talk header}} | ||
| {{WikiProject Biography |living=yes |class=C |listas=Gorski, David}} | {{WikiProject Biography |living=yes |class=C |listas=Gorski, David}} | ||
Revision as of 02:05, 8 July 2015
 | There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Misplaced Pages's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the David Gorski article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | Biography C‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
 | Skepticism C‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Medicine B‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the David Gorski article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
| Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
 | Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
Removed reference to Dr Gorski's self-written bio
| Personal dispute with article subject, has no place here. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Self-reporting does not make a reliable source, and sciencebasedmedicine.org is essentially a blog, definitely not a reliable source. It is a biased website with an agenda. His self-written bio page is especially unreliable for sourcing biographical information on Dr Gorski himself. I removed the two references to the blog, and facts that were solely sourced to it. In other details, i have personal experience with Dr Gorski and that website, which although it cannot be added to the article, may be relevant as background information on his blog and the nature of his work. He banned me from commenting on his website, because i was citing research studies and making the case that there is a valid hypothesis that glyphosate may disrupt the human gut microbiome, which has not been tested sufficiently yet. I supported this statement with citations of research studies. He banned me from commenting very quickly and would not reinstate my ability to comment there. Therefore, there is a censorship bias in the comments to the blog, which i personally read as an agenda-driven pseudo-science blog, using the facade of rationalism to push an industry agenda. Therefore, i object to its use as a source to support any statement, especially any biomedical statement. SageRad (talk) 12:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
References
UpdateI have now taken the time to find out what SageRad is complaining about. Unsurprisingly, the "science" was actually anti-GMO activism, and the banning appears to have occurred only after he'd followed Gorski around numerous venues and refused to drop the stick. It was followed by the same behaviour from a number of apparent sockpuppets. The anti-GMO activism is consistent with SageRad's editing behaviour on Misplaced Pages. It is not uncommon for bloggers to block zealous agenda-driven posters whose agenda is only peripherally related to the purpose of the blog, and this is not controversial other than to those whose views are thus denied a prominent platform (that is, after all, the entire point of grandstanding). It is not a surprise that no reliable sources have addressed this, because there is basically nothing to address. In an area where reasonable people can differ, it is very common for extreme partisans to become agitated when others refuse to accept their viewpoint as the sole valid view, and as far as I can tell that's exactly what happened here. I propose that we waste no further time on this. Guy (Help!) 10:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC) All of this section is very wrong, and also reflects some assumptions and detective work done against myself as a Misplaced Pages editor... and i do not think is admissible here. I think that this section is a violation of ethics of Misplaced Pages. I'm not going to get legalistic though. My saying it is enough. For example, the use of the word "sock puppets" for people who care about things... that's really bad. The use of "science" in quotes demeans the use of actual science -- yes, science -- Jaworski (1972) for instance, which shows glyphosate inhibiting R japonicum by 80% at 10 uM concentration. This is science, not "science". Ernest Jaworski was a Monsanto scientist in the early development of the chemical. As for calling me bad for "refusing to drop the stick" -- again, characterizing the dynamic as if i were the source of the problem and as if it's wrong to call out a tactic of banning a person and then commenting after they're banned to ridicule their arguments wrongly, when the person cannot respond to correct factual errors. All this feels like inquisition-style tactics. All those who have a clear mind and two eyes should be able to see that. Those who are bought into a certain establishment self-limiting view of reality, though, may not see it. And no, i don't claim to know "the truth" -- but my mind is open to inquiry and i evaluate evidence, and i seek to lose bias in myself and to notice it in others. This is getting to be like a "he said / she said" "yes you do! / no i don't!" thing. But that's the very thing i was trying to get OUT of Misplaced Pages by calling out the use of David Gorski's own blog to source a claim that he was a victim of attempted censorship. It's hypocrisy and self-asserted sourcing that doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages, for the same reasons people here don't want my claim in Misplaced Pages. We need some other people without a stake in this, random people, to come in and take a broad view of the situation. We need some peer-review without bias here. And i'm really tired of being attacked like this and called names and accused of thoughtcrimes, etc. SageRad (talk) 11:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC) And by the way, this is Strawman City: "In an area where reasonable people can differ, it is very common for extreme partisans to become agitated when others refuse to accept their viewpoint as the sole valid view, and as far as I can tell that's exactly what happened here." So untrue, such a false characterization of me or what happened. I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition. (Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.) SageRad (talk) 11:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Context. I think that any more of this and SageRad will be banned. We don't need this vendetta. Guy (Help!) 21:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
