Talk:John Travis (physician)

COI

Please note: This is an article for which I was approached to edit and received a financial consideration for doing so.Fbell74 (talk) 08:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Edits & COI tag

Hi User:Theroadislong - Thank you for taking the time to have a look at the article. Your edits were useful and I’ve made some amendments to the article with these in mind.

I reworded the part about the standard approach to medicine being to see wellness as an absence of illness so that now it reads as a viewpoint rather than a statement of fact. I think the ‘citation needed’ tag can be removed now but I’d be happy to hear your thoughts on this.

I’m hoping to find a source for the subject having created the first computerized HRA.

Also, I noticed that you had placed a COI tag on the article and felt that this might be misplaced, unless you had other concerns regarding the article? Thanks Fbell74 (talk) 10:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Not sure why you think it misplaced? Wikipedia strongly discourages editing with a conflict of interest and VERY strongly discourages it when editors with a COI are being paid. Theroadislong (talk) 09:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

"It is not ok with me that anyone ever set up a service selling their services as a Wikipedia editor, administrator, bureaucrat, etc. I will personally block any cases that I am shown.... the idea that we should ever accept paid advocates directly editing Wikipedia is not ever going to be ok. Consider this to be policy as of right now.... Just imagine the disaster for our reputation. Are we free and independent scribes doing our best to record all human knowledge? Or are we paid shills. I know what I choose." — Jimbo Wales. Theroadislong (talk) 09:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I think because I had previously posted in the Teahouse asking editors to take a look at the amended version of the article while it was in my sandbox. Some suggestions were made, which I incorporated and following this I posted the amendments with COI declarations on my own Talk page and that of the article. I thought that this would cover off COI and obviate the need for a COI tag. However, perhaps I should have posted the amendments on the article's Talk page instead. Would this work if references/infoboxes/images and so on are part of the amendments? Fbell74 (talk) 08:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Request edit on 16 January 2014

This is a request to include additional information relating to the article - mainly relating to factual information and sources.

• Introduction: The article originally mentioned that the subject is known as Jack. This was removed for not having a source. I found a few that supported this including this one: http://www.amazon.com/The-Wellness-Workbook-3rd-Enduring/dp/1587612135 Can it be added back?

Not Done A passing mention only in a reviewers comment? Theroadislong (talk) 09:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The use of 'Jack' as a familiar name is also included in the following: http://whydadsleave.com/meryn-gail-callander/ - this relates to the book he co-wrote.Fbell74 (talk) 06:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Separately, the article originally included information relating to the subject being a pioneer of the wellness movement. This was removed but this source tends to support this statement - http://www.samueliinstitute.org/File%20Library/Health%20Policy/Total-Force-Fitness-for-the-21st-Century_A-New-Paradigm.pdf - I wondered if it would be fair to put it back (or to refer to the subject being a leading figure of the wellness movement?Fbell74 (talk) 06:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Wellness: There was a typo in the original text and a subsequent deletion resulted in inaccurate information appearing in the article.

Originally the article stated: “Dr. Travis originally wrote and published the Wellness Workbook in 1977 in collaboration with Regina Ryan. It was then re-published as an expanded edition trade paperback with Ten Speed Press (1981, 1988). The book was revised as a third edition in 2004 by Ten Speed's Celestial Arts division.”

Following the edit it now reads: “Travis wrote and published the Wellness Workbook in 1977 in collaboration with Regina Ryan.” This is incorrect as Ryan got involved later.

It should read: “Travis originally wrote and published the Wellness Workbook in 1977. In collaboration with Regina Ryan it was then re-published as an expanded edition trade paperback with Ten Speed Press (1981, 1988). The book was revised as a third edition in 2004 by Ten Speed's Celestial Arts division.”

Can this perhaps be added back?

