Talk:Mehmet Oz/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Mehmet Oz. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Deletion proposal

I don't think his height belongs in the personal details section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lifeasaperson (talk • contribs) 22:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal

~~I believe this page should be merged with http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Dr._Mehmet_Oz --Dandija 02:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)~~

~~You placed the same header on that page. The articles should either be merged with one or the other.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 05:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)~~

Article Dr. Mehmet Oz is merged with this one now.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 23:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Cruelty

Claims of cruelty to dogs, in experiments conducted by Dr. Mehmet Oz, are absolute nonsense!!!! This link should kill such accusations. http://www.oprah.com/relationships/Protecting-Your-Pet-with-Dr-Oz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Engines On (talk • contribs) 06:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I had to add a part on cruelty because mainly on http://www.columbiacruelty.com/letters/USDA1104.pdf Dr. Oz is mentioned by name.More http://www.peta.org/Living/AT-spring2005/AT-Spring%202005_4-5.pdf; http://www.stopanimaltests.com/f-worstlabs_10.asp; more http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=mehmet+oz+columbia+experiments&fr=yfp-t-501&SpellState=n-1737714703_q-%2F2kkxarGK%2FnjpldRB8spkgAAAA%40%40&u=www.emediawire.com/releases/2005/10/emw298400.htm&w=mehmet+oz+columbia+experiments+experiment&d=Y-FWhfH_Qi-N&icp=1&.intl=us

Dr Oz labs need to be investigated —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.11.173.137 (talk) 02:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Mehmet Oz merge to Mehmet Öz

I have tagged the article I created called Dr. Mehmet Oz with a merge proposal. Though Mehmet Öz contains much of the information in my duplicate article there are small tidbits that I think can add on to this article. If I could please request that the Mehmet Öz editors share their opinions on the Talk:Dr. Mehmet Oz page. Thank you.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 01:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Since the "five days of silence" have passed I'm going to start merging information from the duplicate article.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 23:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policies state that ethnicity is not supposed to go in the introduction of the article. He was born in America, is an American citizen, and is currently living in America, therefore He is AMERICAN.

Considering the Wikipedia nature (as an encyclopedia) even he is an American, his original surname is a Turkish surname as a result it should be altered to the genuine form; ÖZ in order to keep original form represented. (additionally OZ does not represent any meaning contrary to the original name ÖZ). (cantikadam (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)).

Misspelling of name

I have reverted the undiscussed, unreferenced use of a fictional spelling contrary to that used in every single source and link on this page, as far as I can see. The proper name of the article is clearly Mehmet Oz. There is not, at the present time, even a tiniest shred of evidence that I can see that would even justify an inclusion of any alternative spelling in the article. If someone has some reliable sources for that, the variant spelling could probably be added. Gene Nygaard 03:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

We don't know if he owns a Turkish pasaport or so. The orginality of the surname should be kept as "ÖZ". (cantikadam (talk) 07:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)).

Not a single source is cited, nor can I find one to suggest the use of diacritics in his name. Columbia University does not use the diacritics, and they are a University. It seems particularly preposterous to suggest his wife changed her name to one that includes the diacritics. Dr. Oz does not use them on his books. He also pronounces his name like the wizard, not as in "ooze" as someone had posted. Additionally, from Marilyn Monroe to 50 Cent, Wikipedia mostly uses stage names in biographies of celebrities. If a source can be found indicating his legal name is something other than Mehmet C. Oz, then perhaps that sourced information should be included the same way the above-mentioned performer's legal names are included in their biographies.

Reverted move back to Mehmet Oz

I reverted the move since his name is widely used without the diacritics - since he's an American, I wouldn't expect them to be used at all. Please discuss on talk page before any future moves. Thanks. --Chris S. 00:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe his father would have had a Turkish passport and therefore be named Mustafa Öz, rather than Oz. My case was similar to his during my 4 years in Canada. My surname has an "ı" (dotless i). It got written as an "i". 78.169.193.94 (talk) 12:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Just an update, his father has returned to Turkey for his retirement and therefore definitely has Turkish citizenship 78.187.40.51 (talk) 08:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Changing his Nationality

I have again changed the intro to reflect Oz's proper nationality. According to all info cited in the article he is an American. That is, he was born in America. He was educated in America. He lives in America. He should be identified as such in the intro. Now, don't get me wrong. If someone has sources that show his ancestry is Turkish, then, by all means, put that in the body of the article, where it would belong, and cite it. But, PLEASE, stop mis-identifying him as Turkish in the first sentence of the article. It is confusing, incorrect and not sourced. Let's remember this is an encyclopedia, screwing up someone's nationality in the intro paragraph is sort of a big deal... Cheers, Levi P. 06:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Opening paragraph. Even if there is a source saying he is of Turkish ancestry, it probably shouldn't be mentioned in the lead. PrimeHunter 14:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I have looked it up on several resources where it is said that his parents are from Turkey.One of the sites I have found is www.theturkishtimes.com, and I will cite the phrase where they say his parents are Turkish: "Dr. Mehmet Oz is perhaps the most accomplished and respected cardiothoracic surgeon in the United States. Born in the US to Turkish parents, he works at Columbia University New York Presbyterian Hospital in New York City". The direct link to the article is http://www.theturkishtimes.com/archive/03/0503/f-oz.html. I hope I have informed you well enough so that the change done by you is unjust. A. Yahudi.

You seem to be confusing Oz's nationality with his ancestry, A. Yahudi. PrimeHunter has been kind enough to locate and link to the controlling WP guideline both above and beneath your statement. Cheers, Levi P. 23:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess you didn't read the link I gave to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Opening paragraph, so let me quote it:

"The opening paragraph should give:

...

Nationality (In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable. Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.)"

PrimeHunter 16:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, PrimeHunter. I looked for the controlling guideline but couldn't find it. Now that it has been located there should be no more confusion ( I also reformatted our comments so they could be more easily read). Levi P. 23:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

He is American.

12.110.189.138 (talk) 17:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I know, from long ago, of Mehmet Oz' father. I know the father was of Turkish stock, although I never knew what he did about US citizenship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Ethnicity should really only be mentioned in the personal life section. Citizenship may be mentioned, if desired, in the article lead. Oz is American, his ethnic experience growing up belongs in personal life. As per his religion, that is not required in personal life, but can be used there. Many biography articles only mention religion in the infobox area. That one is a judgement call, though. 107.218.9.122 (talk) 19:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Is he muslim?

If its true shouldn't this be added to his biography? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.71.32.84 (talk) 11:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes he is a muslim. I guess we should just add a little thing that says "religous stance: Muslim" NamesR4chumps (talk) 21:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I tried to add it but it doesn't seem to be showing up, does anyone have any idea why?NamesR4chumps (talk) 21:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes he is a muslim. Please add this information to his biography

This is unnecessary for the same reason as the ethnicity. It is irrelevant to who he is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eagle-eyedsteve24 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

According to a few sorces I found, his father's family are Sufis. But honestly, we don't know if he actually practices Islam or if he even considers himself as a Cultural Muslim. Until he makes a clear cut statement on his religious stance, I think it should be ommited for the time being. For reference, this interview transcript from American Public Media cites the religious background of his family and it's influence on his practice: Heart and Soul: The Integrative Medicine of Dr. Mehmet Oz

Wikipedia requires a reliable source for all article content in the biography of living people.

For religion (or sexual orientation) category tags, the rules are:

Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless two criteria are met:

1. The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or orientation in question;

2. The subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.

Categories also require a reliable source, just like article content. Studerby (talk) 20:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

He says a little (very little) about his religious practices about thirty seconds into this highly edited video. They sound a little unconventional. He does refer to church, not mosque. However, he cites a story common to many faiths. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vsk7JpRn2A —Preceding unsigned comment added by BeHealthy (talk • contribs) 16:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

In the second video on this page, he talks about his faith. When Henry Gates refers to Dr. Oz as Muslim, Dr. Oz does not offer a correction; so one can assume he agrees with the label. However, he then goes on to talk more about a belief in spirituality instead of any one faith. He believes in something, but it seems elusive exactly what that is. As his faith is not relevant to his notability, it probably does not belong in this Wikipedia entry, especially when his answers on such questions seem unclear. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/facesofamerica/profiles/dr-mehmet-oz/4/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.246.64 (talk) 23:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

In the Faces of America interview, he makes it clear that he is a spiritual Muslim. The Wikipedia article should mention this, especially given the relevant fact that Dr. Oz espouses and practices a more spiritual approach to his profession of medicine and healing.Lugalbanda (talk) 06:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that Oz is clear about whether he is a muslim. He says he has been influenced by the spiritual/mystical parts of Islam, but doesn't really come out and say he considers himself a muslim. When Gates says Oz is a muslim, Oz doesn't disagree. His silence could be an implicit confirmation or it could mean that Oz neither confirms nor denies the statement. Oz says he has struggled with his muslim identity, but he doesn't actually say that he identifies himself as a muslim. While Oz may consider himself a muslim, I think he needs to make a clear statement before it goes in the article.

However, I have updated the article to say that Oz has been influenced by the mystical ideas of Sufi muslims...Oz is clear about this in the interview. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I should point out that he was listed in John Esposito's and the Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Centre's The 500 Most Influential Muslims in the World BrotherSulayman (talk) 08:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that the Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Centre counts as a respected publishing house known for its fact checking. Because of this, the book could only be used as a source for Esposito's opinions. Also, please see Studerby's comments above. To use the muslim categories here, Oz would have to self-identify with the religion, not be identified by someone else. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

What makes you say that? Esposito is generally considered an expert on matters related to Islam and Muslims. I think a reliable identification of anyone as a Muslim is as good as a self-identification.VR _talk 06:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I think this should make it clear that he's Muslim.VR _talk 06:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

In the Faces of America interview, Oz never explicitly says he's a Muslim. I have discussed this in detail above. You also wrote that, "I think a reliable identification of anyone as a Muslim is as good as a self-identification." You are entitled to your own opinion, but WP:BLPCAT makes it clear how Wipedia articles should handle the issue: Oz needs to publicly self-identify as a Muslim in a reliable source, or the article should not say he is one. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

He has a variety of spiritual and religious influences. Other Wikipedia articles don't always state a persons current religion, unless they themselves make it a major part of their public lives. Ethnic-religious parental heritage are usually stated in Wikipedia articles when known, but Wikipedia articles don't then usually continue to zero in on the subjects private religious life. I hope that Dr. Oz isn't being singled out here just because he has a Muslem parental background, that would really be a kind of discrimination and an oversimplification of a unique individual human being, although on a practical level, covering his varios spiritual interests might serve to deflect some this discrimination and might keep the article balanced, so it might nevertheless in that context, still be needed. But it's still unfortunate that there is so much editorial interest in his Muslem and Turkish roots.

He is so obviously in the mainstream of American life, so obviously not any kind of extremist, as are millions of Americans from Muslem backgrounds. 12.110.189.138 (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Afg96's comments

Afg96 left me the following message on my talk page:

Dr. Oz wants his religion to be added on wikipedia. You have no legal right to keep on changing that option. His religion must be added with his biography, end of discussion.

First, Wikipedia's policy for biographies of living persons (WP:BLP) provides the criteria for whether this article should identify Oz's religion. The criteria do not include Oz's opinion of what he would like the article to say. Second, saying that I had "no legal right" to make certain changes is a strong statement. What proof do you have to back this up? What specific law(s) are you talking about? -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, remember conflict of interest and primary sources policies. Even if Afg96 was in a position to have that statement be true, that does not place Wikipedia under ANY obligation to make it so. Have the information published by a third party, and it will get posted. Otherwise, it is not going to happen as it is completely unverifiable. Psu256 (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually no, that's wrong-- Wikipedia's "Biography of Living Persons" policy has different rules than those for other articles--

The biographical article subject is allowed to demand changes to basic statements of fact about them (but only if: 1), the statements are inaccurate and are 2), simple black-or-white statements of fact (not grey areas or any areas subject to diverse interpretation or opinion). Of course this must be citable and verifiable up to Wikipedia standards. The article subject may even make these changes themselves (corrections of basic factual inaccuracies) and they may do so quickly, without discussion.

Keep in mind that this policy does NOT allow the article subject to remove references to the opinions of other notable people or media or scientific sources about them, or their opinions, or their work.

For example, an article subject could summarily remove or change an inaccurate statement of fact about their religion, but may NOT remove or change references to criticisms of their public statements, their products or their work. Any allowable changes of course are also still nevertheless subject to standards of acceptable references and citations.

Keep in mind this really only applies to basic, simple core facts about ones life. Nothing subject to diverse (mainstream) opinion is covered under this exception.

107.218.9.122 (talk) 19:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

While your description of the policy may be true, I don't understand how it applies to this situation. Your description states that the article's subject may delete or modify false info about himself. However, Afg96 has made no claim to be the article subject (Oz), nor did he make any claim to be authorized to speak for Oz. In addition, Afg96 never said that he wanted to remove or change false info from the article. Instead, he wanted to add content about Oz's religion. How can your description of policy apply to this situation with Afg96? -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

link review

deleted: *Mehmet Oz fan site - nothing on this page
deleted: *Dr. Oz features on the Oprah television program- search results page
deleted: *RealAge.com.tr Turkish Web Site presents Oz and RealAge Inc - commercial linkspam
deleted: *RealAge.com The YOU Doctors Center- defaults to book ad

Bob98133 (talk) 15:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible BLP and V issues re: animal cruelty section

I removed the section on animal cruelty. First I note that Mehmetoz has been trying to remove it today, but keeps getting reverted. I warned the user about the possible COI issue on the user's talk page, but then I looked at the section meself. The information was sourced to what appears to be an advocacy site (www.columbiacruelty.com) which I think was hosted by PETA. Anyway, none of the documents mentioned Dr. Oz anywhere in them, so I question their applicability. There is no indication from the sourcing that Dr. Oz was responsible for any mistreatment that may have occurred. The only mention I could find in the sourcing a mention on the website that purported to summarize the animal mistreatment, and seemed to list the owner of the dogs (not the vet treating them) as "Oz." Xymmax (talk) 15:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem on this being removed. I looked over references and even though they are posted to an advocacy site, they appear to be reproductions of USDA documents, but you're correct in that they do not mention Oz by name. If I happen to find a better reference, I'll post to this talk page prior to posting to the article. I do believe that the information is accurate, but without a reliable source, it shouldn't be posted. Bob98133 (talk) 15:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. If properly sourced I agree that it would merit a mention of appropriate weight. Xymmax (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

I think Dr. Oz is deserving of a == Criticism == section. Is Dr. Oz allowed any criticism? He definately said on XM Radio this morning that he felt there is merit to homeopathy. His interviews of authors of books on homeopathy and a book on diets based on blood type indicate no skepticism Dr. Oz's part. I would like to cite quotes from his show but don't have time to go through that. A Dr. of Oz's stature has a duty to the public to reveal the truth about medicine and quackery. I respect his knowledge and believe he generally gives good advice on Oprah's programming but I have a hard time listening to him sucking up to authors such as these. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.2.115.242 (talk) 23:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about a separate section of criticism, just because of the Wiki BLP requirements. The fact that he did not challenge an author with a dubious theory is pretty minor stuff. His invasive lab experiments at Columbia could be mentioned, but again, they have to be carefully documented. Oz, or someone associated with him, has been keeping this article as fluffy as possible. If you find referenced criticism of his work, add it to the article and we'll see.Bob98133 (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's some good criticism from a recent article by The New Yorker.

He's invited Theresa Caputo, along with other "psychics, homeopaths, and purveyors of improbable diet plans and dietary supplements to appear on the show".
"Oz has been criticized by scientists for relying on flimsy or incomplete data, distorting the results, and wielding his vast influence in ways that threaten the health of anyone who watches the show".
He believes in vaccinations but his wife doesn't, therefor his children are not vaccinated.
He offers his patients Reiki.
"By freely mixing alternatives with proven therapies, Oz makes it nearly impossible for the viewer of his show to assess the impact of either; the process just diminishes the value of science." Promoting inconclusive science as fact (raspberry ketones, green coffee beans, red palm oil, etc). “Mehmet was always unique, but now he has morphed into a mega-brand. When he tells people the number of sexual encounters they need each year to improve their lives in a specific way, or how to lose weight in three days—this is simply lunacy. The problem is that he is eloquent and talented, and some of what he says clearly provides a service we need. But how are consumers to know what is real and what is magic? Because Mehmet offers both as if they were one."
Oz introduced Jeffrey M. Smith as a scientist, "but Smith has no experience in genetics or agriculture, and has no scientific degree from any institution. He studied business at the Maharishi International University, founded by the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi."
"There are many legitimate and articulate opponents of genetically modified products and, for that matter, of conventional medicine itself. But Oz has consistently chosen guests with dubious authority to argue those positions. Joseph Mercola, an osteopath, runs mercola.com, one of the most popular alternative-health Web sites in the country. Oz has described Mercola as a “pioneer in holistic treatments,” and as a man “your doctor doesn’t want you to listen to.” This is undoubtedly true, since Mercola has promoted such alleged experts as Tullio Simoncini, who claims that cancer is a fungus that can be cured with baking soda. Mercola has long argued that vaccines are dangerous and that they even cause AIDS."
Oz sighed. “Medicine is a very religious experience,” he said. “I have my religion and you have yours. It becomes difficult for us to agree on what we think works, since so much of it is in the eye of the beholder. Data is rarely clean.” All facts come with a point of view. But his spin on it—that one can simply choose those which make sense, rather than data that happen to be true—was chilling. “You find the arguments that support your data,” he said, “and it’s my fact versus your fact.”

--Craigboy (talk) 12:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Homeopathic "remedies" needs to be added to his criticism section. He's actively promoting the roundly debunked scam on his show. All his associates, family and/or friends of his that profits from promoting this quackery by Dr. Oz should be added as well. Cowicide (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Homeopathy, as well as other criticisms mentioned above, were all in the article until about a month ago, when Steazz removed most of them, claiming they were "sourced with less than credible blogs" (which wasn't true; the U.K. Parliament and the JREF are hardly "blogs"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hatster301 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey, what happened to adding a criticism section?RSido (talk) 03:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Where is the criticism section?!?!? 154.20.136.83 (talk) 08:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

More Criticism

Oz was recently summoned to be questioned by the Senate's Consumer Protection Panel, this is a widely reported event. The below listed articles detail the criticisms.

The 'Dr. Oz Effect': Senators Scold Mehmet Oz For Diet Scams - NBC News

Senators to Dr. Oz: Stop Promising Weight-Loss Miracles - The Atlantic

Dr. Oz gets scolded by senators over weight loss scams - Associated Press via Fox News

Congressional hearing investigates Dr. Oz 'miracle' weight loss claims - CNN

Senators question Dr Oz's science - BBC

Dr. Oz Grilled By Senator Over “Miracle” Weight-Loss Claims - The Consumerist

--Craigboy (talk) 23:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

What happened to the picture

Is there a reason that the picture of him suddenly dissapeared? Does anyone know where it is? -NamesR4chumps (talk) 21:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Books for a Better America Award

I searched for the Books for a Better America Award and Oz is the only awardee that comes up. Nor can I determine what organization grants the award or why it's considered "prestigious". --George100 (talk) 21:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. I performed a history swap because the move target had a significant history. This has the side result of obviating the need for any move protection; the existing history at Mehmet Öz prevents any move there without administrator intervention.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Move article Mehmet Öz to Mehmet Oz

Rationale: all references, including the books he has authored, refer to him with this spelling. The spelling that his ancestors used for the family name is not relevant to Wikipedia.

Note to admin - note that the talk page is correctly titled, it's only the article proper that needs to be moved. As this has been an ongoing problem, if there's an administrative move-only lock, it would be nice if that could be applied. Studerby (talk) 21:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Support. Although the subject is of Turkish extraction, he was born in the USA and apparently never uses the "Ö" on his various publications, &c. — AjaxSmack 00:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Columbia animal testing

I added a revised section with added referencing on Dr. Oz's dog experiments at Columbia University; to this article on March 28, 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.89.115.184 (talk • contribs)

I removed this ~~junk.~~ Dr. Oz is not mentioned in any of the source materials. Only on two activist websites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.237.196.228 (talk) 19:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The main source was a 2004 letter from Mary Beth Sweetland to Elizabeth Goldentyer, DVM of the USDA. Dr. Oz and his dogs (as in Oz dogs) are discussed on pages 2 through 5. http://www.columbiacruelty.com/letters/USDA1104.pdf Most of the website information was reproduced from this pdf document. It is usually "activist sites" which make a point of documenting animal abuse. Furthermore, this uncontested information appears to have been online for quite sometime, since the incident took place in 2004. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.89.115.184 (talk • contribs) , April 2009

Are there any other reliable sources for this "material", ie newspaper or trade journals, ect. That would go along way to determine its appropriateness for inclusion. Thank you, --Tom (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The following are mainline articles that reference Dr. Oz in relation to this subject. The first one obviously, references this specific investigation.

New York Daily News Oprah's Heartless Expert?, December 14, 2004
PR Newswire Columbia Grad Returns His PhD to Protest Animal Cruelty, May 18, 2005 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.89.115.184 (talk • contribs) , April 3, 2009

IP, can you please sign your posts using four tildes(~), thanks. The first clipping talks about allegations? The 2nd is an except from a book?? I profess to never hearing of Oz or his work, so I am just trying to figure this out from a disinterested perspective. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 19:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Google Results

I took out the completely asinine section about his google search results. Aunguna (talk) 21:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Picture

That's a hideous picture of him. Does anyone have a better photo to use? Everyone knows him from the billboard ads and TV shows as a nice smiley doctor who doesn't wear a suit. BrotherSulayman (talk) 07:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Personal Life

I saw that someone used the past tense when speaking about his father, but the man is still alive - he appeared on The Dr. Oz Show on 12/9/09. I would change it, but I don't know how to cite an episode of a TV show and I'd like to put the citation. I could use some help. Psu256 (talk) 03:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I remember reading in a magazine, newsweek or time magazine, that Dr Oz practices the occult. This was a couple years, ago. He admitted to being a grand wizard of the olde order of the ottoman empire, or something like that. Does anyone remember which issue and which magazine it was? Someone else has to have seen this. {

The Ottoman Empire was based in Turkey, where he is a citizen and served in their armed forces. Mayby you're confusing his military rank with a cult. 208.125.242.236 (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Spelling error

Married is spelled 'marriede' in the personal section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.175.130.243 (talk) 17:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, it's fixed now. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 03:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Pseudoscientist

I've re-added the 'Pseudoscientists' category. 'Alternative medicine' is classified under Category:Pseudoscience. If the subject of the article is categorized under 'People in alternative medicine', it seems perfectly sensical to add the similar category of 'Pseudoscientists'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.238.174 (talk) 10:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Early Life correction needed

it says he was both born in Ohio and born in turkey, as amazing as he is, this I don't believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.151.116 (talk) 19:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

That would be amazing! Actually, that's not what the article says. Mehmet Oz was born in Ohio, while his father, Mustafa, was born in Turkey. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 02:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Alternative Medicine: Controversy?

Evidence-based medicine is the cornerstone of modern medical practice and many alternative and integrative therapies are regularly taught in both osteopathic and allopathic medical schools. It is a foundation for osteopathic medicine and has become almost universally included in the curriculum of the top allopathic schools in the United States (where Oz went to medical school). Therefore, we need to be very careful when including heavily researched therapies such as acupuncture in the controversies section, regardless of what other physicians may have said. These controversies belong in an alternative medicine article, not in the article of someone who practices the therapies.

In short, I'm all for including controversies, but wording needs to be very specific, and "up-to-date." If a few hundred physicians are against integrative medicine but thousands upon thousands of new physicians are being graduated each year having been taught to use some (evidence-based) integrative medicine when appropriate, I think we should go with the majority and leave these sorts of controversies (or histories of controversy) in their respective articles.

I will mildly edit (not remove) the section based on this. $The Haz talk$ 19:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, FDA approval is not the end-all-be-all for supplements and therapies such as acupuncture, and therefore I don't believe the idea should be included here (though I haven't removed it). The majority of physicians in the U.S. use and suggest multi-vitamins as a supplement and those aren't "FDA-approved".[1][2] I've also removed a source that I found to be unreliable (Skeptic's Dictionary). $The Haz talk$ 19:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and I'd also wonder whether the sentence about "alternative medicine" should include hypnosis. Hypnotherapy has gone through successful clinical trials for many conditions; whether it is deserves the label "alternative" is debatable. More to to the point, though, that dispute should on other pages, not this one.75.94.211.161 (talk) 03:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Layout of Controversy Section Seems Inflated

In many controversy sections of Wikipedia articles the various issues are all encompassed in one main section, unless they are highly involved situations in which case they get a seperate sub-section, but in the Dr. Oz article, each rather simple controversy subject has a bold-faced and seperate section, seemingly inflating and expanding the controversy subjects as far as visibly possible.

12.110.189.138 (talk) 17:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the controversy section is a bit bloated at the moment in general, and the subsections aren't really warranted. Steazz (talk) 05:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I cut out quite a bit of back and forth that are going to come with any public figure. Not every disagreement is worthy of a subsection. If you are on TV everyday you will invariably have people with different opinions. The subsections I removed were sourced with less than credible blogs, and did nothing to contribute to the page. I left the more notable controversies. Steazz (talk) 16:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Still a heart surgeon?

Under the career section it states that he performs 250 heart operations a year. Is this still valid? Does he still do that many? Is he still a professor? Or is his life predominately in television, etc. these days? Mylittlezach (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, in the info box it says years active 2002-present. Years active doing what?? He graduated from medical school in 1986. He must have been a doctor since then. What did he do between 1986-2002??? Mylittlezach (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I did a search on the website of the U of Penn medical school faculty website and Dr. Oz name brings up nothing. I have emailed the dean to see if he is still on the faculty or if he still has anything to do with the school anymore. The article insinuates that he does all of this stuff, professor, heart surgeon, TV personality, etc. all at the same time. Mylittlezach (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

'Reparative therapy' broadcast

Is it worth adding to the Controversy section (or any other) something about a recent episode dealing with so-called 'reparative therapy? The Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender (LGBT) community has expressed strong opposition his even devoting a show to that issue, but most of the information I've seen is on the Net, e.g. the Huffington Post. Or would that smack of 'Too much controversy for the sake of enumerating controversy' for Wikipedia to include it?

JWMcCalvin (talk) 06:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it's significant enough to put in, considering the fuss that major LGBT organizations are making about it. Just be sure and include reliable sources (MSNBC and HuffPo are reliable, and both ran articles on it), and point out that Oz himself is very much against the practice - the controversy is about him giving it "legitimacy" by even having it on the show in the first place. -- Hatster301 (talk) 23:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I came up with what I hope is a reasonably accurate, neutral summary of the incident--which of course anyone who can is free to improve.

JWMcCalvin (talk) 01:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Is he muslim? (again)

In the previous “Is he muslim” section, it was decided that the article should not say whether Oz is a muslim. Afg96 and I have had an on-going disagreement about this, although Afg96 has never posted anything on this talk page. In this discussion, User:NE Ent asked for further talk page discussion of this issue, so I have created this section for that purpose.

WP:BLPCAT makes it clear how Wipedia articles should handle the issue: Oz needs to publicly self-identify as a muslim in a reliable source, or the article should not say he is one. Afg96 has been using the Faces of America interview as the source for saying that Oz is a muslim.

However, I don't think that the interview is clear about whether Oz considers himself a muslim. Oz says he has been influenced by the spiritual/mystical parts of Islam, but being influenced by Islam doesn't necessarily make him a muslim. When Gates says Oz is a muslim, Oz doesn't disagree. His silence could be an implicit confirmation or it could mean that Oz neither confirms nor denies the statement. Oz says he has struggled with his muslim identity. This could mean that he considered himself to be a muslim and struggled with what that means, or it could mean that he has struggled with whether he wanted to be a muslim or not. He doesn't explicitly say that he identifies himself as a muslim. While Oz may consider himself a muslim, I think he needs to make a clear statement before it goes in the article.

Although Afg96 has never discussed the issue (or any other) on this article talk page, he did leave a message on my talk page, which I consider inappropriate. That message is quoted in the Afg96's comments section above, along with responses from myself and another editor. I am still waiting for a clarification from Afg96 there. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

There is another requirement from WP:BLPCAT which Studerby noted in an earlier discussion. This second requirement states that Oz's religion needs to be "relevant to [his] public life or notability, according to reliable published sources", or his religion should not be stated in the Wikipedia article. The Gates interview says nothing about how Oz’s religion is related to his public life or notability, so this is another reason why this interview does not justify having the article state that Oz is a muslim. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Deleting entire paragraphs

Anonymous users (and anyone else), stop deleting entire paragraphs that have been referenced with reputable medical sources just because you don't like the facts about Oz's circumcision controversy. You'll get banned from editing and if you use a library or school computer, everyone who uses your IP address will be banned from editing. I have a copy of the paragraph saved so it's a simple matter to replace it if an edit can't be undone.

Nice try but this isn't how things work on here. It is actually you, an anonymous user, who is running the risk of being banned if you continue to edit the article in ways which blatantly violate policies on neutrality. The policy at WP:SOAPBOX directly relates to your editing behaviour. If you phrase things appropriately then they can be accepted. Otherwise anything you do will either be reverted or edited as appropriate. Afterwriting (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

"Nice try"? What a silly unproductive statement. I have not violated any policies on neautrality - I posted actual facts, fully-referenced. If you genuinely believe that I was not being neutral (which I doubt - you seem to just be deleting whole paragraphs that you disagree with), then explain what part is not neutral and I will edit it (or edit it yourself), instead of vandalising the article. If you continue with your vandalism, I will find my login details, sign in, and make a request that your account be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.19.115.227 (talk) 20:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't need any lessons on being silly and unproductive from you. Your bullying threat to try and have my account deleted is a prime example of why. Secondly, this has nothing to do with what I agree or disagree with. The problem is your own as you have blatantly violated the NPOV policies. The policies on neutrality require that all editors add content with neutral phrasing and tone and avoid telling readers what they should think as this is soapboxing. Therefore any non-neutral personal commentary ~ such as referring to Oz's ideas as "ludicrous" (even if true) ~ is not acceptable and must be either removed or changed. This should be obvious but apparently you have a problem understanding this. I suggest that you change these problems yourself. Until you do so they will be removed in accordance with the appropriate policies. Afterwriting (talk) 05:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

So threatening to try to have me banned for editing is fine, but when I suggest having your account deleted for constantly deleting entire paragraphs, completely ignoring Wikipedia's policies with regards to that, instead of tagging or editing, suddenly it's bullying? Nonsense and you know it, you're just trying to make me look bad by resorting to the "you're a bully" nonsense. You have also not answered my question on which part is not neutral, despite my statement that I would edit it - you just deleted it again. Get over yourself. You do not own Wikipedia, the tags you've placed on your user page don't change that fact. You delete entire paragraphs for the sake of one word? I have occasionally made the mistake of putting a subjective word in an edit before, and someone has noticed - you know what they did? THEY EDITED IT! You have just admitted in writing that instead of editing paragraphs that you believe are not neutral, or marking them as such, you are deleting entire paragraphs against the policy of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.19.115.227 (talk) 01:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Please quote where I ever threatened to have you banned from editing? You won't be able to because I didn't. Secondly, you are clearly ignorant of numerous Wikipedia policies. Your editing is a violation of WP:BLP and therefore any violations are required to be removed immediately. There is no point in trying to have any further discussion with you on why your edits are not acceptable as you only respond with rants. Afterwriting (talk) 04:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard

The recent editing problems have been reported to the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard. Interested editors are invited to comment there if they wish. Afterwriting (talk) 05:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Circumcision section

Let's discuss under what circumstances this should be added. To me, it's patterned after the other Controversy subsections. First, references from neutral third parties should be found to show that this is a major controversy, worthy of being in his bio. POV terms such as "controversial" and "equally-unsubstantiated" should be removed. References from advocacy groups such as "Saving Our Sons" should not be used. And the last sentence should use only WP:MEDRS acceptable cites. Thoughts? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Oz's thoughts about circumcision can be appropriately called "controversial" ~ and also included in the controversy section ~ if there is any significant evidence of this ~ specific to Oz himself ~ outside of anti-circumcision activist groups. Activist websites cannot normally be used in any way as references as they are not considered reliable and no POV activist editing should be included under any circumstances. Afterwriting (talk) 03:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Sounds as if we're on the same page :-) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Organic arsenic

The Arsenic in apple juice section mentions a difference between organic and inorganic arsenic; three of the cited sources (including Dr. Oz himself) make this distinction. None of these explain what "organic arsenic" is and I, for one, can't figure out what it's supposed to mean (hence the {{Clarify}} tag). I'm no chemist, but my understanding is that arsenic is an element, and as such it is not an organic compound, though here I merely assume that this is what they actually meant by "organic." I suppose arsenic could be present in an organic compound, but again, I don't know if this is what they meant (and I have no idea if or how this would make arsenic more safe). Perhaps more likely is that they meant "naturally occurring" versus "artificially added" arsenic, but then why not just say so? I think it's safe to assume that they didn't mean that some arsenic is organically farmed, certified organic, or organic food. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

It means arsenic present in organic compounds versus arsenic present in inorganic compounds. Not confusing for anyone who knows a little about chemistry, but potentially confusing to people with no knowledge of chemistry. It does not mean "naturally occuring", nor does it have anything to do with "organic farming".

In chemistry, an organic compound is any compound that contains hydrogen covalently bonded to carbon. They may be naturally occuring or synthetic, harmless or deadly toxic. As far as arsenic compounds are concerned, organic arsenic compounds are generally harmless, and inorganic ones are generally toxic. I added "harmless" and "toxic" to the sentence to clarify for the non-initiated. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I understand the difference between arsenic in an organic vs. inorganic compound, but I wasn't sure this is what the sources meant by "organic arsenic." It does leave me wondering why the same element is harmless one way and toxic another (especially since organic arsenic compounds would apparently include lewisite), but I suppose that's out of the scope of this article. (And since arsenic is an element, I would think that it's about as "all-natural" as something could possibly be, but I suppose that's neither here nor there.) Thanks for your quick response. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Chlorine as a gas is incredibly lethal, and has been used in gas warfare. However, as an ion, it is required for life, and you consume it every day in the form of common table salt. Some chlorine compounds are deadly poisons, others are essentially harmless. Same with arsenic compounds. Understanding why is going to require a basic understanding of biology and chemistry. Also, beware of words like "organic" and "natural". They have specific meanings in science that are very different from their meanings in everyday language, and they are also often emotionally charged when used by non-scientists. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Same reason oxygen gas (O2) is essential to life, but ozone (O3) is toxic. It's not so much the properties of element, it's more about the shape and structure of the molecules it comes in that changes the way the body reacts with the substance. - Hatster301 (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Page semi-protection request

Due to the repeated BLP violations and other problems with an IP editor ~ currently blocked but now using a different IP address ~ can someone with the authority to do so please have the page semi-protected for an appropriate period of time. Thanks. Afterwriting (talk) 14:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

You need to make the request at WP:RPP. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I did so after today's edits and the page has been semi-protected. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Taxi incident

The New York press is now reporting that Dr. Oz helped Sian Green after she was struck by a taxi and lost her foot. See NBC New York 68.37.254.48 (talk) 21:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS - Doesn't rate a mention in his bio. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

On December 18, Dr. Oz announced that he would be launching his own magazine. The first issue will be released in February. ^[1] Krcd573 (talk) 15:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

References

^ http://blog.doctoroz.com/dr-oz-blog/introducing-my-new-magazine

Comment. I'd like to see mention in an independent secondary source, such as a major periodical. While Oz's own blog may provide verification, it isn't possible for it to demonstrate noteworthiness. Rivertorch (talk) 18:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Not done: This page is no longer protected. Subject to consensus, you should be able to edit it yourself. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

no mention of pseudoscience?

Why is there no mention of his history of supporting pseudoscience like homeopathy? With all the back and forth editing going on in this page, shouldn't it be protected?

littlebum2002 14:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Where are the neutral third party sources discussing this? The article was semi-protected for a while to stop IP attacks. There isn't nearly enough edit warring going on to justify full protection. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

There was plenty of his history of pseoudoscience, very well written, and very well sourced. I say "was", beceause user Me5000 deleted the entire section [3] due to "unsourced statements" and other supposed violations of WP policy (even though pretty much every statement was properly, reliably, and accurately sourced). So what's the next step? Undo the changes, restore the deleted section, and hope it starts an edit war so the page can be locked? If someone unilaterally deletes an entire section of an article without gaining consensus beforehand (or even bothering to discuss it, for that matter), there's gotta be an easier way to deal with problematic editors like that... - Hatster301 (talk) 10:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I would ask Me5000 to fully expand on his edit summary here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I'll break down the problems for you, then revert it back. The burden is on you to fix the problems and add the statements back into the article where appropiate, not to just revert it back and "hope it starts an edit war". See WP:BLP "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."

1. There shouldn't be an entire section that is nothing but controversy this creates undue weight and violates WP:POV. What can be added back should be incorporated into the article and include the point of view of each side.

2. "without distinguishing between harmless organic arsenic compounds and toxic inorganic arsenic compounds" Harmless? Toxic? Not neutral use of weasel words.

3. "Nestlé, which manufactures some brands of Apple juice, also criticized the show's testing methodology, claiming that the particular testing method used was intended for testing water, not juice, and for that reason, the results would be "unreliable at best."" Unsourced.

4. "However, when counting only inorganic arsenic" Why is inorganic in italics? Not neutral.

5. " only one of the 80 apple juice samples tested exceeded 10-part-per-billion limit, and even then only slightly, at 10.48 ppb." Once again, not neutral.

6. The whole part about apple juice has absolutely nothing from Oz's side of the story. Not neutral. Needs rewritten.

7. The entire section about Real Age just needs removed entirely. Yes, Oz is a spokesperson, but they aren't criticizing him for being a spokesperson. They are criticizing the site itself. It doesn't belong on Oz's page.

8. "combining conventional medical treatments with alternative therapies such as hypnosis, prayer, energy healing, and homeopathy" Neither of the 2 sources used say that he is a supporter of homeopathy.

9. "Oz's wife, Lisa, is described as a master of Reiki, a form of energy healing." Irrelevant. This page is about Oz, not his wife.

10. "Some conventional medical practitioners" Again weasel words "complain that Oz promotes unproven and harmful alternative medicine practices." There are only 4 sources that support this 3 of which are from the same site and the fourth source doesn't even say this specifically. This is original research.

11. "Oz has described homeopathy to be "worth considering" for headaches alongside conventional remedies," this is sourced from a wordpress site, how is it reliable?

12. "even though homeopathy is considered ineffective and worthless by scientific and medical communities." The sources for this statement don't mention Oz at all. This is again original research. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought.

11. "A meta-analysis found a possible small, short-term weight loss effect (under one kilogram)" The citation doesn't link to anything. Unsourced.

12. "However, side effects—namely hepatotoxicity—led to one preparation being withdrawn from the market." Source has nothing to do with Oz. Original Research.

13. "A 1998 randomized controlled trial looked at the effects of hydroxycitric acid, the purported active component in Garcinia gummi-gutta, as a potential anti-obesity agent in 135 people. The conclusion from this trial was that "Garcinia cambogia failed to produce significant weight loss and fat mass loss beyond that observed with placebo"." This study is mentioned in the article about Oz, but does this really belong is Oz's article?

14. Should the Garcinia cambogia section even be there? There is only one source about it. It is not a notable event worth mentioning on wikipedia.

15. "The American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, and others maintain that homosexuality is not an illness." source has nothing to do with Oz. Original research.

16. "The statements did not appease members of the LGBT community." The source used doesn't mention anything about anyone replying to Oz's second statement. Me5000 (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I forgot that there are no more criticism sections allowed in Wikipedia bio articles. The "criticism" section (and the rebuttal section, which I posted in error). Should both be blended into the larger article. 2602:306:BDA0:97A0:840:6AE3:AFD2:EC3D (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Age Discrepencies

He emigrated in 1955 but was born in 1960? 122.149.247.161 (talk) 13:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

There's no discrepancy. Mustafa Oz emigrated in 1955. Mustafa's son Mehmet is the man who was born in 1960. This article is about Mehmet. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to move

I propose that we move this article to Dr. Oz, per WP:COMMONNAME. Dr. Oz is obviously the most mentioned and reliably sourced version of the name. Tutelary (talk) 17:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Mehmet Oz → Dr. Oz – Given that when I tagged the page Dr. Oz for an uncontroversial speedy deletion, I was told by the reviewing administrator to get consensus for this. I am requesting that this page be moved to Dr. Oz per WP:COMMONNAME. It is what is used in headlines, in comments, in reliable sources, and the vast majority of the search results. It is the common name. Tutelary (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose I think "Dr. Oz" should redirect to the TV show The Dr. Oz Show, as should Doctor Oz. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see an actual policy based argument, here. You can surely propose that in your own section, but this is about the article's rename. Tutelary (talk) 19:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The common use of "Dr.Oz" is to refer to the TV show. This is an objection to your request, so appears properly. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Interesting dilemma, he straddles the academic and public life world with two different names. As an academic, he uses the full name in articles but has co-authored a significant number of papers. He labels himself as Mehmet Oz on Facebook and Twitter. It seems different than someone like Bono, who everyone seems to call Bono. Ian Furst (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

In WP:COMMONNAME, it must be observed that the majority of reliable sources describe him as "Dr. Oz" and do not use "Mehmet Oz". Here are just the results of a google search that do this.

Tutelary (talk) 19:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's 416 pubmed indexed journal articles that list him as "Oz MC" and on Twitter he labels' himself as "Dr. Mehmet Oz" in his posts Ian Furst (talk) 20:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

There is a simple reason for that, as I'm pretty sure you cannot start the "First name" section on most article's journals with anything else other than your first name. Hence, it wouldn't have been possible to put "Dr." in there. The irony of this is in the Twitter URL, where he purposefully uses "DrOz" as the commonname. If preferred, wouldn't he have used "DrMehmetOz", then? Tutelary (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose; We wouldn't do this with other personalities with the title Doctor. Seems common sense to just use the man's actual name. 188.28.131.138 (talk) 17:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I am basing it on an actual policy, called WP:COMMONNAME. The majority of the reliable sources which mention him consider him to be 'Dr. Oz' as the commonname. Tutelary (talk) 19:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment: A similar situation appears to exist with Phil McGraw and Drew Pinsky, who seem to generally not be very well known by those names. WP:CREDENTIAL suggests to generally avoid starting with "Dr." However, there are exceptions, and WP:STAGENAME may apply. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. My understanding of WikiPolicy is that we do not use professional titles in the title of the article. We don't say St. Padre Pio, and we don't say Dr. Oz. Mehmet Oz is his name and that is what the title should be. Dr. Oz can/should redirect to that unless it would be more appropriate to redirect it to his television show. As to WP:Commonname, he seems to use variations, Mehmet Oz, being one of them. He's not consistent. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. Academic titles should not be used it titles. Coreyemotela (talk) 20:30, 25 May 2014 (UTC).
Oppose If he was a rapper then "Dr. Oz" could be used as WP:STAGENAME, but this is simply transferral of a real dr from a TV show. Dr Oz should redirect to The Dr. Oz Show, as should Doctor Oz per reasons given by RM regular 65.94.171.126 (talk) 15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by In ictu oculi (talk • contribs) 23:11, 25 May 2014‎ (UTC)
Oppose Although "Dr. Oz" does come close to approaching COMMONNAME status, other policies can trump COMMONNAME, including the general rule against honorifics. Additionally, there is something unencyclopedic about ignoring a man's first name because he is often referred to in daily speech with his honorific attached. I think most people who call the man "Dr. Oz" would expect his encyclopedia article to be at Mehmet Oz, and that -- if this move request succeeded -- a fair number of readers would be ASTONISHed at the new title. If those arguments weren't convincing, the prominence of the man's academic work, in which is full name is used, would still lead me to oppose this request. Xoloz (talk) 17:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Mehmet Oz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

McCaskill video

I just found a PD copy of the Oz v. McCaskill Senate hearing, which is of obvious relevance given his long-time promotion of fraudulent diet products, so I added the video. Guy (Help!) 11:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

OzWatch looks like a scam

Wikipedia now says: "Oz has countered that he is a proponent of alternative medicine and has stated that he makes great efforts to inform viewers that he neither sells nor endorses any supplements.He also created the organization " OzWatch" as a way for viewers to report scams.Ozwatch has received more than 35,000 complaints and has issued 600 cease and desist letters".

Looks like something written by Dr Oz himself. I tried to google OzWatch and found no relevant results. What OzWatch really does and where can I find these 35,000 complaints and 6000 letters??

Is there ANY positive things this man has done? Probably not after checking some crap at Dr Oz website in 2016, I have never watched his television programs. For me with a lot of knowledge about supplements for example from www.examine.com, Dr Oz looks like he oversimplifies things for people with low education or no time to read scientific text.

ee1518 (talk) 13:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

It appears to be supported only by his claims, so should be removed completely. --Ronz (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Pseudoscience promoter, or alleged?

Prior to the page protection lifting, it simply said "pseudoscience promoter". Looking at the article content, I don't see anything that justifies changing it to "alleged pseudoscience promoter". [4] [5] --Ronz (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Based on the content later in the article, I don't believe the unqualified label "pseudoscience promoter" is justified in the lede—hence my revert. Mind you, I'd personally rather see the supporting content tightened up to justify using the label, but that's not the order things supposed to happen in around here. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 05:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

What about it suggests a qualification is needed? That it isn't pseudoscience, that he doesn't promote it, or something else? --Ronz (talk) 01:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

It's pretty simple. The lead sentence says, in Wikipedia's voice, that Oz is a pseudoscience promoter. However, nowhere else in the article is that claim specifically made—not even close. The word "pseudoscience" appears in only two other places: once, where (uncited) it says he tends to "feature" pseudoscience, and later, where it says he won a Pigasus Award (bestowed by a 20-year-old NGO founded by a magician). Now, we could split hairs over the various definitions of "promoter", and we could make a sky-is-blue argument that various things that Oz verifiably has promoted are indeed examples of pseudoscience. I happen to personally agree with the current wording, but when I put on my editor's hat, everything changes. After all, this is Wikipedia, where hysteria over BLP "violations" occurs with startling frequency when even the slightest negative content enters an article. I've lamented that often enough, but this case doesn't seem borderline. As I read policy and precedent, the article is making a leap of logic that it shouldn't be making. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it, but since you asked, voilà. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 08:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm looking at the "Lack of scientific validity" section and seeing plenty of promotion of pseudoscience. Do we need to make it clearer? --Ronz (talk) 16:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. It couldn't matter less what you or I see when we look at the "Lack of scientific validity" section. We're writing articles for a wide range of readers, many of whom will not see the same things at all. It's almost a synthesis thing. This isn't basic arithmetic; it's not like saying that a certain number of factors multiplied together equal 100. If we're going to say that w, x, and y constitute promotion of pseudoscience, we really should be very clear about why they do, and we'd better have a reliable source or three to back us up. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 20:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. Do you have suggestions? Could some notes help? --Ronz (talk) 16:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I've been poring over sources for the past hour, and I still have a ways to go. Let me give it some more thought. I'll try to weigh in again soon. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 19:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

All right, I reviewed a few dozen news articles, essays by notable skeptics, book passages...and I just can't find any hook to hang the "pseudoscience promoter" hat on. We can say he's been accused of this, that, and the other thing, and I think we could lump all those things together under a pseudoscience label later in the article if we want, but I don't think we can identify him in the lede the way we're doing now. It's sort of like calling someone a "bullshit apologist"; it might well be true, but it's too generalized and unverifiable to lead off an article in Wikipedia's voice. How could it be verified? There is no official arbiter to decide what constitutes bullshit, and the same goes for pseudoscience. There may be accusations, but then there are rebuttals, counter-accusations, and so on. Here's an analogy: I happen to think Hitler was a monster, and I can provide a vast number of sources to support my thinking that, but I note that his article doesn't make the claim—and I don't think it should. (I don't mean to invoke Godwin's Law, and I am not likening anybody to anybody else; it just seemed like a convenient comparison.) Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 15:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks.

I'm surprised that no one else has weighed in at all. I'd say that WP:FRINGE may be the arbiter, while taking MEDRS and BLP into consideration as well. I'd be more comfortable if others were here discussing it.

What do you propose? Restoring "alleged"? --Ronz (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I thinkRivertorch is making some good points. Proper wording would be something like, "Critics have questioned the legitimacy of the products he promotes on his show." TimidGuy (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

We could probably go a little further than that—something along the lines of "He has received widespread, sustained criticism over the legitimacy..." And I think the "pseudoscience" word is okay there, as long as it's sourced. What bothers me right now is just the lede. @Ronz: Yes, if we clearly source the allegation later in the article, then I'd say that restoring "alleged" in the lede would be appropriate. Re more people weighing in, I was contemplating an RfC but hoped to avoid it. Especially with TimidGuy's input, I suspect we can find consensus that meets policy and serves the article well. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 03:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your recommendations. TimidGuy (talk) 15:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree as well.

Would it be ok to bring up this discussion at WP:FTN to get others involved? --Ronz (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Your call. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 17:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Mentions_of_pseudoscience_in_Mehmet_Oz. I hope that's an acceptable summary. --Ronz (talk) 19:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Oz does not discriminate between science, pseudoscience and simple bullshit. Most of what he says is wrong. This is well established. I have no objection to a tighter formulation of someone wants to propose it, but when you've been called out in the BMJ we are beyond "alleged". Guy (Help!) 11:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP if there's no source to show that Dr. Oz is a pseudoscience advocate, practictioner or whatever, it needs to be removed. I did remove it, and | it was placed back in. . I'd call for it's immediate removal as there are no sources to back it up. ƘƟ SĦ 19:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

That formulation is a reasonable paraphrase/summary of what appears later in the article. It is amply supported via the more specific matters discussed in the body. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Are there any sources that say he's a Psuedoscience promoter ? If so, yes, it can stay, but I see none. I see mentions (sourced) that show a definite proclivity to endorse Psuedoscience, but none outright say he is a psuedoscience promoter, so I still disagree, but won't touch your revert. ƘƟ SĦ 21:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

DR. OZ DEFENDS HIS PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC CLAIMS AS HARMLESS 'FLOWERY LANGUAGE', Popular Science.

Dr. Oz and the triumph of pseudoscience, Baltimore Sun.

Reporting on quacks and pseudoscience: The problem for journalists, LA Times.

Plenty more where they came from. There's no real dispute. He's been roasted in the BMJ and on the floor of the Senate, it's not reasonable to expect us to pretend otherwise. Guy (Help!) 08:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

JzG Are you serious ? Popsci doesn't state that Doc OZ is a psuedoscience promoter - it suggests it but never outright says it, so that's out. The Baltimore son is an Op-Ed - that fails RS right away, the LA Times mentions Doctor OZ, but again, never says he's a psuedoscience promoter. Using either of the two reliable sources to make that claim would be WP:SYNTH. In order to say Doctor OZ is a psuedoscience promoter we must have a source that literally says he IS a psuedoscience promoter per WP:BLP simple as that. ƘƟ SĦ 13:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The article uses the word pseudoscience and absolutely makes it plain that he promotes the pseudoscience in question. This is entirely consistent with his roasting at the Senate and in BMJ. Guy (Help!) 13:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

No, we don't have to "have a source that literally says he IS a psuedoscience [sic] promoter per WP:BLP simple as that." If it were as simple as that, we wouldn't be having a long discussion on the talk page. (From your own talk page: "Disputes are solved by discussion, not strict adherence to the rules.") Wikipedia, like the larger world, has more gray area than you're giving it credit for. And you're currently at 3RR; let someone else revert next time. (I'll do it. The content should stay out until we get consensus, which did seem within our grasp until you went to BLP/N and opened the floodgates. Grrr!) Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 13:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I'd say that the LA Times article definitely supports "alleged pseudoscience promoter" in the lede. (The Popular Science piece uses "pseudoscience" only in the headline, and the Baltimore Sun piece appears to be a letter to the editor and isn't usable for our purposes.) Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 12:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Coming from BLP/N, the phrase "pseudoscience promoter" has no place in a factual statement, akin to an oxymoron. If someone is promoting a "pseudoscience", they most likely don't think the science is bad, and thus they would not call that a "pseudoscience" but a "science" even if others think elsewise. We can use claims with source attribution to say others call him that, but it's definitely not an objective term. One can say, factually, that "he supports a number of theories that are commonly classified as pseudoscience by the scientific community", as this does not dismiss his view but still sets that his theories are not accepted. --MASEM (t) 21:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

- One thing to add that I was thinking about: if he has admitted that he knows he is pushed pseudoscience, (eg akin to a scale-oil salesman knowing the product they are selling is bs), one could potentially say he was a "pseudoscience promoter" but that would need to still be attributed to him, rather than left in WP's factual voice. In this case, I don't get the impression he has stated that he knows that the theories he's advanced are bogus , so this situation would not apply to this case.--MASEM (t) 21:59, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I did not realise this had been forum shopped to BLPN, but it's not a surprise.

BLP does not mandate that we deny the truth just because the subject doesn't like it. We have many articles on frauds and con-men which describe them as exactly that, and Oz has been busted (see [6] for example). He's been called out on the Senate floor and even in the British medical Journal. We don't serve our readers by obscuring this. Guy (Help!) 08:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I basically agree with this, especially the last sentence. It just comes down to getting the wording right. I think something to the effect of "pseudoscience promoter" is justifiable at this point (the Los Angeles Times article you linked further up would make a useful ref) but I still think it really has to be preceded by the word "alleged". While neither Oz nor anybody else (as far as I know) has made any credible efforts to refute the allegations, I believe that Wikipedia shouldn't be the one assigning that label to him. (It's not black and white, like a certain politician spouting statements that are verifiably lies.) I don't think I quite understand Masem's point. Surely it's possible to unwittingly or ignorantly promote something, thinking it's something else, so I don't see how his possible lack of knowledge could make the phrase problematic. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 12:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Do you mean alleged promoter of pseudoscience, or promoter of alleged pseudoscience? There is no doubt that the green coffee bean crap is pseudoscience, and absolute proof that he promoted it knowing it was BS. So I don't see either as valid. Guy (Help!) 13:17, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I meant the former, but you raise a good point I hadn't realized: the phrase "alleged pseudoscience promoter" is ambiguous. It should be "alleged promoter of pseudoscience". If you provide a source showing "absolute proof that he promoted it knowing it was BS", I'll gladly drop my support for using the word "allegedly". Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 13:46, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Let's be clear: while the discussion is ongoing, the disputed content is best left out. There is ample precedent for that, I think, as well as policy. I've reverted the reinsertion just this once, and I'm hoping we can grit our teeth and agree that there's no rush to re-add it while there's a productive discussion in progress. The alternative would almost certainly have to be full protection, which would pretty much rule out resolving this anytime soon without the use of edit requests and the like. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 15:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Let's be clear, since it's been in for a long time, has support from a number of editors who specialise in health fraud articles (and in some cases also BLP matters), and is amply supported by sources including - and I really should not have to keep repeating this - explicit, trenchant and direct criticism in the British Medical Journal and on the Senate floor, it can stay in unless and until there is consensus to amend the wording.

And to be really really clear, the Senate went a lot further. The sources covering it use words like "scam" and "fraud". Sen. McCaskill said outright: "I don't get why you need to say this stuff when you know it's not true". Yes, she called him a liar, on the Senate floor. And he had no defence. None. He promoted green coffee beans as a miracle weight loss product, his TV segment was used by sellers of green coffee beans, and the FTC shut that trade down as a fraud.

We are so far beyond "alleged" that we're almost into Trump territory. Guy (Help!) 14:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

We could add this sentence, or something similar, to the lead paragraph:

He has been the subject of widespread criticism for allegedly promoting pseudoscientific principles and making fraudulent health claims on his television program.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]

References

And then all of this could be fleshed out better in the Controversy section. I like this proposal because it rightly mentions the noteworthy controversy up top, but it makes it its own sentence, thereby not putting a noun like "promoter" on a par with the other, legitimate professions that are enumerated. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 16:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Support -- and let's not mess about, getting bogged down with picayune disputes about it. The broad state of agreement about the matter is already apparent here (above). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC) I've been persuaded by subsequent comments and now oppose that formulation (re the use of "allegedly"). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Support -- TimidGuy (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Support'--The sentence above clearly adheres to the policies as well as the limited consensus as achieved above.Winged Blades^Godric 17:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Support Avoids any potential controversial issue in WP's voice (and including the suggestions in the discussion section). --MASEM (t) 19:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Support It works with the sources we have and says what the sources say. ƘƟ SĦ 21:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose, due to WP:WEASEL word "allegedly" - that horse has bolted, the pseudoscience is established as fact, as is his promotion of it, on the Senate floor and in the BMJ. Pseudoscientific principles is also unnecessary verbiage. Remove "alleged" and make it pseudoscience and we're good. Guy (Help!) 12:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. Obvious bullshit is obvious bullshit. It isn't alleged bullshit at all. -Roxy the dog. bark 12:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose – This is in violation of core policies and ignores reliable sources that undenyably paint him as a pseudoscience-promoter. There is no alleged about it, and as such it is not possible to achieve consensus in favor of this phrasing — as it violates policy. BLP can not be invoked to avoid criticism, that is not its purpose. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 13:06, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose - Violates numerous WP policies and is not at all congruent with the sources cited. Garzfoth (talk) 13:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
oppose per reason given by Garzfoth--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose (This discussion was mentioned at WT:MED.) This man promotes scams and pseudoscience. The sources adduced here and in the article make that crystal clear. Using "allegedly" misleads the reader. This is way beyond alleged. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:35, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Let's improve this. I like the overall approach. In general, I'd much rather see "He's been widely criticized for X and Y" than "He's an X" (regardless of whether you happen to be the kind of person that believes that X is a bad thing). However, "He has been widely criticism for promoting pseudoscience and making fraudulent health claims on his television program." would be clearer (and more concise) than the original proposal. (On the "allegations" point: he isn't criticized for "allegedly" doing this; the criticism is based on the critics' conclusions that he was actually doing this. You may disagree with them – differentiating between bad science, pseudoscience, and stupidity is partly a matter of intentions – but the widespread criticism is about "doing this", not about "allegedly doing this".) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
oppose - The guy is one of the biggest pushers of pseudoscience bullshit in the world, right up there with Chopra. An embarrassment to medicine to the extent that fellow faculty members asked to kick him off the faculty and he was hauled before Congress to justify his shilling of weight loss coffee beans. hell no. No. The current lead is appropriate. Jytdog (talk) 23:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose What clunky wording. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Support With the deletion of 'alleged' from the sentence. 45.72.157.254 (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I much prefer the following in its own sentence to simply listing pseudoscience promoter in a list of other adjectives about him. I think it is a lot clearer.

