Talk:G. Patrick Maxwell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on March 21, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.
Articles for deletion 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

[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)

If you actually read the link you're referring to, the company (McGhan) in it is specifically crediting Maxwell with said innovation. As a reminder, that's only referenced to at all because someone was demanding substanciation of this when they were running wild with the references tag awhile back. That being said, some of the specific language objected to was changed as were some of the links you objected to.

Droliver 03:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like a bad idea to demand substantiation of claims made in an article. And, of course, McGhan later became known as Inamed, so if I used the two interechangeably, it is understandable, although I don't know if I did that here. Regardless, of course I looked at the link - that is how I know it is a commercial link (among several). Again, it is irrelevant what is said in the commercial link. It is still a commercial link,, by a company with which Maxwell had a contract. But back to the important point - it is a manufacturer's product catalog. This is hardly a reliable resource for a claim of a surgeon's notability. And I would appreciate it if you would not be so sarcastic, and insulting. I still hope that WP:CIVIL applies to all, including you, Oliver. Jance 09:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • You're being somewhat obtuse here. What is being referenced is mention by a company (which no longer even exists at this point) of their attributing a liscenced intellectual property to the work by Dr. Maxwell and why you find this unreliable I'm unclear as most companies don't go around uneccesarily attributing their product to 3rd parties. If you're satisfied with the veracity of the sentence (by virtue of the reference) I'm not sure what the issue is nor why it would be "irrelevent". If you're interested in the particular technique I'm sure I can email you some reprints if you're interested in educating yourself.Droliver 04:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
You claim to revert "as per discussion." There was no agreement on your version. IN fact, there were several editors who criticized it. Perhaps you don't understand the need to avoid commercial sources in references. A marketing catalog would not be considered an appropriate reference for a high school paper, let alone a college paper, or Wikipedia. I fail to understand how you don't understand this. What is irrelevant is the claim made in the catalog. Surely if this man is so famous, you can find a non-commercial reference to support your claim. If not, then it does not belong here. Your sacrasm and insults are not welcome, either. I think if you review the Wiki guidelines you will find that the sources you used are not considered reliable. And whether or not this company was bought out by another or changed names is irrelevant. I am not going to revert again. I hope, however, someone else will take an interest in helping this article to be NPOV. Oh, and I have seen repeatedly on Wikipedia guidelines that "truth" (as observed by any one editor) is not relevant - it is whether or not the references used are reliable. Jance 19:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Commercial links and references are fairly common on Wikipedia scattered over 1000's of entries. Look at entries on IBM, U2,Oprah Winfrey, or even Girls gone wild for example which are both referenced internally & linked to their truly commercial web portals. Mehmet Oz, Andrew Weil, and other physicians are linked and/or referenced similarly. The admonitions on these practices seems to refer to (and be widely observed by wikipedians) to apply to crass commercialization, and even then it is clearly not widely enforced as witnessed by the persistance of direct links to web properties with sales components. I'm not sure that an older physician-directed manufacturing catalog approaches that by any standard and there certainly is no reason to suspect it's a reliable source for this singular piece of information re Maxwell. On the contrary, if you were sourcing that catalog for a claim of "McGhan's implants are the best!" that would be an unreliable sourceDroliver 05:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Please read WP:RS and related articles. To make a claim that someone is "known for" or "famous for", something other than a marketing catalog should be included as a reference. The only reference you have for this is the commercial link. I could make a claim that my professors are "well known" in their field for one thing or another, and in fact, a number of them are. And for most of those, I could provide sources other than a marketing catalog. Usually when an academic or inventor is extraordinarily accomplished in his/her field, there are some articles in trade journals, professional organization publications, newspapers or other media about it. Whether or not other articles are badly written does not make it right, or in compliance with Wikipedia guidelines. Here, there is a clear conflict of interest since Maxwell had a contract with these manufacturers. And if Maxwell is so well known on these issues, surely you could find a better resource to cite. Otherwise, just how well known is he for this? "Crass commercialization" is clearly in the eye of the beholder, DrOliver. I consider your sources crass. Furthermore, some of your references have no link. Jance 21:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
For that reason, I am reverting - although I said I wouldn't, I found in my research that Wiki guidelines allow deletion of poorly sourced or unsourced material - especially after the editor had a lot of time to come up with a reliable resource. And here, the source I used (that was deleted) was a far more reliable resource than a marketing booklet (and, I might add, the source I had included was expressly allowed by WP:Bio). I will note that the provision in Wikipedia allowing deletion of unsourced or poorly sourced material is not confined to negative material. Per Wikipedia, the burden is on you - not me - to provide a reliable resource. And when you make a broad claim that someone is "known for" something, there should be more than a single old, unreliable source. Also, sources that are used should actually be a source, and not a broken link. Jance 22:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Jance 22:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Again you are being obtuse. There is nothing unreliable about said reference and it is illogical to suggest that the McGhan corp in this instance would innacurately attribute development of part of it's product line to a 3rd party. If you like I can point to a number of lectures around the world on this topic by him which implies the same point re. the biodimensional principles. Like I mentioned, if you wish to become educated on the nuances of breast surgery, I can help you with some informative literatureDroliver 23:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
No, I am not obtuse; you just don't like what I am saying. Your opinion of the "nuances" of this surgery does not consitute a valid source. I do not need to be educated in the specific techniques to be able to read and critique an article that is poorly sourced or unsourced. The burden is on you to provide sources. Many of your links don't even work. And one marketing booklet is insufficient as a resource to make a broad claim about someone's fame (claims like "known for" or "credited with a significant advance"). If you have links to informative literature that support these claims, then by all means use them as references. I wouldn't object. Until then, the claims do not stay. Jance 23:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Here are some of the objectionable sources, for the broad claims made:

  1. ^ Template:Cite ref -- (broken link)
  2. ^ {{cite web | US Patent Office| title= Textured tissue expander| year=1992 | http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=9&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=%22Maxwell%3B+G+Patrick%22&OS="Maxwell;+G+Patrick"&RS="Maxwell;+G+Patrick"| -- (Someone else said the patent number did not match what was listed here, but even if it did, this is one patent and not supportive of a claim to fame.)
  3. ^ Template:Cite ref--(broken link)
  4. ^ Template:Cite ref --(broken link)
  5. ^ {{cite video | author=Maxwell GP and Spear SL | title= Two-Stage Breast Reconstruction Using the Biodimensional System.| year=1995 | McGhan Medical Corp |-- A video authored by the subject of the article.
  6. ^ McGhan Corp.. MCGhan Product Catalog. -- a marketing catalog by the company with whom Maxwell had a contract.
  7. ^ {{cite web | author= Inamed Corp.| title= Inamed Academy Faculty| url=http://www.inamedacademy.com/doctors/drmaxwell. - ditto the above, and I will add that McGhan is now Inamed, for those who do not know. And this has a link for Dr Maxwell.

The author has had ample time to correct the sources or add additional ones, to support a claim to fame, even in the medical community. Remember the Wikipedia statement that, "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources." I can't imagine that an old marketing catalog can be considered an "exceptional source". It is not even a good source. Jance 23:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I might add that Girls Gone Wild is about a 'commercial' (pornography) video. And I suspect the commercial nature of the subject would mandate the inclusion of commercial links. That is hardly comparable with the notability of a plastic surgeon... Or maybe it is. If it is, the article becomes an entirely different article.Jance 01:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Continual reversions to Unsourced & Improperly sourced version

Here are the sources to the version to which Droliver again reverted. He made no attempt to correct these sources:

  1. ^ Template:Cite ref
  2. ^ {{cite web | US Patent Office| title= Textured tissue expander| year=1992 | http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=9&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=%22Maxwell%3B+G+Patrick%22&OS="Maxwell;+G+Patrick"&RS="Maxwell;+G+Patrick"|
  3. ^ Template:Cite ref
  4. ^ Template:Cite ref
  5. ^ {{cite video | author=Maxwell GP and Spear SL | title= Two-Stage Breast Reconstruction Using the Biodimensional System.| year=1995 | McGhan Medical Corp |
  6. ^ Template:Cite ref
  7. ^ Template:Cite ref
  8. ^ McGhan Corp.. MCGhan Product Catalog.
  9. ^ {{cite web | author= Inamed Corp.| title= Inamed Academy Faculty| url=http://www.inamedacademy.com/doctors/drmaxwell.
  10. ^ Template:Cite ref

Jance 00:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced claims

Comments by others would be welcome. Claims to fame should be sourced by something other than the subjects own work.Jance 05:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)