Talk:Harold S. Koplewicz

Untitled

The notability and Wikipedia-worthiness of this biographical subject is questionable, despite the public perception of Koplewicz as the "Bernie Madoff of psychopharmacology" and being a shill for the pharmaceutical industry among people in the industry. Aacowen2020 (talk) 00:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

---

Original article was a Conflict of Interest and self-promotional piece commissioned by Harold Samuel Koplewicz, the director of NYU Child Study Center (CSC) at the time, and written by Brittney Green (aka User:Britt1589), Koplewicz's public relations assistant at NYU CSC. Britt1589 wrote several advertisement/PR articles in Wikipedia for Koplewicz.

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/brittney-green/9/540/203

I have heavily revised this article, because it was full with literally almost a dozen examples of anti-Semitic innuendo and outright hate. It failed every WP standard, especially those regarding Biographies of living persons.

"Contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

"Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[3] The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material."

Given this, I would expect any person who performs modifications of this page to restore tabloid and hate-based speech to justify their restoration. I welcome the communities input on this article with regards to BLP.

Given that this topic may not even meet notability guidelines, I have simply used the biography material published by the Huffington Post with minimal modifications. Jacksonjones1972

If you have issues with content as regards to a neutral point of view, please feel free t revise or rewrite those sections with a neutral perspective. Wholesale deletion and substitution with a Huffington Post bio provided by the subject's company, with no secondary sources that validate those claims is not acceptable. There are sections for which your argument seems legitimate, but other sections which don't. As for Anti-Semitic or hateful, to what do you refer? If there are factual inaccuracies, or information that is not relevant in a biographical article, feel free to correct. Otherwise, I recommend that we refer this to some Wikipedia arbitration/ dispute resolution. Ramondelante (talk) 19:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Wrongful editing of Koplewicz article

If readers have issues with information included in articles that are referenced with valid published sources, they can either provide additional alternative publicly sourced perspectives or refer the issues to Wikipedia's editors or arbitrators. It is not allowed to simply delete information that a reader does not agree with.Aacowen2020 (talk) 15:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Revisions to article

Over the past two days the well-sourced and referenced article on Harold S. Koplewicz has twice been largely deleted and replaced with a non-cited promotional biographical summary that Koplewicz provided the Huffington Post and also posts on his Twitter, Facebook and CMI pages. Wikipedia articles are not promotional pieces or resumes, but provide well sourced and relevant information about the subject. If a reader wants to make edits to existing text, the reader should follow Wikipedia editing guidelines, not delete the article and replace it with non-cited text. If any information is perceived as inaccurate, a reader can make corrections and cite acceptable secondary references. If there are questions about language or content, the reader can initiate a discussion in this or their personal Talk section. If this protocol is followed and no resolution is apparent, any disagreement between editors can be forward to Dispute Resolution. Pennphdabd (talk) 04:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Please see my notes above regarding removal of anti-Semitic hate speech and other violations of BLP. If you disagree, please justify given the lurid and non NPOV nature of all of the original material. Jacksonjones1972 (talk)

I have read your notes, but fail to see what sections have anything to do with Semitic or anti-Semitic speech. If there are sections that seem offensive or do not belong in the article, feel free to revise as per Wikipedia guidelines, but do not simply replace the entire article with a Koplewicz puff-piece. Other prominent psychiatrists do not have articles written about them in Wikipedia, and he is arguably notable insofar as his positions in the psycho-pharmacological controversy related to the use of psychotropic drugs for young people. Otherwise there doesn't appear to be any reason to include an article on him.Ramondelante (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, after writing this, it appears you found the anti-Semitic references. What you left does not reflect NPOV, and is in violation of BLP standards on notability as well. Both you and Pennphdabd appear to have little interest in Wikipedia beyond this one attack article. Please reread the exact standard above. I am going to note this article as an attack article. Jacksonjones1972 (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Ramondelante removed the attack article flag without offering a rationale, and continues to revise this article in the most negative possible light. He agreed that it was worthy of deletion on my talk page, then made substantial edits to his comments. I have marked the article for deletion, since it seems impossible to find consensus on the many examples of both blatant and subtle anti-Semitic commentary that has run through it since it's inception. I believe it is the only reason this article exists. Jacksonjones1972 (talk) 20:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

With regards to continuous reversions to subjects title/best known as: Subject is known primarily as President of Child Mind Institute. Ramondelante continues to use a single sentence from a 13+ year old interview to use a disparaging and less accurate title. Jacksonjones1972 (talk) 03:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Article discussion

Hi. I am affiliated with Harold and thought I would poke my head in the Talk page to see if editors previously involved in this page still have an interest.

I think most of the encyclopedic content ends in the "Professional Career" section:

• "Publications and awards" section: "He has received a number of industry awards" but none of those listed are significant enough to be categorized as anything but promotional and indiscriminate information. The article would be much improved if that entire section was deleted.
• "Paxil Study 329 Controversy" section: Appears to be cited exclusively to a source that does not actually mention the subject of this article and a [1]law firm's website that also does not even mention this BLP either
• "ADHD treatment dispute": This section has two sources: This one does not actually mention the subject of this article and this one is bylined by the subject of this article himself and does not discuss a "dispute"
• "December 2012 lawsuit against Koplewicz and CMI" section: A dedicated section about a lawsuit, cited only to a law firm's website.

I suggest that the article would be much improved if the BLP violations and poorly-sourced controversies, in addition to the promotion, were both trimmed and the result was a much smaller, but neutral, article. Thoughts? CorporateM (Talk) 13:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Publications and awards

I changed: He is also the editor or author of several books...

to

He is also the editor, author or contributor to several books,...

Because he is neither the author nor editor of The Day Our World Changed: Children's Art of 9/11, but that book does contain essays by influential child psychologist Harold Koplewicz.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• Awards - I left most of the awards although if anyone has knowledge of any of these awards and think they are too minor for inclusion I will defer to relevant expertise. I did remove the entry about being in the top 53,000 doctors hardly worth mentioning.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

ADHD treatment dispute

The content seems fine but as noted is no evidence of a dispute so I dropped that word.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Paxil Study 329 Controversy

The article states that the subject was a co-author of a study. While technically true, he appears to be one of 22 names listed as co-authors of the study. The usual convention is that the first name listed is the primary author and other names carry a lesser role. He is not the first listed author. Given the significance of the claims associated with the lawsuit ("a record $3 billion") I believe we need more solid information showing that the subject was a material contributor to the study sufficient that it deserves mention. Absent that, I think it should be removed per WEIGHT, which I have done.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, Study 329 should be restored. This was a major issue that "changed medicine", according to New Scientist in 2015, [2] and Koplewicz was one of those who defended the study at length that year. See "Re: Restoring Study 329", BMJ, 16 September 2015. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I have (at least temporarily) restore the section. The link you provided help support the importance of the overall study. I'm still concerned about how central the subject is to the study and in particular the negative aspects of the study. The signing of the letter lend support to the notion that he was more than a minor player but it would really be nice to have more information about the relative contributions of the participants. I did modify the opening of the section to note that there were 22 authors; the original wording might leave the impression that the subject of this article was one of a very few contributors.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring it. The issues aren't fully explained in the section. They include that the drug company funded the clinical trial; it paid a PR firm to ghostwrite the paper; the data did not support the paper's conclusions, which were that Paxil was efficacious and well-tolerated in adolescents; and the drug company used the conclusions to market the off-label use of the drug for children.

Koplewicz was one of 22 names added to the paper as authors in 2001, and one of 10 who defended it in the letter to the BMJ in 2015. Had he wanted not to be associated with the study, he could have chosen not to add his name to the 2015 letter. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

December 2012 lawsuit against Koplewicz and CMI

Having spent many years working on medical malpractice issues, I know that it is exceedingly common for physicians to be sued, many multiple times, and many are successfully sued. It is hardly a notable event, without further information. This particular case has a citation that's dead but the solution isn't simply to find a working citation, it's to identify why this particular case among hundreds of thousands of such cases deserves mention. --S Philbrick(Talk) 17:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

There needs to a mention of the multiple sexual harassment suits against him — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flamingoflorida (talk • contribs) 20:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC) Flamingoflorida (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Education

The current Education section cites three sources: (1) an online directory, (2) a profile piece in The New York Times (that does not appear to support most of the content it's cited for) and (3) the full-text of a commencement speech. In other words, it's really just OR.

