Talk:Drew Pinsky

Criticism of Dr. Drew

Dr. Drew advises teens to "stay on meds" or "go to psychiatrist and get on meds." He doesn't criticize dangerous drugs like Ritalin, Prozac, Paxil. He concludes, "all literature I've read say these drugs work great and have no downside."... Dr. Drew has unique position of reaching millions of teenagers and should explain contraindications of psychotropic drugs. 71.37.37.130 16:01, November 25, 2005‎

Dr. Drew is a doctor, he went to medical school. Personal opinions/experiences should not be included in wikipedia as they cannot be verified. Don't take your anger for doctors out on Dr. Drew, as wikipedia is not a blog board.--Gephart 22:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it should be added here that Dr. Drew does not "push drugs" on ANYONE. He recommends things, but he always recommends for someone to SEE THEIR DOCTOR. He cannot understand every detail of a situation through speaking with someone on the radio, but he can give advice as to how someone can take action for themselves. He doesn't even tell people what to do; he tells people to make their own decision.

Drew does push psychotropic drugs, like most psychiatrists today. I listened to Loveline weekly for past five years. He does advise SEE YOUR DOCTOR, but outcome in seeing your doctor is to be evaluated for drug prescription.

what is the alternative to "seeing your doctor"? Obrez 17:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

He said that Effexor can cause terrible withdrawal symptoms which is more than many doctors, who deny any such symptoms even when their patients report having them. He actually goes by what he's observed in clinical practice unlike doctors that depend on pharmaceutical reps and brochures as their only source of information about medications.

He encourages psychotherapy and AA I've never once heard him "push" any named product but Trojan condoms and birth control/plan-B. There are many things that can result from seeing your doctor, not just prescriptions.Cronholm144 08:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Should there be something about criticism that he has recieved from the gay community? I know that it was a common practice for him to ask teens who had identified themselves as gay if they were sexually molested as children. I remember the lead singer from Erasure having a problem with this, and I imagine many other gay activists would as well.

He asks teens who are calling Loveline because they have serious problems with relationships whether they were molested as children. 95% of the callers to the show are straight and he asks the exact same questions. It's very hard to construe that as anti-gay unless you are intentionally misinterpreting it, and I haven't seen any real-world group raise the point.DarthSquidward 19:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a unfortunate misinterpretation of Dr. Drew's words. Drew's even explained on air to a gay caller that he is not implying anything when he asks these questions, it's just routine for callers with certain types of relationship problems (for which orientation has nothing to do with). Further evidence can be seen is his empirical favor of gay adoption: [1]

Dr. Drew links almost every problem someone has (especially women) to something that happened in their past (especially by their fathers). Now, I don't know what the consensus is currently in the scientific/psychiatric community, but I have heard that this is not always the case, and is out-dated. Can anyone confirm/deny this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuppington (talk • contribs) 18:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Out-dated or not, he’s still right when he points it out.

This is a Freudian/Psychoanalytic approach, that which you describe, which is still a valid psychiatric method. Now, Freud had some pretty out-there ideas, and for a period of time during psychology’s development some of his material was discredited. However, recent research has started to unearth that he was right about a lot of things, particularly in regards to events in childhood relating to behavior in adulthood. Why women seem more affected, that I don't know, and there is debate about that (some say our culture encourages it, others say it's physical). Here is some recent medical research supporting this: [2] [3] [4] [5]

Now, your point about it not always being the case is well taken, but realize that callers represent a poor sample of the population. They both:

1. Have some kind of relationship/sexual problem that distresses them.

2. Are trying to call a nationally broadcast radio show to try and resolve a deep personal problem in 3 minutes.

A person who was abandoned/abused but turned out OK won’t call the show. Legitimus 19:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

As Drew often points out on the show...."you say the fact that you were abused has nothing to do with your problem, yet somehow I was able to figure out that you were abused after talking to you for 10 seconds." It's not magic, it's playing the percentages based on a good knowledge of medical research and personal experience treating people. Randy Blackamoor 19:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not just playing the percentages. I know observable facts constitute "original research" but it's in large part the little girl voice ("I want to ride the pony, daddy!"). Even a listener can learn to spot this significant datum, and Dr. Drew is frequently right when he speculates about the age at which abuse takes place. Significantly more than chance? I am right significantly more than chance, based on listening to and emulating his analysis, so I would say he is, but that's personal opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.65.123 (talk) 03:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

External Links

DrDrew.com reverts back to Dr Drew in August 2008 per his management office. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.56.202.38 (talk) 09:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Drew doesn't have control over DrDrew.com and I updated the page to reflect this 68.169.35.43 12:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Where is the source on this information? I am going to revert unless you have a source! Thanks --Gephart 05:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

DrDrew.com was supposed to be a big dotcom but it blew up before IPO. Details would probably be interesting on this page. Uucp 17:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I think link should be removed. Dr. Drew mentioned that he has no control of the website many times on the radio. it's owned by Choice Media. and doesn't look like the content was updated since 2001. Obrez 17:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE - AS OF TODAY HE OWNSTHE WEBSITE AGAIN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.56.194.46 (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Pro-life/Pro-choice

That was an interesting little edit war. Has Dr. Drew ever stated his position on this issue unequivocally? He frequently advises women to take RU-486, the "morning after" pill, a drug that is opposed by a lot of people who oppose abortion. On the other hand, I've never heard him advise a woman to abort, and when he talks about RU-486, he is always careful to specify that it prevents an egg from implanting, which he may view as creating some technical distinction from aborting a fetus that is already developing.

Has anybody heard him state his position on abortion? Uucp 20:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

RU-486 is not the morning after pill. --Liface 21:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair point. He frequently encourages women to take the morning after pill. Has he ever commented on abortion, per se? Uucp 21:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I remember him saying before that the ramifications of abortion (cost, great emotional effect on the mother) are often overlooked by people who are pro-choice, but there is no doubt in my mind, as a 7 year Loveline listener, that he is pro-choice. --Liface 22:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure? I swear I remember him saying at one point he was pro-life and would never recomend an abortion unless the life or health of the mother was in danger, or something like that.

http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Hills/7133/pill.html

He is definately pro-life, but very strongly supportive of the morning-after pill. 65.27.162.118 22:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

We have an answer -- on the Loveline program of April 25, 2006, Steve-O Glover asked the following question:

"Dr. Drew, are you against abortion?" and Dr. Drew answered

"Yeah, I pretty much am."

I would not like to see the "pro-life" tag added to this article, as "pro-life" is used as a codeword for "wants to ban abortion," which would not in this case be accurate. However, from the discussion on the April 25 show, Drew clearly favors adoption over abortion. Uucp 03:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't everyone? I'm sure a very small minority of people are actually for the killing of babies. --Liface 04:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Adam Carolla, for one, often suggested that callers have abortions. So, no, not everyone. Uucp 11:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense, on the 2001-4-8 (the infamous Morning After pill episode) he clearly says that he pushes adoption rather than abortion. He only advocates abortion for junior college students 202.78.240.7 (talk) 03:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Drew, wisely in my opinion, rarely ever brings up the subject of abortion unless a caller broaches the subject first. In those cases, he rarely makes any effort to encourage or discourage a caller from the decision, except I recall him once warning that women who get abortions sometimes experience significant guilt for years afterwards, and so he recommends for the wellbeing of the caller to consider adoption instead. Ultimately it's down to choice, which would qualify Drew as pro-choice right?

At any rate, he once said on another occasion that an ideal world wouldn't have unwanted pregnancies (duh) and that easily obtained contraceptives combined with a comprehensive effective adoption system that is embraced by everyone is the best way to reduce the number of abortions. Aaronomus (talk) 01:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember the Aceman often suggesting callers have abortions, he usually went with Drew in either outright adoption, or suggesting his own method of building a catapult and launching the baby into the "good part of town", ie, someplace where a couple/person with a better situation than the caller could give the kid a good chance to grow up in a healthy, nurturing environment. --Lovelinelistener 23:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

For the record, his support is for Plan B (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levonorgestrel), not RU-486 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RU-486), the latter having abortifacient properties the former does not posess.

Right!... Above posters must have missed Drew's frequent Loveline rants advocating Plan B Morning After pill: To quote Drew directly: "I cannot believe anyone could be against it! Plan B is NOT an abortion pill. It PREVENTS fertilization. IT DOES NOT ABORT ANYTHING. Plan B works like a strong dose of birth control pills." Drew rarely mentions RU486 which does abort a ZYGOTE--NOT A PERSON.... When Plan B was under attack by rightwing extremists, Drew asked Adam, "How could they possibly be against Plan B?" and Adam revealed the truth: "Rightwing nutjobs just like to whine about stuff, they don't care about abortion, they just don't want anyone to ever have any sex."

Jewish American Writer tag

I've never heard Pinsky mention much about his religion, does anyone have a source on this? If not, we may want to remove the tag. Pumpkin Pi 18:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I remember sometimes Adam would kid Drew about being a half-Jew. Also I remember Drew mentioned once on the show that his heritage is part Russian Jewish on his father's side. --Lovelinelistener 23:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

That is true, but is that just Adam joking around with his "Asian or Jew" jokes? Also, in Cracked : Putting Broken Lives Together Again when Drew describes his parents, he makes no mention of religion. It seems to me that during discussions of relgion that were slightly more serious, Drew claimed to be an atheist or at least agnostic. Long story short, regardless of his family's religious persuasions, I don't believe that one can consider Drew Jewish, and therefore the tag should be removed.