|
Closing of Dialogue
| Grandstanding. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I think that Jytdog is being harmfully legalistic to the point of flying against common sense in the application of a Misplaced Pages guideline in his disappearing of my brief comment on this talk page in this diff twice, after my explanation of my objection to its initial removal. This feels like a memory hole attempt and an edit war and a closing of dialogue space in a talk page. The guideline in question states "The purpose of a Misplaced Pages talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." This makes sense, of course. In this case, my "for the record" was a brief dissent to the content of the talk page header, and a brief provision of source material on the other topic discussed at length on this talk page. I don't see the issue. This is not using it as a platform, but a very brief provision of notes regarding the article project. i am not using this to grandstand. I wanted to leave the very basic "for the record" and be gone. The disappearance has made that difficult. Note that the header of the guideline in questions says specifically, "This page documents an English Misplaced Pages behavioral guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." I have other things to do. I hope this can just rest. SageRad (talk) 13:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
|
Unilateral closing of dialogue
SageRed blocked for trolling after many, many warnings. Guy (Help!) 23:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
... has occurred on this page. Even closing of dialogue about closing of dialogue. At least it's in the hats above. SageRad (talk) 11:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- You said «I have other things to do. I hope this can just rest.»
- Do you want to reopen the dialogue, so you can have the last word again? The talk page is for improving the article. Spumuq (talq) 14:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Skepticism section
That section is so heavily weighted it takes away from the man's accomplishments. Having a link to an outside blog site is promotional, and that needs to go, too. Atsme 02:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Lots of sources so lots of coverage here; looks reasonably neutral. Nothing like the problems at Gabor B. Racz where you keep invoking this Gorski article. Alexbrn (talk) 04:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Twice the problems here. I'm going to recruit the copy edit team and get this mess cleaned up. Please don't remove the tags. Atsme 04:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- The tags have gone, I suggest avoiding edit-warring them back in unless there's a consensus they're merited. Alexbrn (talk) 04:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- I already mentioned this article to DGG and he said he'd come review it, particularly the weak lede, the lack of any real biographical material, and the UNDUE Skeptic advocacy section with links to his off-Wiki blog and what is clearly full-blown promotion of an advocacy. It doesn't matter if it's a good cause or not. It's still an advocacy, therefore it is noncompliant with NPOV. For you to not recognize the major issue with this article while criticizing a GA tells me maybe the problem could be WP:CIR. I'll wait to hear from DGG before I request a team of copy editors or maybe a peer review. You can either help and collaborate or you can be disruptive - your choice. Atsme 04:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Great! the work of DGG is pretty much guaranteed always to improve things. OTOH I don't think you're right that this article is in terrible shape (though it's not perfect) and your personalization continues a pattern of bad behaviour. Alexbrn (talk) 04:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- You revert and threaten and then say it's my bad behavior. It's laughable. It will all even out and things will be just fine. Atsme 04:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Reverting is a normal part of the editing process: see for example WP:BRD. However putting "For you to not recognize the major issue with this article while criticizing a GA tells me maybe the problem could be WP:CIR. I'll wait to hear from DGG before I request a team of copy editors or maybe a peer review. You can either help and collaborate or you can be disruptive - your choice" (my bold) is not focussing on content and is unduly personal. That's the kind of WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour which should be avoided. Alexbrn (talk) 05:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- You revert and threaten and then say it's my bad behavior. It's laughable. It will all even out and things will be just fine. Atsme 04:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Great! the work of DGG is pretty much guaranteed always to improve things. OTOH I don't think you're right that this article is in terrible shape (though it's not perfect) and your personalization continues a pattern of bad behaviour. Alexbrn (talk) 04:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- I already