This is already what the article says more or less? Theroadislong (talk) 11:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. As it is currently written it reads as if Ryan co-authored the Wellness Workbook in 1977. However this is incorrect - she got involved later. In the original text there was a misplaced period, which changed the meaning of the text.Fbell74 (talk) 06:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• University posts: I have a source to confirm the subject’s role with the California Institute of Integral Studies, which can be included if required: http://www.ciis.edu/Academics/Graduate_Programs/Integrative_Health_Studies/Adjunct_Faculty.html 

• Non-government organisations (NGOs): The subject is also involved with another organisation - Intact America, 2009 (Source: http://www.intactamerica.org/aboutus). Can this be included, please?

Separately, I included sources to support the subject’s involvement with the other NGOs mentioned but these were removed in a subsequent edit. If sources are needed however, please let me know.

• External links: These were removed as they failed to include more information about the article’s subject. I wondered whether they might be useful as sources of additional information though? Thank you in advance Fbell74 (talk) 09:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding closed request: looks like edits were implemented. That is fine with me as a delay of 7 months had elapsed. I WP:AGF and have not compared the requested items vs. the actual edit. Nevertheless I've closed the request in order to reduce the backlog. – S. Rich (talk) 00:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Request: review of changes regarding neutrality of tone

DGG placed an alert on the article as s/he felt that the tone of the article lacked neutrality. Following on from this I made changes, which hopefully have addressed this issue. I would be grateful for an editor's perspective and if there aren't now any issues with the tone, to okay the removal of the alert.Fbell74 (talk) 01:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

It is a very considerable improvement, but there are still problems:

1. . As I read the NYT article in ref 2, the article does not justify the statement that the "interview with Dan Rather on 60 Minutes in November, 1979, brought the concept of wellness to national attention." The article uses this as an initial hook, but most of the article is devoted to developments before that, and developments afterwards, most of them involving other people. To portray him as the central figure is WP:SYN, and possibly inaccurate synthesis at that.
2. The account of being influenced by Dunn ultimately rests on his own statement that he was influenced by Dunn, and should be worded that way.
3. The overuse of the term "wellness" in the article implies a greater role than may be justified by the facts, and gives a promotional impression/.
4. So does the repeated use of his name. The proper term most of the time (when not ambiguous) is "he" or "his"
5. The emphasis on his statements about circumcision may be overemphasis, if this is a peripheral theme in his work. It may be something that he wishes to emphasize, but that's not a factor in a NPOV article.
6. Statements like "Travis was among a group of physicians..." may be overemphasis, unless it was an organized group and he was a leader.
7. Everything he wrote published by Wellness Associates is self-published. "A change of heart" is published by a publisher that seems to have published nothing else, and the book is in only 4 libraries. Should it even be mentioned? A 97 book by Callender without him as a coauthor does not belong here. Male Postpartum Abandonment Syndrome is apparently her term, not his, should not be attributed to him by inference. I can find no third party references for Project FatherMore.

Promotionl writing is writing what the subject would like to have said about himself. It is not easy for a paid editor to avoid doing that. DGG ( talk ) 07:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

DGG - Thank you for taking the detailed feedback. I've made additional changes to the article based on this and included comments below relating to the points you raised. See what you think Fbell74 (talk) 06:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

1. You’re right about the NYT article dealing with wellness rather than just focussing on the TV programme. I think I was taking the view that Dan Rather’s 60 Minutes was such a huge programme in the States (even growing up in Europe I was aware of it), that if they presented a person or a subject it could be considered to have been brought into the national consciousness.
2. I’ve reworded this as: “Travis has cited Halbert L. Dunn, MD's 1961 book, High-Level Wellness as one of his influences, which lead him to found the Wellness Resource Center in Mill Valley, California, in 1975.”
3. I’ve reworded the article by removing the word or putting in synonyms. Some of the mentions of wellness are related to proper nouns (e.g. Wellness Inventory, Wellness Resource Centre), so I’ve left these as they are.
4. I’ve made substitutions, but retained the use of the surname at the introduction of sections. If this still overdoes it though I can pare them down further.
5. I see what you mean. I’ve reduced this to a one-sentence mention.
6. It wasn’t really an organised group, so I’ve changed this to: “one of a number of physicians..”
7. I’ve taken out three of the books and kept three. One of these is Wellness Inventory. This is one of the central works of the subject, although it is published by Wellness Associates. The other two books were published by Ten Speed Press, which is a reasonably established publishing company. Re the Male Postpartum Abandonment Syndrome, I understand this was a collaborative effort in terms of the concept. I’ve taken out the mention of this for the moment. I have a copy of the itineraries for a couple of conferences where the subject spoke about this topic. Would they do as sources?

I’ve taken out the text relating to Project FatherMore.

FBell74, what makes you think you are welcome to edit this article, or any other article with which you have a paid connection (such as Illness-Wellness Continuum), at all, in any way? Conflict-of-interest editors are strongly discouraged from editing articles where they have a conflict, and that most definitely includes your relationship to this frightful page. In future, please keep your talk-page requests brief and to the point – please read WP:PAYTALK. I applaud DGG's willingness to discuss detail; in my opinion the best approach here would be to remove the promotional COI content completely and start a fresh, neutral stub page which interested non-conflicted Wikipedians can expand if they wish. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers, in listing the problems, I did imply that FBell could try making the changes themselves. But there remain many changes that have not been made, and must be, for example: the line about the interview remains. It's still OR an Synthesis. There's still too much on wellness; there's still a book published by his wife as the only author; still claims of first; still puffery; still unsourced claims of co-founder. Also, RMIT does not list him on their staff.

I'm going to rewrite as needed; and then I will look at any related articles. Fbell74, what you certainly should not do as a coi editor is revert other people's changes unless you get consensus for doing so. What you can properly do is list on the talk page suggestions for changes. As for Illness-Wellness Continuum, I'm going to consider redirecting it here. That approach has the advantage that it justifies having some material on the concept here, to indicate what his work is about.

I've repeatedly said that it is quite unusual for a paid editor to write a truly NPOV article. That the suggested changes were not made tends a little to confirm me in this view. DGG ( talk ) 05:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Justlettersandnumbers (talk · contribs) - As I understand it, while paid editors are strong discouraged from contributing to pieces, it is not prohibited, hence the reason why I made changes to the article. My response above to DGG is slightly lengthy, but this was intended to address the specific points raised.Fbell74 (talk) 06:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

DGG - re the changes, it wasn’t a case of refusing to input all the suggestions, but there were a couple that I queried (reasons in the response above). The three remaining books listed are co-authored by the subject. These are three relevant links: Wellness Workbook, Wellness Inventory, Simply Well Travis has been a staff member at RMIT: although when I searched for him today I couldn’t find him, so he may not currently be there. I’ll have to look into it further. Just to confirm, I’m not looking to revert any changes.Fbell74 (talk) 06:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

My experience is that finding this can sometimes be difficult, as most universities do not keep previous staff directories online, Official CV information of an academic is normally reliable, but not necessarily so if on a non official site. As comments, I agree with you that 10 speed press is sufficiently responsible a publisher to use. I'm concerned also about documented cofounder of Coalition for Improving Maternity Services & the other two organizations, as I cannot find this information on their sites.

Do you see the difference between "He has also criticized the practice of male circumcision, " and "He has also criticized the practice of male circumcision, , voicing support for the principle of body integrity for young males and challenging the legality of parental decision making in the area of circumcision" . The first states his position, and leaves the arguments to our articles on the subject; the second promotes his views.

Before i rewrite, I really want your opinion of whether you think the separate wellness inventory article is justifiable. In my experience, it's better to have one strong article than two that are subject to challenge, whereas writing two articles, about a person & his organization or concept (or even all 3) is a standard & very obvious promotional technique. Some people who feel as i do refuse to help paid editors; Myself, if you are going to do paid editing here, I'd like to get you to do it better., and I'll work with you as long as we are making progress. DGG ( talk ) 08:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Re the staff directories - that’s what I’m finding as well. I had included a source (a link to the relevant university page) when I input the information previously, but this may have been removed subsequently. The subject is currently a course coordinator (not sure if this is worth including/relevant).