What say you? Pumpkin Pi 22:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If Drew never explicitly lays claim to being Jewish, himself, then it should be removed. In this transcribed Loveline exchange, Drew appears to agree with Adam that "this religion stuff is just mental illness" but it's ambiguous, he might have been humoring Adam (it wouldn't be the first time) [6]. On the other hand, for a speaking fee between $10,001 and $20,000, Drew can be booked as a "Jewish speaker", but will "not necessarily discuss Jewish issues" [7]. — Coelacan | talk 06:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Pinsky is a Jewish name, as Drew says his dad is Russian Jew. Drew had a barmitzvah and related to Adam about reading the Talmud. On Loveline Drew and Adam sang the Jewish "Dradel Song" because both knew it from childhood.... As Loveline policy Drew refuses to discuss religion. No one knows from Loveline whether Drew is a practicing Jew or Atheist. Adam Carolla is Atheist, shouting that religion is for retards. Adam would hijack Loveline and bully Drew. Drew never agreed, sipping coffee in silent frustration as Adam ranted. Drew seems happy Adam is no longer around to hijack Loveline. Stryker is more polite.... Drew says he accepts any religion if it helps addicts in recovery and he accepts faith in higher power as step in AA 12-step program.

"Pinsky is a Jewish name"? So my gardner Jesus is Jewish? Abraham Lincoln too? It seems more likely that it just means "from Pinsk" Pinsk being in Belarus. And one thing that definitely does not ipso facto make one Jewish is having a Jewish father. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.65.123 (talk) 04:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Adam would typically qualify his statements on religion by saying that it's fine for drug addicts, or paedophiles, or people in prison, or really dumb people, but the other people don't need it. Here's a reference. (my capcha for editing this page was "askedradio") 202.78.240.7 (talk) 06:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought we put the Jewish tag based on ethnicity, not religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.132.6.145 (talk) 21:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Dr Drew seems to agree with a non-interventionalist god in Loveline show 2005-1-30 about 57 minutes in. 202.78.240.7 23:41, June 26, 2008 (UTC)

i think pinsky is a jewish last name —Preceding unsigned comment added by Call me EL TEO (talk • contribs) 20:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I've heard he's "half jew", but haven't found a reliable source for this. Basing it on someone's name is hardly enough to meet WP:BLP. tedder (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I know his family pretty well. He is married to my sister. Drew self-identifies as a jew. His kids self-identify as jews. Drew's father self-identifed as a jew. Drew's wife converted to judaism when they married. On the other hand, they are not at all observant. Likewise, my sister would probably have self-identified as a christian before she converted, but she and I were raised in a very non-observant home. Lee.Sailer (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

New messages got at the bottom of the thread, not the top.

As for his religion, all material added to articles needs to be supported by verifiable, reliable sources that are explicitly cited in the text. Material based on personal knowledge is original research, which is not permitted. The one mention in the article of Pinsky's Judaism is so sourced, and reflects the way that material is presented in that source. Nightscream (talk) 19:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Cracked

Should it be refrenced in this article? Pumpkin Pi 22:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say it is more than important enough. --Liface 23:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

My bad, its already here, just with no link. edit: added Pumpkin Pi 23:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Drew's Medical Specialties

It would be nice to know what kind of doctor he is; Is he even trained in psychiatry beyond the minimum in med school? He gives a lot of advice about a lot of things to not have his specialty mentioned...I guess I'll get on that.

What kind of doctor he is? Of course we all know he's a PASSIONATE, PASSIONATE doctor, but he's also a board certified internist, and addiction medicine specialist (addictionologist)! He also teaches a psychiatry class at Keck USC School of Medicine. --Lovelinelistener 21:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Pinsky completed a residency in internal medicine at Huntington Memorial Hospital. He is a member of the AMA, the American Society of Internal Medicine, and the American Society of Addiction Medicine. He maintains his certification in addiction medicine and last recertified in 2000. I'm unable to determine if he has received any formal training in psychiatry beyond his medical school rotation. Drgitlow 02:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

hahaha... As Adam used to say "Real doctor or Loooooooooove doctor"?... Obrez 17:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have a reference on his position at the Keck School of Medicine? I don't think he is listed on their staff. Please double check and if I am right the title as an associate there should be removed.Cronholm144 08:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

On his bio (as given by the website which lists him as a Jewish speaker, http://www.kepplerspeakers.com/literature/Pinsky%20D-%20Bio.doc, it says he is Assistant Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at the Keck USC School of Medicine. So Keck is, or is part of, the USC med school he went to. He must have training in it if he is a professor! 71.197.237.151 03:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I've heard Adam say Drew is "a board-certified physician and addiction medicine specialist" over 9000 times. Grabba (talk) 07:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

he's a real doctor, but he's not a psychiatrist- he just plays one on TV. he's an internist and addiction specialist (which is what he undoubtedly teaches in phychiatry). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.49.6.225 (talk) 05:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Is Myspace page legit???

Is there any confirmation that the Mypsace page really belongs to Dr. Drew? With the drdrew.com website, people might go to the myspace link looking for his personal info and contact info. I'm skeptical in part because it says he's 97 years old and that ain't right. If the link is just for info and isn't his personal page, that needs to be made very clear. --Howdybob 22:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It's legit and has been mentioned several times on the air. drdrew.com hasn't been owned or operated by Dr. Drew since 2001. -- Craigtalbert 22:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I just cut it, you can put it back up but preferably with some sort of citation if you can find one that can be linked to. Yeah, I know about drdrew.com. Still, the myspace page looks a little sloppy, with nothing indicating that it's official. Most myspace pages are like that I think, so maybe Dr. Drew has gone young and hip, fo shizzle. --Howdybob 23:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Listen to the show with DJ AM, I believe it was 1/28/2007. He created it on the air. -- Craigtalbert 23:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

In regard to it looking sloppy... I believe Drew mentioned that his daughter helped him with the formatting/scheme a while after it was created. Maybe that's got something to do with it? 128.95.2.133 (talk) 02:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Drew frequently talks about his myspace on air, the "drdrewloveline" one, that absolutely is him, and I will make a link to an OGG of him talking about this if there is any doubt. Beware of imitators though! There were like 15 fake ones before DJ AM helped with this one. He is not a computer expert by any means, but I think he does ok. You can message him, however he gets loads per day and works more than full time, so there is like a 3-10% chance of a response.Legitimus (talk) 17:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Edits...

Edited the bit about Adam Corolla... More recent information added.....Screen317 18:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Remarried?

Did he just mention on loveline, March 13th that he remarried? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.65.21 (talk) 05:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

That was a metaphor, dude, not literal. Drew was explaining what it felt like to have Adam Carolla as a guest on Loveline 3 years after he left: It's like he got remarried (Stryker) and now the ex-wife (Adam) is visiting.Legitimus (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Bert Fields

Friends, Romans, Countrymen, we have a bit of a problem, and your help is needed. You've probably read the Bert Fields remark about Dr. Drew. There is more information to this that is under development and we may soon see more. My edits may have been hasty and emotional, but the user who reverted them (Justallofthem) has a decided conflict of interest. I urge you to look things over, and decided for yourselves what aught to be included. Ideally, this is a trivial matter that should not even be on Wikipedia. But such things so heavily linked to pop culture are never quiet so early on.193.202.63.20 (talk) 14:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I have my POV and I am certainly not ashamed of it but I edit according the rules here and that is all I ask others to do. All my removals were of the IP's inclusion of WP:OR opinion, novel synthesis, and off-topic material. All I ask is that we follow policy especially as relates to WP:BLP and stick to on-topic, previously published material. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Justallofthem is right- it isn't properly developed, researched, factual material. I think some of it could be included with a NPOV and proper references, but that isn't what you were posting. Tedder (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he is right, because my wording and some specific parts was uncalled for. However, there are just a few facts to consider for anyone involved, though they don't necessarily need to be included:

• Drew happens to be Jewish
• Tom was accused of being Goebbels (specifically that name) 5 months ago.(sourced)
• Tom has publicly admitted and talked about being neglected and abused. (sourced)
• To hastily compare a person, opinion or concept to nazism or a nazi figure is categorically to fall prey to reductio ad hitlerum. Person's who accused Tom of being a nazi were equally guilty.

Are they appropriate for the article? Perhaps not. But people aught to know just the same.193.202.63.20 (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me restate: I think it is interesting, and could be made notable, even though it currently isn't. Tedder (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm also with Tedder and Justallofthem. If you can find reliable sources (not blogs) for the information and write it without a POV, I wouldn't have an issue. -- Scarpy (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Tom being accused: [8] [9] [10] [11]

Tom talks about abuse: [12]

Several news outlets are quick to point out that Drew is, in fact, very qualified and not a TV doc, but that's not needed in this article because that's already apparent to a reader. The rest will just have to wait and see.193.202.63.20 (talk) 17:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I say we deep-six the whole section. It seems petty for for a biographical work. I can think of numerous public figures who've shot their own mouth off in a variety of ways, and we don't devote this much space to it. I think if we keep this, it's better suited to the Bert Fields article.Legitimus (talk) 22:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Cruise reinserted

Reinserted the bit with Cruise as it is extremely notable given the amount of press. I pared it way down and removed the Nazi bit as that is not particularly fitting of an encyclopedia. If others think the Nazi bit is sufficiently notable for inclusion or rather a key part of the notability then include if you like. I don't think we need it but won't object otherwise. --Justallofthem (talk) 16:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see a response from you when I suggested to remove it, my mistake. oh well, if you think it needs to stay. However, the Nazi remark definitely needs to be included in there, as almost every source I've read mentions it, including Pinsky himself in his interview with Gawker. Let me be clear, I know what Cruise (or Fields) was trying to say, but that meaning was easily swallowed by the emotional weight of the reference.Legitimus (talk) 21:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, for me the essence of the notable incident is Drew's remark, Cruise takes umbrage, Drew apologizes. I think the way I wrote it conveys what he said that was objectionable to Cruise, the reaction, and why a Scientologist would object to Drew's comment. No need to go overboard on reporting on the mutual name-calling but I am of course open to other views. --Justallofthem (talk) 23:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Off-topic thread moved to User talk:Justallofthem#Drew Pinsky. --Justallofthem (talk) 02:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

To get back to the subject, there hasn't been any new news developments on this story. All the articles I find simply repeat the same thing. It is for this reason I feel that it is not significant for this article. But I'm ok with giving it time.Legitimus (talk) 10:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Colour Blind

Fascinating I know but on the 24th Jan 2005 show Doctor Drew said that he was red/blue colour blind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.78.240.7 (talk) 05:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

