Talk:The Dr. Oz Show (version 2)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Dr. Oz Show (version 2) redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This page is not a forum for general discussion about The Dr. Oz Show (version 2). Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this redirect. You may wish to ask factual questions about The Dr. Oz Show (version 2) at the Reference desk.

Television Low‑importance

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles

Low

This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

More information:
/
	A response section needs to be added to this article, or the current one needs to be expanded. This section should be well cited using neutral and reliable sources that discuss the reaction of both critics and the viewing audience to the show. Additionally, document any impact the show has had on society, and merchandise that may have resulted from the show, such as toys, games, etc.
	A plot summary needs to be added to this television show article, or the current one needs to be expanded.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this redirect.

Description of show?[edit]

Someone needs to provide a description of exactly what a typical format of the show is. Does he do interviews? Give medical advice? General health advice? Answer viewer/audience questions? Read Shakespeare? One could guess from the name of the show that's it has something to do with medicine. --Cab88 (talk) 17:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Dr. Oz"[edit]

BMJ article[edit]

With recent edits occurring on this source [1], probably best to make sure we're on the same page with addressing content. First, the overall conclusion was that the shows generally aren't reliable, so we want to make sure we're taking that tone throughout. If scientific research, we say that something is not supported by the research if it is either directly contradicted or there isn't evidence to support it yet. The authors in the study make that distinction for transparency as to how the data looked, but the take home message is assessing literature is simply was is and isn't supported. The combination of these two things is why I've stuck with describing things as not supported by rather than listing out each piece of the results. Hopefully that clears things up.

Also, when we get to the level of reviews for sources, we don't need to say study in X year from Y journal. Normally that is reserved for more questionable sources such as primary studies that make it into articles here. Review articles don't need that treatment, and we tend to use them in Wikipedia's voice instead. Happy to discuss on anything. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Oz Fires Back (New NEWS today, for future editing)[edit]

Headline-1: NEWS/ Dr. Oz Under Fire: Doctors Want Columbia University to Remove Him From Faculty, Cite "Quack Treatments"

http://www.eonline.com/news/647470/dr-oz-under-fire-doctors-want-columbia-university-to-remove-him-from-faculty-cite-quack-treatments

QUOTE: "Dr. Mehmet Oz has responded to the letter, saying in a statement to E! News: "I bring the public information that will help them on their path to be their best selves. We provide multiple points of view, including mine which is offered without conflict of interest. That doesn't sit well with certain agendas which distort the facts. "For example, I do not claim that GMO foods are dangerous, but believe that they should be labeled like they are in most countries around the world," he added. "I will address this on the show next week." Dr. Mehmet Oz has come under fire again over his on-air medical advice and this time, his latest critics appear to be looking to have him fired from his day job." -- AstroU (talk) 23:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.[reply]

Headline-2: Dr. Oz fires back against critics calling for his exit from Columbia University, promising to address concerns on his show

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/dr-oz-fires-back-critics-calling-columbia-u-exit-article-1.2189727

QUOTE: "Dr. Oz isn’t going anywhere — except back on the air to defend himself. The embattled celebrity physician fired back Friday at critics calling for his ouster from Columbia University, promising to address their concerns on his syndicated show next week. “I bring the public information that will help them on their path to be their best selves,” Dr. Mehmet Oz posted on his show’s Facebook page. “We provide multiple points of view, including mine, which is offered without conflict of interest. That doesn’t sit well with certain agendas which distort the facts.”" -- AstroU (talk) 23:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for additional future editing.[reply]