Talk:Patrick Treacy
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Previous observations on this page in 2016
[edit]02/28/2016 - Received a message that YouTube link was rejected as spam. I'm adding content separately of YouTube to not cause any further rejections.EttaVStephensen (talk) 18:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I was adding something to this page earlier and wondered about some of the claims made. Looking at the references cited on this page, a lot of them don't actually seem to be supportive of the claims made. So reference 3, for example, is a link to a biography that seems to have been provided by the doctor himself: it's exactly the same as the blurb on his own website: http://www.ailesburyclinic.ie/aboutus2.shtml In fact, the source for almost every one of the claims is, when you track back, the doctor himself: his autobiography, interviews with him (some of which seem to be contradictory).
Someone using the same username as the doctor's twitter handle (Peege) posted a picture of the doctor. Perhaps that's a coincidence?
There isn't (as far as I can tell) an Irish Association of Cosmetic Doctors for him to be Chairman of. Nor is there a Royal Society of Medicine Aesthetic Section that I can find that he could be president-elect of. (There is a Royal Society of Medicine - Plastic Surgery Section but his name is nowhere to be found in connection with it: a list of sections of the RSM is here https://www.rsm.ac.uk/sections/sections-and-networks-list.aspx). None of the references given support either claim as being true (the reference for the Irish Association of Cosmetic Doctors is 8 years' old). It's not to say that they don't exist, just that there isn't anything that Wikipedia can link to that would make the claim verifiable. Fiscalspace (talk) 16:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
The Michael Jackson Legacy Foundation website lists him as an *Honorary* Ambassador http://www.michaeljacksonslegacy.org/index.php/latest-news/143-dr-patrick-treacy-opens-everland-on-christmas-day
86.187.172.35 (talk) 13:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Patrick Treacy. 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160307170151/http://drdrew.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/29/ to http://drdrew.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/29/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160307200931/http://www.legendarymichaeljackson.nl/dr-patrick-treacys-new-book-behind-the-mask-the-irishman-who-became-michael-jacksons-doctor/ to http://www.legendarymichaeljackson.nl/dr-patrick-treacys-new-book-behind-the-mask-the-irishman-who-became-michael-jacksons-doctor/
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) 13:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
History of Patrick Treacy and his pages
[edit]This was posted a while ago (July 2016) by another user on this talk page, but then deleted apparently on the basis of assuming good faith: I think it merits re-posting given all the sockpuppetry on the page in the interim, all of which appears to be aimed at publishing more and more information in favour of the subject (and note the attempt to delete the one negative observations about certain legal difficulties). I have separately reverted the page to the pre-sockpuppet edits - there is very little to the article other than what the subject says he has done:
Patrick Treacy back again
[edit]This fellow has form on Wikipedia (I know, assume good faith and all of that, but still). I remember him a good few years ago working very hard to ensure that there was a laudatory page about him on WP - this is what I wrote back then on the Talk page of a user called 9Nak [[1]]...following a bit of detective work, which in turn followed a very heated AfD discussion that made its way into the Irish papers. That time, the article seemed to start with a SEO company (2008 or so), but he'd tried before.
A company also tried to put up a page on behalf of Patrick Treacy in 2007 [2]. Activeonline said "I...have been charged by Dr Treacy to insert the article...into the wikipedia resource. Active Online is currently Dr Patrick Treacy's web design vendor and is performing this task under his instruction." The article was deleted [3]. Again, perhaps this other company was also acting of its own volition and without Patrick Treacy's knowledge, but it would be odd, wouldn't it, for two companies to behave that way and in both cases to incorrectly give the impression that they were acting in accordance with client instructions.
There was another attempt to insert a page on Patrick Treacy's clinic in 2006 [4] in which a user Ptreacy both uploaded images to the article (discussed here [5]) and participated in the AfD discussion (without signing the contribution). The AfD discussion also seems to infer that the entry was written by the subject of the article.
PreviouslyFiscalspace (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Request for assistance
[edit]I edited this page (as I did in 2016, when I was FiscalSpace: took a long wikibreak and couldn't remember my password when I rejoined, so took on a similar name, which seemed the right thing to do). I then recently returned to this page and noted the allegations of sockpuppetry and carried out a revision that took it back to the pre-sockpuppet version. I don't think anything I did was vandalism in any way. However, now a user (McManusbr) has reverted my edits and (a) accuses me of "vandal like edits" and (b) says I have a "longstanding grudge" against the doctor.
Two things: first, I don't think any of my edits were vandalism, but I would welcome the views of more experienced editors; second, how could the user know - or suspect - that I have a 'personal grudge' against Dr Treacy without being either Dr Treacy or someone very close to him - in which case the page is being edited by the subject of the page or someone close to him, which gives rise to a conflict of interest and is also entirely consistent with the history of previous Dr Treacy pages -see below? I don't, by the way, have a grudge against him, just against the advertising that this page seems to indulge in.
I know that previous checkuser has exposed sockpuppets continually editing this page (which is why I reverted back to a reasonably pre-sockpuppet version): I wonder about McManusbr, too.
In any event, I think that someone more experienced that I should make a call on this page. I'm not going to get into a fight with a user who throws around accusations of vandalism, but the history of this particular page and the previous history of other pages set out below, should give pause for thought before calling my edits vandalism and favouring the most recent version. Particular problems with this page are (a) that almost every fact recorded on it is traceable back only to the subject of the article himself and claims he has made (something which my edits looked to reflect) and (b) that this page seems to have been edited only by sock-puppets and people close to the subject.
Having said all that though, insofar as certain awards are now referenced in the most recent version, that seems to be an improvement.
Looking back at my 2016 comments I noted that someone called Peege1969 (more or less the same twitter handle as subject) added the photo. Since then the same user reverted a previous edit that someone with an interest in the subject of the article might have wanted to see reverted. Anyway, it's all - as Douglas Adams said - an SEP.
PreviouslyFiscalspace (talk) 13:31, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- @PreviouslyFiscalspace: I can't work out what you are asking for here. What is your neutral and brief statement (or question)? Have you read WP:RFCBEFORE? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Redrose64: All I'm wondering is whether my changes are "like vandalism" and should have been reverted.
- So my neural question is: "Is it more appropriate that the article should stand as it stood before the proven sock-puppetry (which is what I tried to do) or more appropriate that it should be reverted back to the post-sock-puppet state by another (probable) sock-puppet?
- I don't think that there is any real point in "thoroughly discuss[ing] the matter with any other parties on the related talk page" because the other parties are all very obviously (including the most recent contributor) sock-puppets editing in one direction only. I thought that RFC was a way of having discussion with other editors who might advise. Apologies if that was wrong. PreviouslyFiscalspace (talk) 18:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- A WP:RFC is not intended to be used as a first resort, it lasts for thirty days during which time dozens of people will be messaged, many of whom will have no interest at all. If you look at WP:DR it mentions several other avenues. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Redrose64: OK. My misunderstanding. Feel free to delete the RFC. I’ll head off and do something else. PreviouslyFiscalspace (talk) 22:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Done --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:19, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Redrose64: OK. My misunderstanding. Feel free to delete the RFC. I’ll head off and do something else. PreviouslyFiscalspace (talk) 22:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- A WP:RFC is not intended to be used as a first resort, it lasts for thirty days during which time dozens of people will be messaged, many of whom will have no interest at all. If you look at WP:DR it mentions several other avenues. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Single-purpose IP account: 62.77.188.52
[edit]62.77.188.52 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is a single-purpose user that over the last two years has only edited this article, generally in a laudatory manner by adding awards and other positive statements. I don't believe this rises to the level of malfeasance, but I would not be surprised if this IP address turns out belong to a public relations firm that represents Treacy. — Anon423 (talk) 13:51, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
- Looking back over the lifetime of this page, I suspect it is almost only ever edited by the subject matter of the page or someone very close to him. Attempts to introduce material that isn’t laudatory are met with bizarre personal attacks (I was the victim of one a few years ago, when I made edits). I have no interest in finding myself in that position again, but very few of the claims made on the page are supported by the references advanced, many claims are entirely unreferenced and the source of almost all the information on the page - ultimately - comes from claims asserted by the subject himself. PreviouslyFiscalspace (talk) 12:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- I just had to remove a series of egregious personal attacks from this talk page. I remind everyone that Wikipedia policy (see WP:NPA), does not permit such behaviour. - MrOllie (talk) 12:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 | An editor has requested assistance at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a dispute about this page. This template is only a talk page banner - the dispute must be listed at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard for editors to respond. |
We need help from other editors here to resolve this page. Content that is civil and written is good faith is being deliberately being deleted from the talk page by one editor and the WiKipedia page itself is being continually edited by possibly the same person to remove positive factual information about Dr Treacy, and leave only negative posts. His many international awards, including 'Top Global Aesthetic Doctor' and his pioneering research used now internationally are also continually removed. It many need to go to arbitration for more experienced and less biased editors to review Cothromas (talk) 13:20, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
- 1) You've got to stop filling this talk page with personal attacks. And 2) You've been blocked (as User:Joyland2017 and other sockpuppet accounts). You don't get to just continue editing and insulting people as though nothing happened, that is block evasion. - MrOllie (talk) 13:33, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
There have never been any personal attacks to an Wikipedia editor and my most sincerest apologies to anyone who may have perceived it as so. There certainly has been deliberate vandal type editing of the subject's page and removal of most of this talk page discussion which has been screenshotted for evidence if required at a later date. Cothromas (talk) 13:46, 22 July 2023 (UTC)- We preserve the talk page histories here, you're not going to be able to claim it never happened. Especially when
certainly has been deliberate vandal type editing
you make more attacks in the same message. MrOllie (talk) 13:48, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Apologies if required again. Certainly not intentional Cothromas (talk) 15:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
- We preserve the talk page histories here, you're not going to be able to claim it never happened. Especially when
- There certainly seems to be an effort by Ireland-based IPs to whitewash the page and make it promotional by using less-than-reliable sources. The whitewashers have also made little effort to make a case regarding WP:DUE because they don't understand Wikipedia and don't belong here. This is the problem of having biographies about living people. Because some editors, possibly socks, have been long registered, we could find a prior acceptable version of the page and then fully-lock it for the next ten years.(I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Chris Troutman (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you Chris, I think that is both a fair and balanced approach. One can see from previous edits, everything from about 1986 onwards (except for Michael Jackson!) has been removed. The doctor involved has had many noteworthy accomplishments and achievements since then including being awarded the “Top Aesthetic Practitioner in the World 2019” at the MyFaceMyBody Global Awards (Las Vegas). Cothromas (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC)And it does seem rather strange that an almost unknown redtop paper 'The Cork Echo' is considered a reliable verifiable source yet prominent UK newspapers magazines, such as the Aesthetics Journal, Aesthetics Medicine Magazine, the Irish Examiner, the Impartial Reporter, TEDxUniversityCollegeCork, The Journal of Dermatol. Surg and many other reputable sources are not Cothromas (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC)- If we do select an old version to roll back to, it will not be one of the recent ones that is filled with promotional content or nonnotable awards. MrOllie (talk) 00:39, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Sure. It is understandable that we should not include awards unless they are demonstrably notable, with notability generally interpreted as having, or obviously qualifying for, a standalone article and they must be supportable by reliable independent secondary sources to establish their significance. Cothromas (talk) 08:05, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- If we do select an old version to roll back to, it will not be one of the recent ones that is filled with promotional content or nonnotable awards. MrOllie (talk) 00:39, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
| Blocked sock Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joyland2017/Archive — Anon423 (talk) 08:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- Not a single one of these is notable according to the definition you just gave in your previous comment. MrOllie (talk) 17:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Watching this talk discussion and it does seem to be unfair. All the negative comments posted have came from one source and how come theWinner – MyFaceMyBody 'Top Global Medical Practitioner' 2019 (Las Vegas) November 2019 is not considered notable. Not considered notable by whom?. When does a 'first in the world' award not become a notable achievement? Tariqsaeed2018 (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)- Did you read the definition of 'notable' which was just given a few comments up? Your answers lie therein. MrOllie (talk) 19:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Is it that they must be supportable by a reliable independent secondary sources to establish their significance? I see they are all on YouTube? Tariqsaeed2018 (talk) 03:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC)- No. Read it again. The awards need to have standalone Wikipedia articles. Also, Youtube is not a reliable secondary source. We're not going to turn this article back into a list of nonnotable awards. MrOllie (talk) 11:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- Did you read the definition of 'notable' which was just given a few comments up? Your answers lie therein. MrOllie (talk) 19:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- This big list gives me the impression of puffery. Does this serve readers? Or does it primarily serve the article subject like a resume?
- My inclination is to only include awards that are either themselves notable or for which the particular awarding has reliable independent sourcing.
- I have a personal curiosity about Treacy's surgical innovations and might prefer to have preserved some of that material (if substantiated), but this diff by MrOllie is IMHO for the better. — Anon423 (talk) 15:19, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
I feel the Wikipage is edited incorrectly by @MrOllieas it mentions Dr Treacy referring to the Irish recession and some of his patients committing suicide in his book 'Behind The Mask', which was written long before the Irish recession and is about Michael Jackson's time in Ireland during the period 2006-2007. The second book was written later and refers to his scientific innovations for which he won many awards. This book briefly references the Irish recession and the deaths of many of his patients and some friends. I will attempt to correct this edit. Tariqsaeed2018 (talk) 09:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)- We're not going back to adding blatant promotion to this article. MrOllie (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
@Tariqsaeed2018 is correct when he states that the book 'Behind The Mask', which was written long before the Irish recession and is about Michael Jackson. In fact, the subtitle is called 'The Extraordinary Story of the Irishman who became Michael Jackson's Doctor'. The book 'Needle and the Damage Done' was written at least ten years later and refers to his scientific innovations for which he won many awards. There is one line in this book that mentions the deaths of many of his patients and some friends, which happened in Ireland in this period of financial turmoil. It was focused on by the 'Sunday World' and has little to do with the book as referenced in Wikipedia. Cothromas (talk) 05:52, 11 September 2023 (UTC)- 62.77.188.52 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is back again, even if the addition doesn't seem particularly problematic. Any chance this is Joyland2017? Brammarb (talk) 18:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- We're not going back to adding blatant promotion to this article. MrOllie (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Not a single one of these is notable according to the definition you just gave in your previous comment. MrOllie (talk) 17:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Is this page being fair to Dr Treacy's achievements?
[edit]On the Wikipedia talk page for Dr. Treacy's page, there appears to be an issue where some editors are disproportionately focusing on specific aspects of his life while downplaying his achievements and scientific innovations. This skewed emphasis on certain topics, such as unpaid taxes, allegations, and personal matters, at the expense of highlighting Dr. Treacy's professional accomplishments undermines the neutrality and comprehensiveness of the article. Wikipedia articles should strive for a balanced and fair representation of individuals, taking into account both their personal and professional lives. It is essential that we maintain the integrity of the platform by encouraging a more inclusive and unbiased approach to documenting Dr. Treacy's life and work. Collaborative efforts among editors can help ensure that the article accurately reflects his contributions to science and medicine while respecting Wikipedia's content guidelines. Wikiwatcher2023 (talk) 17:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- There seems to be an issue where lots of WP:SOCK accounts are showing up to try to turn this page into a promotional piece. I'll file an SPI. Also, we don't do 'fair and balanced', (you must be thinking of fox news) see WP:FALSEBALANCE. MrOllie (talk) 18:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
And @MrOllie who exactly is 'we'? Wikiwatcher2023 (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2023 (UTC)- The Wikipedia community. MrOllie (talk) 01:30, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- Is “Dr once saw famous patient for a while and then talked about it” even grounds for a Wikipedia entry? That’s even before consideration of the fact that most of the history of the page is a Confederation of Socks. 37.228.224.2 (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- The Wikipedia community. MrOllie (talk) 01:30, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Note: ongoing socking, by socks of User:Joyland2017 (like the one who started this thread) and likely paid IP editors have necessitated the semi-protection of this article. Wikiwatcher2023, don't cite Wikipedia policy and guidelines to those who know better, like MrOllie. You've been running around here since 2017: you haven't learned yet. Drmies (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Requested edits
[edit]The current source backing up a paragraph on the page is taken down. https://www.echolive.ie/corknews/arid-40133231.html Current paragraph should be edited and should be removed as there is no reliable third party sources to back it up. Aareod (talk) 12:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- We have a working archive. A broken source link is not a reason to remove material from the article. As you have been told several times, there is a reliable source to back it up. MrOllie (talk) 12:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- Funny, too, that Dr T isn't also paying you to remove reference number 2 (relating to Dr Drew's show). That link is also dead. Tends to suggest that this is more about reputation management than about Wiki-propriety. Brammarb (talk) 11:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm starting to see a pattern here. Someone emerges to edit in favor of Treacy, they turn out to be a sockpuppet or (in Aareod's case) paid, and then they get blocked. What an annoyance. How much is Treacy paying for this? I'm not saying spite is a good motivation, but I'm inclined to have less patience and give less benefit of the doubt for good faith. — Anon423 (talk) 02:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)