RFC Pinsky/Cruise Issue

While reported on in numerous gossip rags [13], there have been no new developments in this story, and no new sources in a week. This "feud" went "statement->reply->reply" and stopped there. I contend that the event is trivial and not encyclopedic for the purpose of this biography.Legitimus (talk) 14:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - "Notability is not temporary" (WP:NTEMP). Though this generally relates to the article as a whole, it is not much of a stretch to apply it here. This incident was extremely notable at the time and I think there were 186 Google News article hits on it when I looked during the incident. Including many that are not "gossip rags", like Fox News, Chicago Tribune, etc, etc, etc. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

oops, personal meaning mismatch here. let me clarify: When I say "gossip rag" I am referring to any news source that either has an overall focus or a specific section that deals with celebrity news, such as couples, births and various acts of talking trash. It is not intended as pejorative or an indication that their content is untrue, merely that is of questionable usefulness (my POV).Legitimus (talk) 18:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - This is a qualified medical professional making a significant remark about a newsmaking celebrity. Certainly it was covered in a large number of reliable sources. I believe it should be in his bio. Keep in mind this has already been discussed- scroll up to the 'bert fields' discussion. Tedder (talk) 16:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Nobody replied other than Justallofthem about the inclusion of this section. But I'm willing to let it stay if others think it should. No one seemed to remark about if the nazi reference should be included either. I would argue that Fields' remark about Goebbels gave this story more coverage that it would have received.Legitimus (talk) 18:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I would remove this, or move it to the talk page temporarily to see if anything more becomes of it. Is this brief exchange of words with Cruise (or Cruise's attorney) significant in the overall context of his life? We are not a news site here nor a tabloid to report on what the celebrities are saying about each other. In addition, the idea that Pinsky is a "qualified medical professional making a significant remark" is utterly irrelevant, as Pinsky has not professionally examined Cruise. I'm very much opposed to the practice of medical professionals attempting to "diagnose" a stranger from afar. It's an abuse of one's credentials and we should not see it as carrying any weight. Further still, if Pinsky is an internist and an addiction specialist, as our article states, he is not even qualified to diagnose emotional problems. Of course, anyone is entitled to label Cruise a nutjob, as he is indeed a nutjob, but any professional should refrain from creating the appearance of giving a qualified diagnosis, when no such diagnosis took place. No one on Wikipedia should mislead themselves into thinking this is more than an offhand remark. Fletcher (talk) 03:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a point info, "X may have been abuse or neglected" is not a diagnosis, it's a speculative observation. A diagnosis is "X suffers from Bipolar Disorder Type I." Speculation on a person's motivation means nothing professionally. You don't treat "speculations" with therapy or medication.

Also, Pinsky is a professor of psychiatry at the USC Keck School of Medicine. Addiction medicine is a subset of psychiatry and several other disciplines.Legitimus (talk) 16:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• I think maybe it's being overly dramatic to call it a feud and devote a section to it... but it seems to have gotten a decent amount of news coverage [14] so I don't see why a sentence or two can't cover it in this article. Relative to Pinsky it's notable, relative to Cruise it probably isn't... notability can be relative. --Rividian (talk) 03:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I believe this to have been a notable event that received significant media coverage, so I think it should be mentioned somewhere in the article. Theserialcomma (talk) 23:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Las Encinas Controversy

This seems to be an issue with the hospital he works with and not with Dr Drew personally. Dr Drew is co-director of the chemical dependancy unit and not the psychiatric unit where the deaths occured. It seems to me that the LA Times really played up Dr Drew's involvement in the case. When you take a look at the news from other sources, it merely mentions he works in the same hospital where these deaths occured. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,504056,00.html RWgirl (talk) 13:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

My feelings were that yes it may be a little more slighted to him there and therefore causing a bit of controversy, but feel free to yank it if need be.--EmperorofPeopleEverywhere (talk) 14:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Given that he wasn't involved in the incidents, it would seem little more that coincidence that he happens to work there. Note that Dr. Pinsky does not work there full time either: He does most of his work from his private practice office in South Pasadena. He also works at Huntington Memorial, teachers at Keck School of Medicine, and does TV and radio. It's only a small portion of his day. He's not there round the clock seeing to patient care, nor does me manage staff or make policy decisions. Las Encinas may have trumpeted him in order to attract clients because of his fame, but that's THEIR doing, not his.Legitimus (talk) 18:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, he only has about 7 full-time jobs, so it's a little hard to use that argument for or against a given gig. Still, he's intimately involved with Las Encinas, I think the content should remain. tedder (talk) 18:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand. "intimately involved"? How so?Legitimus (talk) 23:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

What I mean by "intimately involved" is, depending on the source, he's either the "Head of Los Angeles' Las Encinas Hospital's department of chemical dependency services", the "co-medical director" of the chem dependency unit, or so on. That's why I'm saying the argument of part time doesn't really matter. (here's the "distancing" story) tedder (talk) 00:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

But understand that it's improper to tie him to these events. It's like trying to blame him for part of the east wing caving in during a thunderstorm.Legitimus (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand- but it happened while he was managing the wing. He's in charge. tedder (talk) 05:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It did NOT happen while he was managing those areas. It is a psychiatric hospital, and he only works in chemical dependency (a branch of psychiatry). These incidents DID NOT occur in chemical dependency. Look at a map of the area: their not even located in the same buildingLegitimus (talk) 12:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't catch it wasn't in the addiction ward. Yeah, sounds like it shouldn't belong on the page, then. tedder (talk) 19:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, looks like we have an agreement. Sorry if I got kinda steamed up. Administration in a hospital is kinda complicated ("director" doesn't really mean what it sounds like) and I don't think many people understand it, especially these news writers.Legitimus (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You did a good job parsing through that article to find the important stuff. No worries. Thanks for being patient with me :-) tedder (talk) 19:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Drew worked for free

Since one of the most common criticisms of Dr Drew is that he's a Hollywood doctor just trying to make money, would it be worth mentioning that for the first several years of Loveline he was not paid? He also didn't use his full name to counter any perceived promotion of his private practice. I don't know the date of the show it was mentioned but I'm sure someone here does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.106.204 (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a very notable distinction. We all know it was true but I don't have an exact date. I think it wasn't until he did it 5 days a week instead of just Sundays, which was in February 1992.Legitimus (talk) 20:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

IIRC he wasn't paid until the triplets were born. tedder (talk) 20:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Bill Clinton

Despite no references, other than mentioning one of the times he's said this, for this section, Dr. Drew has mentioned his professional opinions of Bill Clinton's psychology numerous times over the years. I've personally heard it on his old day time talk show "Dr. Drew Live" as well as on "Loveline". The only problem with citations is that nobody has tracked down the exact episodes in which he's mentioned this and printed them out or published them in some way, so can not properly cite them. It did create some controversy amongst some, but not much in the way of publicity by the major media. So, should this section just be removed or something else done? Kmanblue (talk) 18:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

There are specific burdens to be met. First, it has to be notable. Notability is a complex doctrine but generally requires significant mainstream media coverage from reliable sources. There isn't any as far as I can see, and furthermore this is little more than an opinion he expressed and some of us frankly find it petty to pick apart every statement a person makes as some earth-shattering event (see Tom Cruise issue, which one year later, never amounted to anything).

The second is proof. It doesn't matter that one person has a general idea what was said, even if multiple times. If one is going to analyze the commentary to this degree, we must have proof of what he actually said. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds the material." Legitimus (talk) 19:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Tom Cruise - Revisited

It has now been one full year since the Tom Cruise incident. There were no further developments on the issue, and it has nearly been forgotten. It never amounted to anything other than an brief exchange of public statements. Perhaps it is time to reconsider removing the section from the main article. It seems rather insignificant in the grand scheme of things. The section's primary advocate, User:Justallofthem (a claimed member of the Church of Scientology), was banned permanently in May. Wikipedia likewise has had to take action against the church's WP usage[15] as result of problems with self-serving edits and propaganda, and the insertion of this issue into Dr. Pinksy's article (relative to the total article size) has long carried the stink of slander. I think it's about time we reconsider.Legitimus (talk) 15:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Saw your removal today, and I'm fine with it. Posting here to let you know you have some agreement. tedder (talk) 22:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Missing show from intro paragraph

While the introductory paragraph mentions Celebrity Rehab, Sober House, and Sex...With Mom and Dad as Dr. Drew's TV shows, it fails to mention the show Sex Rehab - his latest show - which should perhaps be added so as to be completely accurate. Xprivate eyex (talk) 23:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I've updated it, and worded it a little differently. My idea was to make mention of his most recent and currently running shows. I also made some corrections to his TV credits (one title was wrong) and re-ordered them it a categorized way. It doesn't have to stay that way, it just seemed logical to me: Non-fiction (dare I say, "educational"), reality TV, guest star roles, and talk shows.Legitimus (talk) 01:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Mention of his new show on HLN should also be in the lead, and also in the lower body of the article. Or at least one or the other. Flyer22 (talk) 22:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The cocaine rumor

Looks like it's floating up again. Yes, a former associate of Pinsky's has said he used to do lines of coke with Drew back in the day. Here's the consensus:

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 53#Life_and_Style_Mag.2Fdrug_abuse_charges
• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive78#Drew_Pinsky

tedder (talk) 00:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Praying man?

http://www.popeater.com/2011/05/22/dr-drew-pinsky-pray-for-jeff-conaway/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.218.227 (talk) 02:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

To some extent this is a figure of speech in the United States (because of its heavy Judeo-Christian culture). Though I would also point out Drew is not an hard-line atheist like many people think he is. He is simply not very observant. He makes passing references to God when talking (like he calls the surge in libido during late pregnancy "one of God's great practical jokes on humanity"). I think the impression that he was an atheist came from his time with Carolla, who is not only an atheist but is so forceful in person that a agreeable bloke like Drew would simply "play along." Legitimus (talk) 14:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Einstein also used the word "God" in this way, even though he did not believe in a personal God. Nightscream (talk) 01:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Other media appearances EDIT REQUEST

