Talk:Gabor B. Racz/Archive 1

Archive 1

COI

Per box at the top of this page, an editor appears to have a COI with regard to the subject of this article. The article need to be reviewed for NPOV and sourcing. Once the article is cleaned by an independent editor, the tag can be removed. If you do that, please leave a note here. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

This is nothing short of harassment. Be prepared to go to ANI. Atsme^📞📧 23:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Atsme.2C_Earthwave.2C_WP:SELFCITE.2C_Gabor_B._Racz I won't be interacting with you further on this, except to reply once at these various talk pages. Jytdog (talk) 00:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Make that ARBCOM. Atsme^📞📧 03:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

COI

User:Jytdog, I see you tagged this as COI. I think it's incumbent on you to explain that. It's not obvious to me why User:Atsme has a COI, and to add the tag without reason isn't WP:AGF Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

In the section above, I noted that the explanatory links are in the box at the top of this page (the "connected contributor" section at the bottom of box). I did explain. Jytdog (talk) 05:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

hm - the facebook link is now broken; she must have taken the post down. Well, it was there, and I saved a screencap is case that would be needed. It was on earthwave society's facebook page and it said: "Gabor B. Racz, M.D. - his Wikipedia biography is now complete" and had a link to this WP article. It was dated April 14, 2014. I've asked Atsme at COIN (linked in the COI section above) what the connection between Earthwave and Racz is. No answer to that yet. i'm kind of willing to assume that she was using that facebook page as more of a personal blog rather than as news relevant to the organization... but only kind of, in light of the undisclosed COI editing discussed in the COIN thread. Jytdog (talk) 05:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Jytdog, thanks for that. I have to say that I still have concerns that it looks like outing, and I'm not sure that it's a positive move given the history between some editors, including yourself, and this user (just stating a fact, not commenting on the rights and wrongs here). I think that there are some valid concerns with this article, although it was passed for GA by a an experienced independent editor, but the language issues at least are easily fixable. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey Jim. I thought carefully about the OUTING issues and I believe what I have done is in-bounds. I understand that others might think differently and am open to hearing about that. As I reckon you know, the reason across all institutions that people with a COI are obligated to disclose it, is so that reviewers/readers are aware that there might be bias or promotional goals. This article is pretty promotional and I don't reckon it will look much like it does now after WP:MED editors review it. I am not going to do that now, but will do it later when the dust settles from this, if others haven't done it first. And I very much hear you on the bad history between Atsme and me. I am trying (not very successfully) to stay out of this, now that I have raised it. Jytdog (talk) 06:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, I think there is a difference between claiming a COI and effectively outing an editor who denies at least a current COI. It looks worse when you tag a featured article like American paddlefish as COI. For the life of me, I cannot see how the claimed COI detracts from an FA article about a fish, which has been assessed at WP:FAC by many experienced editors. To tag everything User:Atsme has done as COI without clarifying how the claimed COI affects the veracity of the article looks like WP:POINT or settling scores. I invite you to reconsider which of the articles you have tagged are actually affected by the claimed COI, otherwise I'll remove the tags myself where it looks like bullying rather than being relevant. So far, I've only checked the fish, but that's such a poor decision, I think you should look at all those you believe have been adversely affected by the COI to check that that is really the case. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy to continue the discussion, but is this a discussion to have on an article Talk page? Five quick responses though. I have not tagged everything she has done and I don't know why you would say that. On the fish articles, the COI is not about the subject matter, but use of sources and ELs to promote her organization (this happens all the time); on this article, there appears to be some relationship between Atsme/Earthwave and this doctor, due to a) the facebook posting and b) the promotional tone of this article. You don't seem to have read the COIN thread nor seen the community's reaction to using her ELs in 2011 when Atsme did disclose the relationship; disclosure matters. And finally, there is no OUTING; she disclosed the relationship here in WP. Jytdog (talk) 17:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Reads like an advert

This article is full of peacock language. For example:

• "He has pioneered procedures and designs"
• " and pioneered what became known as the Racz procedure, which has been recognized internationally as a substantial advancement in the treatment for lysis"
• "many prestigious honors and awards"
• " innovative work with nerve stimulators"
• This is not supported by the reference "Developments in the lysis of adhesions technique by Racz[10] and his colleagues resulted in the treatment of many patients suffering from failed back and neck surgery and spinal stenosis without the need for additional surgery"
• "In 1982, Racz pioneered what became known as the Racz Catheter procedure"
• This ref is broken [1]
• this content is not supported by the ref provided "Racz designed and patented the Racz Catheter, a flexible, spring-wound"
• "Racz is internationally recognized for procedural advancements"
• And than it appears to contain copyright infringement such as "Racz has published numerous book chapters and journal articles describing his techniques in spinal cord and peripheral nerve stimulation, neurolysis, radiofrequency thermocoagulation and other interventional procedures used in management of pain." from [2] have removed in this edit [3]

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Talking about peacock, let's compare it to David Gorski, ok? Gorski's article, "Blockade of the vascular endothelial growth factor stress response increases the antitumor effects of ionizing radiation", characterizing the effects of angiogenesis inhibitors on the effectiveness of anti-tumor therapies has been cited over 900 times according to PubMed. And how about this one that isn't even cited, The article, Regulation of angiogenesis through a microRNA (miR-130a) that down-regulates antiangiogenic homeobox genes GAX and HOXA5 by Gorski and Yun Chen, into the use of microRNA to regulate angiogenesis[22] led to research by Jason E. Fish's group at the University of California, San Francisco, into the use of microRNA to regulate blood vessel development, limiting tumor growth.? Some of the cited sources there need attention, too. Let's collaborate over there first, and then we can come back here and fix this article so we have uniform consistency throughout the encyclopedia regarding BLPs on medical doctors. Atsme^📞📧 17:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Not once is Gorski referred to as a "pioneer" or an "innovator" or "internationally recognized"

That article is much more low key. And is not a GA Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

You are correct in that Gorski is not a GA. So let's fix it and make it one. As for not being "referred to", let's just say it is implied. The difference here is that RS refer to this BLP using those terms, therefore it is acceptable to use them. Why do you take issue with reliably sourced material that actually recognizes a person's accomplishments? He did pioneer the procedure, he is an innovator, and he is internationally recognized. What's wrong with that? Atsme^📞📧 20:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Copy and paste

Our article says

"In October 2012, Racz received a lifetime achievement award for the nation's leading physician in international pain management from the New York/New Jersey Societies of Interventional Pain Physicans at their Symposium held in Jersey City, New Jersey."

Ref says

"lifetime achievement award for the nation’s leading physician in interventional pain management from the New York /New Jersey Societies of Interventional Pain Physicians at their October 19-21, 2012 Symposium held in Jersey City, New Jersey." [4]

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Simple rewording which I've done, and really didn't need to because it's fair use. Rather than spend all this time criticizing, why don't you just fix the prose you have an issue with? I'm beginning to feel like your personal copy editor. Atsme^📞📧 20:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

We do not allow free use of text on Wikipedia generally. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

More poorly supported text

We say "Groundbreaking ceremonies for the new $4.3 million, 12,700 square feet (1,180 m2) Messer-Racz International Pain Center on the TTUHSC campus took place on June 13, 2005. Construction was completed in December 2008. According to Texas Tech Today, the center was named for Gene and Carlene Messer, who made a generous donation to the project, and for Gabor B. Racz." Only the last sentence is supported by the ref provided [5] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Poorly supported? Well, if you want to avoid copyvio, we need to write the prose in our own words. I added another source to satisfy your concerns. I would also like to know what the purpose is for your criticism of this article when you're actually not contributing anything to help correct the issues. Are you here to collaborate or critique? We already know what brought you here. If your only purpose here is to criticize, may I suggest that you also try writing some of the prose and actually help find the sources? You added the tag for the article to be reevaluated, so let that process take place. In the interim, please help fix the issues you're so boldly pointing out, not all of which are substantive criticisms. Atsme^📞📧 20:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Other issues

• There's also nothing about the company he started: "In 1985, Epimed International originated in Lubbock, TX by Gabor J. Racz, in an effort to promote the Racz® Catheter" [6]
• References for the Racz catheter, Racz procedure, and complex regional pain syndrome are not MEDRS-compliant
• The Racz procedure is also known as "epidural neurolysis", "epidural neuroplasty", and "percutaneous adhesiolysis" but that's not in the article
• The article lead says "substantial advancement in the treatment for lysis of adhesions" but the treatment is "lysis of adhesions"
• The article says "[The Racz procecdure] has also resulted in new Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes and multiple insurance approvals affecting interventional pain management treatments in clinics across the country." A brief search indicates that the Racz procedure is still considered experimental, at least by insurance companies, [7][8][9] (I know they're not great sources)

