Talk:Paul J. Turek

Discussion of Classification as an Advertisement

This page has been noted for potential deletion as an advertisement and the claim is that it is written like one. I am surprised by that designation, as I know the NPOV guidelines and try to follow them religiously.

I did catch a couple of things that could be construed as "bragging" - leading etc. - some not even said about Dr. Turek but about organizations he belongs to - and removed all of them except this one in line 1 under Medical Background - "one of the world's leading male fertility experts." Given that the man has published 175 papers (several of which were done this year), invented FNA Sperm Mapping and several other techniques, ran UCSF's men's health clinic for something like 15 years, is a regular expert on men's health on ABC-7/San Francisco's "The View from the Bay", and has been interviewed or had segments about his work on ABC WOrld News Tonight, CNN, 20/20, PBS, The Economist (most of which you can actually see and determine how important they are by going to the clinic's web site), I did not think any further proof of that statement would be needed.

His "worthiness" for having a biography at all is that he is exactly that:

- He is one of the top people in the field as recognized by his peers worldwide (some of whom are noted in the article and who I could get to confirm this somehow...how would I do that without actually turning it into the advertisement it isn't supposed to be?)

- He has patients referred to him from all over the world to be treated by him (that claim is not made in the article, obviously because of medical privacy issues it cannot be substantiated)

- He is a media personality in the San Francisco Bay Area

- He is interviewed by all the major national media outlets when news around men's health breaks.

As for everything else in the article:

a. They are easily verifiable facts, some of which are footnoted in the article. I can't believe you would make me footnote every Board Designation, membership, or educational item. If you want a footnote, I could point to his LinkedIn page.

b. Research is all quoted extensively and in the original sources - this cannot be disputed.

So I can't figure out why you would claim this is an advertisement.

Please be as clear as possible as to what I need to do to remove the "stigma" that this article is an advertisement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onlinematters (talk • contribs) 18:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Too many adjectives like "simple" "classic" and so on; the use of Dr. after the first sentence, in violation of our ban on gratuitous honorifics (Dr. Paul Turek was not born anywhere; a child who was named Paul, and later became a doctor, was born); the effort to pack in everything he ever did in order to lengthen the article (we don't need to know what union local his father belonged to, nor where said local was based); the general breathless tone of the description of every project he ever worked on; the press-agent-like list of every local TV or radio show he ever was seen on; etc. Does that give you something to go on? --Orange Mike | Talk 18:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I have removed "simple" and "classic" and did not realize you couldn't use Dr. in the title - that was intended to distiguish him from other Paul Tureks. I have removed all references to "Dr" and shortened some areas and used more general terms.

The article as modeled on the articles of 'Jonas Salk', 'Cristiaan Barnard' and Dr. Dean Edell. As an example, is there any difference between talking about Dr. Barnard's brother Abraham died at 5 any more than I care about the fact that Dr. Turek came from humble origins? I find this a double standard. I have removed the things you referred to, however.

I was absolutely NOT trying to "pack in everything." Believe it or not, people actually care to know these details about him when researching what he does. Listing them the way I did was to make it as clear as possible to the reader.

However, I have reduced those sections that do not speak to his immediate professional credentials that researchers may care about - the list of media appearances and his awards

Lastly, as for the breathless tone:

a. I respectfully, but strongly, disagree. I have reread these sections and they are well-written and factual. There is nothing "braggart" about what I wrote. What you call "breathless" I call short and to the point to avoid wasting any words or the reader's time.

b. In any case, my tone is irrelevant. Is it factual? Does it have citations? Can it be verified. Yes. Yes. and Yes. Nothing in the NPOV guidelines says my "tone" has to meet certain criteria (as long as I'm avoiding the superlative an unsubstantiable words like you mention).

Does this now meet your criteria? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onlinematters (talk • contribs) 19:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hang-On Tag Removed - Is Someone Other than An Editor Doing This?

I just finished writing my comments and went back to the page and found that my "hang on" tag had been removed from the page. Did the wikipedia editors do this? Is so, why? I have reinstated the tag so Wikipedia editors will look at this and let me know what is going on."

Hang-on tags put you on the list of articles for speedy deletion; they are not to be used in other cases. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hang On Tag OK. Removed Advert Tag

I did further research and realized I used the hang-on tag in the wrong situation. I have removed the "advert" tag instead.

Discussion of Classification as an Advertisement

I have to agree with the person who posted belowabove. In addition to the points made well below, I added nationally-covered information about Dr. Turek receiving an NIH grant as well as his speaking at Google for their series @Google Talks, whose other speakers are all well known people such as Anderson Cooper. I also found that he's on the medical board for an initiative of the Lance Armstrong Foundation.

There are even more famous claims that could be made, but I tried to keep it simple. I don't do a lot of changes, but this one looks a bit ridiculous. The guy is clearly "famous" and nothing I've added is an add and I reviewed all the content and it seems neutral enough to me.

Just sayin'.

Cultpopster (talk) 06:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)