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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
science,
pseudoscience,
pseudohistory and
skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply