This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Celebrity doctor article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 19 September 2016. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
In the AfD I suggested renaming and changing the focus of this article to Medical talk show. The AfD closed before I got around to changing my vote to keep, since the article now is much improved. However I think the other article should be started as well. What do you think? Thoughtmonkey ( talk) 15:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Borock about these changes, please read the LA times piece and please read WP:RELTIME. What happened in egypt or ancient greece has nothing to do with the concept of "celebrity"; and there has been a change from the time when doctors like Ruth Westheimer or Koop did their thing and today when doctors like Oz are doing theirs. I have reverted your changes. The wording can be improved but we cannot ignore the sources and RELTIME. Jytdog ( talk) 15:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
While I appreciate the editorial zeal in exposing pseudoscience promoters, this article is not the right place to make certain claims. I also note the use of "people who treat celebrities" is pretty much unrelated to the main ambit of the article, and is easily removed. I further note that most of those involved are, actually, alive, and thus claims about them must accord with WP:BLP. Collect ( talk) 16:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
https://thinkprogress.org/what-dr-oz-teaches-us-about-americans-uneasy-relationship-with-science-44b44a32d977#.xrdpi4jac appears to be an editorial opinion by Tara Culp-Ressler, and thus the opinions she expresses should be ascribed to her.
I note that her opinions of Dr. Oz include "Oz has become infamous for promoting unproven natural remedies and weight loss products that aren’t necessarily grounded in scientific evidence", "Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) slammed him for giving scam artists a platform for “false and deceptive ads to sell questionable products.”", "suggest Oz makes decisions about which products to promote based on business considerations — and the financial backers who support his show — rather than on the best medical evidence.", etc.
Culp-Ressler may be an expert in the field, but even expert opinions should not be presented as fact in Wikipedia's voice.
I dislike pseudoscience being promoted, but where an opinion source strongly implies that a licensed doctor is helping "scam artists" and is using "business considerations" - that comes quite close to accusations of miscreancy at best. In short - we should either lose thinkprogress.org posts here per WP:BLP and WP:RS, or credit them as opinion. Collect ( talk) 20:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
User:QuackGuru how would you change the content based on the ref, to make this not OR?
Some fad diets are proposed and sold by celebrity doctors, including Robert Atkins and Arthur Atkinson. [1]
References
{{
cite book}}
: |work=
ignored (
help)
happy to hear concrete improvements that would would bring this into compliance, in your view. Jytdog ( talk) 20:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Celebrity doctor article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 19 September 2016. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
In the AfD I suggested renaming and changing the focus of this article to Medical talk show. The AfD closed before I got around to changing my vote to keep, since the article now is much improved. However I think the other article should be started as well. What do you think? Thoughtmonkey ( talk) 15:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Borock about these changes, please read the LA times piece and please read WP:RELTIME. What happened in egypt or ancient greece has nothing to do with the concept of "celebrity"; and there has been a change from the time when doctors like Ruth Westheimer or Koop did their thing and today when doctors like Oz are doing theirs. I have reverted your changes. The wording can be improved but we cannot ignore the sources and RELTIME. Jytdog ( talk) 15:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
While I appreciate the editorial zeal in exposing pseudoscience promoters, this article is not the right place to make certain claims. I also note the use of "people who treat celebrities" is pretty much unrelated to the main ambit of the article, and is easily removed. I further note that most of those involved are, actually, alive, and thus claims about them must accord with WP:BLP. Collect ( talk) 16:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
https://thinkprogress.org/what-dr-oz-teaches-us-about-americans-uneasy-relationship-with-science-44b44a32d977#.xrdpi4jac appears to be an editorial opinion by Tara Culp-Ressler, and thus the opinions she expresses should be ascribed to her.
I note that her opinions of Dr. Oz include "Oz has become infamous for promoting unproven natural remedies and weight loss products that aren’t necessarily grounded in scientific evidence", "Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) slammed him for giving scam artists a platform for “false and deceptive ads to sell questionable products.”", "suggest Oz makes decisions about which products to promote based on business considerations — and the financial backers who support his show — rather than on the best medical evidence.", etc.
Culp-Ressler may be an expert in the field, but even expert opinions should not be presented as fact in Wikipedia's voice.
I dislike pseudoscience being promoted, but where an opinion source strongly implies that a licensed doctor is helping "scam artists" and is using "business considerations" - that comes quite close to accusations of miscreancy at best. In short - we should either lose thinkprogress.org posts here per WP:BLP and WP:RS, or credit them as opinion. Collect ( talk) 20:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
User:QuackGuru how would you change the content based on the ref, to make this not OR?
Some fad diets are proposed and sold by celebrity doctors, including Robert Atkins and Arthur Atkinson. [1]
References
{{
cite book}}
: |work=
ignored (
help)
happy to hear concrete improvements that would would bring this into compliance, in your view. Jytdog ( talk) 20:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)