Talk:Robert Ira Lewy

message: I have amended the title of the article to reflect the contents. Thank you
Kingseason 18:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the title you intend for the article to be? We can move it there for you. Leebo86 18:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, I'm going to move the page to Robert Ira Lewy. We'll continue the necessary notability discussion then. Leebo86 18:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I haven't gone through the text of the article yet, but do you feel confident that Robert Ira Lewy does in fact meet at least one of the notability requirements? If he does, we can start cleaning it up. I think you would benefit from reviewing the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Leebo86 18:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I have removed a number of sources that appear to be neither verifiable or reliable.  Linking to another wikipedia entry, stating the name of a place, organization, or individual, and "personal correspondence" are not valid sources for a wikipedia article, see WP:RS.  This honestly looks like someone went through and removed a bunch of citation-needed tags by slapping some random text. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious sources 

message: I've just done a major revision of this article for non-NPOV content and puffery.  As a quick glance at this New York Times article will show, Lewy is most famous and probably most notable for his role in testifying against breast implant makers during the controversies over silicone implants during the mid-90s. The times describes Lewy and other such experts' testimony as "lucrative" and as "bad science," while other sources use terms like "junk science" to describe the testimony of experts like him.  This is the exact opposite of what the article said before, that silicone implants were withdrawn from the market due to ill health effects, and were only re-released after "the issues of leakage and rupture Lewy described were corrected."
 has indicated that there's a COI editor involved here, I don't know where/how that was established but I'm not surprised after having looked at the article carefully and then looked at the actual (and most reliable) sources.  This very much looks like someone close to Lewy has spin-doctored the article by removing or minimizing anything negative, and trying to fit in every positive factoid about him that they can find.
I've added the content from the NY times article and a description of Lewy's role in the lawsuits, and I've trimmed a large amount of content that were little more than puffery.  Pretty convinced these were constructive changes but I'm happy to discuss further revisions here. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is also very interesting. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for your work  I think you've done some really good editing. I had attempted to do some minor cleaning up as well as flagging potential unsourced/POV claims but just did not have the time to do the kind of digging into the sources that you have done. In terms of the COI,  (the article creator and reasonably regular editor) acknowledged on their user talk page back in 2007 that he/she was Lewy's research assistant  and in fact the very first contribution to WP by that editor is 'signed' with Lewy's name . I hope that is helpful and ok to post here.  Melcous (talk) 04:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Melcous, good to know! Fyddlestix (talk) 04:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV cleanup 

message: I would appreciate it if the first three paragraphs of this entry could be restored. These deal with my training and early involvement in the civil rights movement,my work with organized medicine in Harris county including committees, and my treatment of AIDS patients in Houston at a time where literally they were outcasts and rejected by every hospital. There are no plaques or news notices for this but my peers at the unit are available Thank you Dr Robert Lewy----  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingseason (talk • contribs) 10:16, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: For reference, I believe Kingseason is referring to the first few paragraphs in this version of the article. , the reason I removed much of this information was that it wasn't reliably sourced. Content on wikipedia must be verifiable, and a lot (really, most) of the content in those paragraphs was not properly referenced - linking the wikipedia article on SNCC, for example, does nothing to demonstrate the statements made about Lewy, and simply writing "Department of Hematology, Baylor College of Medicine, Lawrence Rice Chairman" doesn't really verify what was being said there. I also was concerned that the article might have run afoul of some of the pitfalls laid out in WP:AUTOBIO. If other editors feel that the removal was over-zealous or unfair, I'd be happy to see them make changes and incorporate some of that content back in, however I'm personally pretty convinced that this was a constructive set of edits which improved the article and made it more consistent with wikipedia's guidelines. Hopefully someone else will chime in here one way or another - if not, you can raise the issue at the biographies of living persons noticeboard and see what the (usually very experienced) editors who hang out there think. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoration of older version 