I've put together a proposed replacement "Early life and education" section here, which relies mostly on the New York Times piece and adds more context about his childhood. Per WP:COI, I was hoping a disinterested editor might have a minute to take a look and objectively consider the proposed content. CorporateM (Talk) 16:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

May I propose the following text:

Early life and education
Koplewicz partly credits his father, a Holocaust survivor, for inspiring his interest in psychiatry, saying "he was very clear that what you carry in your head means everything." His interest in medicine was also sparked by the relationships he had with doctors treating his idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura.

Koplewicz earned a Bachelor's degree in Psychology from the University of Maryland. He initially went to medical school for pediatrics, but eventually transferred to a general psychiatry residency, earning his Doctor of Medicine from Albert Einstein College of Medicine.

References

References

Please advise whether this is acceptable to you — or not acceptable — and reopen your request by switching the edit request template's "ans=yes" parameter to "no". Spintendo ᔦᔭ 05:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

@Spintendo: Yes, your version is better written. Though I was wondering if it was intentional to remove the article-subject's place of birth: "Harold Koplewicz was born in Crown Heights, Brooklyn." I would also say his father inspired his interest in "medicine" broadly rather than "psychiatry".CorporateM (Talk) 17:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

References

 Implemented Spintendo ᔦᔭ 20:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Views

Currently there is an "ADHD treatment" section that cites two sources, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post. Unless I'm missing something, the Post article does not even mention Koplewicz and the WSJ piece appears to be bylined by Koplewicz himself. Neither actually supports the content it is cited for, except the quotation at the end. I would like to suggest replacing it with a Views section like the one I've put together here. CorporateM (Talk) 08:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Pinging @Sphilbrick:, because I just noticed he responded to this above and said "The content seems fine." Maybe he saw something I didn't? I cannot find this information in either of the cited sources. CorporateM (Talk) 08:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Y Errata corrige for the Post reference because, while mentioning another doctor who shared the same viewpoint, it still says nothing to specifically confirm the Koplewicz' quote. (Not what he said, but who said it, which is the basic requirement for quotes. Like you said, he's not even mentioned in the Post article.) I'm not sure that the information in the linked draft is on ADHD or childhood PTSD. But as the paragraph is about ADHD, it doesn't seem to be WP:GERMANE. The WSJ reference is for Koplewicz' quoted statement. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 09:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I see from Spintendo's Talk page that they prefer COIs not follow up with them directly due to canvassing concerns, therefore I am following up here with a revised request based on Spintendo's comments for whoever answers.

I would like to propose the following edits:

• Remove the following sentence, which is completely unsourced: "Koplewicz is perhaps best known for his public advocacy of increased usage of psychotropic medications for children diagnosed with Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)."
• Comment: This is what you should have mentioned in your request yesterday, and exactly how you should have said it. This sentence is the main basis for the entire existence of that section, and the fact that it was unreferenced should have been the main thrust of your request yesterday, which as I re-read it, never came close to approximating the emphasis of the sentence highlighted above. Simply saying "Neither actually supports the content it is cited for is misleading, because the sentence stating that "he is best known for ADHD" does not and never did contain a reference note. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 18:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

• Add a Views section (see [[draft)
• If I understand Spintendo correctly, I believe they are saying they want to keep the quoted sentence at the end of the ADHD section, which is cited to a WSJ piece written by the article-subject. If so, I suggest merging it with the new Views section.