He has been the subject of widespread criticism for promoting pseudoscience and making fraudulent health claims on his television program.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.72.157.254 (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

!vote The word allegedly is silly in this context. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. Just say he promotes pseudoscience: source-based reality. Anything else is BS. Alexbrn (talk) 21:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Looks like a furry lil critter got a hold of the factual statement "Dr. Oz promotes pseudoscience." MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Why "principles"? It's products and treatments, right? --Ronz (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Good suggestion. TimidGuy (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's more concrete. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 17:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I believe we have consensus, but let's see if we can go for that rarest of commodities: unanimity. Pinging the two editors who commented above but haven't yet !voted on the proposal, User:Ronz and User:JzG. I'm tidying up and templating the refs and, barring something unexpected, plan to make the proposed changes in the next day. Thanks very much to everyone for the many helpful comments and suggestions. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 05:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think so, since this has only been up for a short time and Ronz has not commented yet. I already addressed the egregious bullshit of using the word "allegedly". When you have been eviscerated in the BMJ and on the Senate floor, hyou don't get to say "allegedly" any more. Guy (Help!) 12:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Can we identify sources that clearly support, "He has been the subject of widespread criticism for promoting pseudoscientific treatments and and making fraudulent health claims on his television program." or something similar? --Ronz (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

(e.c., responding to Guy) Yes, I figured it was too good to be true, but hope does spring eternal, you know? (I logged in with my fingers crossed.) Incidentally, the currently proposed wording (see beginning of Discussion above) substitutes "products and treatments" for "principles", which should obviate half of your objection.

I admit to being taken aback by the reasoning of the first three opposes, including yours. It's almost surreal: I agree with what all three of you are saying about Oz, but I can't reconcile it with what I've seen to be the norm in innumerable articles over the years. Going by some of the reasoning I've read here (if one can call statements like Obvious bullshit is obvious bullshit "reasoning"), it sounds to me as though it would be not only within policy but actually highly desirable to change the lead sentences of various BLP articles, for instance by adding "homophobia promoter" to the ledes of several recent American presidential candidates. Certainly, "climate change denier" should be added to the ledes of many prominent American officeholders, including the top officeholder (who should also be described in his article's lede as a "serial liar" and "demagogue"); those attributes are easily verifiable, not to mention self-evident, and they're noteworthy as hell, with sustained coverage from innumerable reliable sources. Now, if I actually tried to insert such wording (which I wouldn't, not being a WP:POINTy kinda guy), I have no doubt I'd be promptly reverted, and I suspect that if I pursued it very far on the talk page I'd be excoriated for being clueless about WP:NPOV and probably rebuked for disrespecting WP:BLP. So, what's the deal with Oz? Am I missing something? I really hope I am, because if what's going on here is that Oz doesn't have a legion of ideologically-motivated editors watching his page and thus is exempt from the kid-glove treatment, I will be rather disillusioned. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 15:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

The major difference lies in that science is objective, so it is quite simple to state that Oz is peddling pseudoscience, because it's objectively true. When it comes to political figures there is in fact a divide between neutrality and what we include in Wikipedia's articles — caused by overrepresentation of editors from the United States, hence a strong US-centric bias. I will not go into that further, but you have to keep in mind that what is neutral in the US is not neutral pretty much anywhere else in the world, and positions that are moderate there may be extremist elsewhere (and our content is skewed in a way that reflects this). When it comes to science, peddling extremism is not quite so simple because one can not argue about objective facts in the same way. Promoting pseudoscience is easily provable owing to the very precise definition of pseudoscience (see the article). Homophobia is less precisely defined, and while it is no less reprehensible — it is much easier to deny or to argue beside the point, relying on religious arguments instead. (The situation would be slightly different if we were discussing someone who believed in creationism, which is provably false, but less so than what Oz promotes.) Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 15:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I support Rivertorch's proposal to move "pseudoscience promoter" out of the first, defining sentence, and I like his(?) proposed form of words (replacing "principles" with "products and treatments"). I can elaborate on that if asked but, first, perhaps we should just focus on "alleged". Does anyone here seriously doubt, after reading the sources, that he promotes pseudoscience? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:45, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Please provide verification for the proposal otherwise the proposal may be original research. QuackGuru (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Your use of the phrase "original research" remains idiosyncratic, I see. Guy (Help!) 20:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

See WP:OR for guidance. QuackGuru (talk) 04:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Huh? Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 07:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

"Huh?" does not provide verification for the proposal. I asked for verification per one of Larry Sanger's core policy. QuackGuru (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

It's unclear what you're asking for. I wouldn't presume to know anything about Larry's precise views on talk page proposals, but it wouldn't matter in the slightest if I did. The essence of WP:NOR hasn't changed much in the many years since he left the project, and the policy belongs to the entire community. How we apply it is up to us, and you haven't said how you think it applies in this case. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 18:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Please provide verification for the proposal. If verification is not provided in a timely manner then it is time to close this proposal and discussion. QuackGuru (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

What you are asking for is very unclear to me as well. Do you want something other than the references provided with the proposal? If yes, what is it you want? (I know, I know, you want 'verification'. What counts as verification since the provided references aren't what you are looking for?)45.72.157.254 (talk) 20:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

References do not necessarily verify the claim. Text on this site often fails verification. Please provide the specific text from the reference or references that verifies the proposal. QuackGuru (talk) 20:21, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm still confused. What do you mean by 'references do not necessarily verify the claim'? The links to the references are right there! Isn't it against Wikipedia rules for me to copy-paste the content here? I don't want to be rude, but have you read the proposal and the references? The connection between them seems very clear to me. I guess I can summarize them if the articles confuse you... but I feel like I don't understand what the issue is that you are raising. 45.72.157.254 (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Often the references do not verify the claim. See WP:OR. The links to the references are right there but do they verify this proposal? I was unable to verify the proposal. If verification is not provided then this suggests the proposal might be original research. QuackGuru (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Since I like to assume good faith, I'll assume you're not trolling and are just very, very confused about what policy is and how it should be implemented with regard to this article. I'm hoping you're able to follow the links provided and evaluate them vis-à-vis the proposed text in light of your understanding of policy and then communicate your findings here in a coherent way. No one should have to hold your hand to facilitate that. If you're unable to do that, it might be better to find a different area of Wikipedia where your own individual aptitudez would be more appreciated. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 22:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

You have refused to provide verification. If you're unable to provide verification then I will assume it may be OR. QuackGuru (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, I don't agree with the original proposal, but I do think that the sources support my proposed revision of it. I think that the original (in the article now) doesn't emphasis the connection between his pseudoscience and his tv show enough. Isn't that what he's actually known for - pimping pseudoscience on TV. The first reference is about a group of doctors who are slamming his "disdain for science and for evidence-based medicine" and "promoting quack treatments." He says, “I actually do personally believe in the items I talk about on the show. I recognize they don’t have the scientific muster to present as fact." So, there he is talking about the pseudoscience in the context of his tv show. The second is about a US Senate subcommittee saying he was making "unfounded claims" and that “the scientific community is almost monolithic against you in terms of the efficacy of those three products that you called miracles," but all of the quotes that the Senate used in the hearing were taken from his show, not like publications or interviews. The third doesn't cover Dr. Oz very much, but the only mention is of the audience tuning in for his show. And the last one is entirely framed as discussing him as a talk-show host. So I think we should use the following instead of "pseudoscience promoter":

He has been the subject of widespread criticism for ~~allegedly~~ promoting pseudoscience and making fraudulent health claims on his television program.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]

References

45.72.157.254

Actually, I meant this - see strikethrough.

Why is making this look right so complicated? And why is my number in the wrong place now? talk 22:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Where does each source verify the part "widespread criticism for promoting pseudoscientific treatments"? Each source must also verify the part "widespread criticism". Combining different sources together to claim it is "widespread" is a WP:SYN violation. All 4 sources must verify the entire claim individually if all 4 sources will be used. See WP:CIR. QuackGuru (talk) 22:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC) (Boldface is all mine.)

Salon: "Oz was treated to an aggressive public shaming on that latter issue last year"

The Atlantic: "The scientific community is almost monolithic against you in terms of the efficacy of those three products that you called miracles"

The Atlantic: “I know that you feel that you’re a victim,” McCaskill said, “but sometimes conduct invites being a victim. I think if you would be more careful, maybe you wouldn’t be victimized quite as frequently.”

Washington Post: "Has Oz, who often peddles miracle cures for weight loss and other maladies, mortgaged medical veracity for entertainment value? These questions have hammered Oz for months.

Washington Post: "And now, his work has come under even greater scrutiny in the British Medical Journal..." 45.72.157.254 (talk) 22:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

None of those quotes mention pseudoscience. They do not verify any claim being proposed. QuackGuru (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

But the articles are entirely about Dr. Oz propogating pseudoscience. And these quotes illustrate widespread criticism... I just don't understand what you think the people that the articles discuss are criticizing him for if not his pseudoscience. What am I missing? 45.72.157.254 (talk) 01:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

That's a WP:SYN to think that each source is entirely about Dr. Oz propagating pseudoscience. Editors don't conduct their own review of sources. Each source must explicitly verify the claim. You failed to verify the claim. We can try to verify a more simpler claim without unsupported weasel words. QuackGuru (talk) 01:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

What weasel word? Is the problem with 'widespread'? I don't understand why you don't think the article topics are people objecting to Dr. Oz propogating pseudoscience. That seems incredibly obvious to me from reading them. It's even what all the article titles say they are about. 45.72.157.254 (talk) 01:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Is the problem with 'widespread'? Yes. QuackGuru (talk) 01:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Huh... Well, I'm glad that's sorted out. I don't agree with you, but I guess I understand what you're saying now at least.

He has been the subject of ~~widespread~~ criticism for ~~allegedly~~ promoting pseudoscience and making fraudulent health claims on his television program.

I'm not sure that is as true.

Can anyone else say what they think of my proposal? Do people agree with QuackGuru that widespread criticism is too strong a term to use about Dr. Oz and we should use just criticism instead? Or is my revision of this sentence off base? I really do think that presenting the pseudoscience together with the tv show is important for understanding Dr. Oz's impact. 45.72.157.254 (talk) 01:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

The source does not have to use the exact word widespread to indicate that criticism is widespread. This is verifiable in the cited sources as well as others (and, in case it's unclear, it is technically impossible for a [truly] verifiable claim to violate WP:NOR). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

The source may not have to use exact word widespread to indicate that criticism is widespread but none of the sources made any such suggestion that it was widespread. If any source made such a suggestion then please share that with us. QuackGuru (talk) 11:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

In QuackGuru's lexicon, WP:OR means any edit that QuackGuru does not personally approve as being the sole correct representation of the sources as QuackGuru reads them. In case of any dispute, QuackGuru is to be considered the arbiter. Hence his extensive log of blocks and restrictions. I agree with QG about most things, certianly in respect of quackery, and I still find him virtually impossible to work with. Guy (Help!) 13:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I see. Well, I don't agree that there's a synthesis problem here, but I can't help wishing that the editor in question had said up front that synthesis was the problem they perceived instead of being cryptic and wasting time. Moving on...maybe an adjective other than "widespread" would suffice, but I think it would be inane to simply say Oz has been the subject of criticism. Are we any closer to resolving this, I wonder. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 15:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Let me know if editors decide they want accurately sourced content in the article. I won't waste my time with a proposal. QuackGuru (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposal 2

This is based on Rivertorch's proposal above, but altered to deal with most of the complaints above (which had to do with the word 'alleged'). I agree that based on the listed sources, alleged is not an appropriate word - heck, Oz himself admitted that some material he presents doesn't have appropriate scientific support in the Senate hearing! However, I think it is important to flesh out the source of the controversies about Dr. Oz, which is that he promotes pseudoscience on his tv show. How do people feel about removing pseudoscience-promoter as an adjective and replacing it with this sentence to the lead paragraph:

He has been the subject of widespread criticism for promoting pseudoscience and making fraudulent health claims on his television program.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]

References

I have left the word 'widespread' in regarding criticism (despite one objection), since there doesn't seem to be widespread :-) support for that alteration - at least not yet. 45.72.157.254 (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Support. Looks good to me. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 16:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Unsupportable. The proposal is not accurate - he does not only promote pseudoscience on his TV show - he does it on his website, in interviews on the radio and in magazines, etc. There is also no statement of where this would go in the lead. No valid reason has to change the lead. The lead is very clear already that he promotes pseudoscience: "Mehmet Cengiz Oz (Turkish: [mehˈmet dʒenˈɟiz øz]; born June 11, 1960), better known as Dr. Oz, is a Turkish-American cardiothoracic surgeon and professor at Columbia University, pseudoscience promoter, author and television personality." Jytdog (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

What does unsupportable mean in this context? Is it like oppose? From what I've read, he's way better known for being a tv personality than as a surgeon - at least all the articles I found about him talked about his TV show, not his work as a surgeon or on radio or whatever. In fact, I'd be inclined to change the order of the first sentence to say 'Turkish-American tv personality, etc., etc. Then follow with the sentence I proposed. Aren't his website and radio interviews just about his TV show? The website isn't called 'Dr. Oz' - it's titled 'The Dr. Oz Show'. I just think that the lead doesn't emphasize what I've gathered is the central fact about him, which is that he promotes garbage to millions of people on TV. Maybe my impression of him is wrong, but that's what I got from all the articles I read on this topic. (I'm just basing this on reading news articles because I don't have a TV and I'm not American, so maybe I'm missing some information from another source that supports what you are saying instead? Can you clarify please?) 45.72.157.254 (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

It means this is dead. There is no valid way to support this under the policies and guidelines. It doesn't get out of the starting gate. Jytdog (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Do you have anything to say about the rest of what I wrote? Because I thought I responded to why you said it was unsupportable (that you didn't know where I thought we should put the new sentence and what is invalid about my contention that the lead currently emphasizes that he is a surgeon, while I think all of the news articles emphasize that he is a tv woo promoter). 45.72.157.254 (talk) 18:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. Rivertorch, "Looks good to me." does not address the verifiability problem. See WP:V. The sources do not verify it is "widespread" and reference number 2 does not mention he is promoting pseudoscience. It is not limited to "making fraudulent health claims on his television program". Am I missing something? QuackGuru (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

What about 'widespread criticism among doctors and scientists' instead? 45.72.157.254 (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

What about you provide a proposal that meets policy and includes the word pseudoscience? QuackGuru (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

What!??!?! My proposal is "He has been the subject of widespread criticism for promoting pseudoscience and making fraudulent health claims on his television program." It's right there! And I suggested that since you don't like unqualified 'widespread criticism' that we could change it to "He has been the subject of widespread criticism from scientists and doctors for promoting pseudoscience and making fraudulent health claims on his television program." 45.72.157.254 (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Fine — I find this phrasing rather acceptable as long as it is early in the lede. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 21:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Support, accurate summary amply supported by sources. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposal 3

I'm done here. Proposal 2 fails to pass V policy. QuackGuru (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Questions

Naive question likely to shed more heat than light. Guy (Help!) 22:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Comment As a regular viewer of the Teahouse, I was led here by my curiosity, and I've clearly been punished for it. After reading the entire section "Pseudoscience promoter, or alleged?" up until this point, I am completely confused on what the discussion is concerning the current proposal. I'll try to summarise what I've understood below, in the hopes that, with some clarity, I could add my contribution towards ending this discussion (apologies if any of these questions seem strange or off-topic, but they all help me understand the context in which this discussion is situated). Please leave your responses to as many of these questions as you wish in whichever way you see fit below, but commenting immediately below each question would help me (and other potential uninvolved editors) get the gist of things.

