Talk:Celebrity doctor

Medical talk show

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)

RELTIME

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)

I will not argue that my wording was especially good. A lot of the article could be rewritten to have more encyclodedia-like language rather than obviously quoting directly from opinionated sources. As I said in my edit summaries I was not trying to change the information presented, just make the wording a little more professional. Thoughtmonkey (talk) 15:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

BTW the expression "As recently as the 1970s" seems to imply than for the last 40 years there have been no celebrity doctors promoting responsible, mainstream medicine. Is this what we want WP to say? Thoughtmonkey (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I've put a notice on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Again, I don't want to defend bad celebrity doctors or have any criticisms removed. Just a more professional WP article.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 15:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• The 1970s reference seems to come from this paragraph in the LA Times op-ed piece: "Society has revered famous physicians for years, swallowing their directives like vitamins. Dr. Benjamin Spock helped parents raise a generation. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop pushed the nation to kick, or at least curb, its smoking habit. Ruth Westheimer, a.k.a. "Dr. Ruth," encouraged us to talk about sex without squirming. Even fictional TV doctors, like Dr. Marcus Welby, held significant sway in the 1970s by suggesting to audiences what the practice of medicine should be." Thoughtmonkey (talk) 15:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Thoughtmonkey, what do you mean "my wording"? You have no edits to this article and per the dif above, the edit was made by Borock. Please explain. Jytdog (talk) 16:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

My mistake. Borock and Thoughtmonkey are both me. I forgot I was logged in with my other name when I made the edits.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 16:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

See your Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 16:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

living persons

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)

I am OK with your trim, I guess. The sense of "celebrity doctor" as doctors who treat celebrities, arose because the term is used that way in the sources that were cited in that section (See old version here). I included that stuff because sources need to drive what we do, and in my view it was not OK to exclude that sense of the word on my authority. I guess we can limit article scope if we all agree to... but you can see how this is problematic. I won't object to leaving out that sense as the article is tighter without it, but to be honest I thought you in particular would demand we include it, Collect. So if you are OK with leaving it out, I reckon I am too.

Not sure what you think needs a citation about the "Health/media complex" - it is directly supported by the source provided, in my view (it is a quoted phrase). So would you please explain? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

thinkprogress.org as a fact source

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)

I think WP:BLP says take it out now, if not already done.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 20:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I take that back. The source is not being used to make any statements about any individual, unless I'm missing something.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 20:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

As far as I understand WP is not responsible for other statements made in a linked source.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Collect thanks for posting here. That ref is used to support the statement: "With the growth of the internet and social media, medical professionals had more places to reach the public, especially with messages alternative to mainstream medical advice". Are you saying it is not an RS for that statement? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I am saying that the claim does not need two sources where one of them can reasonably be considered as not-RS. There is a risk that readers will presume that the source is reliable for all of its claims, and I prefer to be cautious in such areas. Collect (talk) 21:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

That is a bit fussy but OK. Removed it and replaced with an existing ref there. Jytdog (talk) 23:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Sometimes "fussiness" is needed - without it some BLPs seem to go off the tracks entirely. Collect (talk) 23:48, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Obvious OR?

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.

References

happy to hear concrete improvements that would would bring this into compliance, in your view. Jytdog (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Page 41 does not mention fad diets. The word "some" is OR unless the source used the word to support the claim. I would use another source. QuackGuru (talk) 22:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

QG the whole book is about fad diets. Not helpful but I will edit out "some". Jytdog (talk) 23:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)