I'm not sure that this article should have received a GA designation at least based on the lack of MEDRS sources. Should this article's GA designation be reassessed (or delisted), individually or by the community, or should we attempt to fix the article and then possibly reassess? Thanks. Ca2james (talk) 17:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Have started the GAR here [10] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Rather than simply criticize the sources, why don't you identify which sources you believe do not meet RS? Oh, and don't forget those situations when WP:MEDRS criteria is malleable and that we can also apply WP:IAR when sources are limited. My mentor at the time, User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah, helped me with the sourcing and getting the article ready for DYK and GA. And since we are now collaborating on medical articles and BLPs, there are other articles waiting in the wings you can help with. I already mentioned David Gorski which is the article I modeled this one after. It has some pretty serious issues like this one. Looks like maybe I picked the wrong role model. Anyway, what I like most about writing BLPs for promotion to FA is that criteria expects the prose to be "engaging" unlike the the dry scientific approach we see far too often. Engaging prose makes the information much more palatable and likely to be read. If my friend hadn't told me about Racz and his work with CRPS, I never would have known such a problem existed. In addition to her own issues with CRPS which she developed from an infected dog bite, she told me about celebrities who also suffer with the syndrome, [11]. Oh, and while we're on the subject of BLPs, there's also an article about a doctor Guy suggested I work on to bring to GA status, Peter_Wilmshurst, so there's another article we can collaborate on. There's also one I have on my list of potential "doctor" articles another friend told me about, Francis Robicsek who I'm pretty sure passes GNC. I guess as we get older, we become more aware of doctors. I am so looking forward to collaborating with medical experts. Atsme^📞📧 18:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I identified the topics for which the sourcing did not meet MEDRS, which should be enough. Celebrities apparently suffering from a syndrome does not mean the syndrome exists - see Morgellons. Ca2james (talk) 18:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to speak out of school, but if my memory serves, there is a way to detect or confirm the condition by measuring bone rotation. I haven't done the research or gotten that detailed into CRPS because this is a BLP. I don't consider myself qualified to write full-blown medical articles and have no intention of doing so. I prefer to leave that for the experts, but when it comes to BLPs, I am quite comfortable with my ability to do a good job. Also, there are no copyright issues in this article. When this article was reviewed for GA, the Duplication Detector tool was used and there were no copyright violations detected. I've already been over this with reviewers. You deleted 3 paragraphs of my work stating in the edit summary that it was a copy and paste from http://www.worldinstituteofpain.org/site/pages.php?pageid=47. The only thing used verbatim from the source you named in the edit summary was the following statement: Racz has published numerous book chapters and journal articles describing his techniques in spinal cord and peripheral nerve stimulation, neurolysis, radiofrequency thermocoagulation and other interventional procedures used in management of pain. The other two paragraphs were compiled from information in his Curriculum Vitae [12] which is what the World Institute of Pain article actually mirrored. Both sources were authored by Paula Brashear (secretary to Dr. Racz). Inclusion of that material is perfectly acceptable per BLP as a self-published source. You might also want to read [13] regarding fair use. I'm going to restore the material and change the wording of that one sentence since you seem concerned about it. Atsme^📞📧 19:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

References

While it's possible that the world institute of pain bio and this article independently came up with the same wording, it's extremely unlikely. Also, since the WIoP page says Within the next year his vision of education, clinical practice and research will be further fulfilled when the new Racz International Pain Center will open on the campus of Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center in September 2008 in Lubbock, Texas. it's an indication that the WIoP bio was created in 2007 or 2008 whereas this article was created in 2014. Therefore, since the wording in the first two paragraphs of the Recognition section are almost identical to that on the WIoP page, that text is a copyvio in this article and it must be deleted. The information can be included, but the wording must be significantly altered. Ca2james (talk) 20:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not copyvio. Your reasoning doesn't make any sense because you apparently didn't read who wrote the article which I pointed out above. Go back and look at the author of the source and where it originated. Atsme^📞📧 21:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Using the exact - or almost exact - wording as another source is a WP:COPYVIO The wording in this article copied the wording, sentence structure, and sentence order from the WIoP bio. That's a COPYVIO. Ca2james (talk) 21:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Re: the other issues list above:

1. There's also nothing about the company he started: "In 1985, Epimed International originated in Lubbock, TX by Gabor J. Racz, in an effort to promote the Racz® Catheter" - yes, you are correct. That actually would be promotional.
2. References for the Racz catheter, Racz procedure, and complex regional pain syndrome are not MEDRS-compliant - I added the journals listed in PubMed
3. The Racz procedure is also known as "epidural neurolysis", "epidural neuroplasty", and "percutaneous adhesiolysis" but that's not in the article - This is a BLP. Perhaps you'd like to create a separate medical article about the Racz procedure and include all those medical terms?
4. The article lead says "substantial advancement in the treatment for lysis of adhesions" but the treatment is "lysis of adhesions" - fixed the syntax. See if it works better now.

• The article says "[The Racz procecdure] has also resulted in new Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes and multiple insurance approvals affecting interventional pain management treatments in clinics across the country." A brief search indicates that the Racz procedure is still considered experimental, at least by insurance companies, [14][15][16] (I know they're not great sources) - I found the following which does indicate limited coverage per BCBS but I'm not sure if this is an acceptable source, or how best to word that passage. It is coded as 64999 - unlisted procedure, nervous system, and the coverage sucks. Atsme^📞📧 21:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• I undertook the GA assessment of this article in December 2014. One of my first comments was: "My main concern is that the article reads as if it was written not by a neutral observer but by someone too close to the subject." Atsme assured me that was not the case, so I reviewed the article in the normal way and came to the conclusion that it met the GA criteria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• There is no COI, Cwmhiraeth - you didn't do anything wrong. I have been wrongly accused of it. The false allegations of COI (2 articles are involved) are still being evaluated by OS. My volunteer position with Earthwave had nothing to do with my work on WP. I added some external links back 2011 when I was an active volunteer - they were removed. I came back in 2014 and started editing various articles. I was retired and my status with Earthwave was emeritus, not active. I cited some information I obtained from the Earthwave website regarding some ancestral species of fishes because they had the available material and were among the first to start documenting the information. I was also able to uploaded rare u/w footage they allowed me to upload to Commons under CC BY-SA 3.0. Anyway, that's where the claims of COI come into play. Regardless, it had nothing to do with this article. The issues being brought up now are unwarranted. There were two sentences in this article that needed better sources, I added them, period the end. They're picking it apart simply because no one can stop them not that there's anything wrong with the article. What's happening now is POV. Racz is an academic with an "h" index of 29 and a "g" >50. There aren't a lot of sources available when it comes to scholars and medical professionals as you know. I used the best sources out there. I will be working on a few other BLPs about doctors - one that JzG recommended, and another that was recommended to me by a friend. This razzmatazz about COI is all nonsense. Atsme^📞📧 13:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
• Thanks for your comment, Cwmhiraeth. Setting aside COI, this article should not have been passed as a GA both because it was written in a promotional way and because the sourcing is inadequate. Medical diagnoses, devices, and procedures need sourcing that confirms to WP:MEDRS. The rest of the article relies quite heavily on primary sources. I appreciate that you had good intentions in reviewing the article but going forward, closer attention to sourcing might be something to keep in mind. Thanks again. Ca2james (talk) 19:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• Wow - and your 1700 edits and expertise as a reviewer on WP is what validates your POV. Do you even realize what Cwmhiraeth has accomplished for the project? You couldn't be more condescending to an experienced editor with tenure. Unbelievable. Atsme^📞📧 19:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• There is no tenure here. I appreciate what the editor has done for the project but the fact is that this article with its poor sourcing (and copyvios) should not have passed GA. Not everyone is familiar with MEDRS, and bringing all that up in a respectful way, which I've done, is not being condescending. If you are unable to address me in a respectful way please stay away from me. Thank you. Ca2james (talk) 20:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

That's your opinion - every criticism you've made here is your opinion and it conflicts with the prevalent consensus and the fact this article was already reviewed and passed GA status. Let the process work. Your personal opinions on WP aren't anymore reliable than mine or the reviewer or the other editors who collaborated to help this article attain GA status. If you can't deal with the criticism then don't edit on WP. If your intention is to tell every editor who criticizes your work to stay away from you, then pack up and move on because you will eventually find yourself alone in a vast wilderness of criticism. And let's not overlook the fact that all you've done since you arrived at this article is revert RS general knowledge and criticize the work of two editors who invested quite a lot of effort into getting this article right. Since you are so willing to hand it out, be prepared to take it. Atsme^📞📧 21:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Criticism, critique, and disagreement are part of collaboration and I welcome them as long as they're done respectfully if about editor behaviour (ie discussing the behaviour itself and not the person) and focused on content if it's about content (ie not being condescending, not suggesting that the editor lacks competence, and not falsely accusing them of ill-will or harassment). I treat others the same way. I'm asking you to please be respectful in interacting with me, and I'm saying that if you can't or won't do that, to please stay away from me. Thank you. Ca2james (talk) 22:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Based on the edits you've made to this GA, it appears you need a bit more practice before you hack away at an article that was already reviewed and was promoted to GA. You are not making any improvements, in fact you have changed the meaning of sentences, removed identifying titles, removed credentials that belong in the article, and unless you can actually edit to improve, please do not alter this GA. The issues regarding sourcing were corrected. The passages are fine as is.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs) 00:40, 7 July 2015

• This never was a GA. It was full of promotional phrases and adjectives, duplicate or triplicate treatment of of achievements, and concentration on awards. (There were also the problems with inadequate sourcing for medical claims, as discussed above). The first step to improving quality is to remove this. Ca2james and others have begun, and I am continuing, since my main interest here is in scientific biographies). Racz is distinguished, and is unfair to the subjects of articles for their real accomplishments to be hidden in promotionalism. I am not sure whether it would meet the GA criteria even after the improvements that we are making, but I leave this to others. DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Is that what you think? Then please go clean up David Gorski if you don't want promotionalism. It even includes a link to his off-Wiki blog, and the section advocating his skepticism is way overweighted and a promotion of his advocacy. Atsme^📞📧 01:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

DGG - I think there's a problem with the way you worded the following: as the Racz procedure for the treatment for lysis of adhesions Lysis of adhesions is the treatment so I think that change may have messed up the meaning of the phrase. I already corrected it after Doc James pointed it out. Atsme^📞📧 01:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I corrected it, but the butchering of this article has to stop. Editors who want to collaborate here can be of help finding better sources. Chopping away at prose and inserting mistakes in an already reviewed GA is not an improvement and it certainly isn't helpful. Atsme^📞📧 01:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, DGG. Atsme, I understand that you don't want this article changed but even GAs can be edited; they don't stay as they were when they received the designation. Reverting edits that tag this article as having problems [17][18] (whether they're at the top or inline), or that attempt to remove the problems themselves [19][20] appears as WP:OWN behaviour which isn't encouraged here. Ca2james (talk) 02:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• The procedure he seems to have a invented a device to do, is "Percutaneous adhesiolysis". Did a pubmed search for reviews on that; results are here - there are some sources independent of him there which is good. I'll look for information on his company. I like that kind of thing. Jytdog (talk) 03:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