Although I've made hundreds of edits on Wikipedia pages over the years, I do not have an account nor do I plan on creating one. So, since this page is semi-protected, I'd appreciate it if someone else could make the edit on this bit where they're asking for the specific episodes:

"Dr. Drew Pinsky made his acting debut in "Terminal," a 1998 episode of the TV show Space Ghost Coast to Coast, and later appeared on Dawson's Creek[episode needed] and Family Guy.[episode needed]"

The episode of Dawson's Creek was season 6, episode 19, titled "Lovelines." Shockingly, he played a character named Dr. Drew Pinsky. See: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0555144/

The episode of Family Guy was season 4, episode 7, titled "Brian the Bachelor." Shockingly, he played a character named Dr. Drew. See: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0576922/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.254.238 (talk) 10:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I have made the edits you requested, along with supplying info for a few other flagged TV credits.Legitimus (talk) 20:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Wellbutrin

I believe this section should be updated to include the recent revelations of Dr. Drew's previously undisclosed payments by GlaxoSmithKline to promote the antidepressant Wellbutrin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.164.254.173 (talk) 21:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I've added a section (revision 683609267) but it was removed mentioning some (uncited) sources according to which all the news reports were inaccurate. Perhaps we could have the reference to the court transcripts that prove it was inaccurate at least here? Jan3334 (talk) 10:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The sources attempted to mislead by saying that Pinksy made some kind of claim. If you read the transcript that was submitted during the case, it was a 34 year old woman who claimed to have 60 orgasms, not Pinsky. The host David Essel simply asks Pinsky "Is that physically possible?" Pinsky says yes it's possible for some women, and that in his observation often it's caused by medication (both statements are factually true). Then there is a reasonable discussion regard side-effects of SSRIs, about bupropion is recommended when other drugs cause a drop in libido, etc. Not once is Pinsky deceptive or dishonest, hence why GSK was fined, but Pinsky never received any kind of punishment whatsoever. Pinsky himself stated on The Mike & Drew podcast that the money he received was to write his book, and that GSK only contacted him after he was going around telling people that SSRIs kill your sex drive, something typically concealed or omitted by prescribing doctors. GSK felt it made bupropion look good by comparison, so offered to fund his book.Legitimus (talk) 14:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I should add an important note since you are a new user: This article is a Biography of a living person and thus must be careful when inserting anything that is critical or disparaging about the subject. The bar is much higher than normal articles.Legitimus (talk) 14:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the transcript. He does say that he has seen the highest increase in libido for Buproprion which is another name for Wellbutrin. And then he says that he encourages people to switch to Wellbutrin if they want to increase their libido. The FDA argues in the complaint that Wellbutrin was not medically accepted for enhancing sex life. The complaint also states that GSK paid Drew 275.000$ in March and April 1999 and the talk show was in May 1999. So this happened after he received the money. The fact he didn't receive any punishment for it is sad but irrelevant. Perhaps a rewording of the section would be better than a complete removal? The connection between GSK and Dr. Pinsky is obviously there in the media and is widely known about him. I am new user but my understanding is that editors on Wikipedia shouldn't perform original research in the primary sources but try to reflect the common knowledge Jan3334 (talk) 19:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

There's a few important details that were missed: In the statement, Pinsky does not actually encourage people to switch to Wellbutrin to increase libido. He says it's a drug that is suggested when the patient is having decreased libido or arousal from taking an antidepressant drug. In other words, as an alternative mental health drug, not a sex-helping drug. The media and the FDA complaint (which is written by a lawyer with an agenda) are shamelessly word-twisting it, but the transcript of Pinsky's exact words is quite clear. Second, I said that GSK approached Pinsky after he was going around warning about SSRIs, not after the interview in the link. He had been paid before that interview, but he also said the same things before being approached and paid. Loveline has been recorded for decades, and those recordings even from back then are still out there on the internet.

This is all missing the bigger picture: The federal complaint against GSK was a very large legal matter that included not just Wellbutrin but Paxil and Advair, and the remark about Pinsky is a relatively insignificant line in a 76 page document. The US Attorney was simply using it as a one small brick in a very large building, and flimsy brick at that: The US attorney only had an invoice that Pinsky received money, and the interview transcript; no other evidence. The accusation is purely speculation. Lawyers, after all, are supposed to throw stuff against the wall and see what sticks. Also keep in mind this was a complaint, not a decision, outcome or settlement. It's fairly obvious from the case's outcome that this particular item was ignored or dismissed. Remember the news media has an agenda, especially in this day and age, to stir up controversy.

Regarding reflecting "common knowledge," this story fails to meet criteria demonstrating it as common knowledge based on available sources, which is not defined by the number of them (there are thousands of gossip rags that simply rephrase and repeat) but by the reliability and depth. As an example, there are numerous celebrities written about on Wikipedia that are homosexual, but policy forbids it being mentioned except when it is explicitly acknowledged by the subject themselves in a public manner.Legitimus (talk) 00:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

While I do agree that nowhere in the court documents is the link between payment and the talk show proven, that shouldn't matter. GSK pleaded guilty (page 3) to "promoting Wellbutrin for ... sexual dysfunction ... other than for which its use was approved as safe and effective" so maybe there was something said at the court which made them plead guilty to it. We don't know, nor should have to worry about it because there are reputable news sources who perhaps had (indirectly) a correspondent at the court who heard the case and made the link. If it wasn't true, Dr. Pinsky could have asked for a correction. "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." WP:NEWSORG "When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources." WP:BLPSOURCES and "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." WP:BLPPRIMARY So we shouldn't be using court documents at all!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jan3334 (talk • contribs) 08:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

You're cherry-picking parts of the policy that support your position, while ignoring things such as WP:BLPCRIME, which applies in this case because there is a clear implication of criminal behavior in the tone of how you posted. For the record, Pinksy did ask for a correction. The tabloids responded "Tough ----. Sue us if you want it changed," something that is largely impossible in today's medial and legal climate. Further, there is the matter of the part of WP:BLPSOURCES, "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources."

You're editing history shows you came here with an agenda, not a goal of being a productive Wikipedia editor, and it should be telling that editors ignored this story for 3 years even with the post that started this thread. Because of it's defamatory nature, your change will be reverted until other editors have had an opportunity to weigh in. If you revert, you may be blocked by an administrator for edit-warring. Bear in mind this is not the first time there has been improper and defamatory reporting regarding Dr. Pinsky that turned out to be false or misleading.Legitimus (talk) 13:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't have an editing history because I've seen a discussion about the ruling and opened the wiki page after reading some of the articles about it. I was quite surprised the page didn't mention the case, so I thought I'm going to improve it. I've never heard of dr Pinsky before and I don't really care about antidepressants or libido affecting drugs. I don't think editors ignored this story - it was added once before with Forbes as a source, but some Legitimus removed it along with other criticism (other accusations were sourced from CNN - is that a tabloid too now?). I've asked for a third opinion on this. Jan3334 (talk) 14:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I found no articles on CNN, BBC or the New York Times about this matter. Forbes.com should not be confused with Forbes magazine. The former permits almost anyone to write for it based on it's new "contributor model."Legitimus (talk) 15:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

You're right, the forbes.com reference is probably not serious enough. There is also The Guardian, WSJ or CBS, though. Oh and the CNN was referring to the section that you've removed in 648792689 on 25-2-2015 that had CNN headlines as reference. The CBS have much softer wording perhaps they could be used for citations? Jan3334 (talk) 16:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The Guardian isn't terribly reliable in my experience, and gets several very important facts wrong about the case. But CBS and WSJ actually do a respectable job from what I can see. Still, there is at least a risk of creating an unfair and defamatory impression. Dr. Pinsky is a licensed medical professional unlike most so-called celebrities, so disparaging his professional judgement has the potential to be very damaging. I'm listening for other users opinions.Legitimus (talk) 16:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Third Opinion

A third opinion was requested. My opinion is that, in view of the amount of he said-he said quality to the discussion and the amount of general uncertainty about the allegations, the policy on biographies of living persons imposes a high standard, and the specific allegations against Dr. Drew do not appear to meet that standard. If there is a continued desire to include the material, it can be discussed further at the biographies of living persons noticeboard (but which will also apply a strict test), or a Request for Comments can request the opinion of the community. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Another opinion

Hello, I see that this dispute occurred a number of years ago, but it does not seem like any clear consensus was reached, and upon reading it I wanted to weigh in an re-open the it for discussion.

I personally disagree with the third opinion provided above, based on my knowledge (and thorough review of) the policy on biographies of living persons and other relevant policies. I understand that the standards for these types of articles are very high, but I do not see where the inclusion of this topic in the section fails to meet any of those standards.

The allegations related to Dr. Pinsky and Wellbutrin are discussed by highly known, reliable sources (that have been the subjects of consensus about their reliability in multiple community discussions), including the Wallstreet Journal, the Washington Post, the Atlantic, the Guardian, and others. (These are mentioned in the above discussion but I am happy to provide some citations if anyone wants me to.)

While biographies of living persons guidelines do state that "all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed," this standard is clearly met here, given the sources.

Furthermore, the guideline also states that "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." I think based on the high-profile and reliability of the numerous sources discussing this incident, that it is indeed noteworthy, relevant, and well documented.

The policy does also state that "For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured," the question of whether or not this topic involves allegations of criminal wrongdoing does NOT make difference in its inclusion here because Dr. Pinsky quite unequivocally meets the criteria for a public figure.

Whether or not any of us personally opine that any wrongdoing has occurred is irrelevant. The topic should be included because it has been the subject of significant reputable and high-profile media attention. Indeed, Wikipedia isn't a tabloid, but it isn't a courtroom either; we are not meant to issue a verdict on the controversy (guilty, innocent, or anything else) but to include that the controversy exists in the first place.

In short, I believe the article should be edited. This topic is clearly noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, and its elision thereby weakens the article.

I appreciate the previous editors' contributions to this discussion! I hope some of the previous participants will chime in. If not, I will submit a request for comment, and if nothing comes of that, I'll probably reach out for guidance on the noticeboard or wikiproject page. If any more experienced editors have any suggestions of other, better ways to proceed, please feel free to let me know!

Emptybathtub (talk) 07:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

RFC: Drew Pinsky and Wellbutrin

Should this article include discussion of the controversy around Dr. Pinsky's promotion of the medication Bupropion (i.e. Wellbutrin)? Emptybathtub (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

All evidence presented above remains uncompelling that the story surrounding this is anything other than tabloid journalism, as the most authoritative sources on the matter still do not demonstrate any actual wrongdoing, combined with policy regarding biographies of living people and how negative material must be subject to more intense scrutiny. My only insight in the years since is that any news media source, no matter how respected, is not necessarily trustworthy or reliable on all subject matters. The years have shown that no news media source is above engaging in tabloid journalism, and unqualified opinion-based reporting, especially regarding matters of law. I witnessed in an another, unrelated article how 20+ news sources, all considered reliable, reported on a law change and got it completely wrong because none of the authors had any legal education or experience, and it took actual lawyers to sort it out. Regarding this article and the topic under discussion, there has been no new evidence or development in the past 8 years about this.Legitimus (talk) 00:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, there should be mention of the GlaxoSmithKline payments, considering the high quality sources covering this,[16][17][18][19] satisfying WP:REDFLAG, WP:DUE, WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Those sources do not have a reputation of engaging in tabloid journalism. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Tasteful inclusion: In briefly reviewing the controversy and the sources, along with the fact the subject is a well known media "advice" doctor that was clearly paid by a company to provide indorsement of a product, I think some mention is warranted. The product was involved in controversy and the subject mentioned so inclusion per WP:NPOV specifically WP:PROPORTION would be appropriate. In fact, an article that is absolutely written in a positive light leaving out any mention of controversy, is a feel-good article and promotional.

The Washington Post source (Dr. Drew Pinsky’s relationship with drugmaker raises ethical questions) clearly states Pinsky isn’t charged in the Glaxo case but mentions the "sweet deal Pinsky cut to promote the depression drug Wellbutrin, also known by the name Bupropion". There is a difference in an expert opinion and an opinion from an expert paid by a company for promotion.

It does not cross any boundaries to mention the subject was paid by a company when he/she "promoted" a product that resulted in controversy but WP:WEIGHT needs to be considered. Otr500 (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm willing to compromise on this. WSJ and NPR sources look good, while WP's doesn't (it appears to be an editorial). I would offer the following text:

In 1999, Pinsky accepted $275,000 from Glaxo Wellcome, a company that would later merge into GlaxoSmithKline, to be part of an educational public-speaking initiative regarding intimacy and depression. The initiative was intended to promote the company's drug Wellbutrin in an indirect fashion, though Pinsky was not told to give the drug special mention. In his appearances during the initiative, Pinsky openly disclosed his relationship with Glaxo Wellcome, but forgot to do so for one appearance on the radio program David Essel - Alive! on May 22, 1999. In that appearance, Pinsky discussed the sexual side effects of common SSRI medications and mentioned Wellbutrin, Serzone (a drug from Bristol Myers Squibb), and Remeron (a drug from Merck & Co.) as examples of depression medications that lack these side effects. A transcript of this appearance and the invoice of the payment to Pinksy were later presented publically as evidence during the criminal and civil actions against GlaxoSmithKline in 2012. Pinsky has stated, "My comments [about the drug] were consistent with my clinical experience." There is no indication that Pinsky himself violated criminal law or professional ethical codes with his involvement.

Legitimus (talk) 16:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Legitimus, for your write up! I definitely agree with the above posters that caution needs to be taken to ensure a neutral point of view.

I've edited your paragraph. Among the changes I've made have been adding sources, rearranging information, attributing information from quotes, and removing information I couldn't find in the sources. (That's not necessarily to say that anything I removed is untrue, just that I didn't see it when reviewing the sources.) If you believe any further information should be added/removed or otherwise changed, please let me know. (In the case of adding something, please provide a source too, if you don't mind!)

Pinsky has received criticism from several sources [20][21][22][23] for alleged conflict of interest in his promotion of the drug Wellbutrin.

According to an October 2011 government complaint against GlaxoSmithKline, Pinsky was the recipient in 1999 of two payments totaling $275,000 from Glaxo Wellcome (a company that would later merge into GlaxoSmithKline) to promote the company's drug Wellbutrin.[24] Among other events, Pinsky made a 1999 appearance on the radio program 'David Essel - Alive!', discussing the sexual side effects of common SSRI medications and mentioned Wellbutrin as an example of depression medications that lack these side effects,[25][26] (along with Serzone and Remeron, two medications from different manufacturers).[27]

A transcript of this appearance and the invoice of the payment to Pinksy were later presented publically as evidence during the criminal and civil actions against GlaxoSmithKline in 2012.[28] The criminal and civil charges against GlaxoSmithKline resulted in a $3 billion settlement.[29][30][31] A spokesperson for the company acknowledged that "during the period from January 1999 to December 2003, there were some occasions on which certain GSK sales representatives, speakers, and consultants promoted its antidepressant Wellbutrin to physicians for uses which were not FDA-approved in violation of federal law." [32] However, Pinsky himself was never found guilty of or charged with any criminal wrongdoing, and has stated,

"In the late 90s I was hired to participate in a 2-year initiative discussing intimacy and depression which was funded by an educational grant by Glaxo Wellcome…Services for the non-branded campaign included town hall meetings, writings and multimedia activities in conjunction with the patient advocacy group the National Depresive and Manic Depressive Association (NDMDA). My comments were consistent with my clinical experience."[33]}}

Thanks again for your engagement on this issue, let me know if you have specific questions/suggestions!

--Emptybathtub (talk) 23:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

You're rewrites sounds good. My only comment is that "found guilty of or charged with" sounds odd. One must be charged and then later found guilty, and so you could probably just say "charged with." In addition, I was hoping that besides criminal charges, it was also made clear he did not violate any rules of conduct that physicians must follow, either from the state medical board or from a national governing body. If he had, his license to practice would have received a strike or been revoked, both of which are matters of public record if they had happened. I was unsure how to phrase this bit of information though without sounding clunky.Legitimus (talk) 01:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Another consideration after re-reading is to omit the outcome of the civil action against GSK itself, as this isn't relevant to Pinsky and potentially pushes some improper inferences. Things can be true and sourced, but still prejudiced or misleading after all. The company spokesperson quote also is teetering on misleading because there is no evidence in the sources that quote directly refers to Pinsky's involvement, especially since the evidence as presented doesn't indicate that Pinsky made any non-FDA approved recommendations. This is part of why I was so wary of this event, because so much of the reporting on it is doing a lot of "dangling" of circumstantial evidence so characteristic of bad journalism.Legitimus (talk) 13:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Legitimus, thanks for the further pointers.

For as the sentence about criminal charges/ethics, I definitely agree: not-guilty is a bit redundant, and it is worth mentioning medical ethics. I've made an edit in the new draft below that I hope you will find sufficiently graceful.

As far as the GSK outcome goes, I think you have a point, although I would be wary of omitting it altogether. I think the fact GSK acknowledged having promoted off-brand uses of Wellbutrin to physicians time Pinsky received payments, given that ill-advised promotion of Wellbutrin is what Pinsky has been accused of, makes the acknowledgement relevant. I'm totally not drawing the conclusion that proves he's done something illegal, but it does seem like relevant information. (If the company never acknowledged and was found innocent of such illicit activities, for example, that would make the story very different, right?) Additionally, I think the statement is relevant because it was given in response to an inquiry about the case which specifically asked about Pinsky. And perhaps most importantly, I also think it is worth mentioning because the outcome of the case is mentioned in relation to the allegations against Pinsky in pretty much every article on the topic, as far as I've seen; so us personally determining that these sources are all wrong and it is not relevant would be representing our own POV, rather than an impartial representation of the views in the controversy. Nevertheless, it's true that we should present it in a way that does not unfairly imply causation. I think there are ways that we can and should mitigate association bias by (1) specifically attributing the statement to an inquiry from the WSJ on Pinsky and other physicians, (2) clarifying that the GSK statement never mentioned Pinsky specifically, and (3) mentioning that Pinsky was never personally charged with any wrongdoing.

Below is a revised draft of that final paragraph:

A transcript of this appearance and the invoice of the payment to Pinksy were later presented publicly as evidence during the criminal and civil actions against GlaxoSmithKline in 2012.[34] In response to an inquiry from the the Wall Street Journal about the case and specific physicians including Pinsky, the company declined to comment on their financial relationship with specific doctors, but acknowledged that "during the period from January 1999 to December 2003, there were some occasions on which certain GSK sales representatives, speakers, and consultants promoted its antidepressant Wellbutrin to physicians for uses which were not FDA-approved in violation of federal law."[35][36] Pinsky himself was not mentioned in the statement, and was never charged with wrongdoing by any court or medical ethics board. When asked about the topic, Pinsky stated:

"In the late 90s I was hired to participate in a 2-year initiative discussing intimacy and depression which was funded by an educational grant by Glaxo Wellcome…Services for the non-branded campaign included town hall meetings, writings and multimedia activities in conjunction with the patient advocacy group the National Depressive and Manic Depressive Association (NDMDA). My comments were consistent with my clinical experience."[37][38]

Please share your thoughts, if you don't mind! I know it's important to get right, so again, I really appreciate your help.

Emptybathtub (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I like that version. I think that covers any remaining concerns I had.Legitimus (talk) 01:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I only have one additional comment I need to make even if I'm ok with the latest version presented. The notion that something is "mentioned in pretty much every article on the topic" does not mean it's good information nor that it's POV to subject it to scrutiny and critical thinking. A common risk when referencing information exclusively from news sources is accidentally falling for selection bias. This can occur when an event is a "non-issue," for lack of a better term. Journalists are after all in the business of making money, not dispassionately informing the public. Essentially, not every event is newsworthy enough to make money, and so when news sources chooses to get...creative with facts to make a non-issue into something newsworthy, those news sources are all going to say the same thing. There won't be any more authoritative news sources that give the facts plain, because that version of the event doesn't make money. This gives the illusion of consensus on something that may in fact be misleading. No news source, no matter how reputable, is immune to this problem. This is an extremely common problem with anything celebrity-related, because more plain-facts sources simply are non-existent.Legitimus (talk) 15:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Drew Pinsky/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

More than a stub, but not enough depth and breadth for B-class, in my opinion -- Avi 23:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 23:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 13:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments on Hillary Clinton's health

Dr. Pinsky's recent comments on Hillary Clinton's health issues were reported in a variety of sources. I suggest making a mention of them. Did any mainstream sources note that the decision not to renew his television show took place shortly after he questioned Clinton's health? TweedVest (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes indeed. See my edit of a few days ago.[39] However, Jytdog (talk · contribs) reverted it with an incomprehensible edit note. I asked on her/is talk page, and s/he responded that the connection was only a rumor.[40] The exchange was almost immediately deleted. In my opinion, JTDOg should have been less punitive, more constructive in handling the objections, leaving the source and other factual details. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 17:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Just acknowledging the discussion. Unsure what you mean by "exchange was deleted" - it is right here. Yes, we are not part of the internet rumor mill. It is the silly season, isn't it. Jytdog (talk) 18:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Explanation: I did not find the exchange in chrono order, and I did not read the complete page. Are you intimating that this discussion is "silly"? Else I fail to comprehend your remark. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 18:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Sfraney the discussion is exactly where you put it. Jytdog (talk) 19:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The "silly season" is the American presidential election, meaning that all news outlets, no matter how allegedly reputable or "mainstream," are to be considered suspect in anything they report that is in any way related to the election. It's the season where even the best news will stoop to the lowest to get those pageviews. This being a prime example, in that the Washington Post more or less admits it's pure speculation, offering zero proof. There are already sources [41] contradicting it. I'm inclined to believe the sources saying this was planned months ago, because cancelling a TV show is a big deal, with lots of jobs being lost, so networks don't do it without months of planning.Legitimus (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Alright. Let's return to Pinsky's speculations about Clinton's health. The WP found that newsworthy, and other sources covered it also. You have explained why deleted the edit as it was worded -- please propose a wording for Pinsky's speculations that you will accept. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 19:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

"On August 26, 2016, Pinsky announced the show would be cancelled as of September 22, reportedly by mutual consent between Pinsky and CNN." [42]

There is zero reason to mention Pinsky's speculations about Clinton's health, because they are no more notable ("newsworthy" is categorically not a standard used on Wikipedia) than the thousands of other times he's used his medical expertise to make deductions about information presented to him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Legitimus (talk • contribs) 19:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

What Legitimus said. WP:NOTNEWS, WP:TRIVIA. WP:RECENTISM. Same reason that Nobody is going to remember this after the silly season is over; if it proves that people do, it might well then be noteworthy. See for example the deletion rationales at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Short-Fingered Vulgarian. Same thing. Jytdog (talk) 19:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I never heard of the guy before, but this incidence of diagnosing someone without seeing them is rather remarkable -- and remarkably ill-advised. I do believe it is contrary to AMA rules. If it had not been planned, it would be sufficient to cause termination of his show. I get it that you speculate that the show termination was long planned, but that speculation is not supported by RS. The WP states the opposite.[43] In short, he apparently used poor judgment on air to make a political statement, and suffered significant consequences. The WP says so. Like it was a career-limiting move, following the long series of radio stars who made ill-advised on-air comments (vis. Don Imus and Howard Stern). Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 21:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The WaPo article does not say that the show was cancelled because of the diagnosis. In fact it doesn't even come out and speculate, it just says very vague things like :

• "‘Dr. Drew’ show canceled days after host’s negative speculation about Hillary Clinton’s health" (headline)
• (states reasons given by network and Pinksy) then says "But the decision came eight days after Pinsky’s comments on a radio show on Aug. 17 questioning the health and medical care of former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee for president. "
• at end says "It was Pinksy’s second foray into the subject of Hillary Clinton’s health, and the first one ended badly, as well. "

See? It just makes vague juxtapositions and never connects the dots itself. It relies on sloppy readers to jump to the conclusion they hold dangling right there. This is a prime example of shit punditry and shitty reading. (if you disagree, provide the quote from the Barbash piece where he comes out and says it -- go on.) For pete's sake. Sfarney you have now written at least three incorrect things in this thread. I have nothing more to say here as this is a waste of time. Sfarney do not add the content back without a clear consensus here. Jytdog (talk) 21:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I have not misrepresented the source. The WP clearly states that the cancellation "came eight days after Pinsky’s comments on a radio show on Aug. 17". That statement contradicts your statement that it was "planned months ago" and that is the contradiction I indicated in my previous. Please read my statements more carefully. If Pinsky were in the habit of diagnosing people without seeing them ("thousands of other times" wrote Legitimus), it is easy to believe this was a final straw. The AMA does not generally approve of tele-diagnosis.[44][45] And a radio show does not meet the exceptions: "Physicians still must put the patient's welfare first, respect privacy, provide competent care, and strive for continuity of care, especially when patients see their next clinician in a traditional exam room." Respecting welfare includes patient privacy, which may be a significant issue on a radio show. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 21:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The WaPo and other articles mentioned his comments about Hillary's health in the same context as the show's cancellation so it's not synthesis to mention them together, we just can't indicate there is a cause and effect since the source doesn't say that. So, something along the lines of "In August 2016 in an interview with KABC, Pinsky expressed concerns over Hillary Clinton's health and the treatment regimen she was receiving. A week later CNN announced that his show would not be renewed, citing 'mutual agreement.'" TweedVest (talk) 00:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Pinsky stated in [a recorded podcast at 29:30 that the two events are unconnected, because the cancellation was planned (but not announced) before the commentary regarding Clinton every aired. This is straight from the horse's mouth, you can't get more conclusive than that.

And for the record, I said he uses his expertise to make medical deductions based in presented information, not render diagnosis, which he did not do in this case either. This is actually a normal part of medical education: The professor gives you a case study or other record document and you have to come to the correct conclusion about it.

The political undertones are painfully obvious: Pro-Clinton people want to stir this up to make it look like Pinsky is being "punished" for being a "bad doctor" so that his assessment will be dismissed. Anti-Clinton people want to stir this up to make Clinton look like an evil puppet-master who used her backdoor connections to assassinate his show for daring to saying "bad" things about her. Never having heard of Pinsky is irrelevant.Legitimus (talk) 01:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Tweedvest. See above. No. Jytdog (talk) 02:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

... you can't get more conclusive than that. -- conclusive is in the eye of the beholder. It is primary source from a talk show host, as relevant as any other entertainer's explanation of her own life -- in this case, Pinsky is making a potentially embarrassing situation look as breezy as possible. We would not use it in a Wikipedia article. Our secondary sources say the Clinton diagnosis came first, and the decision followed it. ALL the usable sources say that.[46] And I am not including anonymous tipes from "HNL insiders" or Pinsky himself as Wiki usable RS.

Please stop attributing political motives to people you disagree with. It is totally contrary to WP:AGF. You might notice that no one has mentioned your motives. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 06:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

So, just take my line and add, "Pinsky said that the non-renewal agreement had taken place before his comments, so the two events were unrelated." Simple. By the way, Jytdog, everybody else here is doing a good job of having a congenial discussion. Please try to be a more cooperative contributor. Do I need to say this on your talk page? TweedVest (talk) 13:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you have confused the comments from Jytdog with those from Legitimus. Please re-examine the exchange above. 17:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Suggest this wording:

In August 2016 in an interview with KABC, Pinsky expressed concerns over Hillary Clinton's health and the treatment regimen she was receiving. A week later CNN announced that his show would not be renewed, citing 'mutual agreement. Pinsky said that the non-renewal agreement had taken place before his comments on Clinton, so the two events were unrelated.

• Support TweedVest (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

sourced to what? Content without sourcing is not helpful. And it is not clear what you are doing with the quotes (?) or something around mutual agreement. Jytdog (talk) 20:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

We saw the source earlier in the reverted edit. I would prefer language that does not draw conclusions based on primary source, such as, "Pinsky said that the parties had already agreed to terminate the show when Pinsky offered his opinions on Clinton's health, and that the two events were not related." 21:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't read minds and we cannot consider this without the source and the typo needs to be fixed so we can see if there is actually a quote or if the one apostrophe is a stray; could be either. Jytdog (talk) 22:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

This is the source from the edit you recently trimmed,[47] as indicated above.[48] And please let's be a little more collegial. You should be working as hard to understand this issue as we are working to help you understand it. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 22:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

In my view it isn't collegial to guess at another editor's intentions; it is an ugly thing to do. I am waiting to hear from TweedVest on the proposed source and the quote issue on the proposal that he/she made. Jytdog (talk) 23:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

We have been discussing a small section of the article based on a WP source since it was first published on August 26. Repeatedly asking for the same source borders on IDHT. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 23:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The Clinton speculation has no place here. And since Pinsky himself says it was unrelated to his Clinton comments, there is no reason to mention them - except to hint (nudge nudge, wink wink) at a cause/effect relationship. It should be enough to say CNN announced his show will not be renewed, citing mutual agreement. This appears to be just another attempt to get his comments about Clinton into Wikipedia. It should be noted that User:TweedVest has been pushing this story for weeks. TweedVest tried three separate times to get Pinsky's comments into the Clinton article, see Talk:Hillary Clinton/Archive 39#Questions about Clinton's health, Talk:Hillary Clinton/Archive 39#Dr. Drew concerned about her health, and Talk:Hillary Clinton/Archive 40#Dr. Drew. Then when they couldn't convince anyone at that venue, they are now trying here. In fact, pushing this story is very nearly the only thing they have done at Wikipedia. Not criticizing, just suggesting people consider the source. --MelanieN (talk) 03:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

