Talk:Robert Ira Lewy

Untitled
I have amended the title of the article to reflect the contents. Thank you Kingseason 18:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What is the title you intend for the article to be? We can move it there for you. Leebo 86 18:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Robert Ira Lewy, M.D., F.A.C.P.,; Education, Contributions to Role of Aspirin Therapy in Heart Disease and Allergic Phenomena in Recipients of Silicone Breast Implants, and Philanthropic Activities
 * Okay, I'm going to move the page to Robert Ira Lewy. We'll continue the necessary notability discussion then. Leebo 86 18:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. IK have reviewed the notability tests. Kingseason 18:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 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. Leebo 86 18:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think it meets at least the "Professor Test" for notability. Best.Kingseason 18:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC) Also, publications were all during the period when the author was Clinical Assistant Professor of Medicine at twso medical schools, though this title is not stated in the article.Kingseason 18:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC) This author has other publications which have not been cited as well. Kingseason 18:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC) Notability: Dr Lewy has published at least 25 scientific papers and chapters which are annotated in his article. Therefore he meets the Professor criterion for Notability, having published at least as much as a tenured professor would over this time period. In fact, he was Associate Professor of Medicine at two medical schools during this period, as above. Such articles are accepted for publication based on their importance (as well as methodology) by scientific editorial boards and jurors. Beyond this, his work has been subject of praise and regard by his peers in editorials (cited) and newspapers (cited). Therefore, his work will be "permanent". As research in the use of platelet blocking agents for heart disease progresses (indeed, much has been done in this area triggered by his articles since publication, such as the licensing of drugs based on his work),his contributions will worthy of reference and repetition.Kingseason 20:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Dubious sources
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)

POV cleanup
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)
 * This article is also very interesting. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * 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 |dif 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)
 * Thanks Melcous, good to know! Fyddlestix (talk) 04:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Expert Witness Status in Breast Implant litigation
Firstly, i am so sorry I mistakenly did direct editing myself. It will not happen again.

I see your quotation and conclusions from the NY Times articles. please understand this was a very politicized subject which I had little to do with scientifically. If you look at the content of reference 9, you see that reports of silicone autoimmune disease started many years prior, where raw silicone was injected in womens breasts and developed sclerosis. I was referred such patients by plastic surgeons as a member of the American College of Rheumatology as well as a board certified Hematologist. I happenned to be working at a Womans Hospital. A class action settlement for implant patients began about 1992. I had nothing to do with its origin.I had reported some cases in the peer reviewed Texas Medicine. I was asked by the court with others to serve as an expert and examine large numbers of patients before a certain deadline.Hence the large numbers,but there was no "practice" I testified when I was subpoened,perhaps 10 times ever. At the same time the scientific issue progressed. The NIH held a meeting in DC which I was invited to present a peer reviewed paper (ref 4)and write a chapter. It was years before the autoimmunity question was settled and still 10 more before the rupture issue was solved. Gina Kolata and Barry Meier specialized and still do in sensational medical exposees. Many of my comments were never printed. I hope this helps and am open to an kind of debate. Thank you Dr Robert Lewy Kingseason (talk) 10:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

PS regarding the dollar amounts cited in the NY Times, I saw 3000 patients required by the court in one year. I hired other physicians whom I supervised and paid and operated my office on overtime. This was explained to Mr Meier but never printed. PPS contrary to the article, Dow was "forced" into bankruptcy because of their future liability. In a large award, the jury was angered because Dow was discovered to have hidden its own research showing that silicone WAS biologically active. It's the coverup as they say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingseason (talk • contribs) 10:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I understand your frustration and can certainly sympathize with your perception that the two NY times articles didn't tell your side of the story. Unfortunately, we're kind of bound to tell the same story that reliable, third party sources tell here - and those two NY times articles are among the most reliable sources that I could find to use for the article. In fact, reading the old Articles for Deletion debate, it appears to me that those two articles are actually the only thing which kept this article from being deleted years ago - Lewy's involvement in the breast cancer cases and those two NY times article appear to be the primary reason why he's notable. If there is specific content in the article that you feel is inaccurate, and can demonstrate is inaccurate using a reliable source, then that might be a reason for removing it or noting that there's another side to the story.  But you'd need to have a reliable, third party source that contradicts what the NY times articles say quite clearly. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with about the NYT articles, but I am not so sure about the sentence and source used to open that paragraph: "Silicone breast implants became a subject of considerable controversy during the 1990s, as breast implant makers like Dow Corning faced numerous lawsuits alleging that women who had implants had suffered negative health consequences." Unlike the NYT articles, the Price and Rosenberg paper does not explicitly mention Lewy at all, but rather is more of a comment on breast implants. This is perfectly fine for Breast implants, but I'm not sure how it fits in here and how it directly relates to Lewy. Seems to be giving an WP:UNDUE amount of relevance to something whose only purpose is to imply some sort of guilt by association. I don't think it's really needed just as I don't think any mention of Dow Corning's bankruptcy at the end of the paragraph is needed. The article should stick to things directly related/referring to Lewy in my opinion. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Good points - more than happy to see this re-worded. I've got limited time today but if no one beats me to it (which they're welcome to do!) I'll take a stab at re-wording this in the coming days. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you and I wish someone would restore the letter which the NYT published from me in reply which was dropped long ago.
 * Robert Lewy Kingseason (talk) 15:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I took a stab at rewording this paragraph, folks are free to tweak it or suggest revisions, I'm not married to the current version at all. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The current preface last line states "during the 1990s, he was one of several doctors who played an active role in litigation against breast implant manufacturers" This is unclear because there were two parallel and exclusive paths of "litigation" for a patient. The first, a product defect type individual tort, involved experts, trials, as in any such tort. If the patient "opted in" to Judge Poynters Breast Implant Class Action settlement, agreed to between manufacturers and other parties before my knowledge or interest, then a diagnostic schema existed and patients where required to be examined by a court appointed panel, such as myself, with no interest in the outcome.

I was in this latter category, as were rheumatologists and internal medicine specialist across the country. So I respectfully suggest I was not involved in actions against the manufacturers, or such litigation, but a court administered settlement. Torts producing bankruptcies were contrary to my activity. Thank you Robert LewyKingseason (talk) 09:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That text was informed by this passage from the cited New York Times article:
 * The current wording is basically just my attempt to paraphrase that, obviously I'm open to seeing it reworded - but the quote above does make specific reference to giving testimony and court appearances. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The current wording is basically just my attempt to paraphrase that, obviously I'm open to seeing it reworded - but the quote above does make specific reference to giving testimony and court appearances. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@Fyddlestix You were not meant to realize that not all the doctors were devils! I was subpoenaed a few times and had to appear as a treating MD, rather than expert. Total of 5-6 as I recall. charges intended to deter. Not in lawsuit world, but class action world. Funnily,the purpose of a class action is to prevent bankruptcy. Judge Poynter put a cap on awards.

Ps,I just located the Letter to the. Editor to the NY times entitled "Breast Implant Article a Disservice" refuting the Kolata article. Does the fact that it was accepted for publication by the NYT make it as authentic as the article itself? I hope so. I can scan and email it or fax it. Help restore balance to the article. Thank you Robert Lewy Kingseason (talk) 14:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Restoration of older version
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)

Robert Lewy Kingseason (talk) 10:28, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * 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)

Documentation Robert Lewy
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)

Breast Implant Litigation
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) PS other peer reviewed articles by me on this subject but omitted from the latest version are the Clinical Research, Annals of Internal Medicine and Journal of investigative Medicine. They are cited in older version. At least include them to give some balance please.

Robert Lewy Kingseason (talk) 14:24, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I attempted to add three excellent references from the 1993 era stating clearly that such patients get scleroderma from silicone, but they were immediately wiped out. Does all this COI confusion mean I can no longer edit the entry? If so I wish someone would just tell me in plain english what I need to clean up. BTW was not erasing anything, just providing balance. Robert Lewy Kingseason (talk) 15:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I have four articles from the 1993 era all warning about the risk of connective tissue disease or scleroderma in patients with silicone implants. These contradict the NY Times claim of there being unanimity about their safety. I propose no change in the NYT section but a following line saying "However,other publications point to an additional risk of connective tissue" followed by the four references. Thank you Robert Lewy Kingseason (talk) 22:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

References added Robert Lewy Kingseason (talk) 10:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

references erased thought we had agreed for me to notify in advance whats going on? looks like removed by Marchjuly Thanks Robert Lewy Kingseason (talk) 11:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * 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)

Verification of Credentials American Boards of Internal Medicine andd Hematology
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)

documentation for previous version for graduation from Cardeza Foundation located
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)

to Fyddlestyx on restoring from old version
hello was it your intention to put back those references deleted from previous versions now that I have the references? 1.for the magna cum laude at Franklin and Marshall it is Oriflamme Yearbook Class of 1964 page 90 2. for the Phi Beta Kappa it is F & M College Reporter 3 April 1964 3. For the Board Certifications in Internal Medicine and Hematology it is www.abim.org/services/phyver.aspx

If not am I just to enter them myself? not sure of rules

Thank you Robert Lewy MDKingseason (talk) 20:15, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi . I tried the www.abim.org/services/phyver.aspx you provided above, but all I got was a HTTP 404 message. I tried finding an archived version of the link using the Internet Wayback Machine, but had no luck. This might mean that the address you provided is incorrect or that the abim.org page simply no longer exists. Are you sure the address is correct? Can you provide any other independent, third-party reliable sources for this information? -Marchjuly (talk) 00:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello. My old eyes could not read very faint page address. Just go to www.abim.org, and staring you in the face is the verification search box.
 * Robert Lewy Kingseason (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarifying the link Kingseason. The problem is that it is not a direct link to a page listing your certifications. People clicking on the link are taken to http://www.abim.org/services/physver.aspx and they then must input your name, etc. to search the ABIMs database. I am not sure if that is acceptable so I am going to ask at WP:BLPN. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@Marchjuly Thank you. you are all looking for online sources but I have a set of all my diplomas and certifications on a PDF as well as the document on my floor Robert LewyKingseason (talk) 10:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC) I have a series of JPGs of my diplomas. These who: Cardeza Foundation for Hematological Research 1977-1979 American Society of Hematologyoard of Internal Medicine MD University of Pennsylvania American Board of Hematology Phi Beta Kappa Franklin and Marshall College Magna cum Laude Internship Philadelphia General Hospital

How can these be used to document previous Career?

Thank you Robert Lewy Kingseason (talk) 12:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * These all sound like primary sources which means there are conditions as to how they can be used. I'm not sure how we cite somebody's diploma or professional certificate since it would seem kind of hard to verify whether they are authentic. Please understand I am not saying you're not whom you say you are, but Wikipedia typically requires verification over truth and this verification is typically obtained through independent, reliable sources. Moreover, please try to understand that this article is supposed to reflect what these sources say good or bad about you; It's not meant to include everything about you. I will see what I can find out about the sourcing of academic and professional credenitals, etc. but I don't think citing the actual certificate would be acceptable per WP:BLPPRIMARY - Marchjuly (talk) 12:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll wait for permission then. love to restore my Bibliography. I have a cite for the Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation Legacy Society showing my name. Can I enter it?
 * seems your my contact now?
 * PS Just hot off phone from Cardeza Foundation.There is no on line listing of fellows. covers career 1977-1979
 * Robert Lewy Kingseason (talk) 13:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say I'm your contact person . I just happen to be the one online at the moment and perhaps tomorrow it will be someone else. I am working on a list of your publications, but it's not quite ready yet. It won't be a complete list, but I think it will be a start for others to build on. There are no guarantees, however, that anything added by me or other editors will stay. That's why it can be a good idea for all editors to discuss major copy edits in advance per WP:CAUTIOUS. I suggest you just leave this article as is for now and let others do the editing. Of course, you can continue to discuss things on this talk page if you have concerns, but improvements tend to be gradual and achieving a consensus can take time.
 * FWIW, there's really no official Wikipedia heirarchy among editors. Some are more experienced than others, but in principal we are all the same and all have an equal say in things. You just happen to have a COI with respect to this particular article, but you are free to edit other articles if you like. It also actually might help you get the feel of Wikipedia and how editors colaborate with each other to do some editing on other articles; Moreover, it might show others that you are really interested in helping to build an encyclopedia and not just here for your own article. I'm pretty sure with your background, you could find lots of way to improve all sorts of articles. You might be interested in Wikiproject Medicine or WikiProject Pharmacology since they deal with health/medical matters, but there are Wikiprojects for all kinds of things. - Marchjuly (talk) 14:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * understood. thank you. can I put in the exact cite for the Myeloma Legacy? The references are pretty heavily cited in major journals. As article stands about half my life isnt there lol.
 * Yet looking at diplomas for other half! wow
 * Robert LewyKingseason (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi again Kingseason. I think it might help if you take a look at "What What Wikipedia is not". As I tried to explain earlier, Wikipedia articles are, in principle, intended to only reflect what independent reliable sources say about something; They are not meant to cover every bit of detail about something regardless of whether it is true or not. This is particulary the case when it comes to biographies about living people or mentions of living people in articles. If you have information/sources that you feel belongs in this article, then please post it here on the talk page so that other editors can assess and discuss it. You can start a new talk page thread if needed (keeping related items in the same section makes it easier to discuss), but at this point its probably better to let others add the information/sources to the article. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@fyddlestix please look at the last section of this page and perhaps you'll see I've provided third party verification of some of the credentials previously unsourced. These are Phi beta Kappa ( franklin and Marshall College Reporter) Magna cum laude (secure transcript) Attendance at Cardeza Foundation 1977-1979'(on line articles showing authorship and institution) Membership in Legacy Society of Multiple Myeloma Legacy Society by my name (link) Thanks Robert LewyKingseason (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

COI editing - clarification request
In the Template: Connected contributor at the top of this talk page, it says that an editor named declared their COI by stating I am Dr Lewy's research assistant; so I am familiar with his academic accomplishments, and hunted down the newspaper references, philanthrophy and so on from him in. The same editor, however, is now signing their posts, both on this talk page and at User talk:Kingseason in a way which indicates that they are Robert Lewy. Although both cases indicate the presence of a conflict of interest, Wikipedia's policy prohibits multiple users sharing an account. It might help clarify matters and make it easier to respond to questions and ensure the article satisfies relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines if it is known who is actually editing as "Kingseason". It would also help if there is any sharing of the account going on that it stop asap. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * kindly linked this for me above, it's first wiki edit apparently. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, then perhaps that should linked as the declaration for the COI and not the other talk page post so as to avoid any misunderstandings. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point, I swapped the diffs. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Kingseason is the only user. I used my laptop and PC, which I believe has some logging in information stored. Robert Lewy is the only user. Apologies. Robert Lewy MD 108.54.216.170 (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize Robert. This is only a suggestion, but it might be helpful if you declared your COI on your user page per WP:DECLARECOI. It would also help if you could remember to login and edit using only the Kingseason account.
 * FWIW, the editors working on this page are trying to ensure the article satisfies Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. They are not trying to make anyone look bad or good, they are just trying to ensure the article accurately reflects what reliable sources say. It would help if you discussed any major edits (by "major" I mean any edit not considered to be a minor edit per WP:MINOR) here first instead of directly editing the article yourself. If you do, however, feel that something is so bad that it warrants immediate action then you can edit it yourself, but this should only be the exception and not the rule and you should explain why as much as possible the edit was necessary here on this talk page after the fact. Try and remember that Wikipedia is a work in progress and that we are all volunteers. Sometimes progress can seem a little slow, but, since you're a COI editor, it's best to wait and get input from others first. What we need are independent reliable sources which support the information being added to the article. You can list your sources here on this talk page, and other editors will try and figure out if and how they best can be used.
 * Finally, you don't need to start a new section every time you want to make a new talk page post. If you're replying to someone, just click the "edit" button for the relevant section and add your post below theirs. You can see how this is done by looking at the examples given at WP:INDENT. -Marchjuly (talk) 02:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, I came from WP:MED to give some comments in response to a request there. WikiProject Medicine participants sometimes comment on medical biographies, and I am in this case, but feel free also to check in with the general biography reviewers at WikiProject Biography. Biographies on Wikipedia of people from many professions usually are managed in the same way.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  20:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to take a look at the article. The article was briefly discussed at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive223, but the thread was archived a few days ago without much of a response. I'll also post request for guidance at WT:BIOG per your suggestion. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Lewy has published numerous research on the effect of aspirin on heart disease.[citation needed]
Is it not possible to restore these footnotes from the last version? There are 17 articles but they were all run under one footnote, #7 i believe. It would be greatly appreciated. These didnt seem to be an issue before. Robert Lewy 108.54.216.170 (talk) 01:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Diff of the removal for reference. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * All of those articles are primary sources which means there are limits on how they can be used. Primary sources can be used to support certain factual information, but they cannot be used to support interpretations. I'm not sure if simply adding a list of papers written by Lewy can be used to show anything other than that such papers exist. The original wording "led to a period of prolific publishing in the scientific literature" was more interpretation than a factual statement in my opinion which seemed to be more synthesis than relevant context. Nos. 1 and No. 4 of WP:BLPSELFPUB says that "Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if it is not it is not unduly self-serving and the article is not based primarily on such sources." I think it's fine to add these articles to the article as part of some sort of bibliography section of Lewy research paper's etc., but I think it would be better to have independent, reliable sources stating that Lewy was a prolific researcher in this field as opposed to Lewy himself saying so. Anyway, this is all just my opinion.
 * FWIW, the citation needed template is not necessarily a bad thing. It simply helps indicate to other editors that there may be an issue worth taking a closer look at, which often leads to somebody actually finding a better, more suitable source. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I think it's fine to add these articles to the article as part of some sort of bibliography section of Lewy research paper's
 * I wish someone would,but thats a lot of typing and it appears it doesnt get saved anyhow. Prolific speaks for itself, no?
 * Robert Lewy Kingseason (talk) 15:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Pls recall all these refs in recent versions
 * Robert Lewy Kingseason (talk) 17:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Marchjuly I will add the bibliography back.can you not restore it tho? Lot of typing. Robert LewyKingseason (talk) 10:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Robert Ira Lewy Multimedia Center
I've been trying to find an online source which helps verify the $1,000,000 donation referred to at the beginning of Robert Ira Lewy. Sources do not have to be available online, they just have to be published, but it would just be easier to verify if there's something online about it. So far I have been able to find volume XCVII Issue 7 (the issue of the The Spectator immediately preceding the one cited in the article and this mention in a book about another Stuyvesant High School alumni Lucy Liu. This book was published in 2013, however, and although it cites the same volume/issue of The Spectator in the article, it is possible that it is just mirroring what was in this May 2012 version of the article.

I've looked on the high school's official website and couldn't find any mention of this media center or this donation. I've also searched the official page of The Spectator and could not find any mention of Lewy or "Dedication Ceremony for the Lewy Multimedia Center Held". Finally, I looked at the school's alumni page and there was no mention of Lewy in "Notable Alumni". To be fair there are only 22 alumni listed on that page so even though it's a bit surprising that an alumnus who made such a fairly recent generous donation is not mentioned it not totally out of the question.

I'm not saying this that any of this is not true, but we have to decide if it's verifiable. For reference, the information and cited source were added when the article was originally created with by Kingseason back in January 2007. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Found a source which (I believe) supports the $1M donation claim for the multimedia center. It's from an alumnae organization, but I think it passes WP:RS because it is unlikely that they would mention such a donation if it wasn't true. Still nothing about when the donation was made, but I think we just have to assume in good faith that information is in the cited issue of The Specator. Maybe it would be best, however, to stick to the facts and remove the "to serve as the high school's central academic research facility" part since that could be viewed as a bit of puffery. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * thanks. The exact reference was given in my entry. I did not choose the term "to serve as...." Likewise, the citation for my large library donation which was junked.
 * Robert Lewy Kingseason (talk) 15:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia way is to start with good sources then summarize them here, and not to start with ideas and try to make cases for inclusion. The criteria for inclusion into Wikipedia is inclusion in reliable sources. What is the best source for this claim?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  20:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Publications
It might be better to add a "Publications" or "Bibliography" section to list papers, etc. of Lewy instead of than trying to list them as part of inline citations. Not sure on what it the best way to list them, but the cite journal template should work fairly well with a simple bulleted list.