CV

A few things in this article are sourced to source given as:

• Paula Brashear (March 31, 2008). "CURRICULUM VITAE Gabor B. Racz, M.D. Ch.B. DABPM, FIPP". TTUHSC International Pain Institute. Retrieved April 1, 2014.

But on inspection this looks like the subject's CV hosted on a make-your-own-magazine site. Is that right? Alexbrn (talk) 04:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's right, Alexbrn. I'm not sure a CV on such a site is a good source or if there's a better one out there. I don't know what kinds of sources are best for bios of medical professionals. Some of the paragraphs I've removed were copied from a World Institute of Pain biography (the link is somewhere below), also written by Paula Brashear.

I think the article could use restructuring as well with something like Early Career, Later Career, and Personal Life sections. I don't know what would be best and need to take a look at some other articles before tackling this. Ca2james (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the problem is the reference is misleading since it isn't really "published" by the TTUHSC International Pain Institute nor "authored" by Brashear (who is Racz's secretary?). I'd agree this is a poor source and needn't be used. Alexbrn (talk) 06:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

COPYVIO

There is a COPYVIO in this article that I have tried to remove and Atsme has reverted back in, in the Recognitions and Awards section. The words, sentence structure, and sentence ordering appear to be copied from here. As I said above, that text appears to have been written before this article and as a result this text appears to be a clear copyright violation. We're not allowed to use others' words like this.

Atsme has defended these paragraphs by saying that she pulled the information from a CV (which is used as a reference). However, it's extremely unlikely that two different authors would write almost identical words in the same sentence structure and ordering. The correct thing to do is to remove the COPYVIO, which I'm going to do once again.(done Ca2james (talk)) Please don't revert again.

Here is a sentence-by-sentence comparison table between the webpage and this article, in the order they both appear.

World Institute of Pain	Article
He is a lifetime member, board emeritus and faculty member for American Society of Pain Physicians.	Racz is a lifetime member, board emeritus member, and faculty member of the American Society of Pain Physicians.
He is a charter member of World Institute of Pain and National Pain Foundation. He is a Founder of World Institute of Pain.	He is a charter member of the National Pain Foundation, and a founder and charter member of the World Institute of Pain.
In May 2005 he began a three-year tern as President of WIP, included his presiding over the 4th WIP World Congress September 2007 in Budapest, Hungary, attended by 1,800 physicians from 72 countries.	In May 2005 he served a three-year term as President of WIP, and presided over the 4th WIP World Congress in September 2007 in Budapest, Hungary, an event that was attended by 1,800 physicians from 72 countries.
He has served with the FIPP ( Fellow of Interventional Pain Practice) Examination since it began in 2001.	He has served with the FIPP Examination since it began in 2001.
Dr. Racz holds the certificate of Diplomat with the American College of Pain Management, the American Board of Anesthesiology, the American Board of Pain Medicine, Fellow of Interventional Pain Practice awarded by the World Institute of Pain and the American Board of Interventional Pain Practice (ABIPP) certification awarded by ASIPP and WIP.	He also holds the certificate of Diplomat with the American College of Pain Management, the American Board of Anesthesiology, the American Board of Pain Medicine, Fellow of Interventional Pain Practice awarded by the WIP and the American Board of Interventional Pain Practice (ABIPP) certification awarded by ASIPP and WIP.
He is an advocate for high standards of certification and training among pain physicians and works toward the advancement of those goals.	Racz advocates high standards of certification and training among pain physicians, and has devoted his career working toward the advancement of those goals.
He has earned numerous awards and honors, including the Lifetime Achievement Award from American Society of Interventional Pain Practice and is listed in all editions (1992-2005) of The Best Doctors in America.	He has earned numerous awards and honors, including a Lifetime Achievement Award by the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) which was presented to him in September 2004. He is listed in all editions (1992–2005) of The Best Doctors in America.
In July 2006 he received the MORICCA AWARD, the highest award presented by the Italian Pain Society.	In July 2006 he received the Moricca Award, the highest award presented by the Italian Pain Society.