mentioned this article to DGG and he said he'd come review it, particularly the weak lede, the lack of any real biographical material, and the UNDUE Skeptic advocacy section with links to his off-Wiki blog and what is clearly full-blown promotion of an advocacy. It doesn't matter if it's a good cause or not. It's still an advocacy, therefore it is noncompliant with NPOV. For you to not recognize the major issue with this article while criticizing a GA tells me maybe the problem could be WP:CIR. I'll wait to hear from DGG before I request a team of copy editors or maybe a peer review. You can either help and collaborate or you can be disruptive - your choice. Atsme 04:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- The tags have gone, I suggest avoiding edit-warring them back in unless there's a consensus they're merited. Alexbrn (talk) 04:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'll get there today. But I am checking it as any other scientific biography. I'm not part of the GA project. DGG ( talk ) 16:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you, DGG. I think NPOV, WEIGHT, and SOAPBOX are what guide any article including BLPs. While the BLP might be about a scientist or medical professional, it should still be written like a BLP - biographical material, not so much scientific. You list what they are notable for but we don't delve into the science. That is left for the topic of the science they are notable for - say cardiac surgery - while a BLP is (as I'm sure you know) about the person's life - career - motivations - education - and the like. We don't promote advocacies in a BLP, and that is one of the concerns of this BLP. It needs more biographical material and far less advocacy weighing down the sections. Atsme 21:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Twice the problems here. I'm going to recruit the copy edit team and get this mess cleaned up. Please don't remove the tags. Atsme 04:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
No offence, but this seems extremely tit for tat by the sounds of it. If you are having a dispute on another page, don't disrupt this one to make a point. Firstly, we are of course going to link to his blog at the bottom of the page; that's just normal practice for a blogger (particularly where the blogging is remarked by secondary sources and is known for its quality). Secondly, his h-index of 20 and a 10-index of 24 is respectable but does not seem particularly to contribute to notablity, but the section on skepticism is well sourced and is a major reason why he is notable. We are of course going to give considerable weight in this article to his skepticism of bullshit. Second Quantization (talk) 21:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Wow, after reading Talk:Gabor_B._Racz#Reads_like_an_advert, I see you are being massively WP:POINTy here. Second Quantization (talk) 21:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- With all due respect, you're a theoretical physicist and a skeptic so of course you're here to defend the skeptic section of Gorski and so it doesn't surprise me that you would criticize Racz. I'm a professional writer of biographical material and don't try to impose my will on medical editors writing about science or treatments or drugs. How about the same respect in return? I just write about the person in a way to engage the average reader which is actually our job as editors here on WP. The average person has no desire to read static science biographies. That isn't what an encyclopedia does, it isn't what WP expects, and it certainly doesn't satisfy even the minimum criteria for GA. Biographies are not science - just that simple. For you to criticize the biography of man who is nearing 80 years old and who has accomplished things that have made significant changes in the way pain is managed is kind of out in left field. Maybe by the time Gorski is nearing 80, he will have more credentials and accomplishments that we can add to this BLP - there may well be more out there right now but it's being suppressed because his skepticism is taking center stage. That kind of raises a red flag. Right now, his being a vocal skeptic is an advocacy no matter how we look at it, and while it deserves a paragraph or two, WP shouldn't be including links to his off-wiki blogs which promote his advocacy. It certainly doesn't deserve an entire section that outweighs everything else the man has accomplished. There may be some references to science and/or medicine in a BLP - the parts that made the person notable, of course - but you might want to read up on what WP:BLP requires. The Racz article was reviewed by experienced reviewers and editors - it went through the gambit. I have updated some of the MEDRS sources that Doc James and Ca2james brought to my attention. I gave it a lot of thought and I agree that medical claims deserve quality sources. That's basically all that was wrong with the BLP. Listing credentials is not promotional, and neither is mentioning what made the man notable. Biographies about doctors like Gabor Racz, Michael E. DeBakey, Ben Carson and the like are naturally going to seem promotional because they are great doctors. It's not promotion - it's information. Atsme 22:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Don't try an ad hominem on me, I'll just start getting nasty and do it right back.
- "so it doesn't surprise me that you would criticize Racz" That's funny, because I didn't and because I know zero about him. Stop inventing things I never said. Read what I wrote. I criticised your massively pointy behaviour. I don't care about the Racz article. Stop using this article as a proxy for it. If you want to discuss that article, you are on the wrong talk page; because I don't.
