Talk:Controversies related to Mehmet Oz

Creation

I carried the initial controversies over from Oz's entry, will be expanding with other controversies. Feel free to add to the list! PcPrincipal (talk) 15:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

In order to avoid POVFORK and BLP problems, please first make a case for this being a separate article. --Ronz (talk) 02:18, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Ronz, my thinking was that Oz seems to have an abundance of controversies. Similar to say the Criticism of Facebook page, wherein Facebook's controversies are listed in a separate place, and Facebook's page features a broader, somewhat paraphrased version of their controversies. Looking into Oz, it seemed to me his entry could be a candidate for that sort of thing. I'll look into POVFORK and BLP, but can you provide any more specific issues with the page that would need to be addressed? Why have it totally redirected? There was new information I was adding. PcPrincipal (talk) 16:45, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I was contacted on my Talk page, and am replying here for centralized discussion. The problem with "Criticism of ..." articles is that by their very title and structure, they largely focus only on criticism, which easily lends itself to cherry-picking negative coverage while ignoring or minimizing positive coverage, which can snowball into coat rack articles or attack articles. Criticism of Facebook has plenty of its own problems, but when we are making articles directly regarding living people, the threshold for article quality and tone becomes ever higher. An article could conceivably be created Praise of Mehmet Oz, which would similarly be a largely one-sided article. Similarly, every politician ever has been the subject of criticism as well as praise, yet these are discussed with due weight in neutrally titled sections or spin-off articles like Presidency of Bill Clinton rather than Criticism of Bill Clinton. Per NPOV policy (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. Wikipedia:Criticism is an insightful essay, covering how to responsibly cover criticism. Other policies and guidelines include Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. If there is enough relevant, non-sensationalist coverage that must be covered that can't realistically be summarized in Mehmet Oz with concise writing and good editorial discretion (most Wikipedians have no concept of conciseness or writing with an eye to long-term significance but rather scour every news article for tid-bits, with the misguided view that an encyclopedia must cover everything published ever), a more neutrally structured spin-off article might be titled something like Medical claims of Mehmet Oz. Note: I am not advocating the creation of such a spin-off, but such a title would set the tone for more balanced coverage and structure. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Agree, and BLP requires that all content policies be followed strictly.

Criticism of Facebook is a poor article, not something that demonstrates how to create a proper BLP article. --Ronz (talk) 20:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the indepth answer, Animalparty. As I previously stated on the Oz Talk page but will elaborate here, 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) 15:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)