For example, the references I removed with could be reformatted and re-added as follows: e Which will look like this in the article:

Lewy's name can even be masked and replaced by "with" if this style is preferred. This is easily done by adding author-mask1=with parameter to the cite journal markup so that it looks like this:

Only articles published in major journals should probably be listed and they should be listed in chronological order. Also, if possible some kind of identifier such as one of those listed at Template:Cite journal should be added. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree that a list of publications is probably the best way to incorporate these into the article. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * this list was there til yesterday lol after 8 years
 * Robert Lewy Kingseason (talk) 16:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * A mistake in an article can go unnoticed for many years simply because the subject the article is not one that attracts lots of intention/interest from a variety of editors. A number of the editors who have edited or added content to this article over the years seem to be single purpose accounts. Focusing on a single article is not necessarily a bad thing, but it can move the article away from the desired neutral point of view. The "list" wasn't really a list; It was various journal articles bundled together as a single reference which was only done by  in an attempt to clean things up a bit. Moving the articles to a separate section called "Publications" is just, in my opinion, the next step in the clean up process. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed expansion
This is not an exhaustive list by any means, but are all articles authored/coauthored by Lewy that have been published in various journals. I've just used cite journal and cite book templates out of habit, but the formatting can changed and the parameters reduced if others feel there's a better way to list everything. The "doi", "pmid" and "isbn" links were automatically embedded by the citation templates. Not sure if these are problematic per WP:CS, but they can be easily be removed/de-linked as needed. In fact, the templates can be scrapped all together and the information added manually if that's the preferred style. It might also be a good idea to have an introductory sentence or two at the beginning of the section per WP:LEADEMBEDDEDLIST and there should also probably be some kind of criteria for inclusion established through consensus per WP:Source list. Anyway here's what I've come up with so far:

==Publications==







Thanks in advance for any feedback or suggestions. - Marchjuly (talk) 03:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I would add the two Author's Replies in Circulation, the book chapter with Wiener the first author in Excerpta Medica Amsterdam and my presentation to the American Heart Association Nov 15, 1979.
 * The teacher in me wants to explain that we discovered that clots in the coronary arteries cause heart attacks, not plaque buildup as waa taught for centuries. Hematologists had no interest in this but cardiologists started with aspirin to block this as we suggested and never looked back
 * Robert Lewy Kingseason (talk) 14:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I hope its possible to move forward with this expansion. Thank you
 * Robert LewyKingseason (talk) 10:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Kingseason. Try to remember that there are really no deadlines on Wikipedia. It's been less than a week since I posted this so try and be patient and give others a chance to look it over and respond. Sometimes it is best take things slowly when making major additions to article because it reduces the chance of disagreements ocurring and increases the chance of reaching a consensus. FWIW, just because something is true and can be verified does not automatically mean is should be added to the article. Adding lists of things can be a bit tricky. If inclusion criteria, etc. are not agreed upon from the begining per WP:Source list, you often find editors adding/removing things at random. - Marchjuly (talk) 13:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry I was offline for about a week unexpectedly - catching up on the talk page discussions now and will take another look at the article. I already added the list of publications in - it might still need some things added or removed but I don't see why the working version can't be live in the article. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Probably this list does not belong. Can this be shortened to 2-3 key publications? Wikipedia is WP:NOTCV (not a CV). The issue here is WP:WEIGHT. This is an otherwise short article with a large bibliography. Since the bibliographies are unsourced, they do not hold weight as compared to the other content, and should be relatively shorter.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  20:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, you're right that it makes for an off-balance article. I'll take a look and see if I can figure out which ones are his most-cited/known works. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've trimmed it, but my evaluation method was pretty basic - I just plugged the references into scholar and listed the ones with the most citaitons. If anyone has more knowledge of what makes/constitutes notability for medical articles like this I'd be happy to see them add/remove publications. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. It's good to have more people looking at this, especially ones with more experience with these types of BLPs. I included pretty much everything I could find just as a draft, hoping that it could be whittled done to something more suitable for the article. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Should breast cancer work be included?
The article currently contains this statement.

He has also published papers on the alleged health effects of silicone breast implants

Some of these are self-published and the others seem likely to be about the field of research and not about this person's development of the field. Has anyone other than the subject of this article ever reviewed in print this person's contributions to breast implant research? Can someone comment on the nature of these sources, and whether they are about this person versus that field of research Wikipedia rarely describes a person's research unless other publishers have first done this and are cited.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  20:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * @Blue Rasberry
 * Fortunately none of these are about breast cancer, but they are all peer reviewed, as are all else.
 * the citation for my specific listing as a member of the MMRF is www.gftpln.org/Article.do?orgId=757&:articleId=15295
 * Thanks
 * Robert LewyKingseason (talk) 23:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * . The link (www.gftpln.org/Article.do?orgId=757&:articleId=15295) you've provided just leads to general MMRF page that makes no mention of you at all. Are you sure it is correct?
 * In addition, I think what is trying to say (please correct me BR if I am wrong) is that not everything that you have ever had published or peer reviewed is automatically suitable for inclusion in the article. The purpose of the article is not to list all the times your work has been published in journals, even peer-reviewed ones. The article is supposed to focus on the parts of your research which have received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. If, for example, you discover a cure for a serious disease, then this would almost surely be discussed in major newspapers, magazines, etc. and would certainly be notable of mention. However, the fact that you published a paper with so and so in such and such journal may not be so worthy of mention. I am not trying to make light of all of the things you have accomplished, but Wikipedia articles are supposed to reflect what reliable sources say about something; We as editors can add what reliable sources say (good or bad) about your research, but we cannot interpret/evaluate your research ourselves. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@marchjuly I'll. check again but have to wait for a other machine on MMRF cite. End of day. My cardiology work has been heavily cited by others. Is this not a measure of its worthiness? Thanks Robert LewyKingseason (talk) 09:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Robert, thank you for engaging on the talkpage, it is very constructive to do so.
 * I'm puzzled by some of what I'm not finding on PubMed. I was looking at this and at the refs for it, where you cite yourself as refs 64, 65, and 71. None of those three refs are linked. It appears that ref 65 is, though the given page numbers differ slightly, but I see no sign of the other two. Were they perhaps withdrawn? If not, could you please furnish links (as PMID, DOI, URL, or whatever)? It would help considerably. LeadSongDog come howl!  19:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

@leadsongdog what are 64 and 71? If they are from the original article I don't have a copy myself. Likewise I assume you at right about 65 being about collage Dermal implants ,but same problem to be sure. If it's Springer, probably my mention in the forward and my chapter with Esrailson in the NIH series Microbioogy and Immunology, volume on Immunology of Silicones 1996, does Pubmed find book chapters. Thanks Robert Lewy Kingseason (talk) 21:41, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Immunology of Silicones (Current Topics in Microbiology and Immunology) by Michael Potter (Editor) Other authors: Noel Rose (Editor) Series: Current Topics in Microbiology and Immunology ISBN 3-540-60272-0

Please also note that what is cited in Journal of Clinical Investigation and Clinical Research are, as I recall, abstracts.