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Do you agree or disagree that it is a fact that Dr. Oz makes/made/has made recommendations for products and treatments which may be classified as alternative science, pseudoscience, or is in any way insufficiently supported by scientific research?
Do you agree or disagree that there are reliable sources that support/verify the claim/fact that Dr. Oz makes/made/has made recommendations for products and treatments which may be classified as alternative science, pseudoscience, or is in any way insufficiently supported by scientific research?
If you answered agree to the first two questions above, do you agree or disagree that it is a fact that Dr. Oz promotes products and treatments which may be classified as alternative science, pseudoscience, or is in any way insufficiently supported by scientific research?
If you answered agree to the first two questions above, do you agree or disagree that there are reliable sources that support/verify the claim/fact that Dr. Oz promotes products and treatments which may be classified as alternative science, pseudoscience, or is in any way insufficiently supported by scientific research?
If you answered agree to (at least) the first two questions above, do you agree or disagree that it is a fact that critics/academics/journalists/other relevant figures or institutions critisize/fault/blame Dr. Oz for recommending or promoting products and treatments which may be classified as alternative science, pseudoscience, or is in any way insufficiently supported by scientific research?
If you answered agree to (at least) the first two questions above, do you agree or disagree that there are reliable sources that support/verify the claim/fact that critics/academics/journalists/other relevant figures or institutions critisize/fault/blame Dr. Oz for recommending or promoting products and treatments which may be classified as alternative science, pseudoscience, or is in any way insufficiently supported by scientific research?
If you answered agree to the fifth and sixth question, do you agree or disagree that it is a fact that these criticisms amount to widespread criticism?
If you answered agree to the fifth and sixth question, do you agree or disagree that there are reliable sources that support/verify the claim/fact that these criticisms amount to widespread criticism?

Hopefully, these questions will both help me understand the discussion at hand, as well as provide a handy tool in order to reach consensus on this discussion.--talk2Chun^{(talk) (contributions)} 18:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Punished? What do you mean? What is going on here (as goes on in many articles about woo) is that people who are fans of woo get upset that per NPOV and specifically PSCI, WP is clear on calling pseudoscience, "pseudoscience" and seek to water these descriptions down in various ways, using arguments that are generally difficult to understand and poorly grounded in policies and guidelines. Jytdog (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, apologies if my choice of wording was confusing. I did not intend to make any form of judgement on the discussion going on (as my post clearly indicates, I'm not yet in a position to do anything of the sort). I merely meant that the confusion I've experienced in trying to understand this discussion was the direct result of my decision to seek out this discussion following my reading of the question(s) at the Teahouse. In that sense, I am being punished by myself for my curiosity. As to the rest of your discussion, that is precisely part of my confusion. I cannot understand where the true difference in opinion in this discussion lies. Hence my systematic and step-by-step questions, in order to try to understand where the discussion actually lies.--talk2Chun^{(talk) (contributions)} 19:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm confused about this too. And kind of frustrated. All I want to do is take the qualifier 'pseudoscience-promoter' and expand it to a full sentence in the first paragraph of the lead. Also, I want to move 'television personality' to be before 'surgeon' at the beginning of the first sentence of the lead. But people keep disagreeing with me with arguments I don't understand. Like criticism of Dr. Oz isn't widespread (which I think is ridiculous - it's all over the 3rd paragraph of the lead) and that my suggestion is 'dead on arrival'. I want to make these changes because I think that the content of the 3rd paragraph of the lead should be moved higher, because Dr. Oz is clearly not best known for being a thoracic surgeon, he is best know for being a TV woo promoter. So I don't understand why that is just in the middle of a list with all these other things about him that are less important. 45.72.157.254 (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Unfortunately, I'm getting the feeling that many in this discussion are talking next to each other (please note my use of the word feeling, in case anyone feels offended by my statement). From my reading of this discussion, there seem to be (at least) two camps in this discussion: a) those who feel that others are questioning the facts (such as the part about "alleged pseudoscience promotor", or the part about whether widespread criticism exists), and b) those who don't "care" about whether the statements concerned ("pseudoscience promotor", "widespread criticism", etc.) are facts, but only whether there are enough reliable sources which say so. Because of this, I can't tell whether a solution or consensus is even possible here. If the facts are being disputed, then the solution seems to be to find more sources (and if they don't exist, it cannot be included). If it's Wikipedia's requirements about including sourced facts/statement is at issue, then the consensus should be sought in the right interpretation of Wikipedia's policies in this specific case. And since I can't tell where the problems lie, I can't tell where the solutions lie either (and whether I can help in providing such a solution).--talk2Chun^{(talk) (contributions)} 19:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what to tell you. Every response I've gotten on this page reads to me as a non sequitur. And I'm completely shocked that Jytdog and QuackGuru don't think that Dr. Oz is better known as a TV personality or that there is widespread criticism of his pseudoscience promotion (when JzG has put basically that exact thing in the 3rd paragraph of the lead and I just want it in the 1st paragraph). I can only guess that because I found this page while someone else was pushing the term 'allegedly' that people think that I want it to read that way too even though every single thing I've written has said that I don't. Whatever - since Jytdog and QuackGuru think that Dr. Oz is best known as a surgeon rather than a promoter of woo, I guess that's what the article will say (as utter bullshit as that perspective is). 45.72.157.254 (talk) 21:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I can understand why you would feel frustrated. Hopefully, if we can all agree to a systematic way of dealing with the question(s), we could all be less frustrated (or at least come to a clearer (non-)consensus). For example, if I understood you (45.72.157.254) correctly, you would answer agree to all the questions (since you do not support the 'allegedly' proposal, and you proposed to add the part about 'widespread criticism'). As an aside, I think perhaps it would be best if you shelve your proposal to "move the order in which Dr. Oz's occupation/titles/character/whatever-he's-best-known-for is displayed" at least until the current discussion on the alleged pseudoscience promotor and widespread criticism is resolved. Adding more changes just muddies up the conversation, and introduces additional points of discussion/contention. I do have an opinion about this (other) change you're proposing, but adding that now would just really add fuel to the (already confusion) fire, so to speak.--talk2Chun^{(talk) (contributions)} 21:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Just realised that the list of questions I put above here does not really lend itself to clear answers. I've rephrased them a bit. (note: the rephrasing seems a bit strange, in that it looks like I have a preconceived answer. That is not the case; it is just that I can't think of a better way to phrase the questions at the moment).--talk2Chun^{(talk) (contributions)} 21:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

IP editor you have mispreprented me. I never said anything like "Dr. Oz is best known as a surgeon rather than a promoter of woo." You are making a mess of this. Jytdog (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about punishment, but arriving here from the Teahouse must be a strange transition indeed—not unlike Alice's falling through the rabbit hole. If you really want to talk about what's going on here, I'd suggesting taking it to someone's user talk page since it would be more or less off-topic. Very briefly, I do think several of us are talking past each other and I'm not sure how to resolve that. We could hold a full-blown RfC with notifications galore, and that might bring enough new, uninvolved eyes to lend a fresh perspective, but I'm extremely reluctant to go that route. For one thing, those new eyes might not materialize. (Nothing like throwing the proverbial party and nobody comes—always a bummer.) On the other hand, it might turn what's fast becoming a wall of text into a much longer wall of text while resolving nothing and making people upset. (There are too many divisive walls, real and imagined, in the world already.) I've been giving some thought to what Carl Fredrik said in reply to me above, and I am trying to figure out whether reframing the discussion in a different, more structured way might be beneficial. Jytdog may be right that the above proposals are dead, but if that's so, I don't think it's because policies and guidelines have spoken and that's that. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 21:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I only said the 2nd was unsupportable out of the gate, and I said so because it is inaccurate in limiting Oz's woo-pushing to TV. No one competent is going accept a proposal that distorts reality that way. Jytdog (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk2chun I just reviewed this page again and there are four things going on. Most editors are fine with the current language. Another set wants to water down the "pseudoscience" reference. (most folks are opposed) The IP is apparently new to WP and apparently wants to split out the reference to "pseudoscience" in the first sentence into a separate, second sentence in the lead and expand on that a bit there. (this is not necessary since the entire third paragraph already does that). And Quackguru - whom many of the regulars here know well, used to be pretty focused on pushing back on woo about health (hence their username) but ever since Doc James was kicked off the WMF board has been writing hard-to-understand things on pseudoscience pages; haven't figured out where they are coming from yet. Those are the four things going on here, in my view. Jytdog (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@Rivertorch:, that's precisely what I've tried to do with the questions. I've designed them in such a way that everyone can see clearly immediately where (in every part of the process), the problem/discussion/issue lies. If it doesn't work, the only other option would be IMO to close this discussion and restart a new one. But in such a case, the new (rephrased) discussion/proposal would have to be limited in scope (otherwise, we run the risk of confusion and talking next to each other again). And I'm not sure if everyone really wants this discussion to drag on any longer than it already has. @Jytdog: Thanks for your clarification. If more editors would agree to your reading of this current discussion, then we might at least make some progress into resolving the discussion.--talk2Chun^{(talk) (contributions)} 22:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Continuation

) it is not a big crisis. We get this kind of disruption from time to time on these woo pages. Jytdog (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@User:Jytdog: I wonder where I fit into your "four things going on"; I don't recognize myself in any of the groups of editors you enumerated. I also don't think that your terming the discussion a "disruption" is particularly helpful, although of course you're entitled to that view. I wonder: If you said the second proposal was unsupportable "because it is inaccurate in limiting Oz's woo-pushing to TV", would you be willing to entertain a modified proposal that removes that limitation?

@User:Talk2chun: I know you're trying to help, and I really appreciate it, but most of the contributors here are old hands at Wikipedia discussions, and the list of questions you posed presented a veritable maze that I doubt any of us were eager to negotiate. Incidentally, the usual phrase is "talking past each other", not "talking next to each other". Just saying. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 06:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

You are in amongst the "waterer-downers." HTH. -Roxy the dog. bark 07:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

LOL. I think the technical term would be dilutionist, but I'm actually not. If anything, I am (and please, nobody ask for a source here—it's self-identification and allowed) a would-be waterer-upper who thinks articles, including those with hard-hitting criticism of their subjects, potentially have much greater credibility and impact when they're airtight. And this one isn't even close, as currently written. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 15:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Demanding exact support for the phrase "pseudoscience promoter" as you have done throughout this page is misguided at best and classic concern trolling at worst - I am making no judgement as to you in particular. We summarize reliable sources and very common descriptions of Oz like "the unscientific claims he makes about weight loss treatments on his popular show" and "After Oz endorses unproven products such as green coffee extract and raspberry ketone, businesses often use his own quotes to help them sell products that are ineffective at best and dangerous at worst." (from the Popular Science ref, and "In part that's because quack science has penetrated so deeply into public discourse -- witness the huge audience tuning in to the egregious Dr. Oz." and "Oz's promotion of quackery" in this LA Times article and stuff like "Dr. Mehmet Oz, that outstanding shill for oils-of-snake of every description" in the other LA Times article that the first one linked to -- all those refs and more ~~and~~ are accurately summarized as "pseudoscience promoter."

You perhaps want WP to be like a newspaper that carefully avoids making judgements in its voice like this WaPo article does, but that is not what NPOV means, especially with regard to WP:PSCI and in fact we have a policy against that - WP:GEVAL. WP has a WP:NPOV policy that means certain things here in WP. WaPo does not. Jytdog (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC) fix typo Jytdog (talk) 03:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)}}

I literally have no idea what you're talking about. At this point, it's clear that you're either unable or unwilling to make head or tail of anything I've said on this page, so I guess we're even. You didn't even answer my direct question. I give up. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 03:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

He's not alone in being unable to make head or tail of it - at least if you are genuinely supporting a robust article on this promoter of quackery. I'm afraid your arguments come across like someone insisting that we should not say vaccines are safe on the basis of existing science, but should instead look for the mythical double blinded placebo controlled randomised trial of safety, which will be much stronger. Guy (Help!) 12:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

promoting pseudoscience mentioned twice in the lede

There is no need I can think of to repeat it twice in the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 19:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, the first mention is in the overall summary paragraph listing what Oz is ("cardiothoracic surgeon, Columbia University professor, pseudoscience promoter,[5] author, and television personality"), and the second mention is in a paragraph describing his major specific history with alt-med woo, pseudoscience, etc ("He is a proponent of alternative medicine and has been criticized by physicians, government officials and publications, including Popular Science and The New Yorker, for giving non-scientific advice and promoting pseudoscience."). Both uses seem entirely appropriate to me. A third use within the lede would likely be unjustified, but two uses? I don't see the issue. Garzfoth (talk) 14:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

It says "He is a proponent of alternative medicine and has been criticized by physicians, government officials and publications, including Popular Science and The New Yorker, for giving non-scientific advice and promoting pseudoscience." What sources said he has been criticized by physicians, government officials and publications, including Popular Science and The New Yorker, for promoting pseudoscience? The single sentence was sourced. QuackGuru (talk) 15:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

The source and the related sources in Mehmet_Oz#Controversy seem to be enough. As we both know, sourcing in the lede is often kept to a minimum when it clearly summarizes well-referenced sections of the article. --Ronz (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I could not find which sources state that he has been criticized by physicians, government officials and publications, including Popular Science and The New Yorker, for promoting pseudoscience.