Ca2james (talk) 02:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Another one: This sentence in the article It has also resulted in new Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes and multiple insurance approvals affecting interventional pain management treatments in clinics across the country. is the same as this sentence This has resulted in new CPT codes and multiple insurance approvals affecting treatments in clinics across the country. from the cited reference. My research above shows that insurance companies don't automatically approve this procedure. I'm not sure that insurance information should be discussed in a biography anyways; if anywhere, it should go in an article about that procedure. Therefore, I'm going to remove it.(done Ca2james (talk)) If it's restored it needs to be reworded. Ca2james (talk) 02:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Another one that Doc James has already pointed out above: this sentence In October 2012, Racz received a lifetime achievement award for the nation's leading physician in international pain management from the New York/New Jersey Societies of Interventional Pain Physicans at their Symposium held in Jersey City, New Jersey. is very similar to this sentence It was a distinct honor to present Professor Gabor Racz the lifetime achievement award for the nation’s leading physician in interventional pain management from the New York /New Jersey Societies of Interventional Pain Physicians at their October 19-21, 2012 Symposium held in Jersey City, New Jersey. I'm going to reword this one.(done Ca2james (talk)) Ca2james (talk) 02:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

It can be very difficult to rewrite lists of awards and positions, some of this and escape some degree of similarity. We normally avoid this by at least a little paraphrase, even if it only amounts to changing the order of words.

and I think that developing the CPT code in a major field is a major accomplishment, and worth inclusion. It's not "insurance information," which for a physician usually means a list of what insurance company payments he accepts for his clinical work. DGG ( talk ) 03:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction with respect to the CPT codes; I didn't know that it was important. We Canadians don't do things the same way as Americans. In this case I agree that it should be included; I'll reword it. With the awards, I agree that it's difficult to find unique wordings but the article's list doesn't appear to be sufficiently different to me. I'll work on that list offline and see what I can come up with to put the awards back. Ca2james (talk) 03:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm just wondering if some of this discussion should take place on the actual GAR page?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I have commented there.[21] Alexbrn (talk) 06:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes but all of this is supposed to be there. An accessible link will be posted to the talk page that links there. In the event that it passes it will show the extent of the review for anyone to see and in the event it fails it will highlight all of the problems so someone in the future might be able to use that as a guide to get it back to GA quality. Most of this should probably be copy and pasted there or at least all future comments should be posted there.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

There really wasn't all that much to do. I knocked out Doc James' list pretty quickly. Most of my time was spent restoring and rewriting the information that kept being deleting. There were some minor tweaks, adding MEDRS sources and/or quality journal refs, and fixing the spaces and syntax errors that were created from all the reverts and add backs. All the medical collaborators need to keep in mind that this is a BLP and we don't need it to be overly scientific or dry to the point the average reader won't read it. The prose needs to be engaging, it's part of the criteria. Atsme^📞📧 07:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Text not supported by refs provided

Neither ref mentions the person in question "Racz is internationally recognized for procedural advancements in the treatment of complex regional pain syndromes (CRPS), a long-term disorder of the nervous system which is a challenging pain problem often misunderstood, and misdiagnosed." Please provide quote from a ref if it does. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

There were several sources plus a little bit of common sense applied establishes that he is internationally recognized. He is actually globally recognized as well considering the number of books and research reviews and articles the man has written on the subject. I'm surprised you are not already quite familiar with his notability, Doc James. Anyway, I fixed the issues. Atsme^📞📧 16:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Ca2james - in the following paragraph ": In 1982, Racz pioneered what became known as the Racz Catheter procedure for lysis of adhesions from around entrapped nerves in the epidural space of the spine.....you added a tag. I don't see where the issue is or what you're saying is not supported. Be specific because I don't see where the cited sources don't support the passage. Also, the sources used are perfectly acceptable per MEDRS so show me where it says they are not. Atsme^📞📧 16:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC) PS: Both you and Doc James are well aware that I have been steadily working to address the minor issues you have raised - not all of which were "issues" - regardless, instead of templating and reverting, please discuss it here first. I am overseeing this article as its creator, co-author, and the editor who was involved in the GA assessment. The issues need to be addressed here first before you go reverting, and templating and deleting prose because it makes it appear that you are not acting in GF. What you're doing to this GA is disruptive, especially after the original reviewer stated he stands by his original assessment. Atsme^📞📧 16:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I added a non-primary source needed tag for the text Candidates for this procedure are usually patients who have developed scar tissue after a previous back surgery, or are suffering severe acute pain of protruding or herniated disks, or other severe degeneration process affecting the lower back. because this sentence is sourced to a small observational study - aka a primary source. From WP:MEDRS: Primary sources should generally not be used for health-related content, because the primary biomedical literature is exploratory and not reliable - any given primary source may be contradicted by another, and the Wikipedia community relies on the guidance of expert reviews, and statements of major medical and scientific bodies, to provide guidance on any given issue. The rare edits that rely on primary sources should have minimal WP:WEIGHT, should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge. Moreover, it looks like the referenced study included patients with scar tissue, disk problems, or lower back degeneration, and that this one study's inclusion criteria is used in the article to generally define candidates for the procedure, which is OR.

