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)

@Johnuniq and CorneliusVanDyck: I stubified this article based on ticket: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)

@Johnuniq and MrClog: 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)

CorneliusVanDyck, 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)

MrClog I didn't realise it was automatic. Thanks for explaining. Can I ask about what step could be taken to limit Mandalorian123 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 Djuventus78. I have reverted to the stub. Please can it be dealt with? Thanks! CorneliusVanDyck (talk) 05:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: You might want to look into this allegation of block evasion. ElKevbo (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Djuventus78 (talk · contribs) 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

@Johnuniq, MrClog, and Djuventus78: It has been a few months since the BLP was stubified because of the edit war and Djuventus78 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)

The proposed material does not adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines for biographies of living persons, which emphasize neutrality, relevance, and fairness. The incident described is an isolated event that does not reflect the broader scope of Dr. Khuri's career. Furthermore, presenting this information without proper context or balance could mislead readers and harm his reputation.

It is important to ensure that Wikipedia articles are not used as platforms for personal attacks or defamation. If controversies are to be included, they must be presented alongside significant achievements to provide a complete and accurate view of the subject. Dr. Khuri’s extensive contributions to medicine, education, and leadership deserve equal, if not greater, emphasis. I recommend focusing on his professional accomplishments, which are of far more public interest and relevance. 212.36.194.26 (talk) 06:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate the measures taken to protect Dr. Fadlo Khuri's article due to earlier concerns about controversial edits. However, recent developments suggest that the conditions have improved significantly. I propose reducing the protection level to allow edits, with ongoing monitoring to ensure compliance with Wikipedia’s policies. This approach will maintain the article’s integrity while enabling collaborative improvements. Thank you for considering this request. {{Edit fully-protected}} 212.36.194.26 (talk) 06:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Including well-sourced, relevant, and due negative information is not a personal attack or defamation. Nor do our policies and practices require us to balance positive and negative information - we follow the reliable sources, no more and no less. ElKevbo (talk) 15:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I agree that Wikipedia's policies prioritize reliable sourcing, neutrality, and verifiability. However, I believe there’s an important nuance here that needs consideration.

While it's true that Wikipedia does not require balancing positive and negative information, the principle of neutrality means giving appropriate weight to all aspects of a subject based on the body of reliable sources. Over-emphasizing negative information or presenting it out of proportion to its significance in reliable sources can lead to undue bias, which violates Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy.

Additionally, including only negative information without contextualizing or balancing it with neutral or positive aspects where available can misrepresent the subject. Wikipedia policies like WP:DUE (due and undue weight) and WP:NPOV both stress the importance of proportional representation of views in relation to the sources.

For instance:

1. WP:DUE explicitly states: "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a viewpoint is the truth or as if a dispute represents a '50-50' balance of opinion when that is not the case."

2. Similarly, overemphasizing negative details, even if sourced, can amount to WP:UNDUE emphasis, misrepresenting the topic's overall coverage in secondary sources.

Reliable sources themselves often balance perspectives by giving appropriate weight to positive, negative, and neutral aspects. It’s our role as editors to mirror that approach.

In summary, this is not about "balancing" for the sake of neutrality but about accurately reflecting the weight and context of information as represented in reliable sources. Overrepresentation of any aspect—even if well-sourced—risks straying from Wikipedia’s core policies. 94.187.2.226 (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

It's two sentences with neutral language. It's appropriately weighted and pertinent.

If there is other information in this article that is missing, you are welcome to describe that information and potentially add it to the article. That is completely separate from the inclusion or exclusion of this other, unrelated information. ElKevbo (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

This does not justify the inclusion of unrelated information, as Wikipedia content should remain relevant. It must pertain directly to the topic and adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines for neutrality and verifiability.

The subject of the biography has requested that their page not include any paragraphs detailing their personal life. Such a request, while noted, must still comply with Wikipedia's content policies, ensuring that all information included is neutral, verifiable, and relevant to the subject's notability. 94.187.2.226 (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

See WP:FAMOUS. If content about a public figure is publicly known and reliably sourced, then that content generally is fair game for inclusion here (assuming it is written about neutrally). They cannot control that. Zinnober9 (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

No admin is going to edit a protected article to change from one party in an edit war's preferred version to the other party's without a much better reason than is provided here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The 91.197.47.107 (talk) 06:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The inclusion of reliably sourced content about public figures under WP:FAMOUS must also align with Wikipedia’s core policies of neutrality, relevance, and due weight. Even if sourced, information can and should be excluded if it is undue, disproportionately highlights a minor aspect of the subject’s life, or fails to contribute meaningfully to their notability. In this case, the disputed information appears to violate these principles, making its removal appropriate. I trust that, as an administrator, you will agree that retaining contentious material that does not adhere to WP:UNDUE or WP:NPOV undermines the article’s quality. Removing it would better align the article with Wikipedia’s standards for neutrality and focus. 91.197.47.107 (talk) 06:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Admin didn't reply to my comment. The last edit doesn't align with Wikipedia’s core policies of neutrality, relevance, and due weight. Even if sourced, information can and should be excluded if it is undue. Such contentious material does not adhere to WP:UNDUE or WP:NPOV and undermines the article’s quality. 94.187.1.70 (talk) 04:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• If the argument for inclusion is that Khuri is WP:WELLKNOWN, then our policy is clear on this: If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the incident, leave it out. So it should be removed on that grounds alone. In addition, this is also a legal matter that is too complex to cover in the proper context, which would make it WP:UNDUE for inclusion. The source clearly states that "the jury found Dr. Khuri not negligent and Dr. Masters appealed"; this relevant information is not included in the article. And when you examine the appeal, this case was more than just about "inaccurate or ambiguous medical record documentation". Both sides, the plaintiff and the defendant, presented expert testimony in support of their arguments pertaining to the record documentation; this relevant information is left out of the article. There was also an issue raised on appeal by the plaintiff that the trial judge errored in precluding him from cross-examining the defendant's experts as to bias; this is also left out of the article. And the appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, and this relevant information is left out as well. To me, this looks like cherry-picking a source to include information that has had no significant impact on his career, and it doesn't help the reader have a better understanding of the subject when so much context is left out about the lawsuit. I support removing it.
  I also found this source that could be used for basic bio/background info in the article: O’Rourke, Kate (April 2022). "First Person Profile: Fadlo R. Khuri, MD". Cancer. 128 (7): 1356–1357. doi:10.1002/cncr.34151. ISSN 1097-0142. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: What Pppery said, stop waving the bat signal around. Sohom (talk) 03:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Agree with Pppery and Sohom - personal opinions and selective reading of uncited sources cannot displace factual information based on verified, independent third-party sources, nor does "neutrality" mean that sunnier sides of Wikipedia subjects should receive greater attention than not-so-sunny sides. By that flawed logic, Wikipedia should not report OJ Simpson's criminal trial (in which he was acquitted) because it conflicts with his successful career as an athlete and media personality. While it is true that personal lives of subjects are fair game if properly sourced, no "personal life" issue is present here. Subject was publicly sued in a U.S. federal court, and, regardless of the outcome, highly credentialed independent third-party scholars have identified the case in a valid and correctly cited source as a vitally important clinical case study. There is no reason to exclude it. Tellingly, the anonymous ISP addresses throughout the commentary above appear via GPS search to be localized at or close to the subject's institution, of which he is president, and could well be him and/or employees working at his direction rather than impartial Wikipedia users. Arlo3415 (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

OJ Simpson's murder trial is a piss-poor analogy to use, when there were literally hundreds, if not thousands, of sources reporting on that, which is not the case here with just one source. And this was not in a U.S. federal court, Khuri was sued in Superior Court at Trial Court of Massachusetts, and the appeal was before the Massachusetts App. Ct. And the source being used, starts out their analysis of the case by asking two questions: (1) Was there a delay in intubation of Dr, Masters? (2) If so, was the emergency department physician liable for the injuries resulting from the delay in treatment? And the answers to those questions, according to the jury are: (1) No, there was not a delay. (2) No, the emergency department physician was not liable for the injuries. And that relevant and significant information is left out of this article. And then one quote is cherry-picked from the source — "the possible consequences of inaccurate or ambiguous medical record documentation" — an interpretation that was rejected by the jury who actually heard the evidence in the case. And the way this information is presented in the article, in the second paragraph of the lead, makes it seems like this is a notable part of his career, which apparently it isn't, considering we don't have multiple third-party sources documenting the incident. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

OJ is a perfect analogy. An anonymous user located at or near subject's institution argues that potentially negative info should be ignored if it contradicts the supposed broader path of his life. There is no strict requirement for multiple sources, nor does this occur in practice. If it did, all reference to subject's purported awards should be deleted since all or most are documented by one source (many also seem to strain or fail Wikipedia standards for notoriety and seem to have been inserted as filler or counterweights. There is no evidence the jury reached a decision or even considered the clinical implications of the lawsuit; it merely assessed evidence and reached a finding of non-liability, a verdict irrelevant to the larger medical issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arlo3415 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 January 2025

User Abdallah413 continues to include information that has inadmissible sources or no sources at all and also deleted substantive information documented by an independent, third-party source. User's edits should be reversed and he barred from further edits. Arlo3415 (talk) 16:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

{{edit fully-protected}} is not for conduct allegations or relitigating the original edit war. See m:The Wrong Version. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 16 January 2025

In reference #12, please change |volume=VOL. 356|issue=NO. 24 to |volume=356|issue=24 to remove the red error messages and remove the article from the error categories. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Protected edit request

Change the level 4/h4 section header to a level 2/h2 for “Awards and Honors” as well as changing it to sentence-case. Thanks, Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 06:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done --Randykitty (talk) 14:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 22 January 2025 Suggestion

Add a References section. {{Reflist}} template is missing. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done --Randykitty (talk) 14:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Ineffective article protection

@Randykitty: You have repeatedly protected this article instead of directly dealing with the multiple single-purpose accounts who focus on this article. As shown by this Talk page, there is a long history of editors evading blocks and edit warring in this article. Instead of blocking those editors, you have chosen to prevent all editors from improving this article, including the completely innocuous changes requested in just the last couple of hours by different editors. I don't think this is an effective approach for dealing with these editors and I urge you to reconsider your approach. In the meantime, I am removing this article from my watchlist and I wish you the best of luck. ElKevbo (talk) 12:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• @ElKevbo:, you may have noticed that, apart from the edit-protection, I have edited neither the article nor its talk page. Nor am I inclined to read those walls of text on a subject that I'm not really interested in. All I have done is protect the page when I saw an edit war in progress. I therefore have no opinion whatsoever about who's right and who's wrong. Given how long you've been around (you should run for admin), you should know your way to the different dispute resolution mechanisms that we have. If such a process would conclude in some compromise, I could certainly block any editor who would edit against that consensus. Of course, you can also get the assistance of another admin who is familiar with the matter or willing to invest the needed time and energy to familiarize themselves with the problem. Meanwhile, if you prefer I can lift the page protection, just let me know. --Randykitty (talk) 13:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  Randykitty - While I agree with your commentary about the dispute, my edit request and Cowboygilbert's edit request are not related to the dispute, and are not controversial; you could have spared a few seconds to implement those requests since we can't. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Done --Randykitty (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Defamation and character assasination

@Randykitty you insist on including this disinformation while protecting the page from editing: "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"

As per Wikipedia's core policies, particularly WP:V (verifiability), WP:NOR (no original research), and WP:UNDUE(undue weight), the current inclusion of this content does not meet the necessary editorial standards for neutrality and accuracy.

1. Lack of Reliable Third-Party Sources The incident in question has not been widely covered by multiple independent and reliable third-party sources. Wikipedia policy requires significant coverage from reputable sources to ensure that information is presented in a balanced and well-documented manner. In this case, the available sources are either insufficient, questionable in reliability, or fail to establish the notability required for inclusion.
2. Legal Complexity The issue involves legal matters that are inherently complex and require careful contextualization. Without expert analysis or extensive media coverage from authoritative legal sources, the inclusion of such content risks misinterpretation, misrepresentation, or bias, which goes against Wikipedia’s commitment to neutrality.
3. Violation of WP:UNDUE Given the limited coverage and complexity of the matter, adding this information gives it undue weight in the article, making it appear more significant than it objectively is. Wikipedia is not a platform for speculation or unverified claims, and content should reflect balanced representation, not selective emphasis on contentious or legally ambiguous issues.

I kindly request a review of this matter and suggest that the content be removed or significantly revised to align with Wikipedia's guidelines. Ensuring the integrity and neutrality of Wikipedia's content is essential, and I appreciate your time in addressing this concern. 82.146.185.234 (talk) 08:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

• I have no strong opinion about any of that. But edit warring while hopping IPs to get your preferred version is not how this should be done. Instead, discuss on this talk page" with the other editors who are active here until you get a consensus, which then can be implemented in the article. --Randykitty (talk) 11:49, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

  I agree that this disinformation should be edited because it lacks multiple independent and reliable third-party sources. Abdallah413 (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 February 2025

The current protection status is limiting necessary edits and contributions that could improve the article’s accuracy, neutrality, and comprehensiveness. I believe that lifting the restriction would allow for more collaborative and constructive updates from the Wikipedia community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdallah413 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

The current protection level is working to limit the large amount of sockpuppetry disruptive editing IMO. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  17:32, 5 February 2025 (UTC)