Talk:Mehmet Oz

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 2 as Talk:Mehmet Oz/Archive 1 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

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". [1] [2] --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 [3] 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.

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)

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.

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.

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)

Questions

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.

List of questions

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)