The body says "Oz has faced criticism due to his tendency to feature non-scientific and pseudoscientific advice." That does not verify the content in the lede and also seems to be undue because it is repeating similar content in the body. See "Popular Science,[56] The New Yorker[22] and Forbes[57] have published critical articles on Oz for giving "non-scientific" advice." The sources in the body does not seem to verify the content and promoting pseudoscience in the lede. This content can be split into a new sentence and then possibly expanded. There was a sourced sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 19:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length Talk:Mehmet_Oz/Archive_1#Pseudoscience_promoter.2C_or_alleged.3F. What's new or different now? --Ronz (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

QuackGuru, the lead/lede is a summary of the page, and is not required to contain citations if the page already contains them (which it does in Mehmet Oz#Lack_of_scientific_validity). Additionally, see the link Ronz posted (thank you Ronz for posting that, I had forgotten about that discussion). Garzfoth (talk) 03:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Trump appointing him to his Council on Sports, Fitness, and Nutrition.

[7]. Doug Weller talk 12:30, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Excellent appointment. He'll fit right in with Betsy DeVos et al. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Wait. This wasn't supposed to happen till Oprah got in next time and only then appointed Oz. What happened? -Roxy, the dog. barcus 16:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I've figured it out. Eddy is in the space-time continuum. Roxy, the dog. barcus 16:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Awards

I trimmed back the awards a bit after restoring the recent Emmy's. I didn't look over the entire section closely for other problems. The book award was mentioned here as being questionable. --Ronz (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

"Pseudoscience promoter" stated as fact

I'm doing a procedural close on this RfC, as it does not seem that the OP read WP:RfC or made even minimalistic efforts to conform the request to basic expectations for the process. RfCs are meant to present a fully neutral statement of a discrete issue or issues in dispute, and then request input from respondents--ideally to a reasonably specific inquiry which asks a simple question or requests evaluation of a proposed content change, which can then either be rejected or endorsed by respondents. In this instance, the OP instead chose to open a discussion, get up on the soapbox and deliver a long-winded and completely non-neutral discourse about why they are right about a content dispute, and the opposition to their views unfounded. Predictably, this has resulted in an unfocused back-and-forth argument between the pre-existant parties to the dispute, rather than a move towards consensus for one concrete solution or another, because respondents are provided with no such options; some of the more astute respondents had attempted to fill the gap with their own proposals, but as no one is responding to a central question or proposed approach, this is resulting in just more confusion rather than any movement toward consensus on any issue.
How this discussion got 19 days in without someone closing per these deficiencies, I do not know, but an RfC tag should not be left live when this thread is not, in any significant sense, an RfC--hence this action. I encourage the OP to better familiarize themselves with RfC guidelines and then re-open the discussion with a new thread, and a neutral statement of the dispute, followed by clear questions or proposals. (Though, if they do so, they will also need to ping every previous respondent here and afford them the opportunity to contribute their perspectives to those questions). Alternatively, the discussion could proceed less formally as it has below already, but without an RfC tag drawing more and more editors into a wasteful and unfocused dispute. None of my above comments should be taken as a criticism of the feedback provided already, as most of the comments are salient and useful--this is merely a procedural close to recognize that the format here is not an RfC and is in fact running directly counter to the purpose of one. Any neutral respondent (that is, ideally, someone not a party to the original content dispute) can feel free to reverse this close if they feel discussion should continue, but I am satisfied that this is the policy consistent way to address this mistake and forestall any further waste of community time and muddying of the waters. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article has possible WP:NPOV and WP:PROPORTION issues in lede and body, namely:

The section on TV show (and authorship) is several fold smaller than the criticism of incidents/subjects from the TV show (WP:PROPORTION).
Lede contains the contentious use of "pseudoscience promoter" (WP:LABEL) in 1st line, which is redundant to the elaborated description already present in the third paragraph ("he has been criticized...for promoting pseudoscience").
Lede lacks balance and due weight: no mention of Emmy nominations or wins.
Body contains Emmy wins but makes no mention of nominations. DA1 (talk) 22:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

This biographical article lists its subject as a "pseudoscience promoter" in the lede. There are two issues with that.

1) It states an allegation as a fact. Even though the allegation is sourced, the evidence is pulled from the headline of an opinion piece. Whether the subject is a "pseudoscience promoter" or not, the source does not prove Dr. Oz is a pseudoscientist, it only reports on allegations against him.

2) The allegation, while it certainly belongs in the article, does not belong in the lede. It is a criticism and should be included with other criticism. That's why I moved it to the 3rd paragraph, where the other criticism is.

3) The allegation is sandwiched between several descriptions of Dr. Oz's professional accomplishments. How did the editors decide "pseudoscience promoter" belongs between "cardiothoracic surgeon, Columbia University professor" and "author, and television personality"? Even though Wikipedia editors would like to push their POV, it's almost certainly the thing he'd be least known for in that list.

This is a clear attempt to use weasel words and influence readers of this article. I could really give two shits about Dr. Oz and I'm not going to engage in any further edit warring about this. It's a clear violation of WP:BLP though, and the justification "When there is disagreement about whether it's a BLP violation, we stick with BRD." is frankly absurd. WP:BLP says: "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." Athene cunicularia (talk) 14:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I would pretty much agree with this analysis but I am certainly no expert on Dr. Oz, nor do I give a rat's azz about him. Unfortunately, this is where the project struggles for better or worse. People who DO care, will set up sides and back and forth we go. I always find it interesting to look back at an articles history, 1 year, 2 years, 5 years, 10 years, ect to see how articles "evolve" over time. The project is excellent at getting articles like Iron ore "right", political or bios of controversial people?, not so much ;). --Malerooster (talk) 14:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

No. From the lead -- Senator Claire McCaskill chided Oz, saying: "The scientific community is almost monolithic against you in terms of the efficacy of the three products you call miracles" nuff said.-- plus all the other well referenced stuff in the article. No violation of BLP. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 14:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

It's still only an allegation. Athene cunicularia (talk) 14:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Read the rest of the article. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 15:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

A study was published in the British Medical Journal that concluded that 39% of Oz's medical recommendations were not supported by any scientific evidence or rationale, and that a further 15% directly contradicted known science. That is literally the most definitive proof that these "allegations" are true that can possibly exist in the real world. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

That's all well and good and can be explained in the appropriate part of the article. However it is defamatory to portray these allegations as fact in the lede, randomly sandwiched between provable professional qualifications "cardiothoracic surgeon, Columbia University professor" and "author, and television personality". This claim should be moved to the 3rd paragraph and qualified. This is the very minor edit that I made. Athene cunicularia (talk) 17:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Any problems with the article content are unclear. Claims that This is a clear attempt to use weasel words and influence readers of this article. undermine the entire argument. --Ronz (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I have no issue with inclusion of the allegations in the article, even prominently. My issue is with portraying those allegations as fact in the lede. The lede says he is a pseudoscience promoter without qualification. It does this in his list of provable professional qualifications, randomly sandwiched between "cardiothoracic surgeon, Columbia University professor" and "author, and television personality". It is also a direct quote from an opinion piece, yet it is unquoted in the lede. This is a clear attempt by some Wikipedia editors to defame the subject of the article. It should be moved to the third paragraph with the other criticism, and it should be qualified with a word like "alleged." Otherwise it is defamatory. Athene cunicularia (talk) 16:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

You should pay attention to what NeilN has said to you. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 17:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Your efforts are to defame and nothing more. Athene cunicularia (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

My efforts are to comply with wp:NPOV and nothing more. let the status quo ante remain until such time as you can bring a policy based arguement. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 17:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

However it is defamatory to portray these allegations as fact... No, it is not. They are facts, and it is not defamation to state facts, no matter how poorly they reflect upon someone. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

it's completely justified to remove this sentence as its' a clear violation of WP:LABEL and the wikipedia's 5 pillars. that means something is crucial. on the label. the suffix psuedo- is included onto the words you cannot say on an article. I hope somebody would delete the sentence iowderick895 (talk) 18:09, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

"Pseudoscience promoter": The word promoter implies he willingly acknowledges and promotes pseudoscience as a concept, which I don't think is the case as much as it is his detractors who might label him as such. I don't think he's promoting the concept of pseudoscience which is what the wording may be interpreted as. Like Athene cunicularia initially claimed, this is very much borderline WP:WEASEL, as the wording is vague and ambiguous. Also note Newroderick895’s post above, which is another point. DA1 (talk) 08:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
The third paragraph of the lede already describes him as having been accused of promoting pseudoscience, I don't see why the wording of "pseudoscience promoter" should be included in the first line as well, making it redundant. Which brings me to the point about: WP: UNDUEWEIGHT. The article suffers from it, namely:

Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

Note the sections of his criticism, which revolve around his alleged pseudoscience from his TV show. However, the section on his TV show, radio, film combined itself is barely 1/7 th of the size of the criticism of elements from the TV show/etc. Note WP:PROPORTION:

An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news.

I'm adding a RfC, so other users may add their take on the matter. DA1 (talk) 08:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Also interesting the lede doesn't include a single mention of Emmy Awards nominations or wins, despite seemingly having won several. I would assume that's noteworthy, and usually included in most articles. The section on the Awards itself seem to be missing his 2014 "Talk Show Host" win, and makes no mention of nominations. He was nominated in 2011 and 2013. And nominated for "Talk Show Host Informative" in 2015, 2017, 2018. And nominated for "Talk Show Informative" each year between 2014 to 2018. All of which are absent. The article has some serious POV issues in its editing. DA1 (talk) 08:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Retain "pseudoscience promoter" in lede - After a brief review of sources; it appears as though there are a reasonable number of sources that link with Dr. Oz with pseudoscience. While there are clearly BLP concerns here, the higher level of sourcing required to make this statement does exist. NickCT (talk) 13:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
There may be some improvements that could be made, but this RfC has no proposals.
Adding a RfC heading to a discussion that ended in March is unlikely to accomplish much. A new RFC with a clear proposal would a much better approach.

That said, promoting pseudoscience is a part of his notability, so complete removal from the lede would be inappropriate. Slight rewording and reduced emphasis might be worth discussion.

The word promoter implies he willingly acknowledges and promotes pseudoscience as a concept I don't understand why anyone would think so. Could you explain? --Ronz (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I concur with Ronz's thoughts here. This RfC was sorta poorly formed. There should have been simply stated proposals for the changes the nom wanted to make. NickCT (talk) 16:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I reiterate the other user's point above about WP:LABEL, and my own point about the third paragraph in lede already containing the accusation of promoting pseudoscience. Is there a reason why it needs to be noted twice in the lede, when it is already elaborated in the third paragraph? Furthermore, none of the long-standing users have commented on my questions about why there is no mention of his Emmy accomplishments in the lede (NPOV and due weight), or the fact that the article has a serious WP:PROPORTION issues: namely the criticism section outsizes the actual TV section by several fold. DA1 (talk) 22:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@NickCT: Which is why the third paragraph describes him as promoting pseudoscience based on sources, the actual use of "pseudoscience promoter" in the first line is both redundant and the wording has interpretation issues. Namely it reads as him being a promoter of the concept of pseudoscience; when something like "he has been criticized...for promoting pseudoscience" is much clearer language, which is what's present in the third paragraph. Stating the same point twice in the lede is likely WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. DA1 (talk) 22:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@Ronz:That said, promoting pseudoscience is a part of his notability, so complete removal from the lede would be inappropriate. Slight rewording and reduced emphasis might be worth discussion. I am unsure if you read my posts. As I have said before, the third paragraph already describes elaborately about him being "criticized for promoting pseudoscience." There has been NO proposal of removing "pseudoscience" outright. The issue is why does it have to be mentioned twice in lede (and using language that clearly isn't elaborated: per WP:LABEL "use in-text attribution" and "should be clearly described as such".). As I've pointed out, this is clear WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, and there is noticeable lack of balance in the lede (no mention of Emmy accomplishments). DA1 (talk) 22:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

You've changed the RfC to clarify your concerns, which is helpful, though it can create problems when there are already responses. Thank you for the clarification. I'm going to ignore most of the expansion at this point, until others have responded.

Basic aspects of notability are expected to be mentioned multiple times in the lede. You're basically arguing removing it from the first sentence.

In an RfC it's best to make clear proposals rather than attempt to use it as a workshop to discuss potential problems and potential solutions. --Ronz (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the lede and the body are generally proportional and balanced. However, I think DA1 nonetheless raises some good points. His show should probably be listed as Emmy-winning in the lede. The total number of nominations it received should also probably appear in the body (although I don't think they need to be listed like the wins though). I would also remove the pseudoscience promoter label from the first sentence. He's a pseudoscience promoter in the context of the other jobs already listed there and the (appropriate length, IMO) third paragraph of the lede details how he promotes pseudoscience in the context of those jobs. Dbrote (talk) 18:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
There is no way Wikipedia can choose sides and pass judgement on a living person's attributes or ideology; we can only quote sources and what they allege/demonstrate. The proper piece of text for both the opening paragraph and the main section is obviously "...has been accused or promoting pseudoscience." -The Gnome (talk) 05:25, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
The contribution immediately above is of course woefully misguided. Anyone who wants to contribute to an encyclopedia ought to feel confident in their ability to distinguish between science and pseudo-science and should be willing to actually make that distinction in the content we write. (So, obviously, I think there's nothing wrong with the opening sentence as it stands.) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:50, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry but what you are saying is wonderfully misguided.

Wikipedia is not a place where we state our own opinions about something (especially when that something is a living person). Wikipedia does not presume that contributors ("anyone") should have the ability to distinguish between science and pseudo-science; Wikipedia is not for scientists only. What Wikipedia does is cite sources that state what needs to be stated in an encyclopaedia - and not in a cafeteria, a restaurant, a library, or our living room or anywhere else. I may believe that the subject is a trivial example of pseudoscience but my opinion, me being a simple contributor, does not count here in the least! Otherwise, it all turns to personal viewpoints and of course endless arguments. -The Gnome (talk) 07:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

What you say would be correct - except for the fact that Oz' promotion of pseudoscience is not just Nomoskedasticity's opinion, it comes from reliable sources. Fewer patronizing smiles, more bothering to read what the discussion is about, please. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

If we did not have reliable sources stating that Oz engages in pseudoscience, this conversation would have been over as soon as it had started! It would've been all personal opinion and nothing more. But, as it happens, we do have reliable sources stating that. And it is precisely those reliable sources we're going to quote; not as our statement of fact but what the sources state/claim is fact. In so many words, exactly what I proposed, i.e. something along these lines: "According to X, Y, & Z Oz engages in pseudoscience, etc". That's all there is to it. Wikipedia is all about sources, as we (should) know. -The Gnome (talk) 20:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

P.S. The smiley was a simple sign that my "wonderfully" was joking response to "woefully". Nothing more than being friendly. The weird notion about me being "patronizing" is all in your mind. Fewer of that, please, and more civility.

P.P.S. BTW, I see in your profile, Hob Gadling, that you're "interested in pseudoscience". While I salute your apparent engagement in combating superstition, conmen, phoney science, and the like, please understand that Wikipedia is not the battleground for that noble effort. The most and best we can do is make sure articles on science and scientists reflect reality as evidenced by Wikireliable sources. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 20:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me things I have known for more than ten years. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Arsenic in apple juice

I'm removing the bit in the apple juice section concerning Nestle's criticism, on the basis that, aside from being unsourced, it seems to me that a company that manufactures apple juice has an inherent conflict of interest regarding the presence or absence of arsenic in apple juice. Either way, there's still substantial sourcing regarding FDA and Consumer Reports critiques, I don't think Nestle deserves to be there.

Something else this section brought to my attention is that, with such an abundance of sourced criticism for Oz, is there a separate entry we could create to better reflect that? It seems like a fair amount of the controversies are related to his show, and I could imagine speaking to Nestle's criticism regarding the apple juice specifically in a place like that. I think there's more to be said concerning some of these controversies and a separate entry may allow for expansion. Any thoughts? Thanks in advance! PcPrincipal (talk) 21:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Controversies related to Mehmet Oz

The article Controversies related to Mehmet Oz has recently been created. Relevant policies and guidelines to consider include WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:POVFORK, WP:COATRACK, and WP:DUEWEIGHT. It is theoretically possible to neutrally, tactfully, and professionally cover controversies within a single biography. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:46, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I redirected it here. A POVFORK of a BLP needs consensus and some exceptionally good sources supporting its creation. --Ronz (talk) 02:20, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Lots of Original Research in this article

I am stunned, frankly, by the amount of WP:OR in this article. There are entire paragraphs that seem to draw conclusions from sources that don't state explicitly what the article text says. Probably not coincidentally, the coverage always seems to be slanted to paint the article's subject in a more negative light. So now you're also dealing with WP:BLP and WP:NPOV issues as well. I'd suggest everyone slow down with the reverting until we discuss each change here. Thanks. Amsgearing (talk) 16:15, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

That's a good plan. In the meantime we'll put the article back in the version it was in before you started making changes. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Under WP:BLP, I don't think that appropriate for the statements that are clearly incorrect. Amsgearing (talk) 16:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

None of the statements you claimed were incorrect are actually incorrect. This edit, for example, is 100% pure whitewashing. You changed the wording to focus on the minority of claims that were supported by evidence, rather than the majority of claims that were not. Your claim that it "mischaracterized what the study actually said" is a lie. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

"Oz has been supportive of homeopathy"

There's a source listed for this statement. The problem is, there's nothing in that source that actually says "Oz is supportive of homeopathy" or anything like it. The editor who added that is drawing a conclusion that because homeopathic medicine was featured on the show, that Oz supports it. That's original research, plain and simple. Amsgearing (talk) 16:19, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

You did not watch the archived video. Your statement that there is "nothing in that source" that says this is belied by Mehmet Oz saying it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

What archived video, exactly? There's no archived video on that page that I see. Amsgearing (talk) 16:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Here's the link. I'm listening to the video right now. So tell me again what the source says. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Hell, here's a screenshot of the video playing on the page. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Redirected Oz controversies page

Since my Talk post on the redirected page got zero responses, I'm posting here to see if someone will talk to me.

My reasoning for creating a separate entry had to do with avoiding undue weight on the Oz entry specifically, but if consensus dictates that such an entry itself constitutes undue weight, fair enough, I will concede that.

In familiarizing myself with Oz’s controversies, it struck me that a good deal of them involve episodes and subjects covered in his show. But I see that the show redirects to his page. Is there a reason for this? I propose we create a separate entry for the show and include relevant controversies. Those controversies needn’t exist in both places (taking care of the POVFORK issue) and the show entry wouldn’t fall under undueweight. A hat top directing to the show’s controversies (or reception if that’s the preferred header) can be included in Oz’s controversy section. PcPrincipal (talk) 21:36, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

error in article

I don't know the exact facts, but I can tell this is wrong: "Oz was born in 1960 in Cleveland, Ohio, to Suna and Mustafa Öz, who had emigrated from Konya Province, Turkey.[10][11] Mustafa, born in Bozkır, a small town in southern Turkey, earned scholarships that allowed him to emigrate to the United States as a medical resident in 1955." He can't be born after he becomes a medical resident. just pointing out this error.--2604:2D80:8039:8955:44B7:6208:CB46:B002 (talk) 18:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Political views

Why did people remove his political views? Where he said he was a fan of Theodore Roosevelt? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.193.172 (talk) 00:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Voting Domicile

The election laws in Pennsylvania are similar to those everywhere else. Dr. Oz is legally entitled to vote only where his domicile is located: i.e., the place where he returns more often than anywhere else. He can still maintain a secondary residence at his old location in New Jersey if he wishes, but to be a legal Pennsylvania voter he must actually have his primary residence in Pennsylvania, at the address where he is registered to vote. There seems to be more than a little confusion about this issue. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 03:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Reverting recent edit

I just undid Hipal's recent edit from today--I think it unnecessarily undid a lot of good work without an in-depth explanation of what and why content was removed (for example, Oz's employment at Columbia University seems like it should be in the intro, and I'm not sure why that was removed). The content added also included, for example, references to Page Six (which I don't think is a super reliable source) and references to Oz's own show (which appears to be original research).

I'd be curious to hear thoughts from others or from Hipal explaining each objection to removed content and the reasoning behind the additions!

Thanks in advance to everyone who responds! GrammarGuardian2021 (talk) 17:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I quickly scanned the changes and they seemed in good faith and supported by sources. I didn't immediately see a reason to revert the whole thing, but maybe I missed it? I'd probably recommend engaging on the specific edits. Chris vLS (talk) 18:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, GrammarGuardian2021, for starting a discussion here.

per BLP, "The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material. "

No doubt there are changes in there that should be folded in, but there's too much that's problematic given past discussions. I had already asked for help at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Mehmet_Oz. --Hipal (talk) 18:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Hipal, I don't understand why you undid all of my changes in one revert. If you have issues with any particular edits, undo those edits. But it makes no sense to restore content that uses WP:PAGESIX and WP:FORBESCON as sources, that runs afoul of WP:CSECTION, and that says he has promoted pseudoscience using only an unattributed citation to Salon. This is a WP:BLP. You say in your comment above that "The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material." In this case, that is you. You are the person who "restored the material." So please share your evidence. Marquardtika (talk) 18:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but I restored it to the last consensus version. You made changes, they were reverted. GrammarGuardian2021 attempted to restore them.

See the past talk page discussions.

See:

There are also many new articles being published on Oz that we should consider using. --Hipal (talk) 19:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I added two higher-quality, recent references for the use of the specific word "pseudoscience", though the sources for him espousing views not accepted by the scientific community appear numerous. Chris vLS (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Chris vLS, for the claim of pseudoscience, the BLP demands that the source is excellent, and those opinion pieces from the Philly Inquirer and BI do not appear sufficient to me. Without something more substantial, we're supporting a statement of opinion with opinions from the media, which seems incongruous with an encyclopedic approach. Beyond that, the claim of pseudoscience is vague and arguably conflicts with WP:WEASELWORDS

I also do not think two sections ((1) Controversies and (2) Recognition) are justified where one section (Reception) would suffice. Splitting it out like that implicitly seems to discredit him by overemphasizing part of his work where there is disagreement.

The Trump appointment in the intro (and the subsequent part of the sentence that highlights criticism of the appointment) seems WP:UNDUE, since there's only one sentence about it in the body.

His position at Columbia and his devices and patents are relevant to the intro. Deprioritizing legitimate positions and accomplishments while prioritizing negative opinions in the lede is not consistent with the encyclopedic approach to a bio, and I would argue it's WP:UNDUE.

We do probably need something related to his views on COVID and his platform in the lede (currently, there's nothing related to his political views on the entire page even though he's running for office).

I think we need an independent source to justify including the statement regarding his support for homeopathy WP:PRIMARY. Likewise, Washington Examiner is not WP:RS.

I'm also not sure the Men's Health intermittent fasting thing is relevant to the page WP:UNDUE.

In sum, I concur with Marquardtika, and think there were quite a few points that needed discussed here.GrammarGuardian2021 (talk) 21:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I just made a number of edits along these lines. I agree we need to get more info about his COVID stance. He called COVID vaccines a "gift". As a doctor, where does he stand on masks, vaccine mandates, etc.? This content could go under medical career, or under political positions, which I tagged as needing expansion as he's a political candidate now and our article doesn't currently include his political positions. Also, re. pseudoscience, the Philly Inquirer isn't an opinion piece--it's a straight news source from an WP:RS. Business Insider is a meh source IMO, but Philly Inquirer is an excellent source. We should probably elaborate on what the pseudo-scientific claims are about--seems to be weight loss? Marquardtika (talk) 21:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

GrammarGuardian2021, you might want to take a closer look. The Philadelphia Inquirer story is not an opinion piece, its recap is itself well sourced, and is from a top-tier source. Also, the term pseudoscience is the opposite of WP:WEASELWORDS, it is a very strong and specific claim. (Saying Dr. Oz's claims are "sometimes disputed" would be weasel words.) I'm comfortable that there is sufficient support for our usage of it under WP:BLP standards given the news and opinion usage of the term in mainstream WP:RS and relevant other specialty RS (for example, McGill University's Office of Science and Society's [8] blog which files at least a dozen Dr. Oz stories under "Pseudoscience." [9]. Also, it looks like this has been discussed a few times in the past and passed review by pretty careful editors. Chris vLS (talk) 23:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Another source considered generally reliable [10] for just this topic is Science-Based Medicine. They seem very comfortable using pseudoscience with Oz. [11][12] [13]. Or worse ("fraud") [14]. Chris vLS (talk) 00:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Additional topic: Let's be careful with the MitralClip "invention" claims. The current sources include a profile in Parade (not really an acceptable source for that) and the others don't support it. It's odd that Abbott's story of the invention of the MitralClip doesn't mention Oz. [15] And one source argues that Oz's patent was related, but he's not the inventor and he has "exaggerated" his contribution.[16]. As an aside, is there a real source that Oz holds 11 heart patents? Lots of articles repeat it, but this search doesn't look right if that's true: [17]. Chris vLS (talk) 23:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Generally, holding a patent is not noteworthy in itself. If an independent, reliable source discusses why one or more patents are important, then they should be considered for mention. --Hipal (talk) 02:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

MitraClip seems pretty noteworthy to me (as a non-expert). There's a wiki page on it too. As for Google patents, you have to be careful of duplicates, publication of applications that aren't issued patents, foreign applications (that duplicate US ones), and occurrences of divisional applications which manifest from the same application. ScienceFlyer (talk) 05:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

This article isn't about MitraClip. --Hipal (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

It may be a notable part of his medical career, probably is. I just don't want to use the term "inventor/invented" as it doesn't seem supported by independent sources. Also, sources that use "invented" as opposed to "developed" or "popularized" may be somewhat suspect on their fact checking. Chris vLS (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

And you're right ScienceFlyer, looking at that search is fraught. Counting patents is fraught (and OR). I used it to see if it would help me figure out the inventor claim (it didn't). But it also doesn't seem to support 11 (there are 17 and a bunch are not heart related, like his patent for an objective measure of human beauty, no, I'm not making that up), so I just wanted to sound a note of caution. Chris vLS (talk) 19:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Vox said in 2015 that he held 11 patents. They linked here, which as of 2021 lists 13 patents. What we have in the article now "a number of patents" is good enough, I think, although we could say he held 11 patents as of 2015. Marquardtika (talk) 20:44, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah so using that link, he is listed as an inventor on 13 US patents, seven in a family "Method and apparatus for circulatory valve repair", two in a family called "Solution for prolonged organ preservation", and one each for "Methods and systems for improving human health using targeted probiotics", "Epicardial cooled stabilizer for beating heart surgery", "System and method for determining an objective measure of human beauty", "System and method for determining an objective measure of human quality of life". Any that were judged newsworthy and/or commercial successes may be worth mentioning. I'm surprised I couldn't find any articles about the "determining an objective measure of human beauty" patent. ScienceFlyer (talk) 22:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

His own site says "numerous" and I changed the article to "number of". I don't think the number is informative. I stumbled on something that indicates it might be off by a couple. If it were important, we could dig in further. But fortunately, I really think it is really unimportant. Chris vLS (talk) 01:13, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Military service in infobox

In general, the infobox should focus in notability. His military service isn't remotely linked to his notability. If there's some general consensus for listing military service of politicians [18], please identify an RfC or similar discussion. --Hipal (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

[1] ttp://blog.doctoroz.com/dr-oz-blog/introducing-my-new-magazine

[2] Physicians urge Columbia to drop its “unacceptable” affiliation with pseudoscience promoter Dr. Oz

[3] Senators to Dr. Oz: Stop Promising Weight-Loss Miracles

[4] Half of Dr. Oz’s medical advice is baseless or wrong, study says

[5] Reporting on quacks and pseudoscience: the problem for journalists

[6] Physicians urge Columbia to drop its “unacceptable” affiliation with pseudoscience promoter Dr. Oz

[7] Senators to Dr. Oz: Stop Promising Weight-Loss Miracles

[8] Half of Dr. Oz’s medical advice is baseless or wrong, study says

[9] Reporting on quacks and pseudoscience: the problem for journalists

[10] Physicians urge Columbia to drop its “unacceptable” affiliation with pseudoscience promoter Dr. Oz

[11] Senators to Dr. Oz: Stop Promising Weight-Loss Miracles

[12] Half of Dr. Oz’s medical advice is baseless or wrong, study says

[13] Reporting on quacks and pseudoscience: the problem for journalists

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]