Talk:Travis Stork

COI

Obviously PR agency account is working on this article. Tagging til they stand down. Jytdog (talk) 03:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

divorce

I changed the box on the right to also mention the divorce after reading something about this quickly on the help desk page, and it looks like it was already changed in the rest of the article so making the box on the right consistent. -KaJunl (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, if it's decided that the source isn't reliable, maybe anything about his marriage can just be deleted. Is it really so notable that it needs to be in this article to begin with? -KaJunl (talk) 19:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Discuss contents and sources

Hello Jytdog!, you undid my recent edits to the article with an edit summary "you actually added a bunch of unsourced content. Not OK". Can you please explain a bit because in my opinion you actually did by reverting my edit, like, he has a major in "anthropology"? If I do not receive a reply within a reasonable period of time, I'll restore it back to mine last edit (provided that no one else edits the article in the meanwhile). Thank you! Anupmehra -Let's talk! 01:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I see you are making changes to the article but not replying to my message (another ping in case you missed first one, Jytdog). You keep removing sourced contents, if you could just talk I can help you answering whatever queries you may have about sources. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 02:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, your edit did address some of the problems, but added a bunch of new problems, and uses sources from his network, which are not independent and which should be avoided. I thought it would be quick to just improve the sourcing but it is hard to find serious reporting on this guy. I can't figure out if he still practices medicine, and if so, where, so I just wrote open ended content that works either way. Jytdog (talk) 02:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Thank you for your reply. Here we go. I agree that it is hard to find sources on this particular subject. First three sources are dead link and I've had marked them so and believe they remain so as long as we do not find it working or any replaceable links.

Coming to contents, details about educational background, in my opinion falls under basic biographical details for which we can make use of these two sources, 1, 2.

Next bibliographical details, you've edited-out one entry "The Lean Belly Prescription" ([1]). It should be there with other two. Please reinstate.

Next, he was nominated for Emmy award for two consecutive years and his show "The Doctors" won 2010 Emmy award, are notable events and imo must be included, if sourced. Source is here. I do not really see any extraordinary claims that requires extraordinary sources. (It will help if you choose to reply point by point). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 03:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

One more source for graduation from Duke University. (Scraping web for more sources, also just requested HighBeam access). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 03:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

For his show The Doctors winning Emmy award -1, 2, 3. These are not the *best* sources, but should suffice to validate the claim. We must remember that we are not establishing "notability" nor these are exceptional claims that we need multiple independent rs. However none of above sources are *self-published* by subject, although WP:ABOUTSELF may help a bit that about claims regarding his educational background. These three changes that I added, and you undid, I request you to reinstate. You may otherwise reply your objections. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 04:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I found a fine source for the Emmy win, from our article on the Emmy win. It is not clear what further content you want about his education that is not just promotional. He's got an MD and did his residency; i added Duke. I added the lean belly book, and the Emmy win for the show. Added some other sourced content too. Jytdog (talk) 05:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm entirely unsure if sourced basic biographical details should be perceived as "promotional" (for example, "magna cum laude" being a member of "Phi Beta Kappa Society", MD honors as a member of "Alpha Omega Alpha". These are notable societies, subject was a member of and this is why should be included. And, MD is an ambiguous term to refer a qualification, it should be "MD honors" in present case.) We allow these basic details even being cross-referenced to subject's official website per ABOUTSELF. The available sources are way better than that.
What actually sounds promotional to me is, book details that you added, and read as, "Dr. Travis Stork's STAT Program to Help You Lose Weight, Restore Optimal Health, Prevent Disease, and Add Years to Your Life., Tasty Meals for a Lifetime of Vibrant Health and Weight Loss Maintenance, The Fast and Foolproof Diet and Weight-loss Plan from America's Top Urgent-care Doctor". These are unwarranted details for non-notable books and could be rope into one single sentence, that subject authored three books, 1, 2, and 3. Or just remove these promo wordings. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 05:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Just made some changes. Are the only things we are disagreeing about now his educational honors? Jytdog (talk) 07:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, I really want to thank for your outstanding work on this article. Education details are not only thing, anyway I would like to discuss it first. Precisely, I want "magna cum laude", "MD with honors" (ref) and his being member to two notable societies (ref2) added to existing details. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 14:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Just expanded the article a bit and added kind of sources you probably like to see. Discuss, if you differ, here. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 16:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Your changes violate NPOV. I will not contest the promotional honors stuff, but I have restored the criticism you removed. Please see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 19:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog Seriously? You disappointed me. I thought you being an experienced and senior editor. I initially left it you to make edits and I wrote only here on talk page what I felt needs to be corrected in the article. Discussion is in its premature stage and you've started freaking out. I'm open to answer each edit I make to this (or any) article.

Coming back to topic, Can you please elaborate a bit why do you think, "honors" is unecyclopedic and a weasel word? We are writing a biography here and it is a basic biographical detail and attributed to reputed sources. Also let me please know what else do you think, is "promotional" that I added to this article? Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Opening a discussion with another editor on their talk page, is not "freaking out", it is the appropriate first step in resolving behavioral issues per WP:DR. About the honors content, Stork's PR people and his show and network and publisher constantly emphasize the honors to show how smart he is which of course helps sell the show and his books etc. I didn't add that content, because we are not here to sell anything and I don't think anybody gives a hoot what honor societies he was in nor how he did in school when he was 18-22 years old. I didn't use the word 'weasel' and you should not ever put words in other people's mouths on Talk pages. I find it distasteful that the content about the honors is in the article, as it makes WP part of his promo machine, but as I said, I won't delete it and I will add that you did find a good enough independent source for it. If you are not contesting the well-sourced critical information any longer, I think we are done here. Jytdog (talk) 20:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

You just gave me a good laugh, thank you. I'm not sure if it is an attempt to divert discussion. I can ask your help later to fix my behavioral problems. For now, I would like to stick to discuss what this thread is made for.

Firstly, "honors" is a term that denotes type of educational qualification. There are Bachelor degrees and Bachelor degree with honors, Master Degree and Master degree with honors. So by adding "honors" here, I'm only being more factual and accurate (as I previously said, MD is an ambiguous term, it actually represents three type of qualification; "honors" being one of them). We have source that make distinction, and helps to add accurate information. That's why I did add that.
And two societies that subject was a member of, are notable societies and is a rare achievement and well sourced and because we are an encyclopedia, we must also add that information. I hope it answers you concerns, for more details you may visit respective wiki articles (Phi Beta Kappa Society, Alpha Omega Alpha).

Next, I feel that details about "The Doctors" unrelated to Dr. Stork, should be moved to "The Doctors" article. We should only add here what is relevant to Dr. Stork. I hope you can answer, why these contents should stay in this article? Anupmehra -Let's talk! 21:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Stork is the lead doctor on the Doctors. You added content about how smart he is, medically. The critical content is about the advice that he and his co-hosts give and is more relevant than the honors content, since it is about what he is actually doing now, and it is better sourced, because it comes from his peers in the medical profession and not an entertainment industry magazine. Jytdog (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be offended by his qualification and I can't help myself with that. It is what he did, it is a factual information. "MD honors" is a degree name that he qualified, not something given by me.

About critical contents:

(1) The source says, "..evidence supported 63%, contradicted 14%, and was not found for 24%", and that makes it 101%!

(2) You choose to write about 38% negativity and leave out 64 percent positive, I wonder why (balance it?).

(3) Source is all about "The Doctors (talk show)", and Medical advice on TV in general -unrelated to Stork, it doesn't even mentions once Dr. Stork. It is why, I'm arguing that our article on The Doctors is more appropriate place to add these contents. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 22:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I am not offended by his qualifications - please stop personalizing this. What I said was that people who promote him constantly feature those things from his past to market him, and I have already said that I am not contesting that being in the article, so your bringing that up, has nothing to do with improving the article, but rather just arguing with me, which is not what we are about here. We are done here, as you are making this about me and are not discussing content anymore. I will bring this to a notice board and will notify you. Jytdog (talk) 22:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

You are free to do it. It is totally optional, but can you help me understand what should I make out of it, as you repeatedly accused me here and on my talk page of adding promo stuffs (i.e. "honors") and when I answer your concern, it is now I, who is personalising this? I'm also wondering you have answers for my questions regarding critical contents. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 22:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

There are two discussions here. One is about content. For (the I think it is the fourth time now) I am not objecting to the content about honors and there is no point bringing that up here. Another is about your behavior, which I started on your Talk page and have now moved to COIN. The discussion about content is stuck. Jytdog (talk) 23:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the statement about the medical accuracy on the show as I could find nothing in the source that stated that the individuals advice was invalid. If someone presents evidence a system is corrupt we cant make unsubstantiated claims about an individual in that organisation being corrupt without suitable evidence. I'd suggest taking this issue to the BLP noticeboard. Amortias (T)(C) 23:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

He is one of the three doctors who give advice on the show - indeed the lead doctor. And the actual content in the article based on this source, doesn't say that he in particular is the one giving the often-poor advice, either. This argument makes no sense. Jytdog (talk) 00:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Brought to BLPN here Jytdog (talk) 00:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

DOB

The article is kinda sparse. I'm not sure how reliable this source is, but at least it lists his specific date of birth (March 9, 1972), along with a few miscellaneous personal details.

What Happened to Travis Stork - News & Updates

63.92.241.249 (talk) 04:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC) Darwin

Unrelated fact should be removed.

This: "2014 study in the British Medical Journal determined" -- It is inappropriate to include that detail in his biographical entry here. However accurate or inaccurate it may be, this isn't about him. It's a broad statement that does not apply to him specifically. If someone can find a detail about this that applies directly to him, then that's appropriate. It looks like a sloppy attempt to balance whatever controversy might be perceived in him. But it's so broad that it applies to many more people than him, and as such it really belongs in a separate article on TV doctors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.228.126 (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 14 April 2024

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 23:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

---

Travis Lane Stork → Travis Stork – WP:COMMONNAME, sources almost universally refer to the subject as Travis Stork, not by his full name. I'm honestly surprised that it wasn't under the common name prior, given its conciseness. JeffSpaceman (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:39, 16 April 2024 (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.