Robert LewyKingseason (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You show 64 as your (1994) Auto immune Markers and Imaging Abnormalities in Silicone Breast Implant Users. Clinical Research, 42(2), 275A.
 * and 71 as your (1995) Antinuclear Antibodies, Lipid Disturbances and Central Nervous System Imaging Abnormalities in Silicone Breast Implant Users. Journal of Investigative Medicine 43:333A.

LeadSongDog come howl!  05:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll have to dig them out. As I mentioned, these are a abstracts or reports in a collection of hundreds published the American Federation of Clinical Research (AFCR) and JCI. Doubt they have Pubmed presence, yet vetted. Rapid publications. Robert Lewy Kingseason (talk) 09:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@marchjuly leave out ampersand after article and before Id Robert Lewy Kingseason (talk) 13:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Citation for gift to Skirball Dept at NYU is hebrewjudaic.as.nyu.edu/object/lewy.html Thanks Robert LewyKingseason (talk) 15:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm hoping work of recent days with @marchmuly and @leadsongong will move things towards removing some of lack of citation notes in the article. I admit to expertise in PMIDs and doi or creating linkage except,to website. Thank you Robert Lewy Kingseason (talk) 10:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Educational background
PS hoping decision arrived at about using my diplomas and newspaper article to restore my magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa. Likewise Cardeza Fellowship,also eliminated which, ironically, was where al the heart research was done. Thank you Robert LewyKingseason (talk) 11:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * PS click on the online Selected references #2 it shows me at Cardeza. The first and third do also but I can't access full text. Same coauthors.  There 1977-79. :Should have thought of this earlier
 * Best
 * Robert LewyKingseason (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Phi Beta Kappa ci"Timeline & Notable Graduates: '60 Notable Graduates". The Campaign for Stuyvesant. The Campaign for Stuyvesant/Alumni(ae) & Friends Endowment Fund. Retrieved June 1, 2015. Robert Ira Lewy, MD '60 Pioneer in coagulation research in cardiology;te. Idnc.library.illinois.edu, Illinois digital newspaper collections, ;F&M college reporter, april 3,1943
 * Thanks
 * Robert Lewy Kingseason (talk) 17:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry,,that is April 3 1964 for F & M College Reporter article about those elected to PBK, not 1943
 * Thanks
 * Robert LewyKingseason (talk) 14:03, 18 June 2015 (
 * https://escrip-safe.com/one_time_details/7601f030518e70e3fcafda550c14c72166b31e55/view_transcript
 * Franklin and Marshall transcript showing Phi Beta Kappa and A.B. Magna Cum Laude
 * Please view this link within 24 hours as it will express.,can email PDF of course
 * Thank you
 * Robert LewyKingseason (talk) 18:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding sooner. I'm not sure if all the links you are providing can be used to support the information you'd like to be added regarding your educational background. School transcripts are likely to be considered to be a primary source (Click WP:PSTS to find out what that means on Wikipedia) and there are restrictions on how primary sources can be used on Wikipedia, particularly with respect to articles about living people (see WP:BLPPRIMARY for details). The link to the pdf you provided is a link that downloads the file. I can download and try to figure out what it is I am looking at, but I am not sure if that qualifies as published in a Wikipedia sense. I think this might be a good thing for you to ask for clarification at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Many of the editors who frequent that page have lots of experience with biographies like this and they might be better suited to help you out. I suggest that you read the instructions of the page carefully before posting because that is a community wide noticeboard and you need to be more careful with your formatting of posts, etc. than you do on this article's talk page.

The Phi-Beta Kappa article is more promising and I'm pretty sure it can be used. Franklin & Marshall College's F&M College Reporter appears to be a reliable source and this link clearly shows that a Robert Ira Lewy was chosen to be a Phi Beta Kappa. Just to make sure, I am going to ask about this on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to get the opinions of a wider range of editors and ask how to proper cite this in the article. In order to do that, I kind of need to know how the information is to be included; For example, "Lewy earned a degree in biology from Franklin and Marshall College in 1964, where he was elected to be a member of Phi Beta Kappa." is one possibility, but there's probably a better way to express this. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * thanks. Talked to college at length about on line list of graduates showing magna as on transcript but not of that era but link is secure. A few other suggestions especially the Cardeza articles showing I was there those years.
 * Robert Lewy Kingseason (talk) 09:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Added a statement and supporting source about Lewy's membership in Phi Beta Kappa after verifying the source's acceptability at WP:RSN. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Marchjuly. The correct link for my specific gift to MMRF legacy society is http://www.gftpln.org/Article.do?orgId=757&articleId=15295

Robert LewyKingseason (talk) 10:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC) @ marchjuly Just wanted to call your attention to the sourcing above for the Legacy society again. Regarding the third line of the introduction, starting "in the 1990s", it's libelous.. Firstly it takes a mistake from the already quoted NYT quoted below and editorialized on it. No matter what I have written to Fiddlestyx, I've never convinced her/him I had not part in any suing implant manufacturers. Despite what the NYT article says. This line is unwarranted, repetitive and goes beyond the editors knowledge. I only examined patients as part of a class action settlement which required many patients exams as agreed in advance by insurance companies and manufactures.. Hence, I was not part of any effort to drive anyone into bankruptcy etc. on the contrary. So I may not be able to prove that's all I did third party wise, but the editorial line mentioned is False, libelous, and repetitive and should be removed. It gives color of authority of wiki beyond the NYT citation Thank you very much. Robert LewyKingseason (talk) 15:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not really sure if the legacy link you provided is sufficient enough to support adding that particular bit of information to the article per WP:UNDUE. Eseentially, it's just a list of "people who have included the Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation (MMRF) in their estate plans." and is more or a "trivial" mention than significant coverage. Please understand when I say "trivial", I am speaking strictly in a Wikipedia sense and I am not trying to make light of the commitment you've made. I think what you and the others have decided to do is quite noble, but I am not quite sure how it should be tied into this particular article. I guess a sentence saying "Lewy has included the MMRF in his estate plans" is simple enough to be supported by the source, but anything beyond that might run into trouble per WP:RSCONTEXT and WP:SYN. I think it's best to try and get feedback from others before adding that information to the article.  et al. are probably just working on other things. Try and remember that we are all volunteers and our only focus is not this particular article.


 * As for the other stuff, I cannot speak for the veracity of the NYT article. The issues you are raising about the article seem serious enough to require a discussion among a broader spectrum of editors. I really think you should bring up this matter at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. More editors follow that noticeboard than this article. The editors working off that noticeboard typically have experience with this type of thing and may be able to provide further clarification. Asking for more people to take a look at this is probably going to be a good thing.


 * Finally, I know you haven't gone that far yet, but you might want to take a peek at WP:LEGAL, particularly WP:LEGAL, just for future reference. Sometimes when discussions get heated, an editor can say something in passing that is interpreted to mean something other than intended. You have to be pretty careful when it comes to this thing because it can in some cases lead to an immediate block by an administrator. This is just meant as some friendly advice so hopefully you will take it as such. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks Marchjuly. Yes, all,I ever stated was membership in the legacy however trivial so the citation hopefully can remove the lack of source note.
 * I'm only asking for reason on the other because someone lifted the text from the NYT article, true or not (not) and put it repetitively without its own source (the "In the 1990s" line). That is an editorial overstep no? Fyddlestix or someone can and has refused to allow papers refuting the NYT article about "universal consensus" and since it's not third party written about me, I get that. Pretty sure that doesn't exist. But the prolog line should then be sourced by a third party or just deleted as it adds nothing new. I don't assume any malice. Hopefully you or she will just see the redundancy appearing as fact and make the article better sourced, thanks as always.
 * Robert Lewy Kingseason (talk) 23:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I imagine that there are quite a few people who create Wikipedia articles about themselves or their businesses, etc. without really understanding how Wikipedia works. "Wikipedia's Law of Unintended Consequences" states "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." Unfortunately, may people find this out the hard way after, sometimes even after quite a bit of time has passed since they created the article.


 * The lede of a Wikipedia article is supposed to be a general summary of what is to come. By design, information in the lede ("prolog") is intended to be repetitive, but per WP:CITELEAD information in the lede does not necessarily require a citation if the same thing is discussed later on in detail and properly cited at that point. The stuff later on in the article about the "breast implant litigation" seems to accurately reflect what the reliable sources (i.e., the NYT articles) reported. Moreover, the article has already been nominated for deletion once before, and it seems that part of the reason the article was kept had to do with those NYT articles. I do not know if what is written in the articles is true. If your dispute is with the NYT or the writers of the articles, then you should try and understand that Wikipedia is not really the place to right great wrongs. Newspaper writers, however, are human and they do make mistakes. That is why you should take this to WP:BLPN if you feel that the NYT stuff is being given undue weight in the article. WP:BLPN is not a guarantee that the information will be ultimately removed, but it brings the matter to the attention of more editors who may be able to find a way to better address your concerns. Sorry I cannot be of more help, but this kind of thing is complicated which is why it's best to get more people involved in the process. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * PS you and I had talked a while back about being unsure how to rate the importance of scientific papers, before you kindly restored some of them. I searched the number of cites of my work and the thromboxane articles were 10+'times more than anything about breast implants, yet in the article only the NYT issue is there. You found the quote from the Stuyvesant notables mentioning discovery of a link between hematology and cardiology to my credit, which resulted actually in a Nobel prize FYI for our chief in 1984. So a word of that work in the article?
 * Best
 * Robert. Lewy Kingseason (talk) 00:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I remember not being sure about how to rate the importance of each paper, but I don't remember a Stuyvesant quote or talk of a Nobel prize. A Nobel prize would definitely be worthy of a mention. If there are reliable sources which clearly show you were involved in the research for which your chief received the reward, then that's something that would merit serious consideration for inclusion in the article. The other stuff about number of cites, etc. is something, to be honest, that I don't know much about. I think it would be better to wait for feedback on this from editors with more experience with this kind of thing. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@marchjuly "Timeline & Notable Graduates: '60 Notable Graduates". The Campaign for Stuyvesant. The Campaign for Stuyvesant/Alumni(ae) & Friends Endowment Fund. Retrieved June 1, 2015. Robert Ira Lewy, MD '60 Pioneer in coagulation research in cardiology; This is reference 11. You found it! Best Robert Lewy Kingseason (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Researchgate.net/profile/robert_lewy2/contributions
Www.researchgate.net/profile/robert_Lewy2/contributions
 * [Note: The following was originally posted to User talk:Marchjuly, but I believe it is more appropriate for discussion here. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)]

Hello Marchjuly Hope you are well. Researchgate.net is a third party scientific publication database which first requires faculty verification and then creates a bibliography of the authors. No one has any influence over it. Would you consider putting the above link in my entry? It contains how often each article was cited shows which work I've really been best known for scientifically. We have talked about how I feel the article is too reliant on one NY Times article which is Merroneous about my role in litigation and suggests I acted improperly. Since I don't have a refutation of that part, I'm hoping this will better represent my career. Thank you for your consideration. Robert Lewy Kingseason (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * [Note: The following was originally posted to User talk:Marchjuly, but I believe it is more appropriate for discussion here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)]
 * Hi Marchjuly
 * Nothing has happened since this discussion was relocated. You once before made a successful proposal about adding publications to the article. Would you consider it in this case? Researchgate collects scientific publications, is third party and I believe should be cited. The idea is that the Career section talks about something besides breast implants and litigation, which is settled now, but more important work much more frequently cited of mine. Thanks again. Kingseason (talk) 01:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately Wikipedia can sometimes move slowly when in comes to certain articles which are not watched by lots of editors. There is really no rush when it comes to improving articles, and in most cases small gradual improvements tend to be how things are done. You can, however, try to get more people involved by following the steps at WP:PSCOI.


 * Personally, I am not sure how the statement "The majority of his cited peer reviewed papers regarded thromboxane and heart disease" is really supported by Www.researchgate.net/profile/robert_Lewy2/. For example, if the cited source explicitly said such a thing, then it would seem fine to reflect that in the article. The source, however, really does not say that so the reader is being asked to look through all of your (Lewy's) papers listed at research gate and figure out which are related to thromboxane and heart disease and which are not. I'm not sure if this is really acceptable per WP:RSCONTEXT and WP:SYN. Moreover, I'm not completely sure that ResearchGate is a reliable source since it appears to be somewhat user-generated content. For reference, the site was discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 184 earlier this year where the consensus seems to have been that it is not a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes. It might be possible to add the link as an external link per WP:ELMAYBE as long as there are no problems related to WP:ELBLP. You can ask for the opinions of others as if you like at WP:RSN or WP:BLPN. Just follow the instructions at the top of each of those pages, explain who you are and why you feel the information merits inclusion in the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * To Marchjuly Thanks and had no,idea Researchgate had been already discussed and rejected so wouldn't have wasted your time. How can I refute the editorial comments that built on the NYTimes article which conflates two different and opposite processes, the class action, where I was active and lawyers were required to send patients to qualify, and the "opt,out" cases which went to trial and I had no part. Even if the first paragraph starting "in the 1990s" corrected the idea I was in suing manufacturers and said I was one of the MDs who helped create the class action, to avoid lawsuits, would be accurate and fair. I'd welcome any suggestions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingseason (talk • contribs)  22:15, 19 October 2015‎ (UTC+9)


 * No need to apologize and it wasn't a waste of my time. It's almost impossible to keep track of what sources are being discussed where by Wikipedia editors, so when I'm in doubt about a source I check the archives at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources noticeboard to see if the source has been discussed before. Moreover, just because the source was deemed unreliable at one time for a certain article, consensus can change so it's possible that opinions on RG might have changed. You can always ask about it at the "Reliable sources noticeboard" if you like.


