Talk:G. Patrick Maxwell

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Edit war?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Commercial sites as references

message: Here are the sources to the version to which Droliver again reverted.  He made no attempt to correct these sources:
# ^ Template:Cite ref
# ^ {{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"|
# ^ Template:Cite ref
# ^ Template:Cite ref
# ^ {{cite video | author=Maxwell GP and Spear SL | title= Two-Stage Breast Reconstruction Using the Biodimensional System.| year=1995 | McGhan Medical Corp |
# ^ Template:Cite ref
# ^ Template:Cite ref
# ^ McGhan Corp.. MCGhan Product Catalog.
# ^ {{cite web | author= Inamed Corp.| title= Inamed Academy Faculty| url=http://www.inamedacademy.com/doctors/drmaxwell.
# ^ Template:Cite ref
Jance 00:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Continual reversions to Unsourced & Improperly sourced version

message: 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)
thread_title: Unsourced claims

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on G. Patrick Maxwell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061013184505/http://www.aserf.org:80/awards-chul.php to http://www.aserf.org/awards-chul.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on G. Patrick Maxwell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081010194417/http://www.aserf.org/awards-walter.php to http://www.aserf.org/awards-walter.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on G. Patrick Maxwell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061216090551/http://www.bestdoctors.com:80/bd/index.php to http://www.bestdoctors.com/bd/index.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on G. Patrick Maxwell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060713073525/http://www.medics.ch/images/products/plastic/mcghan.pdf to http://www.medics.ch/images/products/plastic/mcghan.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061207035403/http://www.chinameirong.com/news/2.asp to http://www.chinameirong.com/news/2.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070819224031/http://www.plasticsurgeryproductsonline.com/issues/articles/2007-08_02.asp to http://www.plasticsurgeryproductsonline.com/issues/articles/2007-08_02.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928185120/http://www.allerganacademy.com/doctors/drmaxwell.html to http://www.allerganacademy.com/doctors/drmaxwell.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified