Talk:Celebrity doctor/Archive 1

Archive 1

question

So how to bring in specific people? Could have a laundry list in the article of names and what they are known for; could do it in a separate list article, could create a new category... Or maybe not name specific people at all in this article. thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think naming them outside of the lead (to provide examples) is really necessary unless doing so allows us to bring in a source that improves the article. So, for instance, if we find an article about Dr. Oz that says some smart things, we can name him in our treatment of that article. Of course, we need to keep BLP in mind throughout this. Also, I think we need to name some celebrity PCP's, as the lead mentions these are another type, but I only know enough to have named a few of the first type. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and added some... what do you think? The thing about the "serving celebrities" kind is that they are rarely famous on their own; lots of them keep a kind of low profile and for that I am concerned about BLP (e.g. only notable b/c of celebrity death....) Jytdog (talk) 23:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I hadn't though to list the celebrities themselves, but yes, that's a much better way of doing it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, I will let this sit a few days for other feedback/vetting before I move it to mainspace. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 04:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

probably off topic, but...

I used to actually really like The Doctors. There was a time when I was home during the daytimes, and I'd leave the TV on to keep me and my oldest son (an infant at the time) a little company. I tended to cringe every single time some celebridoc would start to make a recommendation. With Dr. Oz, it was just so bad, that when I would cringe at The Doctors, only to hear them give the same, science-based advice I'd heard from skeptical doctors or practicing doctors, I got to thinking that maybe they were legit.

Then one day, I came across a compilation of their recommendations and started reading it, sure I was going to be vindicated in my feeling that they were 'the good guys'. Boy, was I wrong. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

feel free to delete this if no-one wants to respond to it, I know it's misplaced, but I just had to say it.

:) Jytdog (talk) 23:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Wakefield (and the list in general)

I saw this at the fringe noticeboard (I left a comment above it) and also noticed the Wakefield edits at his article. I also read the supporting source and found it interesting. Since more eyes were asked for and I went to the effort of reading everything I though I would share my general opinion.

Basically, I don't like the list. It is combining doctors together with varying levels of celebrity and basically giving them the same weight. I think it would be better as prose so a bit more context can be given to each entry or group of entries. Anyway just my 2c (ping if you need a reply). AIRcorn (talk) 23:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi User:Aircorn - thanks for your note! Didn't see anything at FRINGEN: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Celebrity_doctor....

I agree that there are different levels of fame here and different kinds as well. They all however share the traits of " someone with medical credentials who has a strong presence in the public sphere, generally through television, the internet and social media, books, and speaking engagements, "plying their trade in the mainstream media"" and the refs provided each show that. All of them also, to one extent or another, do the things described in third paragraph and have the problem named in the 2nd paragraph - the refs provided for each show that. On that level, Chopra and Wakefield and Oz and Stark all belong very much in one bucket - "celebrity doctor"...

I thought about making the list into a table including what they are known for which would give it more flesh... we could do that or expand each bullet ~a bit~ with content from the lead of the relevant article but I didn't want to go into too much detail...Jytdog (talk) 23:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

It seems pretty simple to me. If you can find any meaningful number of sources that describe someone using the exact term of art "celebrity doctor", then you're good. I can't find any such sources for Wakefield, or for Andrew Weil. Celebrity doctor does not mean quack - Christian Jessen is a good example to check, he is a celebrity doctor by any definition, but can you find sources that call him this, exactly? Guy (Help!) 00:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I added two citations for Weil that directly say "celebrity doctor" but in my view this requirement that the exact phrase be used is weird. The term is clearly defined and any doctor who "plies their trade in the media" in these branded, money-making ways is a "celebrity doctor". Every citation provided for any one listed here shows that they are a doctor (or were a doctor) who does these things; many of them do have the exact phrase. We summarize sources all the time. I recognize that the line between summarizing and SYN can be thin but I am not seeing that this crosses it. Jytdog (talk) 00:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

JzG, I disagree with your edit summary that this constitutes synth, because synth is not rephrasing things or following logically certain conclusions. Going from "Wakefield lends celebrity..." to "Wakefield is a celebrity" is purely logical. If Wakefield lends celebrity, then he has celebrity to lend. If he has celebrity to lend, then he is a celebrity. It's an inescapable conclusion.

That being said, I agree with your statement above. Wakefield is not in the same category as Dr. Oz. His celebrity arose as a result of his work, not as a result of media appearances, and not as a result of his patients' fame. So I'm okay with the removal, having thought about it (I actually came to the same conclusion you did while I was outside having a smoke and talking on the phone. Coming back in to say my bit and seeing you had beat me to it it was amusing.) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 00:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

"If Wakefield lends celebrity then he has celebrity to lend". You say. So now all we need is a source that says he is a celebrity, or more specifically a celebrity doctor. Has he been on I'm A Nonentity, Get Me Out Of Here? The definition of celebrity int he article is pretty clear: it refers to media profile. Wakefield has notoriety, but not celebrity. He is not celebrated at all. He is reviled. Guy (Help!) 08:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, if he doesn't have any celebrity, how could he lend celebrity to individual anti-vaxxers? Also, I agree that he's reviled by most of society, but not by anti-vaxxers. They see him as a jesus figure. I agree that there's a fundamental difference between him and someone like Dr Oz. I just think the citation was on the green side of the 'synth' meter. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I addressed this below. He is a cult figure in the antivax world, but outside of it he is a pariah. Was Jim Jones a celebrity pastor? Guy (Help!) 21:46, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Arguably, yes, though less so than Wakefield, and only because 'celebrity' can be taken to mean simply being well-known. Again: I'm not arguing that Wakefield fits the mold here, he doesn't. We are in agreement on that point, which seems to be your central one. I agree that Wakefield is a cult figure in the anti-vax world, and not a typical celebrity doctor such as most of those in the list below and on the article page. I'm not sure why you're still arguing. The only thing we disagreed on was whether the source was misrepresented: I don't believe it was, I just believe that there are more defining features of a celebrity doctor than are currently described in the article. If you believe the source was misrepresented, then I'm okay with you believing that. I don't feel the need to try to change your mind, because I'm fine with excluding it for this use. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Clearly I am not explaining my point well enough, I apologise. I regard the statement as WP:SYN because it exploits an ambiguity in the meaning of the word celebrity. That's the gist of it. David Irving might well add an air of celebrity to a holocaust denial conference, but he's not a celebrity historian. Guy (Help!) 23:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• the two refs that really define this are the first two that are used Why Dr. Oz Makes Us Crazy from J Gen Intern Med. 2014 and the LA Times piece here. The LA Times source takes pain to divide The Dr Oz' of the world from medical journalists. I debated including a section for journalists like the CNN correspondent, Sanjay Gupta.... maybe should do??

With regard to Wakefield, (copying my comment on the Talk page of that artilcle here)...Wakefield was a licensed doctor up until 2010. per the key source - the 2011 NYT mag ref says:

"Wakefield was a high-profile but controversial figure in gastroenterology research at the Royal Free Hospital in London when, in 1998,..." So already high profile when he published The Paper and after that he had 12 years of actual "celebrity doctor"hood.

His (former) medical credentials are one of the key reasons anti-vaxxers still follow him - again from the source provided (bolding added): "Andrew Wakefield has become one of the most reviled doctors of his generation....In his presentation, Wakefield sounded impatient but righteous. He used enough scientific terms — “ataxic,” “histopathological review” and “vaccine excipients” — that those parents who did not feel cowed might have been flattered by his assumption of their scientific fluency......Some part of Wakefield’s cult status is surely because of his personal charisma, and he spoke with great rhetorical flair. ....To parents who have run up against unsatisfying answers from the scientific community, Wakefield offers a combination of celebrity and empathy that leaves strong impressions. "

This is the definition of "celebrity doctor". The statements he is making are far more reprehensible than Oz' (and Oz' are really bad) but they are in the same bucket - trading on their medical credentials, relying on their charisma, to "ply their trade in the media". Same bucket. And there is enough in this NYT piece to provide clear, but not direct (as in the exact term) support for the label "celebrity doctor."

so... Jytdog (talk) 00:55, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

And I think you are wrong. The NYT piece positions him as having celebrity within the tiny field of anti-vaccinationism - which is fair, he is celebrated by anti-vaxers - but he is not a celebrity in the way that, say, Oz is. He clearly wants to be, but there's no evidence that he is. Guy (Help!) 08:50, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• anyway, i will back off and let others vet this. Jytdog (talk) 01:01, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

JytdogI agree that Wakefield is both a celebrity and a doctor, and even that he's used his celebrity to reinforce his perceived authority. But he's a (horrible, unethical and discredited former) doctor first, and a celebrity second. I think he's a different beast entirely than Dr Oz or Dr. Phil. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

They were all doctors first. They parlayed their doctorhood into celebrityhood. The level of damage they do is very different yes. btw If you have never watched Dr Oz see the video used in the article - starting at about 30 seconds in she plays a clip where Oz is shilling a "miracle weight loss pill". For real. Jytdog (talk) 01:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think for one second that Oz is more ethical than Wakefield, but would you contend that he is still a (horrible, yadda yadda yadda) doctor first and a celebrity second? Or any of the others on that list? I see a pretty clear difference, here. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

i don't know if any of these people have much of a medical practice. they all seem to put most of their energy into their entertainment/business/advocacy matters, "plying their trade in the mainstream media" (some of them, not-so-mainstream media) Jytdog (talk) 03:01, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

The more I look at this, the more it seems to me that we have a disconnect here between my undrstanding of the term "ceelbrity doctor" and Jytdog's. The names Jytdog has added would certainly qualify on an article "well known quack", but when yuo go looking at the sources they do not identify these people as celebrity doctors. A celebrity doctor as I understand it, is someone who has a media presence where they leverage their medical credentials. Oz is the canonical example, Dr. Phil is also clearly in, but also the crew of Embarrassing Bodies would qualify - Christian Jessen, Pixie McKenna and to a lesser extent Dawn Harper. Ranj Singh (must write article) probably counts, but Atkins? He had no real media presence other than plugging his books on talk shows. eing a celebrity doctor does not make you evil. Robert Winston might arguably count, through his TV shows, and he is a deeply thoughtful and very highly regarded expert in human fertility. I think the criteria need to be firmly establsihed with a simple test that can be objectively applied, otherwise there is just going to be friction. Brad McKay (doctor): Probably. Phil Hammond (doctor)? Interesting edge case: a well known doctor, writes Private Eye's MD column, does stand-up, has a cult following but would you count him as a celebrity? Of course then there's the celebrity non-codtors like Gillian McKeith, or, to give her full medical title, Gillian McKeith. Guy (Help!) 09:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what you are actually looking at. The term is defined in the article and is based on the first two sources in the article, as noted above. The NPR source (currently #4) is great too - "He's operating both as an M.D.... and at the same time is operating as essentially a businessman and an entertainer. " Where people go from there is a huge issue. You can be like Sanjay Gupta and do real journalism informed by your medical education (not really discussing that kind in this article as of now); you can be like any of one of these diet "gurus" who create tiny differences and exaggerate the hell out of them so they can sell books/capture attention whatever (most of these are pretty harmless); or you can be like Oz ("And he's delivering non-fact-based, non-evidence-based medical advice. I mean that is the definition of quackery." from NPR source) who probably some harm but probably nothing he recommends is really harmful, and you can by like Mercola and I would put Wakefield here who recommend people do/not do things that are really bad for them and lots of other people. That continuum is my own. The LA Times article draws only one line, between journalists and the rest. Jytdog (talk) 21:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

See my notes on some of the examples below. It's the difference between someone who appears in the media as a doctor, and a doctor who appears in the media. Guy (Help!) 23:17, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Why did you ignore what I wrote above? This is like talking to Sammy. Jytdog (talk) 05:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

You think that helps? Seriously? You are interpreting the source in one way, coincidentally the way that allows you to maximise linking of this term to quacks. I interpret the same text in a different way. A celebrity doctor is one wht a significant media presence. That would not include mere PAs plugging books. The source could support either interpretation, the question is how the preponderance of sources covers it, not just one that you chose. Feel free to provide more definitions of what constitutes a celebrity doctor from other sources. Guy (Help!) 11:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• Okay, this is becoming a problem. We're a handful of editors who seem ideologically aligned on the larger issues here, who are all devoted to the WP process, who are all trying to improve the article, and we're bickering like one of us is an anti-vaxxer. I think (hope) that what I'm about to say helps outline the specific issue we're disagreeing over, so we can get to the bottom of this.

So what I'm seeing here is a disconnect arising over the way the term is used. It's used as a proper noun (Celebrity Doctor, note the capitalization) to refer to two different groups: The first seems to be doctors who have parlayed their charisma and medical degree into a media career. This includes Dr. Phil and Deepak Chopra. The second group is doctors who have celebrities as their only (or primary) patients. We haven't listed the names of any of these, and we may never, due to BLP and notability concerns.

But there's another usage of the term, and that is as a descriptive (celebrity doctor, notice the lack of capitalization). In this case, there are other ways of phrasing it (famous doctor, well-known doctor, etc). This group includes Wakefield and many others. But this is also a diverse group. Steven Novella is among this group, as well as every doctor who warrants his or her own Wikipedia article (examples range from Harold Shipman to Robert Jarvik). The celebrity status of this group varies widely, as well as (obviously) the ethics, accomplishments and other metrics.

The problem is that the article seems to be only about Celebrity Doctors, and not about celebrity doctors. So Guy is right that Wakefield doesn't fit, and is not without basis in claiming that the reference is WP:SYNTH. But Jytdog is also right that the reference is to Wakefield as a celebrity doctor, so that it's not synth.

So what I'm going to suggest is a new section, which starts with a main article link to List of physicians, and briefly outlines the fact that many doctors have achieved some degree of fame. I think using Wakefield as an example of negative fame, and someone like Jarvik as an example of positive fame might be a good way of handling it. If you read this within an hour or two of me posting it, I'd love it if you started on that. Otherwise, I'll get started a bit later with a quick write-up. I think not having such a section right now is a bit of a problem, because there doesn't seem to be any clear consensus in the sources that Celebrity Doctor is the proper use, and that celebrity doctors is not. That means that an article that doesn't acknowledge this distinction is being proscriptive; suggesting that this is the 'proper' term for someone like Dr. Oz.

Anyways, I hope this helps. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

thanks for your efforts to step back and have the meta-discussion. I don't reckon it is any kind of job description, like say "plumber" but it is an increasingly recognized.. category, like plain old "celebrity" and is defined pretty well in the first two refs cited. What I am struggling with is folks not dealing with how the category is defined in the sources and instead a) bringing their own definition and b) demanding direct support with the words "celebrity doctor" used to describe them in source. Not sure b) in particular is coming from. Wakefield is definitely someone who "plies his trade in the media".... it is the only place he can ply it anymore since he lost his license. Jytdog (talk) 23:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree that Wakefield plies his trade in the media. But he's got a Cult following, which one can't really say about the other doctors on the list. I think the descriptive term is sort of a catch-all, for individuals who don't really fit into either of the two well-defined categories, but are still obviously celebrity doctors. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it helps, and it clarifies the point I was clearly struggling to make earlier. Wakefield is, of course, an edga case, because he has a cult following among antivaxers, but consider this: how likely is it that he would be given his own TV show, or invited to appear on the mainstream chat show circuit to plug his latest book? I think the public at large does not regard Wakefield as a celebrity. Even TAPL has a better reputation. Guy (Help!) 11:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree that he's an edge case. But notoriety is still fame. At the very height of the anti-vaxxer movement, he might have been able to get himself a TV show or more likely a radio show, right after Coast to Coast AM (do they still do the alien conspiracy theories, or has it turned into a generic right-wing CS show these days? I'm not sure). But his fame is definitely of the cult variety, with a lot more negative attention than positive. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Definition

OK, my thick head is cracking open and I am hearing some of the feedback especially from Guy.

• point 1) Let's start with a core definition - "a celebrity doctor is a medical professional who plies his trade in the media - internet/social media, books, talk, etc.:

if (and I do mean "if") we can agree on that, there is a major split now, between

a) doctors who report (and to anchor this, a paradigmatic example would be Sanjay Gupta

b1) doctors who entertain (paradigmatic examples, Mehmet Oz, Phil McGraw, Drew Pinsky, Travis Stork) Eric Topol has called this "medutainment")

b2) doctors who advocate in the public sphere and gain fame/"celebrity"-hood through that - this is the one where we have been running into trouble, but is really the core issue with medutainment - when entertainers actually advocate (discussed generally in for example the NPR piece)

But generally here - doctors who who ply their trade in the media and who advocate - you have mainstream people like Everett Koop or Marion Nestle or Ruth Westheimer (?) and you have strong advocates for mainstream medicine/science like Paul Offit and David Gorski and Harriet Hall, then moving away from the mainstream and toward the quackery end of things, all the doctors putting fad diets out there, to (so disappointingly) Dr Oz, to Joseph Mercola (whom Oz has blessed as a “pioneer in holistic treatments") all the way to Robert Sears (physician) (who has written books - purposefully moving into the public sphere) and Andrew Wakefield (books, movies, talks, twitter, facebook, etc)

