Talk:Anil Potti

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an attack or a negative unsourced biography of a living person, because... there are multiple sourced online references to the neutral statements made in the article. The number of retracted scientific publications of Dr. Anil Potti is now among the highest of any scientist in history, and thus the scandal surrounding Dr. Potti is well known, particularly in scientific circles. Ian3141 (talk) 06:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC) --Alternateuniverse6457 (talk) 22:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

This page should not be deleted because Anil Potti is well known to the scientific community as having committed massive fraud that has resulted in the death of many patients. His online hired consultants are protecting his reputation and this must be stopped. I need help from other Wikipedia members to write this article on Dr. Potti. Please see these following sources published by Duke University, Nature Medicine, and several other reputable sources. http://www.economist.com/node/21528593 http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v17/n1/full/nm0111-135.html

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an attack or a negative unsourced biography of a living person, because... there are multiple sourced online references to the neutral statements made in the article. The number of scientific publications of Dr. Anil Potti is now among the highest of any scientist in history. Ian3141 (talk) 05:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC) --Alternateuniverse6457 (talk) 22:57, 25 December 2011 (UTC) http://dukechronicle.com/article/anil-potti-duke-cancer-researcher-accused-misconduct-resigns http://www.economist.com/node/21528593

I see no reason to delete the page as a negative unsourced biography now. Thank you for providing the sources! --bonadea contributions talk 11:49, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Redundancy

There are currently two sections listing his retracted work; is there any reason not to combine them into one? --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Potti's publications

Number of Retractions expected. According to the IOM report (around page 197), Dr. Robert Califf of Duke testified that they had looked at 40 of Potti's publications and that two-thirds of them would be retracted in whole or in part. Science reported this as "The fallout from the Duke case includes 27 papers that Duke expects to be partially or completely retracted..." Ian3141 (talk) 12:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Number of Potti's publications. MEDLINE (accessible at http://www.pubmed.org/) is not an authoritative source for the number of publications by a specific person. Searches by author in MEDLINE include only first initials, not entire first names. The National Library of Medicine's "MEDLINE database" contains 135 entries for author "Potti A", most of which are publications by Potti but more than a few are not. There are retraction notices (which are not publications),(among others) some are publications by a different person (with the same last name and first initial)(for example see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16802710 by Asha Potti), some are letters to the editor (which are not peer reviewed and not considered in the same category as a scientific publication)(for example see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14727227), many published in 2005 and earlier are case reports (which are also considered in a different category than original peer-reviewed publications)(for example see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16062089). It should also be noted that some journals are not indexed in MEDLINE so there may be other publications by Potti that are not identified by a MEDLINE search. Thus, it is unknown from MEDLINE how many scientific publications Potti has authored. Ian3141 (talk) 12:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

References

Accuracy from official sources

1. Duke's official source dukehealth.org clearly states the he resigned voluntarily.
2. All the official publications from Duke,NIH, Department of health and human services, or the Investigating committee has yet to publish report on what exactly transpired in that lab.
3. All we know thus far is that Potti's representation of Australian Rhodes scholarship is cause for serious concern.
4. Two Biostatisticians Keith Baggerly and Kevin Coombes raised questions back in 2007 about their inability to reproduce the results based on Potti and Nevins provided data.
5. 10 papers have been retracted that he coauthored, and others are being looked at.
6. Until its officially published by the investigating authority, its inappropriate to rush to conclusions.
7. Just because a news channel or 60 minutes says something, it might not true. Back in 2006/2007, 60 minutes heralded the same research teams efforts as breakthrough in cancer research.
8. Let's just stick with the facts from official sources and not retort to yellow journalism with partial information available unlike what we are accusing him of doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lanet303 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

What you refer to as "yellow journalism" is what Wikipedia refers to as "secondary sources", and they are actually prefered to primary sources for our use, as you can see in this guidelines. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I see what you are referring to, That's shocking. All these years I have come to rely on wikipedia as general source of information available about a subject, but looks like the authenticity of the articles on wikipedia is based on who shouts the loudest . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lanet303 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

LOOKS LIKE POTTI'S HIRED GUNS/"REPUTATION MANAGEMENT" WORKERS HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THE ARTICLE!!! Co1zzone (talk) 23:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, this edit alone would certainly suggest so. Removing content sourced to Nature with an irrelevant edit summary? Yeah right. And then there's all of Lanet303's irrational edits and edit summaries. 174.109.223.108 (talk) 22:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that would surely be both shocking and inconvenient to for example a reputation manager who during 'all these years' have contributed for only one week, to pretty much just this one article. Lklundin (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I saw that Potti had hired a reputation management firm, so it's reasonable to expect this. We should prevent information from being whitewashed but at the same time strive for WP:NPOV. This is after all still a BLP. Perhaps semi-protection would be in order until the DMCA/Wordpress thing is over. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Wiki Washing.

Review recent change history for evidence of wiki white washing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.11.8 (talk) 21:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Content contributed or removed by Jermyrose (talk · contribs) and Lanet303 (talk · contribs) should be scrutinized.

Sugested page move - Anil Potti Duke University Retraction Scandal

Anil Potti is known for only one thing, and that is his retraction scandal. I say we move the page and get rid of his biographical information. Lets make this article about the scandal, and not about some otherwise irrelevant person.Tim.thelion (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Even if that premise were correct, (and the whole reputation management/DMCA takedown discussion could probably stand on its own, irrespective of the research/retraction) it's far more likely someone would link to his name than the arbitrary name you suggest. Unless there's another article on a different, more-prominent Anil Potti that we need to disambiguate we should just keep it simple.LeadSongDog come howl! 16:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of such a change would be to get around Wikipedia bureaucracy. I was told by one IP, that due to this article being a biography we have to include biographical information. See the note here http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Anil_Potti&diff=537044994&oldid=537041338 . I know, that an article named Anil Potti should likely contain some biographical info, but I think it's quite useless. I think that the article is good as it is now, but looking at the history of the page I see that the reputation management firm has been all to tempted to make this page into a resume for Potti. There is really no need to list which degrees he has at all, and I think that even the short Biography section we have now is unnecessary. I don't so much disagree with the name of the article, as the status of this article as being a Biography of a Living Person. Because there is really no need whatsoever to have a biography of this man on wikipedia, the only thing of note here is his scandal. Tim.thelion (talk) 09:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Compare Andrew Wakefield. I wouldn't worry too much about "reputation management". In the long run, such efforts wind up being seen as vandalism, COI, and/or meatpuppetry and dealt with accordingly. The BLP policies remain applicable even if the article were to be renamed. It might be possible to make a ONEEVENT case at AFD, though I doubt that would get through. If there is a larger problem of scientific integrity at Duke, there might be a case for an article on that, into which this article could be subsumed. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Medical malpractice

The article states, "Potti's medical license record with the North Carolina Medical Board shows eleven settlements, each of at least $75,000, for incidents that appear to be related to these trials". There are two given cites, one of which is titled "Disgraced Duke researcher settles malpractice claims" and the other "Payouts mount for ex-Duke doc for malpractice". So there is medical malpractice by this person, in particular for the medical research (and fallout from it) that seems to be the focus of the WP article. I would be interested in hearing an explanation of why Category:Medical malpractice is not appropriate. DMacks (talk) 15:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Quite a few of the articles that were in Category:Medical malpractice were there incorrectly, and so I removed them, though I welcome second opinions. I notice that you have reversed my removal of the category in some cases. In my opinion, it is not appropriate to label a biographical article with the category "medical malpractice", unless the subject lost a medical malpractice case. Merely settling one isn't sufficient; lots of doctors who don't believe they did anything wrong will still settle a malpractice case rather than have one outstanding against them.

As a second point, while this is superficially a biographical article, it is mostly about a research scandal in which the subject was involved. Because of that focus, it might appear that we are labeling dubious scholarship as "medical malpractice". It is not. However, that's an issue with the particular focus of this specific article, rather than with the general criterion I mentioned above. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Alright, that makes good sense here--I see this article still is in a bunch of better-targeted "misconduct" and "fraud" types of cats. DMacks (talk) 02:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Anil Potti. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www2.nbc17.com/news/2012/feb/10/nbc-17-investigates-fda-findings-duke-audit-ar-1917827/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://coastalcancercenter.com/your-team/anil-potti-md/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140722071650/http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2012/Evolution-of-Translational-Omics.aspx to http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2012/Evolution-of-Translational-Omics.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://medschool.duke.edu/research/translational-medicine-quality-framework

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:00, 6 July 2017 (UTC)