message: Good morning. I have the documentation for my magna cum laude graduation status from Franklin and Marshall College in 1964 and my Phi Beta Kappa election. Do you wish me to enter these myself as Kingseason or provide them to you. My overall preference would be to revert the first paragraphs back to an earlier version but I will abide by your opinion.
I cant find anything better for SNCC than the Wikipedia entry as far as its nature. I was not a member. The training grant is referenced by its number. 
I have my diploma from the Cardeza Institute but cant find anything on line that lists the fellows. we had no yearbook.
I have a transcript from Princeton University school of Graduate Studies in Religion but no on line citation. Finally, the Fulbright runner up interview has no paper or on line trail.
I hope you see Im trying to restore paragraph one given the problems of looking for 40 year old
documentation.  I hope to keep working with you on this.
thank you
Dr. Robert Lewy  Kingseason (talk) 13:56, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Documentation Robert Lewy  

message: ellent references 
the newspaper references paint the experts as paid persons who will say anything for money. What I was trying to prove was that my contributions were peer reviewed scientific contributions of national note. Refs 4 and 9.could not a statement be made that my interest was scientific and predated the litigation? I had no part in its existence or being chosen as a court expert. Likewise, I'd appreciate omitting the dollar figures. Do they add anything more than just being inflammatory? Irrelevant to the scientific issue? 
I believe my peer reviewed papers reviewed by editorial boards of respected journals should trump a one sided newspaper article.
Robert Lewy Kingseason (talk) 14:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's OK for you to make minor edits such as spelling or grammar corrections, reverting obvious vandalism or anything else that would almost certainly be deemed uncontroversial by other editors, but you should really refrain from making any major edits to this article because of your COI. This is an article about you, so it's best that you continue to discuss any changes you'd like to make here on the talk page. There are probably a couple of editors watching this page, but they may be busy with real world stuff or with other articles, so you have to just be patient and wait for people to reply. I suggest you take a look at Wikipedia's plain simple conflict of interest guide and Advice for editors who may have a conflict of interest if you haven't already done so so that you are aware of the kinds of edits that COI editors typically can make. If you really feel that the NYT information is being unduly emphasized and you'd like to get input from different editors, then please start a discussion about it at Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons noticeboard claiming WP:UNDUE. In my opinion, the article is about you; It's not about breast implants so any detailed discussion of the pros and cons of implants belongs in breast implants and not here. One of the serious downsides of creating a Wikipedia article about yourself is "Wikipedia's Law of Unintended Consequences" which says "If you write about yourself, your group or your company, once the article is created, you have no right to control its content, or to delete it outside the normal channels. Content is irrevocably added with every edit. If there is anything publicly available on a topic that you would not want to have included in an article, it will probably find its way there eventually". It may not seem completely fair, but the best results are almost always achieved through colaborative editing and establishing a consensus among editors regarding article content either on article talk pages or at noticeboards. - Marchjuly (talk) 12:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breast Implant Litigation 

message: Internal Medicine 1977
Hematology 1980
source: American Board of Internal Medicine 
www.abim.org
thank you
Robert Lewy MD Kingseason (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verification of Credentials American Boards of Internal Medicine andd Hematology  

message: A diploma showing my status as Cardeza Clinical and Research Fellow in Medicine
July 1997-June 30 1979
thank you
Robert Lewy MD Kingseason (talk) 16:40, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  documentation for previous version for graduation from Cardeza Foundation located   

message: Note: I moved the message below from the article itself to the talk page and signed for the ip. Assume that was their intent. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: just making sure you're aware of the post above as a courtesy to Mr Lewy. Fyddlestix (talk) 12:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, I can't actually read that article, just the abstract. Not sure the study really amounts to much other than to say that no matter how long and hard they've looked they can't find any strong evidence. Of course, if there was no real association, this is exactly what you would expect, but then, the same problem exists for both placebos and nocebos. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  New post moved from article to talk 

message: Dr Lewy just became a member of the Galaxy Society of the Manhattan School of Music, having make a bequest to further operatic education. Kingseason (talk) 23:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Did someone independent publish about this, or just these conflicted sources? LeadSongDog come howl! 02:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  new charitable activity