"And since Pinsky himself says it was unrelated to his Clinton comments, there is no reason to mention them" -- I did not know that the primary source always had the final word on the events covered in the article. Is this a new Wikipedia policy? If so, many other articles will have to be changed. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 06:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not the "final word," because the secondary sources are not stating outright that the two events are related. They are simply hinting that they could be by reporting on what happened flatly rather than analyzing it (incidentally, this makes the news a primary source per WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Pinsky on the other hand is making a definitive statement on the matter that is not actually contradicted by anything definitive. It would only be considered undue if, for example, there was an official announcement by CNN that the cancellation was the direct result of his comments. In short, flat statements of fact override vague speculation.Legitimus (talk) 12:50, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Legitimus and sfarney, do you support my suggested edit with the previously mentioned source? If so, looks like we have a consensus. Also, it appears I'm being stalked by an editor from another article. Is edit-stalking allowed in Wikipedia or is considered harassment? Just asking... TweedVest (talk) 14:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I do not support any mention of the comments about Clinton, but the rest is ok. As there is now fairly strong evidence they are unrelated events, the comments about Clinton are not notable in a vacuum and thus not worth of mentioning. Remember, Pinsky is a media commentator who just happens to be a doctor too; he says a lot of things that are reported in the news, but not necessarily notable within the meaning of this term on wikipedia for a biographical article. Dr. Oz doesn't have his remarks about Benji Marshall's sleep apnea in his article, even if it was covered in the news too.Legitimus (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Either a source says the two are connected or it does not. The news article provides a timeline, but does not directly link the two events. Meanwhile, Pinsky has stated explicitly that the two are not related. Until a reliable source comes along that directly refutes his statement, then any implication in the article that the two events are related is not appropriate. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Did you read my suggestion. I'm suggesting that we explicitly state that the Pinsky says the two events are not related. So, I take it that you think that would be ok? If no one objects, then I'll make the edit later today. TweedVest (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The addition does not belong in the article. Attempting to interpret my prior statement into claimed support of the edit is utter and complete nonsense. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree with the suggestion either. You do not have consensus to add that. Jytdog (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Please suggest alternate wording to how we introduce Pinky's expert concerns on Clinton's health and her treatment to the article. His comments were reported in numerous major media sources, so it's notable enough to be reported. If no one makes a suggestion, I'll come up with something on my own add it to the article. If anyone reverts it without having made an alternate suggestion here first, then I'm calling you out for edit warring, which is against Wikipedia policy. If you've already been warned for that type of behavior in the past... TweedVest (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

It is silly season-driven trivia. You do not have consensus to include this content. You have been notified of the DS on american politics, and more than one admin is aware of your campaign to add this to WP. If you choose to add it with no consenus, that will likely result in a swift topic ban, possibly without even passing through AE. You will of course choose to do as you will. Jytdog (talk) 19:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

There's no need to suggest alternate wording for content that's not needed in the article in the first place. If you add it without consensus, it's 100% appropriate for it to be reverted. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Somebody does not want Mr. Pinsky's booboos to be published. Just tell the good parts, ignore the public peccadillos. That is Wikipedia. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 21:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

MOS:CREDENTIAL

User:HSukePup, why did you revert my edit? If you disagree with MOS:CREDENTIAL, try to get it changed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Hob Gadling Fair enough. Please revert my undo. --HSukePup (talk) 18:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 Section

Are his opinions that he later reversed really notable? It seems like a way to besmirch his character by putting it in his BLP. Just because it's a current event does not make it a notable event.80.0.45.128 (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Honestly it has no business in this article as it is a flash-in-the-pan moment of a living person's biography. This isn't the first time a group of motivated, emotional users have done this to this article. But for now, expect to be shouted down or giving long-winded policy explanations as justifications for why this material has to stay. A year or two will pass, and an admin or other experienced users will eventually review it, and it will be removed.Legitimus (talk) 00:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

The section ends with "In December 2020, Pinsky revealed that he had been diagnosed with COVID-19." "revealed" seems like a strange word choice, and I'm not sure Pinksy getting COVID is noteworthy enough to be mentioned. 2001:56A:F123:4400:70DD:4A6E:A97:B15F (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

"Announced" would have been a better word choice. I've updated it since it's a pretty minor thing. As for why it was mentioned, that's a question for the users that added it, who seem to have no interest in discussing the matter here on the talk page. I would imagine this was added because it implies that Pinsky contracted the disease because he was not taking it seriously enough, when viewed in light of the paragraphs above it.Legitimus (talk) 11:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree that "Announced" is better. And I agree on your analysis. I am going to delete the sentence due to its WP:Irrelevance. Pinsky never suggested that he wouldn't contract the virus. He also didn't change his beliefs, or suffer serious consequences, and he contracted the virus almost a year after he downplayed the risks. The sources do not indicate that his diagnosis was a significant event. 2001:56A:F123:4400:4DC7:1347:54AF:9BAE (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me the fact that he got COVID-19 is relevant because of his noteworthy views on the virus. The cited source specifically draws that connection. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:39, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't really follow you. The USA Today article seems to make the same insinuation that is being done here--that Pinsky's contraction of the disease was a consequence somehow of his views on COVID. There were no statements or professional analyses provided that would suggest such. Pinsky never stated such either. The sentence on this page in context certainly seems to be leading the reader. I believe it is doing more harm than good in the context of an encyclopedia. 2001:56A:F123:4400:A53A:A7C4:EFF3:6119 (talk) 20:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Further to this, it appears that inclusion fails BRD, unless we are assuming there is silent consensus here. I don't think that's a strong case given how little discussion has occurred. 2001:56A:F123:4400:F854:E6E0:8A29:5645 (talk) 17:46, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The article does not say that him contracting COVID-19 was a result of his views, and I'm not sure what led you to that interpretation. As for WP:BRD, we are following it. One editor made a bold edit, another editor reverted, and now we are discussing. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The section is regarding his views on COVID. I do not see any connection between his views and his diagnosis established in the source. His diagnosis would be relevant to a section on his COVID views if it had a sourced contextual relationship with his views—if there was a causal link, or if it changed his views, for instance. Sources do not suggest a causal link, nor is there indication that it changed his views. I am failing to see a connection here that isn't an insinuation. It also appears that the initial inclusion of the sentence was the Bold edit, my deletion would be the revert. The “Bold” section of BRD seems to emphasize collaboration. This is the first discussion on the material in question. 2001:56A:F123:4400:F854:E6E0:8A29:5645 (talk) 22:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

These are valid points and clearly stated. Pinsky being a celebrity means there a high risk of sources attempting inappropriate insinuation and synthesis, as well as a general lack of NPOV sources. At best, the matter of his contracting the disease belongs in an entirely different section, such as personal life which is where matters of health often are placed. As example, when actor Tim Curry suffered a stroke.Legitimus (talk) 14:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me it is more coherent to include all the COVID-19–related information in the same section, not split it up into separate sections. I'm not sure why you linked to WP:SYNTHESIS. There is no original synthesis here – the information is cited to reliable sources, and it is not being combined in a way unsupported by the sources. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

The content is too general to include in a section on COVID views unless it has clear relevance to his views. I don't see an adequate connection, and I agree with User:Legitimus regarding SYNTH. The sentence attempts to link his views with his diagnosis without adequate sourcing. If it were so relevant to his views, the statement on his diagnosis would also state how--but right now all we have is a health observation in a "views" section. 2001:56A:F123:4400:F8C3:6279:4DCD:5BF6 (talk) 18:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I am the IP editor in these preceding comments. I created a username in the interest of collaboration. So... what happens now? I see that User:Mx. Granger continues to edit this page but has disengaged from this discussion. It appears two oppose inclusion and one supports it. SmolBrane (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I haven't disengaged from the discussion, I just didn't have any further points beyond what I've already said. To reiterate, the cited source indicates that the COVID-19 diagnosis is relevant to a discussion about his views on COVID-19. If you still disagree, you are welcome to open a request for comment. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

RfC

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a consensus against including the positive diagnosis in the section with Pinsky's earlier expressed beliefs about COVID-19. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 04:31, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

---

Should a statement on Drew Pinsky's positive COVID-19 diagnosis remain in the section entitled "Views on COVID-19"? SmolBrane (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Please see the discussion above on the talk page. SmolBrane (talk) 18:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• No - there have been over 145 million cases of COVID-19 worldwide, he's not special or notable in that regard. And honestly, I would support removing that whole section – "Views on COVID-19", his initial comments only spanned a two month period in the early days of the pandemic, and he later recognized his position was wrong and admitted it. Sources covered it for a very limited time, and it hasn't received sustained coverage, so in my view, it's not a significant life event for a BLP. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:18, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

• No - Contraction of the disease is not related to views on said disease he held at one time. There is a clear attempt at tabloid-like insinuation occurring that is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. At best, the information would go under personal life where most other BLP articles put health-related facts. But even then, other BLP articles tend to restrict such mentions to illnesses that represent major, life-altering events for that person, such as the stroke suffered by actor Tim Curry or Roger Ebert's cancer. This does not appear to be such a situation. I concur with the user above that the section on COVID-19 Views feels uncalled for as well, particularly since he admitted his hypothesis turned out to be wrong.Legitimus (talk) 13:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, the fact that he got COVID-19 is relevant to a section about his views on COVID-19. The cited source discusses the two together. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:49, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
• No - Not enough established relevance in the source. I would be comfortable deleting the section as well. SmolBrane (talk) 15:59, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
• Yes Without prejudice to the form of the statement. I think the fact he got the disease is very relevant to his biography. Where to put that information is an open question - if there was a better suggestion, that would be a possibility, but if the choices are "here or nowhere," the answer is "here." Hipocrite (talk) 20:51, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
• No The whole section should be removed, not relevant. Sea Ane (talk) 03:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
• No "Man downplays pandemic, realizes mistake, apologizes and later gets Covid" isn't really notable enough to warrant an entire section. Each one of those actions can apply to millions of people, many of them doctors. Having a sentence about it in a different section wouldn't be absurd, but a whole section for this? No way. PraiseVivec (talk) 11:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
• Yes per WP:WEIGHT. It is biographically appropriate life event because it is a long haul case, and it seems appropriate for this section. Otherwise - it really deserves more space per WEIGHT. The article spends most of the section about his first month or two views, but... much of his coverage seems to date from *after* his reversal of early views, and another bunch after later catching a long haul case. By WEIGHT and for better reading, both his later views and the later events of his life should be getting more relative space than the article currently shows. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Good points, I suspect you are referring to one or both of these sources:

USA Today, Inside Edition

There is more substantive info here. The USA Today's coverage is still poor, unless we want to mention what “Twitter users quickly pointed out”. The Inside Edition material is pretty good, is more “lasting”, and offers more info than simply 'Pinsky got COVID'. This might warrant inclusion and we could rephrase the diagnosis sentence, likely resolving the insinuation issue and possibly the relevance issue. My only other remaining objection would be the statements on the DroopsDr video that don't seem very notable. So to be clear, I don't object if we mention Pinsky's early “downplaying”, subsequent apology or diagnosis if it is established by consensus or sources that it is relevant in the context of his “long haul” symptoms. I have limited experience editing BLPs though, so the whole section may still remain undue.