The issues that have been raised by myself and Doc James are not minor and remain mostly unfixed because you're reverting both the changes that draw attention to the problems and the changes that attempt to fix them. Ca2james (talk) 16:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I should include the diffs from Kombucha wherein Doc James states MEDRS are malleable? That article also reflects passages that were challenged but still remain in the article even though they were sourced to challenged sources exactly like what's happening here. Is there a double standard? I added the additional sources - they are RS per MEDRS - The rare edits that rely on primary sources should have minimal WP:WEIGHT - a brief sentence is minimal weight. What you are asking is for nearly every sentence in the article to be sourced and that is ridiculous. The reasons provided for not accepting the sources I provided have not been substantive, and the result is that you are being disruptive. I have been trying extremely hard to address the minor issues brought to my attention but this is getting to be ridiculous. Atsme^📞📧 17:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Still spammy

This article still reads like spam. I have warned User:Atsme for removing this tag again. They have not fixed the problems. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

You can't just generalize with such a comment, Doc James. I disagree that it is "spammy" since the sources do support the passages. Is this a doctor to doctor issue when you say "spammy"? State the passages you consider spammy, because without doing so is disruptive. What I'm trying to do is prevent this article from being chopped up beyond recognition after a confirmed experienced reviewer supported its assessment twice. Atsme^📞📧 17:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

It is still full of peacock terminology. The concerns have not been fixed. The sources used to support the spammy text like spineuniverse are sort of spammy themselves. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

General statement and POV. The sky is blue doesn't have to be sourced. The fact the man is an internationally renowned expert on the subject is what makes him notable. How is that spammy? Atsme^📞📧 17:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

See WP:SPAM because your allegations of spammy are unwarranted. It is not "peacock" when it is sourced. Also see WP:PEACOCK which clearly states for example: Just the facts: Dylan was included in Time's 100: The Most Important People of the Century, where he was called "master poet, caustic social critic and intrepid, guiding spirit of the counterculture generation".[refs 1] By the mid-1970s, his songs had been covered by hundreds of other artists. So here are the facts, Doc James: Gabor B. Racz is a notable expert for many reasons including his work and treatment of CRPS, and he has been recognized globally for it. He works with and is a founder of the World Institute of Pain which common sense tells us he is recognized around the world. He also travels, teaches, and gives lectures. That isn't "peacock", that is factual information. There aren't a lot of scientific journals that recognize such accomplishments of individual researchers, so if you're expecting MEDRS compliant sources, you're asking the impossible. All that is required in the case of a BLP are reliable sources and that includes self published. See WP:BLP because you are actually the one being disruptive here. Were it not that this article is a prior reviewed GA that was again recently confirmed by the original reviewer, your challenges may have been substantive. But as it stands now, and according to PAGs, they are nothing more than your POV as is the tag you keep adding without merit. Since you are a doctor critiquing the BLP of another doctor that has already passed GA and was reconfirmed by the original reviewer, I can't help but question the possibility of an unintended bias (with absolutely no disrespect intended toward you) but I have to ask you to reconsider your involvement here. It's one thing when you're editing articles about treatments and drugs etc. but this is a BLP. Atsme^📞📧 18:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes this sums it up nicely Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Puffery. You have "pioneered what became known as" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Here User:DGG removed some puffery [22] which User Atsme returned [23] [24] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Atsme:

(1) I see you said above "a founder of the World Institute of Pain which common sense tells us he is recognized around the world. " Do you really think that anything called "World Institute of..." is necessarily recognized around the world by common sense? I've listed this particular one for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Institute of Pain. I see you've worked on it also.

(2)In the sentence: "The University Medical Center named him to a $1 million endowed chair in recognition of his 'greatness in patient care, teaching and research' what information exactly is added by the "in recognition of his 'greatness in patient care, teaching and research'" ? This is pure puffery.

(3)The repeated use of "some" patients makes the statements meaningless; it might mean 1 in a 1000, or it might be a vague claim based on nothing specific, Even as a quotation, it may represent what was said, but it's meaningless. Picking quotations if done to support a POV can very easily be puffery.

(4)If we can a category for "BA",a Bad Article so promotional as to make the actually notable subject appear as someone in need of unrealistic publicity, I'd nominate this one. It's not just puffery, it's pointless puffery.

(5)and, of course, I strongly encourage DocJames to frequently contribute his expertise on evaluating BLPS of people in medicine. Far too many of them need attention. DGG ( talk ) 04:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh well, I too tried dealing with some of the problems in the early life section (including the incorrect information that Racz was married when he fled Hungary), but was reverted[25]. Smells of WP:OWNership. Alexbrn (talk) 06:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

So far, the change I made to specify that he and Enid were unmarried when they fled[26] has not yet been reverted. However, I tried to modify the text to remove the sensational wording[27] and that was reverted[28] as "Not an improvement". The scent of WP:OWNership is heavy in the air. Ca2james (talk) 15:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

And the clunky repetition of "fled" has come back - which is also not right since when moving from Austria to the UK, Racz was no longer "fleeing". Alexbrn (talk) 16:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

