Talk:Fadlo R. Khuri

Dispute
I have fully protected the article due to the ongoing edit war. WP:ECP was requested at WP:RFPP but a very quick look at the text being restored suggests that the IP's removal might have some basis in standard procedure. Please discuss the issue in the normal way at WP:BLPN and WP:COIN. Regarding any COI, just because someone might have a COI does not mean their edits are automatically rejected. Please provide reasons the text should be restored, including why all the detail about AUB is needed in an article about a person. Johnuniq (talk) 02:03, 5 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for protecting the article and recognising that a COI does not necessarily disqualify one from contributing to WP or attempting to safeguard it from tendentious editing. I do work at AUB but shall endeavor to use that vantage point to ensure fair representation of what goes on there, warts and all. I await the response of Mandalorian123 and/or DesMoinesDispatcher but I think it is pretty clear the objective was to wage a personal campaign against Fadlo Khuri through this medium. That is not the purpose of WP and is a disservice to its many users. I also await word from MrClog who initially took up the case on behalf of the volunteer response team. CorneliusVanDyck (talk) 13:29, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I stubified this article based on 2020101910012985. The raised issues seem serious and prima facie the article had serious problems. A good example was the paragraph saying Dr Khuri had been sued for medical malpractice. Although a source was added, the editor did not include the fact that Dr Khuri was found not negligent, and from what I can read, the textbook doesn't allege that it is Dr Khuri's fault that no proper recordkeeping took place (even though the article made it look that way). Similar issues exist across the board, and the article overall read like an attack page. I will be going through the whole article and try to create a draft that is in line with NPOV and BLP.
 * It seems unfortunately that a socking SPA is on a mission to make Wikipedia's articles on the American University of Beirut seem as negative as possible, which complicates things. MrClog (talk) 21:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. I see a couple of blocked users are among those enthusiastically adding negativity and I have added this page to my watchlist. Anyone is welcome to remind me if you think something has happened I should be aware of. Johnuniq (talk) 22:49, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems Mandalorian123 is back following a one-week ban for sockpuppetry and has restored the negativity to the AUB President's BLP. I reverted to the stub but expect further forays to undermine this page's neutrality given the past behavior going back to May 2020. I would appreciate if one of you can explain how a bot was able to remove protection templates, enabling the attack mission on Dr. Khuri to continue. Can this loophole be closed? Thanks. CorneliusVanDyck (talk) 10:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , the bot didn't end the protection. Rather, the protection automatically ended given its expiry date had passed, and the bot thus removed the template that would normally indicate that the article is under protection. MrClog (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't realise it was automatic. Thanks for explaining. Can I ask about what step could be taken to limit in reverting the page? It was pretty clear they came straight out after the one-week ban and went into the page twice to impose their version of the article. CorneliusVanDyck (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I was away while the current flurry occurred, however another administrator has removed Mandalorian123's ability to edit the article. They are still able to engage in discussion on this talk page and edit other articles. If I miss any future problems, feel free to alert me. Don't worry if further single purpose accounts pop up, they will also be handled. Johnuniq (talk) 22:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * A new account has picked up the mantle of Mandalorian123 called . I have reverted to the stub. Please can it be dealt with? Thanks! CorneliusVanDyck (talk) 05:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

You might want to look into this allegation of block evasion. ElKevbo (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * is indefinitely prevented from editing the article and should discuss proposals for changes here. Johnuniq (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

This is inappropriate. All users who section blanked, and user "CorneliusVanDyke," are employees of subject's institution. Cornelius's bio specifically identifies him as such. They are not objective users None of them has raised even one specific issue that is incorrect or misrepresented, or presented even one single alternative source to contradict factual statement documented by multiple independent third-parties, all of which I verified and many of which come from institutional and US government documents. Please restore the deleted material. If Cornelius and his colleagues have other information disproving what is in the verifiable public record, let them cite it. If they cannot do so, they should be prevented from further edits, as the head of communications of subject's university was earlier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djuventus78 (talk • contribs) 04:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Please do not post generic complaints on an article talk page. This page is for the discussion of actionable proposals to improve the article based on reliable sources concerning due material. If you have a suggestion regarding article content, please make it, preferably in a new section. Johnuniq (talk) 04:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Johnuniq for your follow up. It is reassuring to know that we can rely on you for such prompt action. CorneliusVanDyck (talk) 07:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

In accordance with suggestion by user "Johnuniq," I propose restoring the following text, which has been repeatedly section blanked by multiple users directly associated with the subject's employer, of which he is president. All information is accurate and based on publicly available and verifiable independent sources cited as references and unrefuted by any other information or source presented at any time. Notably, the section blanks were reversed multiple times by objective users.

The following text should be fully restored.

Early life and education Khuri was born in Boston, Massachusetts and raised in Beirut, Lebanon. He attended AUB in 1981-82, received his bachelor's degree from Yale University in 1985, and his MD from Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons in 1989. He completed his residency in internal medicine at Boston City Hospital. Although he entered medical school with the intention of becoming a psychiatrist, he decided to instead specialize in oncology after meeting a rabbi with cancer on the first day of his surgery rotation.[5]

While working as an emergency room physician, Khuri was sued for medical malpractice by a patient who was left brain damaged and severely disabled after an asthma attack. The case is featured in a textbook on medical law to illustrate what the textbook's authors called "the possible consequences of inaccurate or ambiguous medical record documentation."[6]

Academic career Khuri subsequently became a faculty member at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas from 1995 until 2002. In 2002, he joined the Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia. He was appointed the Roberto C. Goizueta Chair in translational research in 2007.[7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djuventus78 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Repopulating article after dispute
It has been a few months since the BLP was stubified because of the edit war and proposes reincluding biographic sections which sounds appropriate to me. It's best to discuss under new heading though, right? Given my potential COI as an employee of AUB I'll try to limit my contributions to Talk but I would like to edit directly if there are further issues of POV, attack, or sabotage and will explain my thinking here. Does that sound reasonable? CorneliusVanDyck (talk) 07:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's very reasonable. I'm not sure I totally agree with the advice on your talk that being employed by the university precludes you from editing this article. That is because I do not see any reason to believe you are paid to edit this particular article or to edit in a particular manner. The only thing I would strongly advise is to not edit war but it looks as if you know that already. If an edit is contested, slowly discuss it here. I repeat my thought at the top of this page that there would need to be a good reason to include detail about AUB in an article about a person (it's actually very unlikely that an acceptable reason would be found). Johnuniq (talk) 08:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. Got it. Yes I'm learning the ropes! CorneliusVanDyck (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Johnuniq, would you kindly remove the block on me from editing the page? I do not have, and have not even been accused of having, any bias or conflict of interest, which all section blanking users do have. My edits merely uphold the accuracy, based on independent verification, of third-party source material. Users can discuss how to address the subject's institution here. Preliminarily, I would argue that many personal criticisms that are present derive from controversial decision for which sources establish the subject is personally responsible and that these are germane for inclusion, as they routinely are for CEOs of other institutions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djuventus78 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Repopulating Article After Dispute (2)
I propose restoring the following independent third-party sourced material:

While working as an emergency room physician, Khuri was sued for medical malpractice by a patient who was left brain damaged and severely disabled after an asthma attack. The case is featured in a textbook on medical law to illustrate what the textbook's authors called "the possible consequences of inaccurate or ambiguous medical record documentation."[6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djuventus78 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Agree. Arlo3415 (talk) 20:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC)