Talk:G. Patrick Maxwell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.

This article was nominated for deletion on March 21, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on June 3, 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Some highly inappropriate remarks have previously been placed on this page, which have led to the deletion of the page history. Please write with respect and caution. The article and this page are now being closely monitored. Thank you. See also WikiProject Biography Tyrenius 02:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 edit 2 Style 3 Edit war? 4 Commercial sites as references

[edit] edit

Pascal, please describe you issues with thisDroliver 07:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I can help. He reverted to the last version, which I have done, yet again. I think he described what was 'fluff', as have others. For you to keep reverting to a version that several editors have said is not appropriate, it not good faith editing.Jance 16:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Style

Droliver,

I have no idea what Pascal's issues are but at present this article fails dramatically on WP:PEACOCK. It may be common practice in some circles to describe people with all sorts of flattery but it is not appropriate in wikipedia. --BozMo talk 15:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• BozMo, I have addressed this concern for you with the latest editDroliver 01:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

"Maxwell has been subsequently mentioned in a number of pop-culture magazines as among the best cosmetic Plastic Surgeons in the world." for example is one of the lowest quality sentences I have ever seen in Wikipedia. All the "is a world authority" comments etc are unacceptable as well. Please read WP:PEACOCK and modify these latest additions.

I have not heard of WP:PEACOCK so thank you BozMo. I have learned a new Wikiword. It surely fits here. This kind of puffery is nothing less than panegyrics extrolling the wonderful accomplishments of Oliver's mentor. While respect for a teacher is laudable, subjecting the rest of us to rosey puffery is not. In fact, this article has been nominated for deletion twice, and the second time there was no clear decision, so it stayed. I just dont see how this person is all that notable. Well, maybe notorious, but not notable.  ;-) [User:Jance|Jance]] 08:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

As to Pascal - his edit description was a very short description of what you and I both were saying - WP:PEACOCK. Fluff piece is not acceptable. Now I hope we can apply this sound reasoning to the article on Breast implants.Jance 08:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war?

I don't believe that the one sentence is all that Pascal or BozMo objected to, here. I encourage others to read Oliver's version (in history) or the current version, and see which is the more appropriate. One read still like WP:PEACOCK while the other is an accurate recitation of all-positive facts and "achievements" without fawning and fluff. Jance 16:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with the version as it is now? Is it inaccurate? Or simply n ot enough padding for Droliver?

An example of what is NOT needed: "He has contributed a number of key articles to the anatomic descriptions, clinical applications, and aesthetic refinements of the transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM) [PMID 8187418] and latissimus flap procedures [PMID 7273637] for breast reconstruction, and is a world authority on silicone breast implants and ultrasonic liposuction technologies [PMID 9427937].

Maxwell was a co-founder of and serves as Executive EVP for Diversified Specialty Institutes [3], a healthcare and specialty hospital development company and also serves as a consultant to Allergan, Snowden-Pencer, and Ivivi Technologies for plastic surgery-related products. He is a founder and board member of the nonprofit Aspen Center for Integrative Health [4]

THis reads like not even a CV, but a glossy marketing page. Instead of "Maxwell became known as the surgeon..." what is the matter with "Maxwell was the surgeon and co-author of the first successful microsurgical transfer of ... This is more factual and less fawning. Besides, Maxwell is known by whom? You? Others in the plastic surgery community? That's better, but I don't know the sentence as it reads now does not convey his accomplishment without the fluff.

"The two-stage methods of expander-implant reconstruction described by Maxwell and Spears has become the most widely used technique for implant-based breast reconstruction." Says who? Where is any citation? Says you? And who are Maxwell and Spears?Jance 17:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC) "He has contributed a number of key articles to the anatomic... " = This sounds like a badly written resume.

Totally superfluous unless for a CV or resume:

"Maxwell was a co-founder of and serves as Executive EVP for Diversified Specialty Institutes [3], a healthcare and specialty hospital development company and also serves as a consultant to Allergan, Snowden-Pencer, and Ivivi Technologies for plastic surgery-related products. He is a founder and board member of the nonprofit Aspen Center for Integrative Health " WHO CARES?

Yet another fluff - every professional on earth (or at least in the US) knows that this 'award' is not distinctive, and while maybe impressive to some, not particulary unusual, noteworthy or meaningful: "In 1991 he was selected by his peers to be included in The Best Doctors in America[8] and in every subsequent “Best Doctors” list published from then to the present"

Then here are commercial links that WIkipedia should not condone:

Plastic surgery journals with the obligatory picture of one of their own on a visiting Professorship:

"Feature on visiting professorship in Kentucky, Feature on visiting professorship in China" Every professional organization has such a group, and photos of the flavor of the month. This is Wikipedia???

DSI Corporate Bio page --- a corporate, commercial link to "Centers of Personalized Healthcare". Unfortunately, many doctors in the US own clinics and there has been some heated debate about potential ethics problems. Some doctors now have signs in their office that they may own clinics etc. So this is now worthy of WIkipedia?

Aspen Center for Integrative Health Vanderbilt University Plastic Surgery Faculty WIRED magazine article on breast implants quoting Maxwell

[edit] Commercial sites as references

I don't think commercial product catalogs are reliable resources for professional credentials. I will let some others comment on the obviously bad writing, poor sources and WP:PEACOCK added once again.Jance 06:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)