The section could be re-written roughly something like this. That last sentence might constitute SYNTH because that's my summary of the Inside Edition info:

Between February to March 2020, Pinsky made a series of statements concerning the COVID-19 outbreak where he downplayed the seriousness of the pandemic, stating that it was not as bad as the flu, and suggested that it was a "press-induced panic".[33] In April 2020, Pinsky apologized for his statements and he urged people to follow the advice of Anthony Fauci.[33][35]

In January 2021, several weeks after contracting the illness, Pinsky stated that he was still experiencing neurological symptoms and fatigue.

- SmolBrane (talk) 00:35, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Being not familiar with the overall sourcing on the matter (that is to say, the broader world of sourcing, not those few used in the article at present), I'm not prepared to !vote either way on this, but I will say that much (though not all) of the feedback so far seems to be focusing on rather the wrong things: Wikipedia editors are not supposed to be generating opinions on what content is appropriate based upon their own idiosyncratic views on what is a "relevant" part of subject, or what is an "important" detail in understanding the subject of an article--that point is pretty much the essence of WP:NPOV, one of our pillar policies. The appropriate measure here is not "relevance" but WP:WEIGHT: how extensively do the sources cover the detail in question in relation to the broader subject. And while some of the feedback so far aligns with this principle (but just doesn't cite policy or use the most accurate nomenclature), some of the rest is frankly more akin to WP:Original research or WP:IDONTLIKE it in nature.

On a side note, since some !votes have pushed for such an approach, I would ardently oppose (almost as a WP:SNOW matter) removing the entire section, since there is clearly abundant sourcing discussing this little episode. And it's pretty easy to see why: the man's fame derives from being in the intersection of doctor and media personality. So of course a blunder with regard to initially downplaying what turned out to be the largest global public health crisis in a generation is going to become grist for the mill when it comes to media coverage of a physician who has so much public exposure to the medical advice they choose to put out into the world. Then there is the additional factor of the efforts to suppress content critical of his comments, which also gained extensive coverage. Now, some here may be happy to say as individuals they appreciate that the man was at least willing to backtrack eventually and thus we should not cover this topic because "it is important enough in the larger context of his life/career" or some variation on that theme: I'm sorry, but that's just not how our policies work. We cannot just completely expunge a year's worth of discussion of the episode in perfectly WP:reliable sources just because some of us may think the criticism is out of proportion with what it should be. Because as editors, what coverage "should be" doesn't come into it (see WP:IDONTLIKEIT). This topic got significant sustained coverage, so it should (and almost certainly will, in the final analysis) be covered in the article. Now there is a question as to the extent of coverage (again WP:WEIGHT), but with just a handful fo stripped down sentences in that subsection already, I'm not seeing it being out of proportion to the sourcing. Anyway, as a purely procedural matter, for those who want to advocate for the removal of the whole section (rather than just the fact of Dr. Pinsky's illness), that issue ought to be raised in a separate RfC if you decide to seek consensus for it, since the question is absent from the initial prompt of this discussion. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

The sources used for the 4 sentences at the beginning of that section are dated April 6 and April 7. That is not significant sustained coverage, that is extremely limited coverage akin to a 24 hour news cycle, which our policy, what Wikipedia is not (not news), advises against. It also smacks of recentism, an inflated or imbalanced focus on a recent event. When that sub-section was initially created, it was not WP:DUE to include his minority viewpoint on COVID 19, and it was disproportionate to the overall significance to the article topic (BLP). And now adding that he is one of hundreds of million people who contracted COVID 19, doesn't make it any more DUE. His comments were the minority viewpoint then, and they still are now. What we should be asking is, are his comments of lasting importance, or him getting COVID 19 of lasting importance? We should be writing with an aim towards a long-term, historical view, and not report the news as it happens. And speaking for myself, the only reason I mentioned removing the whole section, is because of the discussion in the section above, and the fact that entire section is undue for the subject of a BLP. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• No - (Summoned by bot) Absent any real relevance or extended coverage, it looks like a tabloid-y "Ha gotcha" as said by Legitimus above. The rest of the section seems relevant and neutrally phrased. Pincrete (talk) 14:54, 27 April 2021 (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.

Dr. Drew reverses course on Covid vaccines

Thoughts? 47.184.145.107 (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Source? --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/_aussie17/status/1625082647746867202?t=XhomYQP-zhPwnqxrSM2lJg&s=19 47.184.145.107 (talk) 04:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Twitter is not WP:RS because it is self-published. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

My bad. I assumed it was obvious that even though it was on Twitter, this was a link to an actual episode of Ask Dr. Drew. Here is the link to the show from his site. In the 1st few minutes, he apologizes to Dr. Wolf and admits that he now believes that there are at least 5 mechanisms where excess spike can cause serious women's reproductive system issues. He goes on to say he's fairly certain this excess spike is caused by the vaccines. (Later on @ around 15:20 )HOWEVER ... This part is now cut from the show on his site. Someone downloaded the show before the edit and that is what you will find in the Twitter link to said show.(above) If this site has any real journalistic integrity, this should be examined and added to his Wikipedia entry because what he said is pretty groundbreaking for a mainstream personality.

https://drdrew.com/2023/in-undercover-video-pfizer-director-admits-concerning-mrna-effects-on-womens-reproduction-w-dr-naomi-wolf-ask-dr-drew/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.184.145.107 (talk) 01:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have any real journalistic integrity because it is not journalism. It is an encylopedia.

Wikipedia does not "examine" things like that. See WP:OR. It takes what reliable sources say and repeats it. See WP:RS.

If you want this in the article, you need to publish it in a reliable source first. Until then, there is no way we can include it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

man ... that's good stuff. Who, pray tell, is the ultimate arbiter of reliable sources? Is there a Wiki of "reliable sources" somewhere? Please advise. 47.184.145.107 (talk) 03:57, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Again: See WP:RS. Those are the rules. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

So ... a link directly to the episode of "Ask Dr Drew" on his website (drdrew.com), where he says what Im reporting, which is (paraphrasing) he now believes that almost certainly Covid vaccines are a very real and serious danger to women's reproductive systems... is this a reliable source? 47.184.162.133 (talk) 03:51, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Of course not. That is WP:PRIMARY. We do not scan the output of someone for stupid nonsense to add to the articles about them. We wait until secondary sources notice it and comment on it, putting it in perspective. If he changes his opinion every few months, that may be a matter for a yellow-press newsticker, but not for an encyclopedia --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:52, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

God your thick. Just as expected. You won't put something of great import that Dr Drew said on his own show on his own FING wiki page. I sure hope you're getting paid to be this senseless because if you're doing this out of your convictions ... still ... after the overwhelming and abundant evidence that covid vaccines are dangerous and ineffective, then ... well ... i dont know what to say to you and your ilk. The time is coming. The tide is turning. You're going to have to eat the **** you're shoveling pretty soon. 😅 and i must admit ... I'm going to enjoy every minute of it. Have a great day! 😁 47.184.162.133 (talk) 04:27, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh, it is my fault that the Wikipedia rules are as they are. Right. Defenders of crackpot ideas have been telling me for decades that, at some unspecified time in the future, I will notice that I was wrong. The vain hope to be vindicated some day is all they have left after the flimsy reasoning their beliefs are based on is demolished. Sometimes they threaten that their God will punish me, and, I kid you not, one even said he hoped Santa will.

Look, Pinsky is just one of many, many thousands of people who have learned how to apply medical knowledge (which was accreted by people who know how to do science) but have never learned how to do science themselves beyond writing the one paper they need for their doctorate. The only difference is that he has a huge megaphone. His opinion does not trump, or even bother, that of the scientific community. His opinions are not of great import. They are just sound bites from some guy on the telly, and they become noteworthy for Wikipedia when someone reliable notices them. Not earlier.

Go read WP:PRIMARY, since you obviously have not done so yet. And read WP:TALK and WP:PA. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:46, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Sigh... you really *believe* that the "scientific community" is in lock step with the (semi) current false covid vaccine narrative?! That is so far from the truth today. Its farther away from the truth than it has been in probably 30+ years regarding the blind, deaf and dumb lemmings in the medical community, and outside it, falling for what should be the *obvious* lock step drumbeat of the pharma cartel.

Enjoy the little bit of power that you have in censoring (yes, that's exactly what you're doing regarding anything Covid) Wikipedia pages from "Misinformation" instead of following open discussion among experts in the field. Go ahead and believe anything that comes out of the mouths of news organizations, doctors who swore a Hippocratic oath, and others who are so plainly compromised by corporate money/power/influence, or just simply painfully ignorant of these processes, regarding anything Covid. If it helps you sleep at night ...😴 History will be the judge. Btw ... up for a friendly gentleman's game of poker? 47.184.162.133 (talk) 02:35, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I read the start of this, and it was the usual profringe blather, so I stopped somewhere in the middle. See the footnotes of WP:YWAB for more of the same. We are finished here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:46, 2 March 2023 (UTC)