CorporateM (Talk) 20:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Just to clarify — my preference for not being canvassed by editors is my own, and shouldn't be taken to represent any type of policy, nor was it meant to impugn the work of other editors who find efficiency in working that way. It's really no business of mine to pass judgement on how others work, and I'm sorry if it sounded that way. Regards. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 04:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

It's a sound personal policy. I only mentioned it because sometimes editors do not want to respond once they see another editor is already involved. CorporateM (Talk) 14:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I responded on the draft page to the edit requests. There is one sentence that makes sense adding. If you want it added to the ADHD-titled section, I suggest changing the title from ADHD treatment to ADHD and the psychopharmacological healthcare of children since it's not clear from the sentence whether Koplewicz is talking about healthcare of ADHD patients or psy patients in general. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 15:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, it seems odd to me to keep content cited to a source written by the article-subject, but omit content from independent sources, but I am subject to your decision-making. "Views" is sort of the normalized, common section title in BLPs, but of course there's no firm rules for article-structure anyway. Regarding my COI, I am paid by Koplewicz, but I am not his spokesperson. Nothing I say should be construed as representing his opinion/desires/etc.. Regarding the sentence you would like to keep, I can merge his book into the Careers section I plan to work on next.

Sorry to be annoying, but I was still hoping for a response regarding the following sentence: "Koplewicz is perhaps best known for his public advocacy of increased usage of psychotropic medications for children diagnosed with Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)."

This sentence is a bold claim regarding Koplewicz's alleged primary claim to notability. It has no citations. CorporateM (Talk) 17:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I've looked over the past history of the contentious ADHD section in the Koplewicz article. First and foremost, the claim about being "best known" is not referenced. I had said in my earlier post that the WSJ quote could remain because it is a quote from him. But having the quote used as either a reference for the allegation or as a reason for the section are both arguments that fail:

• "The reason for the section's existence in an article about Koplewicz is that he is well known under the subject." — But if he is well known, then there should be other sources beyond his own words.
• "The reason the quote should stay is because it acts as a reference for the claim that he is "best known as" — His words only assert his stance, not that he is "best known for it."

One way to remove the entire section:

1. Remove the only reference in the section — the WSJ quote — as a conjectural interpretation of a source (WP:BLPREMOVE)
2. As the section would then be wholly unreferenced, append the BLP unsourced section template to the ADHD section.
3. Begin talk page discussion to be held over the course of one week on the removal / improvement of the section
4. After one week of discussion, the section should either be able to stand on its own with newly added references backing the claim, or deleted.

Below you will find a discussion area for the removal of the section, which should take place after one week Spintendo ᔦᔭ 17:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposed removal of ADHD section

As mentioned above, I propose that the ADHD section either be augmented with references backing the claim or be removed in its entirety. I ask that all interested editors chime in. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 17:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

It's been 12 days since I first proposed the removal of the unreferenced ADHD section, and since then, no references have been added. I've made one last check of sources, and found one article co-authored by Koplewicz which discusses treatment of children with ADHD, but the therapy discussed is non-psychopharmacological — rather, it involves the use of auditory stimulation as the treatment. His findings were that the "facilitative effects of salient auditory stimulation on the arithmetic performance of the children with ADHD provided some support for the underarousal/optimal stimulation theory of ADHD." I didn't find any material claiming that this was a controversial treatment. Another problem is how this is worded. It says Koplewicz is perhaps best known for his public advocacy of increased usage of psychotropic medications for children. But what is meant by increased usage? Increased relative to what? Koplewicz was asked to clarify this idea that he was claiming "more children" should be medicated. What exactly, the PBS reporter asked, did Koplewicz think about children in the country today? Are they under or overmedicated? His answer:

I don't know if there's under-medication or over-medication. I'm not sure if the right kids are getting medicated. That's part of the problem. To do a proper diagnosis of a child who has a psychiatric illness or a child who has ADHD really requires time. It takes time to interview the mother and father. It takes time to get a hold of a questionnaire, for observation from the teacher. It takes time to examine the child and talk to the child. And all this then requires some thinking and putting together and synthesizing this information, to decide what is the possible diagnosis, and what else could be causing these symptoms. When kids are being diagnosed by primary care physicians on a very, very tight time schedule . . . I question whether or not the right children are always getting the medication.

This greatly clarifies what his stance is, that children may be underserved by doctors. In this way, the sentence could be changed to read Koplewicz is perhaps best known for his public advocacy of increased access to psychotropic medications for children diagnosed as having a need for them But wording it this way brings the heading "Controversy" into question, as the statement sounds less controversial than the other way it's written. This leads me to think that the statement itself was a loaded statement, meant to prime people into having a certain opinion of him based on his misconstrued statement on the subject. What do other editors think? Should this be changed? Deleted? Spintendo ᔦᔭ 16:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

References

@Spintendo:. I don't think there are any editors with an active interest in this individual as a subject. If you're uncomfortable with editing boldly, I might suggest BLPN as a possibility. Thanks for putting this all together - I hadn't realized there was any prior debate on the topic. CorporateM (Talk) 17:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

 Removed As far as my need for a debate before taking action goes — I'd rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 13:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Nathan Kline Institute for Psychiatric Research and other roles

Currently, there is a section called "Nathan Kline Institute for Psychiatric Research and other roles" that relies on citations 2, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13:

• 2: A broken link to declath.com, the website of a medical devices company
• 9: A paywalled URL I cannot verify because it has no citation info
• 10: A New York Times article with substantial content about Koplewicz.
• 11: A broken link to Forbes .com/profile/harold-koplewiz url
• 12: A broken link to a site called passfail.com that sells domains, website hosting, email, and web design
• 13: A broken link to advfn.com, a website for investors
• The rest is unsourced

I believe only citation 10 (the New York Times piece) is a reliable secondary source. Additionally, we don't ordinarily include trivial titles like being a mere member of a commission, board, etc.. , but I suggest his position at Delcath should be included, because he was chairman of the board and there are some (albeit iffy) sources for it here and here. In conclusion, I suggest removing this section and replacing it with two sentences in the Professional Career section:

• Koplewicz served as the chairman of the board of a medical devices company called Delcath from 2007 to 2011.
• While Koplewicz worked at NYU Langone, he also served as the director of the Nathan S. Kline Institute for Psychiatric Research, a psychiatric facility run by the state of New York, until 2011.

Full disclosure, The New York Times piece has a lot of detail about the political drama resulting in Koplewicz's termination from the Nathan S. Kline Institute in 2011 and editors may reasonably have differing views on how much of that to include. Thank you in advance for your exceptional patience and diligence going through all of this and let me know if there's anything I can to be more clear or make the review more convenient. CorporateM (Talk) 15:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

References

Reply 03-FEB-2018

 Changes implemented Spintendo ᔦᔭ 07:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Professional Career

I would like to request the edits located at Talk:Harold S. Koplewicz/draft2 to the first two paragraphs of the Professional Career section. That draft-space has a proposed clean version, followed by a sentence-by-sentence breakdown of what changes the proposed version has compared to the current article and why. Generally the changes remove or fix unsourced or poorly-sourced content, while adding more sourced content. As always, thank you for taking the time to take a look. CorporateM (Talk) 23:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Reply

There are what appears to be two distinct sections of changes. The first section is labeled "Proposed", and yet, everything there is already implemented. The second section contains what appears to be another set of proposals, labeled "Changes" yet these proposed changes contain text which is stricken out, as if to communicate the fact that they were changes once proposed and no longer sought. Text is also vicariously placed in bold or not in bold, with no direction as to cause of either state. There are what seems to be directions for actions to be taken (e.g., "Take a look at the source and please let me know") though that is not always clear (e.g., "Expand with job titles.") Please simplify your request in a manner demonstrating the following (or similar)

1. (Where the thing to be changed is located→) Followed by the text that is to be changed, describing it further only as "remove".
   1. Other things that are to be removed
   2. Other things that are to be removed
   3. More, other things to be removed
2. (Where the thing to be changed is located→) Followed by the text that is to be changed, describing it further only as "add".
   1. Other things that are to be added.
   2. Other things that are to be added.
   3. Still, Other things that are to be added.

References

Sentence fragments (when only a few words in a sentence are to be changed) are inherently problematic. It's always best to just ask for the entire sentence to be removed, and their replacement sentences to be added as a whole, rather than dissecting sentences to pull out (or insert) individual words. Please note that the words proposed/proposal, change/changes, add/remove OR additions/deletions in this context are identical in meaning, as they all describe the act of transforming one thing into another.

Spintendo ᔦᔭ 23:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit Request 5-FEB-2018

As requested by Spintendo above, I have changed the formatting of Talk:Harold_S._Koplewicz/draft2 to communicate the requested changes more clearly. CorporateM (Talk) 00:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Reply quotebox with inserted reviewer decisions and feedback 05-FEB-2018

Below you will see where text from your request has been quoted and individual decisions, either accepting or declining the proposals, along with feedback related comments, have been inserted underneath each major proposal.

 Partially implemented. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 01:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Smaller request edits

Requesting removal of the following text in the first paragraph of the Professional Career section: "the primary teaching hospital for the medical school of Yeshiva University (YU) from which he had graduated in the Bronx."

This request was previously declined, because it would remove the period at the end of the sentence. Therefore, I also request that the comma in "the Long Island Jewish Medical Center," be replaced with a period.

The reason for removing this portion of the sentence is that it is poorly-sourced to an online directory.

CorporateM (Talk) 02:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Reply 06-FEB-2018

 Implemented. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 12:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Changes made to the Harold S. Koplewicz article

TEXT AND REFERENCES WHICH WERE Removed	TEXT AND REFERENCES WHICH WERE Added
Following the completion of his medical residencies and fellowship in the 1980s, Koplewicz became the chief of child and adolescent psychiatry at the Long Island Jewish Medical Center, the primary teaching hospital for the medical school of Yeshiva University (YU) from which he had graduated in the Bronx.	According to The New York Times in 1996, Koplewicz was "chief of child and adolescent psychiatry at Schneider Children's Hospital and Hillside Hospital at the Long Island Jewish Medical Center."

References

Second Request Edit

Add the following content to the very beginning of the "Professional Career" section: After graduating, Koplewicz held positions as an intern in pediatrics at the Bronx Municipal Hospital Center, a psychiatry resident at Cornell University, and worked a two-year fellowship at the National Institute of Mental Health.

CorporateM (Talk) 15:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

References

Second reply

 Done As your text was insufficiently paraphrased from the source material, this has created a blockquote from the New York Times. This may limit how much more quoted material can be used in the article. FYI. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 01:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Third Request

After the sentence "In 1997 Koplewicz . . . NYU Child Study Center" I request adding the sentence "According to Koplewicz, while there, he and the chair of the board raised $142 million for the organization.<ref name="Ellin 2011"/>"

The citation "Ellin 2011" is already defined in the article as the following:

• Ellin, Abby (June 3, 2011). "When a Child's Anxieties Need Sorting". The New York Times. Retrieved March 4, 2017.

CorporateM (Talk) 14:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Third reply

 No action. While this claim is repeated by The New York Times, the reporter, Abby Ellin, delineated the fact that the claim originates from Dr. Koplewicz himself through her use of the qualifier "he said": "Over the course of his tenure he, along with Ms. Garber Neidich, who was chairwoman of the board (and now holds that position at Child Mind Institute), raised about $142 million for the N.Y.U. Child Center, he said.". This renders the statement as a self-reported claim requiring outside verification. In contrast to this, the claim regarding Dr. Koplewicz's severance package for example — a claim also made in the New York Times — was substantiated by the Times' verification of NYU's tax returns (e.g., "According to an N.Y.U. tax return, Dr. Harold S. Koplewicz, a psychiatrist who had served as an executive at N.Y.U. Medical Center and founded N.Y.U.’s Child Study Center, received a payment of $1,230,000 in the 2009-10 fiscal year, around the time he left to found the Child Mind Institute, a competing organization."), thus it required no additional outside verification. Regards, Spintendo ᔦᔭ 01:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Fourth Request

Request removing the following from the Child Mind Institute section as it is poorly-sourced and largely OR:

Originally called the Child Study Center Foundation, the new organization had a similar name and mission to the existing NYU CSC institute, changed its name in 2010 to the Child Mind Institute (CMI). Similar to the NYU CSC mission, CMI's stated goal is to help improve the lives of children through integrating evidence-based clinical care, collaborative scientific research, information and resources, and advocacy. CMI consists of clinical medical practice, the Child Mind Medical Practice, PLLC, a Limited-Liability Company and a non-profit foundation with which shares office space and resources.

The first citation describes the mission of the Child Mind Institute, but does not support the claim that it "had a similar name and mission to the existing NYU CSC Institute." The second citation is just a link to ChildMind's About Us page. The third sentence is cited to bizapedia.com and Child Mind's own About Us page. The final citation is to Child Mind's annual report. None are reliable secondary sources.

CorporateM (Talk) 14:09, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

References

Fourth reply

 Implemented. The first source listed is a good source, but it did not give the page number nor did it support the claim mentioned, so the claim was deleted.Spintendo ᔦᔭ 14:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Fifth Request

Thanks for your patience looking through these (almost done!).

First, I'd like to request getting an infobox started: {{Infobox person | name = Harold Koplewicz | birth_place = [[Crown Heights, Brooklyn]] | nationality = American | occupation = Child psychiatrist }}

Second, I suggest trimming the "Child Mind Institute" sub-section, since it's only a few sentences now.

CorporateM (Talk) 15:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Fifth reply

 Partially implemented. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 16:29, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Final Request

Last one! There is currently a "Paxil Study 329 Controversy" section using citations 14, 15, 16, and 17. As far as I can tell, none of these citations mention Koplewicz, except that he is one of 22 co-authors listed in citation 14. This section was discussed here with no clear consensus.

I believe a compromise between the two views expressed in that prior discussion would be the following:

• Remove the section, which is primarily about the controversy generally and not Harold's role in it, has citation issues, is undue, etc.
• Replace it with a sentence in the career section like: In 2001, Koplewicz was one of 22 co-authors of study 329, which was widely criticized as using a misleading methodology to support the drug Paxil.

References

This may hopefully address the undue issue while also easing concerns about censoring negative information. It may be considered OR, but I am just following the feedback of other editors. Since I have a pre-existing relationship with both of the editors in the prior discussion, something like RSN or NPOVN might be the best place to achieve consensus with completely disinterested editors to avoid canvassing concerns on such a controversial topic. CorporateM (Talk) 18:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Do any of these sources refer to the doctors who performed study 329 as a group? Spintendo ᔦᔭ 19:24, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Spintendo: Good point! Here's a few references I found referring to the paper's authors as a group:

• Citation 15 says "Its authors claimed that paroxetine was 'generally well tolerated and effective for major depression in adolescents'."
• Psychology Today said the study "remains unretracted by both its official authors and contributors."
• Reuters: "The original number of side effects seemed to be lower because the authors only included problems that affected at least five percent of the study participants. . . the original authors and the journal where they published, the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, did not agree to make corrections, so another group of researchers set out to reanalyze their now public data."
• A psychiatry journal said: "As Doshi (2015) goes on to report the first draft of the paper was not written by any of the 22 authors but by a GSK-hired medical writer and the paper’s lead author"

Many others refer to the lead author only, or the paper, but these are good sources that refer to the authors as a group. CorporateM (Talk)

Well since Drs. Klein and Koplewicz are both listed as authors of study 329 through their involvement with NYU CSC, I don't see how that can be easily dismissed. As far as Koplewicz involvement:

The paper was drafted not by any of the 22 listed authors but by a writer paid by the manufacturer. Efforts to get the authors, the journal that published the trial, the professional society that publishes the journal, and the authors’ institutions to act or even respond to criticism have failed.

This was so even after the paper was shown to be a fraud. Even though he may not have written the study, he allowed his name to be affixed to a fraudulent study. Only now he apparently doesn't want his name affixed to it, at least in the Wikipedia article. But the way to go about removing his name from it would be to remove it from the study itself, wouldn't it? It seems like an editor's hands are tied with respect to distancing the article from the study, as long as the name is allowed to stay on the study, it makes separation more difficullt. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 21:09, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

References