 * Regarding the NYT comments, as you probably figured out the NYT is considered pretty reliable when it comes to Wikipedia. Even though the two articles aren't really listed as editorials, reporters are people too so obviously the articles they write are going to include some editorializing and their own personal take on things. I cannot say whether the information in the articles is "fair" or "true", but I think the Wikipedia article accurately reflects what is written in those NYT articles: "lucrative practices" and "practices intended more to help women collect vast court awards than to treat medical problems" are taken from the articles and your (Lewy's) name is prominently mentioned in both articles. That is why I don't think this is a case of Wikipedia editors synthesizing information and applying their own interpretation to what the sources are saying. If you disagree with that assessment or the consensus on this talk page and still feel that the NYT articles are too biased or filled with errors, then I think you should try and discuss this at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons noticeboard and have more editors take a look at the article. Follow the instructions at the top of the page, explain who you are and what you find troubling about the article. Lots of experienced editors work off that noticeboard, so they might be able to help.


 * Finally, there are, unfortunately, quite a few unintended consequences of creating a Wikipedia article about yourself, etc., but since the article is about you, was created about you and seems to being causing you some grief, it might be possible for you to request that it be deleted per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Please note, however, the article was nominated for deletion back in April 2007 and survived, so any such request might not be granted. Even so, you can still always ask and maybe point out that your concerns regarding the tone of the article are still the same as they were 8 years ago during that AFD discussion. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi. The editorializing I'm talking about isn't anything inside the NYT article, but added. Specifically, "alleged" health effects and "women who believed they were suffering ..." . That's beyond the NYT article and incorrect. The editor himself is taking a position! Again, the insinuation I took an "active role" in litigation Is untrue and not in the NYT or referenced.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingseason (talk •  [Special:Contributions/Kingseason|contribs]]) 11:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I can see your point about the "and treating women who believed that they were suffering negative health effects from implants" statement and I've tried to reword that paragraph to more accurately reflects what the sources say and make it more balanced. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Marchjuly. One could also say "alleged" is a legal'term. One could say "investigating (or documenting) what he suspected..." In the single line above that paragraph with its references. Less inflammatory and a simple statement of fact. Thanks for the trouble you are taking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingseason (talk • contribs) 17:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Or just drop the word "alleged" ! I appreciate your objectivity Kingseason (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:46, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion sounds a bit "weaselly" to me (I'm using the term in a Wikipedia sense and it's not intended to be an insult). The word "possible" might be a little more neutral sounding than "alleged", but since "alleged" was added by with  and the verification needed tags were added by  with  and, I think it's a good idea to get their input on such a change and see if it addresses their concerns. It is possible that WP:ALLEGED may be being applied here.
 * Finally, I do not think that this particular single sentence paragraph is really in accordance with MOS:PARAGRAPH. It is placing undue emphasis on a sentence whose text-source context is at best iffy, regardless of whether the word "alleged" is used. In my opinion, the entire sentence needs to be either somehow better incorporated into the other parts of the section or removed altogether. Once again, this is something that should be discussed and determined through consensus.  -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks.i'll wait for their response. Robert f Kingseason (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

However, if we strike the whole sentence we lose references 3-5 which cite the NIH symposium in DC with presentations about harmfulness of silicone from invited scientists at about same time NYT article was saying there was uniform agreement on safety of silicone! Kingseason (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

1 Kingseason (talk) 13:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Marchjuly I see LeadDogSong has looked at the page and made no changes.,Would you kindly propose the small changes we talked about : remove the term alleged in the stand alone sentence and attach it to the next paragraph? As you note this would make it conform to what a paragraph should be in Wiki and keep the important references for those wishing to read further. I notice in TV parlance that "alleged" is used to mean a court finding,,or verdict, and that isn't the case here. Thank you very much. Kingseason (talk) Kingseason (talk) 18:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Maybe the best thing for you to do is to try and discuss this at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard (WP:BLPN) as suggested in WP:BIOSELF. That's often the best thing to do for people who have issues with Wikipedia articles written about them, especially when the article does not generate lots of traffic. Just simply explain who you are, what bothers you about the article, and how you suggest that the problem gets fixed. As I stated above, I am not sure that the sentence in question satisfies WP:UNDUE or that the sources cited in support satisfy WP:RSCONTEXT regardless of the use of "alleged", so my first thought is to remove it all together per WP:BLPSOURCES. A BLPN discussion involving more editors who tend to focus on biographies of living persons might be the best venue to address any and all concerns you have about the article. Just go to the page, and click "Create", pick an appropriate "Subject/headline" (I suggest using the article's name) and explain your concerns. When you're ready to submit, hit "Show preview"first to do a quick check for silly errors and make sure you've signed your post (WP:Tilde). Remember to try and keep the discussion focused on why you feel the article is problematic per Wikipedia's policy on the biographies of living people, so it's best to skim through that first. If you want to practice your post, then use your sandbox (click "Sandbox" at the very top of the page to the right of your username), and simply add the final version to BLPN when ready. I think it's best if you do this because the article is about you and your concerns are best expressed by you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks but I don't want to start a war and don't have much time. You've already restored quite a bit of balance last week. I promise no more suggestions if you would kindly do this small thing preserving the references. You are very kind.Kingseason (talk) Kingseason (talk) 12:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Kingseason. You don't have to worry about starting a war. The editors at WP:BLPN are pretty experienced and are here to help build the encyclopedia. Their only interest is in making sure all BLP articles adhere to relevant policies and guidelines. They will listen to your concerns and assess them. No guarantees that they will see things the same way as you do, but as long as you stay WP:CIVIL and try base your arguments on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, they will respond in kind. There are two other possibilities if you'd like to try a more one on one approach. One is to contact the Wikipedia OTRS volunteer response team as explained in WP:BLP. OTRS volunteers will edit the page if necessary and remove anything they feel violates BLP policy not only from the article, but from the edit history as well. The other way is to try and use WP:IRC, which is sort of like a Wikipedia chat room, to get real time assistance. There is a special channel for administrators at #wikipedia-en-revdel. Just go to WP:BLPN and look for "You can request a revision deletion on IRC using #wikipedia-en-revdel connect, where only administrators will be able to see your concerns" (it's in red). Click on "connect" and you will be taken to the login page. There should always be one or more administrators there who can provide assistance. Just type in your concerns and someone should answer right back. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll try it. Thanks Kingseason (talk) Kingseason (talk) 14:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Revdel producing an error that address invalid.Kingseason (talk) Kingseason (talk) 23:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Marchjuly I've tried Revdel and the OTROS routes without any answer. Here is what I sent| Gentlepersons This article has several errors which are hard to disprove externally with third party sources but should be corrected. 1. I did never assist in suing breast implant manufacturers as stated in first line. On the contrary, I was a court appointed expert for a class action to which manufacturers were a party.Article should IMHO mention existence of class action and my role. Further down, I did not give expert testimony whatsoever in assisting lawyers to get "vast awards." I only physically examined patients sent to me by the court and issued reports. 2, use of term "alleged" in mid article implies I had some ulterior or legal goal. I only did peer reviewed medical research. I believe it is a bit of a slur. The editors overall have editorialized on top of the NYT article without sources, adopting it's malicious tone toward the court experts and again failing to mention the importance of the class action under Judge Poynter of Atlanta. 3. Most of my cited work is about heart disease and aspirin. Please check Researchgate and mention this and reference it. Otherwise the article is misleading about my scientific work by omission.

I appreciate your help in correcting this misleading article with many unsourced editorial conclusions outside the NYT article itself.

Thank you Robert Ira Lewy

You have already helped but would you edit again addressing some of these points? Thanks Kingseason (talk)

Sent from my iPad Kingseason (talk) 23:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Kingseason. Sorry, you were not able to find someone to help you. I think your best option may still be to post your concerns at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. To be frank, I simply do not see the article as being misleading as you claim it is, but that could simply be because (1) it is not an article written about me, and (2) I don't have any personal knowledge about you or your involvement in the things mentioned in the article. So my suggestion is to just go to the BLP noticeboard, read the instructions, click on "Create a report", use the name of the article as the subject heading, post your concerns, sign your post, click "Show preview" to check for errors, and then click "Save page" when ready to submit. Whatever you post will be automatically added to the noticeboard, so you just wait to see what other editors might have to say. Sorry, but that's the only suggestion I have for you at the moment. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:22, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

New post moved from article to talk
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)

LEADSONGDOG AND OTHER EDITORS

i'm unable to find my my back to your Talk pages.There have been some developments on the silicone breast issue by peer reviewed third parties regarding lack of evidence to prove safety. Im putting it here to do with as you will.Im sorry I couldnt talk directly 1.Long Term Health Outcomes in Women with Silicone Breast Implants. Annals of Internal Medicine Nov 10 2015.Balk Ethan,Earley Amy, Avendano E, Raman G. Conclusion: the evidence remains inconclusive about any association between silicone gel implants and long term health outcomes. Better evidence is needed from existing large studies ..... I believe I am cited as reference 76 or 79. WebMD by Amy Norton "Jury still Out on Silicone breast safety" Nov 9 2015 Healthday "Jury still Out on Silicone breast safety" Nov 9 2015

i cannot provide pages as Im not a subscriber to the Annals. IMHO this reference and discussion warrant inclusion to counter the New York Times articles which state that safety was unanymously agreed in 1994.

THANK YOU and again I know this is not the proper communication but I know LeadSongDog, a physicist, has been editing this article regularly so he can read the Annals article. I have requested a colleague copy with all data fromm Dr Balk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.54.216.170 (talk • contribs)
 * just making sure you're aware of the post above as a courtesy to Mr Lewy. Fyddlestix (talk) 12:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)

Most recent publication regarding silicone breast implant safety
Long-Term Health Outcomes in Women With Silicone Gel Breast Implants: A Systematic Review Ethan M. Balk, MD, MPH; Amy Earley, BS; Esther A. Avendano, BA; and Gowri Raman, MD, MS [+] Article, Author, and Disclosure Information See Also: Silicone Gel Breast Implants: What We Know About Safety After All These Years Working Toward a Solution: The Unanswered Questions About Silicone Gel Breast Implants Ann Intern Med. 2016;164(3):164-175. doi:10.7326/M15-1169

Dr Robert Ira Lewy participated. Reference 89

Conclusion Failure to prove safety of silicone implants due to study design. Kingseason (talk) 15:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Robert, the citation formats you seek appear to be these:



Neither of these list you as an author, so why would they belong in this article about you? Balk et al might be suitable in an article on implant safety. Editorials are rarely useful anywhere on Wikipedia. LeadSongDog come howl!  21:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you LeadDogSong. Kingseason (talk) 03:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Ethan Balk, MD MPH
 * Associate Director, Brown Evidence-based Practice Center
 * Center for Evidence-Based Medicine
 * Brown University School of Public Health
 * Box G-S121-8, Providence, RI 02912, USA


 * @LeadDogSong
 * any opinion on using this entry in the last line of career where we mention his work?
 * Your call from a novice. Credits Brown Study.
 * Robert


 * Kingseason (talk) 02:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with on this Robert (Kingseason). I don't really see how adding this source for Balk is an improvement because this article is neither about him nor about breast implant safety. Also, your any opinion on using this entry in the last line of carrer where we mention his work seems to be in reference to "The most recent review November 9,2015 in which Dr Lewy participated (reference 89)concluded that the 20 year experiment had failed to prove the absolute of silicone gel breast implants and further studies were needed (Balk below)." which you added with . I don't think this sentence is appropriate as worded and is not the kind of thing you yourself should be adding to the article because of your conflict of interest. Such information might work if was to simply illustrate the type of research you are currently doing in the field of breast implant safety, but it seems you are trying too hard tie it in with the previous paragraph because you dispute the accuracy of the NYT articles cited. I think the entire sentence needs to go, but LeadSongDog and  may feel there's a better way to incorporate it into the article. I've probably mentioned this before, but you can get the opinions more editors about something like this by asking for assistance at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Fresh sets of eyes looking at the article may bring a fresh prespective. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:11, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

new charitable activity
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)

ADD www.msmnyc.Support-MSM.Planned Giving Kingseason (talk) 10:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

change website www.msmnyc.edu.Support-MSM.planned giving Kingseason (talk) 10:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

correct line one (having make ) should be (having made) Kingseason (talk) 10:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

www.zencare.org/ways-to-give/join-the -Enso-Legacy Lewy has also donated by bequest to the Enso Legacy of the New York Zen Center for Contemplative Care Kingseason (talk) 23:10, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Did someone independent publish about this, or just these conflicted sources? LeadSongDog come howl!  02:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

no publication of bequests until next year's program. thanks can get and post confirmaions There are just two. addresses refer to nature of each. Kingseason (talk) 11:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)