Coalition for Improving Maternity Services: I found one source (written by the subject) - I’ll look for a third party source. I found a couple of sources here and here, showing the subject as cofounder of Alliance for Transforming the Lives of Children (ATLC) and International Coalition for Genital Integrity.

I see what you mean about the sentence on male circumcision - that it looks like advocacy.

Re the separate wellness inventory article, I do believe it belongs in a separate space. It’s a concept that has been referred to by a number of writers and discussed, distinct from any mention of Travis. The traffic to the Illness-Wellness Continuum is actually far higher than to the John Travis (physician) page). I did a comparison using the wmflabs.org tool and on a given month there are anywhere from twice as many to ten times as many visiting the I-W C article. Popularity isn’t everything, but this suggests that the I-W C page attracts visitors directly, who aren’t coming via the Travis page.

I appreciate you taking the time to look at this and for offering to help improve. I’m trying to avoid articles coming across as puff pieces (although I don’t always succeed).Fbell74 (talk) 02:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi DGG - I found some additional sources for a couple of points that may be useful.

Apparently, RMIT takes individuals off their staff register if they haven’t lectured during the previous semester (Travis teaches part-time). Perhaps this is not often enough to include in the article? If it is enough, the other source is a directory for journalists who’re looking for Australian based points of contact in different fields expertguide.com

Regarding the Male Postpartum Abandonment Syndrome (MPAS), Travis is described as a co-originator of the concept in Callendar’s book on the subject. I'm looking for an online preview of this. I imagine it's still possible to use sources, even those that don’t have a freely available online version? Travis has also spoken on the topic at University of North Carolina School of Medicine - links https://cdn.evbuc.com/eventlogos/8997733/psiandunc2014mainconferenceagendajun6.pdf and here. Fbell74 (talk) 03:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

If he's a part time lecturer, it's stretching things to call him one of the faculty; you can describe it if you find a source for the exact position, but it won't add much to notability. Certainly you may-- and should-- use available printed sources, but for something like this, it's necessary to find a quote and give the exact pages. Try getting an actual copy of the book through a library. As for conferences, they count much less that published books or peer-reviewed papers. DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that describing him as a faculty member might be inaccurate. I found a source relating to the course and his profile at RMIT, which might be usable. I've also got a scanned copy of 'Why Dads Leave' and have pulled off two quotes relating to Travis being one of the originators of the concept. The author (Callendar) says, "Jack found himself spiraling down in despair and into the depression that was eventually to be the stimulus for discovering what we named Male Postpartum Abandonment Syndrome (MPAS)‹and the resulting Dynamic of Disappearing Dads (DDD)." Later on p.334 in the appendix it states, "Appendix B: Primal Sex: Bosom Buddies and Other Lovers By Jeannine Parvati Baker A major inspiration to Jack¹s formulating the original hypothesis of MPAS." Regarding the conference docs, they probably speak more to him lecturing on the topic so maybe best to leave these out as sources. Fbell74 (talk) 03:50, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the request edit template - I have looked through the discussion, but there doesn't seem to be a relevant, specific request for an outside editor to consider. As such, I will decline it. Regards, VB00 (talk) 17:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Status

Since it still read promotionally, with uncited claims for firsts, I reorganized it, but I have some more to go. In order to present his career chronologically, there are some dates that need to be cleared up:

1. " the wellbeing concept he put forward in 1972. " In what 1972 publication did he publish it? If a date is used, there needs to be some evidence for it.
2. The data for the illustration of the Wellness Continuum says "derived from an image held by the creator. It was originally published in 1977" In what publication was it published? The publications section lists nothing for that year. The article on the Continuum says "he began developing the concept in 1972 and it was first published in 1975 in the Wellness Inventory" The source in that article for "began developing" is a secondary source. What exactly does it say, and on what basis?

There is another problem: The illustration of the Continuum according to our rules can only be used to illustrate the article on the Continuum, or whatever is the single place where it is described. . It can not be used here as well, . I would normally simply remove it, except that it might make more sense to integrate the material on the Continuum into this article, since there remains a good deal of duplication. I'm still thinking about this. Since both were written by the same declared paid editor, it's really not for him to decide, but I'd still like his opinion. DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the rewriting that you’ve done so far.