- "For you to criticize the biography of man who is ... Let's not let facts get in the way of a good rant.
- " I'm a professional writer of biographical material and don't try to impose my will on medical editors writing about science or treatments or drugs. How about the same respect in return?" Do not tell me not to edit an article and get over yourself. I'm going to just treat that question with the utter contempt it deserves. You're paid to edit biographical articles you say? That doesn't shock me ... Do you have any conflicts of interest you would like to declare? By the way Super Expert Paid Biographer In Chief, paragraphs help break up long prose (that will help with the great big wall of text you just wrote). Bear that in mind.
- "Right now, his being a vocal skeptic is an advocacy no matter how we look at it, and while it deserves a paragraph or two, WP shouldn't be including links to his off-wiki blogs which promote his advocacy. " How about reading our actual policies rather than just talking a load of nonsense? His skepticism deserves space because that's where the sources put the emphasis. That's the core of WP:NPOV. Brush up on policy, stop dictating, and stop talking about Racz because it's irrelevant here. Second Quantization (talk) 22:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Stop the bullying, it doesn't impress me. Let's not forget your ad hominem came first with your snide remarks of "No offence, but this seems extremely tit for tat" and "don't disrupt this one to make a point." and "I see you are being massively WP:POINTy here." In fact, just leave me alone. I have nothing to say to you. I can see what your purpose is here and it is clearly ill-will toward me. Atsme 00:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Stop the bullying?! You demanded that I stop editing because you claimed to be paid to write some biographies and you even stalked me to an unrelated page. You are the bully and I'm not taking it. If you want to disrupt this article, don't. Read the policies and guidelines. Second Quantization (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Stop the bullying, it doesn't impress me. Let's not forget your ad hominem came first with your snide remarks of "No offence, but this seems extremely tit for tat" and "don't disrupt this one to make a point." and "I see you are being massively WP:POINTy here." In fact, just leave me alone. I have nothing to say to you. I can see what your purpose is here and it is clearly ill-will toward me. Atsme 00:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- With all due respect, you're a theoretical physicist and a skeptic so of course you're here to defend the skeptic section of Gorski and so it doesn't surprise me that you would criticize Racz. I'm a professional writer of biographical material and don't try to impose my will on medical editors writing about science or treatments or drugs. How about the same respect in return? I just write about the person in a way to engage the average reader which is actually our job as editors here on WP. The average person has no desire to read static science biographies. That isn't what an encyclopedia does, it isn't what WP expects, and it certainly doesn't satisfy even the minimum criteria for GA. Biographies are not science - just that simple. For you to criticize the biography of man who is nearing 80 years old and who has accomplished things that have made significant changes in the way pain is managed is kind of out in left field. Maybe by the time Gorski is nearing 80, he will have more credentials and accomplishments that we can add to this BLP - there may well be more out there right now but it's being suppressed because his skepticism is taking center stage. That kind of raises a red flag. Right now, his being a vocal skeptic is an advocacy no matter how we look at it, and while it deserves a paragraph or two, WP shouldn't be including links to his off-wiki blogs which promote his advocacy. It certainly doesn't deserve an entire section that outweighs everything else the man has accomplished. There may be some references to science and/or medicine in a BLP - the parts that made the person notable, of course - but you might want to read up on what WP:BLP requires. The Racz article was reviewed by experienced reviewers and editors - it went through the gambit. I have updated some of the MEDRS sources that Doc James and Ca2james brought to my attention. I gave it a lot of thought and I agree that medical claims deserve quality sources. That's basically all that was wrong with the BLP. Listing credentials is not promotional, and neither is mentioning what made the man notable. Biographies about doctors like Gabor Racz, Michael E. DeBakey, Ben Carson and the like are naturally going to seem promotional because they are great doctors. It's not promotion - it's information. Atsme 22:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Wow, after reading Talk:Gabor_B._Racz#Reads_like_an_advert, I see you are being massively WP:POINTy here. Second Quantization (talk) 21:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Meh - stop bullying. Stick to content. Go read WP:BLP. Atsme 00:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Categories: