Talk:Drew Pinsky

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
thread_title: External Links

message: Should it be refrenced in this article? Pumpkin Pi 22:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'd say it is more than important enough. --Liface 23:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad, its already here, just with no link. edit: added Pumpkin Pi 23:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cracked

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: hahaha... As Adam used to say "Real doctor or Loooooooooove doctor"?... Obrez 17:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dr. Drew's Medical Specialties

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Is Myspace page legit??? 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Remarried? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Off-topic thread moved to User talk:Justallofthem#Drew Pinsky. --Justallofthem (talk) 02:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Cruise reinserted

message: 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)
thread_title:  Colour Blind 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I don't understand.  "intimately involved"?  How so?Legitimus (talk) 23:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I understand- but it happened while he was managing the wing. He's in charge. tedder (talk) 05:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Las Encinas Controversy

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: IIRC he wasn't paid until the triplets were born. tedder (talk) 20:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Drew worked for free

message: 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 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Tom Cruise - Revisited 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Missing show from intro paragraph

message: 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)
thread_title: The cocaine rumor 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Praying man? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Other media appearances EDIT REQUEST 

message: 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)
thread_title: Third Opinion

message: 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)
thread_title: Another opinion

message: Substituted at 13:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: This is the source from the edit you recently trimmed, as indicated above.  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: "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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Suggest this wording:

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[MOS:CREDENTIAL]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  COVID-19 Section