Talk:David Gorski

Comments

 * 1) Balance. I'm sure of his notability as a researcher, because that's easy to measure  I am somewhat less sure of his notability as a critic of alternative medicine. There is nothing presented to show him of any really special importance here.
 * 2) Coverage of alt med section. The section should certainly be included, but not with such detail. The list of multiple meetings at which he has been a speaker is excessive and inappropriate--we do not normally include conference papers in our bios of scientists--they are much less important than peer review presentations. Almost all of this should be omitted. This is not the place for advocacy of his views, or the listing of his views in such detail.
 * coverage of scientific work His major papers should certainly be included, and their place in development of the subject indicated. But to then say that the work has been used in the study of a list of other things is also usually excessive detail. An important scientist is part od a long chain of inluences, and will be cited as part of the background for a great many things.  Too much of that section is devoted to other people's work. If some of it is especially indebted to him there needs to be true evidence of it from a balanced evaluation, not routine mentions.
 * Basic bio There is still much missing in the section on basic bio. Where & when was he born? Where and when was his undergraduate degree? What  are the dates of his appointments?  On the other hand, we almost never include research grants, & it  t the " Advanced Clinical Research Award " is a grant, not a prize. There is altogether too much detail here.  Scientists are of course notable for their science, which deserves emphasis, just as an article on a painter will primarily discuss their paintings. The biographical part is in a sense background, but there is an expected standard of what basics  to include.
 * Disciplinary expertise of contributors is irrelevant. We go by what gets written. I really deplore the attacks on SecondQuantization on these grounds, & I equally deplore his attacks on Atsme. I very much urge the two of them not to reply to each other, but to concentrate on the article. We should never assume criticism of an article  to be  personally motivated.   If the article had been better, there would be less criticism.  DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Not much Internet research is needed to verify that he is a notable critic of alternative medicine. Medicalreporter (talk) 19:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Science-based medicine should be a stand-alone page
It probably should not link to the page on Gorski; please see the following Talk:Science-Based_Medicine_%28website%29 Medicalreporter (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. A brief mention of his advocacy should be plenty. This BLP needs to focus on his biography, not his advocacy.  He's an amazing doctor and that's what we should be focusing on in this BLP.  I would love an opportunity to improve this article and make it a GA but for whatever reason, my work is consistently reverted. Atsme 📞📧 22:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * He is notable for advocating against CAM, as those sources provided by Medicalreporter in the above section indicate. This work is important for his biography. I do not think mentioning all of the speaking engagements is necessary. Perhaps the article could be pruned in this sense. Delta13C (talk) 04:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, that is not what made him notable considering there are millions of advocates out there who are not notable simply because of their advocacy. What makes the man notable are his scholarly and medical accomplishments - ENCYCLOPEDIC MATERIAL - not his advocacy which such weighted inclusion of it in this BLP is actually noncompliant with WP:ADVOCACY, WP:SOAPBOX.  Quite a few notables are also advocates of politically motivated causes such as George Clooney but you don't see his BLP overwhelmed by his political views.  It's a shame Gorski's BLP is being used as a coatrack.  There is probably enough information/notability about the blogs he participates in/founded that they could be standalone articles without ruining this BLP. Atsme 📞📧 15:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that he is not only notable for being an expert on and advocate against CAM, but this part of his bio is important for characterizing him. I believe that WP:ADVOCACY is not relevant here, as his advocacy is more or less presented from a NPOV. If he is partly notable for advocating against CAM, then that should be reported. I do not agree that the article is suffering from this problem nor WP:COATRACK. The coverage I mentioned is arguably enough to convey stand-alone notability. Do you not agree? Delta13C (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's worthy of an RfC to see what the community thinks. I personally have no position for or against CAM or alt med so had I not been a WP editor working to promote articles to GA/FA, I would not have known about Science Based Medicine, et al.; therefore, my opinion on its notability may be closer in line with 's. Atsme 📞📧 19:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S. Alexa shows the website's global rank @40,452 295 & US rank @12,309. Interestingly, more females follow the site than males.  Atsme 📞📧 19:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The obvious solution is to trim it back a little. The impression is just weakened by using too many examples. BTW, I'm somewhat confused about the "publications" section--they are not his most cited, are they perhaps his most recent?--if so, say so, for there needs to be some basis for selection.  Otherwise, leave them out or work them into the article. I did a little copyed., but only of the science part.  DGG ( talk ) 19:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Since there is not enough traffic on the talk page for the Science-Based Medicine redirect, I thought I'd mention it here. Im starting to work on an article for SBM in my Sandbox. I welcome help finding sources and crafting together an article. Delta13C (talk) 17:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Notice: If anyone is interested in helping build a stand-alone page for Science-Based Medicine, I have compiled references and some starting material on my sandbox. Delta13C (talk) 10:49, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

, the main issue I foresee in making SBM a standalone article is that it's a "blog" (see WP:SPS) wherein bloggers (regardless of credentials) write about important medical issues/treatments/meds, etc. While bloggers like Gorski are highly credible experts whom I respect and admire, blogging takes them outside the realm of what some may consider a safe medical environment. For example, WP editors who are also medical experts do not/are not allowed to give medical advice. Since SBM focuses on medical treatments, etc. I would think it makes them subject to additional scrutiny particularly with regards to "public perception" and how they will be perceived in a WP article. I will say upfront that WP:MEDRS has been tattooed on my posterior, and as a result, has preconditioned me to take extra precautions when it involves medical topics. When in doubt, I look to for guidance. It is also highly probable that we have nothing to worry about in that regard, but some may argue that SBM is an "advocacy", regardless of factors such as (1) the blogs are written by verifiable notable experts or (2) WP supports mainstream science over FRINGE/PS. We still have to recognize that we're dealing with expert opinions in a blog about medicine and medical treatments which may or may not pass the scrutiny of WP:MEDRS. I will be happy to help you in any way I can as a copy editor but my first suggestion is to get other opinions before you take the plunge. Atsme 📞📧 21:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand what you mean. I think there is enough coverage in reliable sources to make a stub class article, which I think is more appropriate than the existing redirect to Gorski's article. I don't think the page needs to delve into the issue of giving medical advice, but can cover the blog as a media venue. Delta13C (talk) 03:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on David Gorski. 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/20130125033701/http://www.med.wayne.edu:80/surgery/faculty/DGorski.html to http://www.med.wayne.edu/surgery/faculty/DGorski.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Notability Question
What is this BLP subject's notability here? This entire article looks like a promotional page that is heavy on non-notable subjects like praising his research and his "skeptic outspokenness." None of this is notable. FYI, I found this page from an RFC on Bret Weinstein and the promotion of David Gorski on Weinstein's BLP threw me off and brought me here to examine further. Specifically, it stated "David Gorski, a surgical oncologist and scientist known for exposing pseudoscience,[42]..." Much of everything about Gorski here sounds really promotional and non-neutral. TrueQuantum (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Does not sound promotional to me. Can you point to specific examples other than that quote, which is just an accurate description? --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There are many examples. Here are just a few: "Gorski's article "Blockade of the vascular endothelial growth factor stress response increases the antitumor effects of ionizing radiation", characterizing the effects of angiogenesis inhibitors on the effectiveness of anti-tumor therapies, has been cited over 900 times according to PubMed.[16][17]" The article in question here has not made a significant impact in the field of oncology nor is it cited by other reliable sources that it is in fact influential in the field. Someone just stated that it was cited over 900 times. Many articles on PubMed are cited over 900 times without being significant, especially when they are published decades ago. The further explanation "This research has been used in anti-tumor therapeutic research, including an observation that angiogenesis inhibitors enhanced the therapeutic effects of ionizing radiation "by preventing repair of radiation damage to endothelial cells,"[18] and in determining the potential of combinational therapies to allow reduction of the dosages in toxic conventional treatments[19] while sustaining tumor regression when combined with specific antibodies and radiation therapy" is further circumspect. If you take a look at the lab page for any PI in any university, it looks exactly like this. No reliable sources say this research is notable other than cherry picking other articles that cite this article, which is very commonplace on PubMed. The career section goes into extensive detail about the various titles Gorski holds that have not been cited by other reliable sources and reads like a resume or CV. "He became Medical Director of the Alexander J. Walt Comprehensive Breast Center at the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute in 2010 and was appointed co-director of the Michigan Breast Oncology Quality Initiative in 2013." Respectfully, this is Wikipedia not LinkedIn. Another example is in the section, Skepticism of alternative medicine. It states: "Gorski has criticized popularization of pseudoscience by the media and celebrities such as Oprah Winfrey,[49] Bill Maher,[50] Ann Coulter,[51] and The Huffington Post.[52]" Literally anybody can criticize anybody and that does not make one notable. To my knowledge, Oprah Winfrey, Bill Maher, and Ann Coulter are not even aware that someone named David Gorski is even criticizing them. I would like to know what has actually made Gorski notable enough for a Wikipedia article. At the very least, this article needs to be condensed down to what is actually notable about Gorski. TrueQuantum (talk) 17:53, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think he's very noteworthy. I see no issue here. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Gosrski is notable under Wikipedia's criteria, but I think there is subtle WP:SYNTH going on here in inferring the importance of Gorski's co-authored papers. Regarding Gorski et. al 1999, Dvorak 2002 simply cites it in passing with 4 other papers. I don't see clear evidence that Mauceri et al. 1998 or Chen & Gorski 2008 "led to" the studies that cite them: mainly passing mentions.  Later in the article, a full paragraph is devoted to a single 2020 SBM post by Gorski regarding acupuncture, sourced only to Gorski's post itself. This last is show-and-tellism: holding up individual primary sources to the world as if they are self-evidently noteworthy accomplishments without providing secondary sources to explain context or significance, which can invite WP:OR. --Animalparty! (talk) 08:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This entire article unintentionally hilarious. From noting that he participated in "flame wars" on the Usenet to the details about his political evolution this feels like a page in someone's high school reunion book. "Known for exposing pseudoscience" may be his preferred description for courting attention by attacking Gwyneth Paltrow but there is no reason for Wikipedia to grant such a laudatory article without offering a single contrary assessment.
 * https://disinformationchronicle.substack.com/p/gorskis-law-a-skeptic-ends-discussion Jane Digby (talk) 23:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Your opinion is not relevant; you will not find any WP:RS that disagree with Gorski but you can try. And Paltrow sells quackery per RS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If this is a challenge, I'm not taking it. I merely object to the laudatory, rather than neutral, tone of this article. I also stand by my assertion that whether or not he participated in "flame wars" is not relevant. No opinion on Gwyneth Paltrow and her line of pricey wares. Jane Digby (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2024 (UTC)