Jump to content

Talk:The Incredible Dr. Pol

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 47.4.251.108 (talk) at 23:51, 23 July 2023 (→Kidney issues: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

No — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.41.90 (talk) 16:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Jan Pol (veterinarian) into The Incredible Dr. Pol

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To not merge on the grounds of Jan Pol\s notability independent of The Incredible Dr. Pol. Klbrain (talk) 21:05, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Incredible Dr. Pol has a little chapter on this person and that is probably enough. No added value here other than the controversy. Even that can be mentioned in a phrase at the program entry. For the most part, Jan Pol (veterinarian) rehashes the same information. gidonb (talk) 15:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi my friend! Perhaps not clear from my entry but when rehashing the same information and only adding a controversion, I'm concerned that the article is a hit job (i.e. BLP concern). My claim is one of information organization. I do not say that Jan Pol is not encyclopedic, just that there is no added value to the current article and that, with the info that we have, a paragraph (possibly with a bit longer or even with a second paragraph) in the article should suffice. Please remember that his entire family is also in our entry of the The Incredible Dr. Pol. WP:Not paper is of little relevance. It is not an excuse for rehashing the same information time and again. gidonb (talk) 15:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your position. I stand by mine. The readers have spoken. I've reevaluated my stance. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That there was a claim and it has been heard and decided is a fact. Not a "hit job."
In any event, Dr. Pol's practice is (in part because of the show) notable. He and it are separate and apart from the show. Cheers and happy new year. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The man by himself is just not notable; any notability he has is related to the show. All the factoids in the article are more or less trivial (he's colorblind?), and the sourcing is really sub-par: the current version has a tweet, a blurb on the network website, some school website, a celebrity website, a review in a vet journal (but of the show!), a dead link to a personal website (?), and then two thingies about the lawsuit--one on some website, and one a primary source (the court documents). This will never stand up at AfD, and a redirect to the show might stave that off--it is likely that the show will have generated some real coverage, though in its current condition it's not much better (and I'm about to start cutting some trivia). Merge it. Drmies (talk) 16:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge We'd have a clearer article that way, also the individual article is very tenuous for notability otherwise (it's not overwhelming, even as it is). Andy Dingley (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge This seems rather WP:ONEEVENTy to me. Also, both articles are on the short side, and are somewhat WP:REDUNDANT to each other. Better summarize all available information in one place and and have a much stronger article. – sgeureka t•c 18:09, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - The individual is notable only for the show, and the two are so interlinked that there is almost no opportunity for verifiable, notable information on one that does not also appear on the other, so a merge seems like the obvious solution. Hugsyrup 18:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lest anyone be misled, Drmies gutted this article here I am not personally going to argue about those edits (this isn't my work or an article I am invested in; and I concede it probably needed citations); but I am pointing this out because this is another example of rigging the system. Gut the article; then propose to delete or merge. Poisoning the well and Self fulfilling prophecy seems to be the preferred approach. Those who are weighing in should review the article's edit history, FWIW. And make a fully informed decision. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:03, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies making changes to the target of a proposed merge is almost entirely irrelevant, since what I and all other commenters above are interested in is whether the Jan Pol (veterinarian) article could achieve standalone notability, and Drmies has not touched that. So, I don’t see how this is ‘another example of rigging the system’ but I do see how this is another example of mud-slinging and attacking the motives and behaviour of individual editors rather than commenting on the substance of the matter at hand. Hugsyrup 19:13, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did not question Drmies good faith. User:Hugsyrupl you ought not to question mine.
Meanwhile, I note that nobody actually views Dr. Pol's article. View statistics, so merging it may not be a great loss. In fact, the readers viewed The Incredible Dr. Pol thousands of times, while Dr. Pol is in single digits. The readers have spoken. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that all the content will be MERGED, too. I note that the original proponent of this merger seemed to want an expurgated Reader's Digest version. I don't think it's Wikipedia's function to bury or white wash the facts. For example, the legal proceedings are a fact. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:12, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:7&6=thirteen, the legal proceedings aren't even reported on in reliable secondary sources. If those aren't produced, I have a mind of deleting them as well. But either way, how you jump to "whitewashing" (I think you should link to Whitewashing (censorship), not to a dab page, if you feel the need to link) is a mystery to me. Drmies (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there are both secondary sources (articles) and primary sources (legal opinions) about legal proceedings. Deleting them will not serve the readers well. It conveys a false impression by omission. Indeed, the whole problem is exacerbated by the Michigan Court of Appeals misuse of "per curiam unpublished case designations. While they claim that the law is so well settled that it isn't worth making into a precedent (I defy anyone to read Pol II to come to that conclusion), these cases represent a careful cover up of both the judicial process and its results. Why or how that happened I don't know, but I know both the applicable law and the fact of those opinions. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:45, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I copied the relevant material to the receiving article. So there will be no issue. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge But change article name. I favor a merge here simply because it is confusing, especially because of the ambiguous first name "Jan". I favor a merge with an article name that carries both names Something like Jan Pol (Incredible Dr. pol) Lightburst (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Lightburst A simple redirect would take care of that perceived issue. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep separate. First, I suspect that these articles looked different before, because right now they have very little in common. Jan Pol (veterinarian) does not even mention the series (surprisingly enough), while The Incredible Dr. Pol does not discuss Jan Pol's life or family, which seem quite notable. Second, Jan Pol is the author/subject of a New York Times bestselling memoir, https://www.amazon.com/Never-Turn-Your-Back-Angus/dp/1592409121, which is not focused on the show. That would be sufficient for a separate article if the show did not exist; therefore it should be enough for a separate article now. (Strangely enough the book isn't mentioned in either article either. I suspect either huge swathes have been deleted from one or both articles, or there is much more to add to both articles.) --GRuban (talk) 18:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a question of the book's notability and wouldn't WP:INHERIT to a BLP automatically. Generally, people like these examples just get brief mention at their product article(s). Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:28, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GRuban makes some good points as to why they should be kept separate.
I only deferred based on the relative number of page views, which overwhelmingly favored the series (18K) vs. Dr. Pol (3). Although Dr. Pol's page was not (until a couple of days ago) even mentioned in the series page. Page views went through a big peak around New Year's Day, as there was a marathon of The Incredible Dr. Pol episodes on the National Geographic channel. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One article is his about his current vehicle, the other is about him. The fact that one is more popular than the other doesn't mean we should only have one, each has earned its own notability. --GRuban (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed that this article should be kept separate and should not be merged. The Article can always be expanded and issues can be addressed. Also to say that his notability goes only as far as the show is a understatement. BigRed606 (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Attribution

Text and references copied from Jan Pol (Veterinarian) to The Incredible Dr. Pol, See former article's history for a list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is an entry about the television show The Incredible Dr.Pol The contents of this section have certainly never appeared on the tv show. Why is this here? What information does it convey about the television show ?

WP:VET

This is one of the most popular pages in Wikipedia:WikiProject Veterinary medicine's scope. Very few editors watch WT:VET's pages, which means that questions may not be answered in a timely manner. If you are an active editor and interested in animals or veterinary medicine, please put WT:VET on your watchlist. Thank you, WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great Danes

Hi Dr Pol. My local humane society has 132 great Danes any ideas of a permanent rescue for them 2600:8804:8885:8900:D084:A971:5BF6:6938 (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Itchy dogs

My mom has a shitzu who is tachycardia, itchy. What to do? 2600:1702:3590:9380:DD1C:F2FF:4CDD:5EAC (talk) 15:42, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kidney issues

Dr. Pol, My Oersian cat started to go blind in 2021. He was diagnosed w/high BP, which caused his retna's to detach causing 80% blindness. He has heart murmer, & fluid on heart. But. Iwanted to share w/you what's called: Astro's Oil. An MD created it for his faV cat w/kidney failure. ASTRO lived another 10 yrs. Its 3 products now: Super omega oil, a creatine scrub powder, & a protien powder. My cat is on high BP meds, & Astro's Oil. He's still here 2 yrs later!! Eating and drinking. My Persians are very spoiled 

Their canned food is blended w/probiotics, lysine. & Cosiquin. They get kibble, too.

Just wanted you & your staff, or anyone else dealing w/Kidney failure. Dory 47.4.251.108 (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Incredible_Dr._Pol&oldid=1166822031"