He fled from Hungary to the UK. It wasn't a casual move. All you're doing now with the snarky criticisms is confirming a behavioral pattern of incivility. I see an IP has joined in with an edit summary reflective of another's editor's style. Hmmm. Atsme^📞📧 16:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

If you believe someone is socking, then file an WP:SPI. Ca2james (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Your change was not an improvement, and it has nothing to do with ownership. I did not revert your change to "then-girlfriend" but not without reservations because Enid is his wife. Whether they were married at the time is irrelevant. The infobox shows Enid as his spouse so I'm thinking perhaps the connection will be made. Other editors can weigh-in on that point. I have no problem with collaborators who want to improve this article, but my past experiences with you as a collaborator have demonstrated a pattern of POV pushing like you did at WP:AVDUCK, even though consensus was against you. In retaliation you nominated the essay for a 3rd MfD, after you participated in the two priors and pretended to collaborate in GF, so please stop trying to make me look the bad guy. Atsme^📞📧 16:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

To say that she was his wife at the time they left Hungary is to misstate the sources because the source clearly states that they weren't married at that time. I've changed it to Alexbrn's wording - future wife - because that's clearer. Every edit I have made on Wikipedia is in good faith and has been made to try to improve the encyclopaedia. Please strike your personal attacks against me and in the future please restrict your comments to content only. Ca2james (talk) 17:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The only derogatory comments made here were PAs against me. You're the one who needs to do the striking. Atsme^📞📧 17:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

GAR

Gabor B. Racz

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Atsme, I'd ask you to calm down a moment and consider what's being said. This article is not about Kombucha or Gorski. The English 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 [29] 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 [30], 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: [31], 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)

Racz procedure

Just wanted to say that from a layperson's perspective, the rewrite of that section is clearly an improvement. Good job!! Atsme^📞📧 20:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Thanks also for tweaking the wording a bit. Apologies for taking so long to get those changes done; I had to learn about the procedure and everything before I could write about it and that takes time. I think there's still more to say about the catheter and its development, use, and reception (including the company he founded to manufacture it). I've seen some reports on problems with the catheter (apparently the tip can sometimes break off) but I think that information would belong in an article on the catheter itself, if one exists. Ca2james (talk) 15:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

You are quite welcome. I can't think of anything more satisfying than GF collaboration. GF collaboration can be quite satisfying. It's all about the syntax. Atsme^📞📧 15:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

New GA nomination

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Robert_Cade
• George_Schaller
• Schwester_Selma
• Robert_White_(Virginia_physician)

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

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

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

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

List of references removed with the reference numbers used above

ref 9: Anderson, Susan R.; Racz, Gabor B.; Heavner, James (July 2000). "Evolution of Epidural Lysis of Adhesions" (PDF). Pain Physician Journal. 3 (3): 262–270. PMID 16906184. ref 11: Lenchig, Sergio; Lindley, David (2012). "Chapter 4.2 Caudal Adhesiolysis". In Gupta, Anita (ed.). Interventional Pain Medicine. Oxford University Press. pp. 629–639. ISBN 9780199740604. ref 13: Lee, Frank; Jamison, David E.; Hurley, Robert W.; Cohen, Stephen P. (January 2014). "Epidural Lysis of Adhesions". Korean Journal of Pain. 27 (1): 3–15. doi:10.3344/kjp.2014.27.1.3. PMID 24478895. ref 15: Manchikanti, Laxmaiah; Singh, Vijay (January 2003). "Interventional Pain Management: Evolving Issues For 2003" (PDF). Pain Physician Journal. 6 (1): 125–137. ISSN 1533-3159. PMID 16878168. ref 17: "Gabor B. Racz, MD". Spine Universe. Retrieved July 9, 2015. ref 20: Kalpana R. Kulkarni, Anita I. Kadam, Ismile J. Namazi (November 2010). "Efficacy of Stellate Ganglion Block with an Adjuvant Ketamine for Peripheral Vascular Disease of the Upper Limbs" (PDF). Indian Journal of Anesthesia. 54 (6): 546–551. doi:10.4103/0019-5049.72645. PMID 21224973.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link) ref 21: Ola T. Abdel Dayem, Mostafa M. Saeid, Olfat M. Ismail, Adel M. El Badrawy, and Nevert A. Abdel Ghaffar (2014). "Ultrasound Guided Stellate Ganglion Block in Postmastectomy Pain Syndrome: A Comparison of Ketamine versus Morphine as Adjuvant to Bupivacaine". Journal of Anesthesiology. 2014: 6. doi:10.1155/2014/792569.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link) ref 22: John Davis (November 10, 2005). "Procedure uses phenol, Botox to help restore normalcy to patients - Putting a stop to pain". Lubbock Avalanche-Journal. Retrieved April 5, 2014.

McWhinney helping Racz

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

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

Yes, it was OR and you fixed it; so have gone back to your text. Alexbrn (talk) 03:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)