1. The wellbeing concept was published in the Wellness/Illness Continuum in 1972. I found two sources (1 and 2) that mention it.
2. I think the image was published in the Wellness Workbook in 1977, but I’ll double check this.
3. If an image can only be used in one article then it should be removed from the article here. In terms of the other article, I do think it belongs in its own space. I had a look at the traffic to both pages and the Illness-Wellness Continuum seems to attract a good number of visitors directly (rather than as redirects from the John Travis page), suggesting there’s an amount of interest in it as a standalone topic. That’s my tuppence worth anyway.Fbell74 (talk) 07:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The earliest publication that I've been able to find for the image was in the Wellness Inventory, which was in 1977. I've got a soft copy version of this with the relevant page number Fbell74 (talk) 03:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Continued from Talkpage

Hi DGG Sorry for the delay in responding to the post on your Talkpage of 13 August. I missed this completely until last weekend. I think the same in terms of whether to help paid editors or not. If a person has followed the requirements and declared their interest, but ironically this results in articles being dismissed out of hand then there’s little incentive to follow the rules.

The image of the Illness-Wellness Continuum seems to have disappeared from the article. I know you thought that if both articles were to be kept then the image should only appear on one (John Travis or Illness-Wellness Continuum), but the image also appears to have disappeared from the Illness-Wellness Continuum article. I wondered if you had any idea why?

Re the tags, would the close connection tag need to be on the main page? I thought that as the connection was disclosed on the Talkpage that this would satisfy the requirements? Fbell74 (talk) 02:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

FBell, I will check in a few days. At the moment I have a hand injury that is not letting me do much typing, and making the typing that I do manage even more error-riddent than usual. . But please consider again whether the best solution might be to combine the two articles? (and, if so, under which title) DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

DGG, sorry to hear you've had some misfortune. It's not much fun typing when it's painful - you realise how dependent you are on it when you're it becomes difficult. Let me have a think about combining the two.Fbell74 (talk) 07:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi DGG - Okay let's combine the two articles in one. Originally, the Illness-Wellness Continuum was part of the John Travis article, but then I moved it into a separate space. Do you think it makes most sense to include it in the John Travis article (essentially just reversing that change)?Fbell74 (talk) 03:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

basically, yes, that is what I had in mind. Why not just go ahead and do it and I'll revise . let me know. DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay - just moved that across and made a couple of minor changes to the wording. I haven't made any changes to the Illness-Wellness Continuum article in terms of deleting it or anything like that Fbell74 (talk) 07:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi DGG - I noticed that the image of the Illness-Wellness Continuum is back online again. I don't know if this was as a result of you looking into it, but if so, thank you. Separately, I think you mentioned you were going to have a look at the wording of this article re the issues that were highlighted by the alert. I haven't done anything more since adding in the Illness-Wellness Continuum information, but if there's anything you think I should do just let me knowFbell74 (talk) 00:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

thanks for reminding me,but I havent ben able to get to this yet. Maybe by the time I do, it will be improved so much I won't have to :)

No worries - I can try editing it again and see if that improves it Fbell74 (talk) 03:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

DGG, I've reworded parts of the article, including the Illness-Wellness section. When you have a minute perhaps you can take a look and see what you think? Fbell74 (talk) 01:50, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I will get there, but things are a little busy. DGG ( talk ) 01:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I understand, I received an email about the Wikipedia elections and can imagine there are lots of things going on. Thanks again for your help Fbell74 (talk) 05:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Wellness

Is it reasonable to talk about the "alternative medicine concept of wellness"? After all The World Health Organization defined health in its broader sense in its 1948 constitution as "a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity." Rathfelder (talk) 14:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Travis (physician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140106164252/http://www.fh-joanneum.at/global/show_document.asp?id=aaaaaaaaaabdjus to http://www.fh-joanneum.at/global/show_document.asp?id=aaaaaaaaaabdjus&

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)