The split between a) and b1) is directly supported by the LA Times piece. The detail of the continuum in the b2) category, is something I have generated and needs sourcing to come into WP, but it is probably one of the key notions I hope this article can cover... And to the extent the b2 stuff is in, it should come out... Does that make sense? Jytdog (talk) 00:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC) (redact Jytdog (talk) 00:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC))

Gentle criticism here: I think you might be overthinking it a bit. (That's the end of the criticism.) I think there's a nebulous descriptive term that encompasses any doctor with any notable level of fame. The origins of this fame are basically random, but there are identifiable clusters around a few possibilities. Can we all agree on that? That there aren't hard-and-fast categories? I haven't gone over all the sources used, but from what I've seen, each one has a slightly different take on the term, albeit they seem to bring up the same handful of examples. So maybe if the article gets a little more vague, that would be helpful. What do you think? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

The more clearly we can define the boundaries the less head bumping there will be... i do think it is important to have a core definition and in my view that is "a celebrity doctor is a medical professional who plies his trade in the media - internet/social media, books, talk, etc."... 02:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I think that definitions is in one of the sources I looked at. So if that's what we're going to go with, then Wakefield would definitely fit, but the "doctors with celebrity clients" and "doctors famous for something other than media presence" would be out. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 03:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

No, Wakefield would not fit. He has no significant media presence. There is coverage of him, but he is not in control of that coverage in any way. Again, the benchmark is Oz. Wakefield is absolutely nothing like Oz. No TV show, and never will have. No column in a newspaper. He's a celebrity doctor in the same way that Francesco Schettino is a celebrity captain. He is notorious, not celebrated. Guy (Help!) 23:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, OK, I will stop bringing that and have struck. What about the rest, Guy?

Also more generally, I sent an email to one of people cited in the current article and asked them for their take on the article as it stands, if there is any literature we haven't captured, and how they would divide up the category. They said we have captured what is out there (sadly) and that they would divide up the category by those who follow the evidence and those who don't. That is a pretty useful divider I think. Am going to think about that. Jytdog (talk) 00:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

List

Moving this here, leaving the three that were mentioned in the lead along with Chopra and Weil. All five of those are literally sourced. These others, other editors can add these back as they see fit:

Celebrity doctors include:

• Arthur Agatston (Paleo diet)

I do not have full text for the second source. The first does not appear to describe Agatston as a celebrity. Guy (Help!) 09:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• Robert Atkins

Neither source appears to describe Atkins as a "celebrity doctor" or a celebrity more generally. He made a few appearances pimping his diet books, but diod not have a media presence like Oz or Phil. He did not make his living in the media, he wrote books, and while the books were influential I doubt most people would recognise a picture of Atkins if they saw it. This does not seem to match the definition. Guy (Help!) 09:15, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• Caldwell Esselstyn

Only mention of celebrity in the sources is in respect of Roizen, who is missing from this list. Guy (Help!) 09:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• Michael Greger

First source is PR guff promoting "ooh look, we haz celebrities", useless for Wikipedia. Second source does not mention the word celebrity. Guy (Help!) 09:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• Mark Hyman
• Hayden Kho
• Frank Lipman
• John A. McDougall
• Joseph Mercola
• Andrew P. Ordon
• Dean Ornish
• Cindy Pan
• David Perlmutter
• Robert Sears
• Travis Lane Stork

References

-- Jytdog (talk) 02:59, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

More to consider

• Nicholas Perricone
• Corey Hébert
• Cyril Wecht
• Michael Baden
• Arthur Ting
• Robert Jarvik
• Hilary Jones (doctor)

References

-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Parlour Game

Last night when the sun was over the yardarm, I was playing a game called "Celebrity Doctors" with myself, and made quite a list. I've carried on playing in the cool morning air here, and want to suggest that all of the following qualify in this category.

TAPL, Harry Hill, Jonathan Miller, Graeme Garden, Ben Goldacre.

I'm confident there are many more, and hope that perhaps a wider discussion about what is a celebrity doctor will ensue? -Roxy the dog™ bark 07:50, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

TAPL is not a doctor! However, this is interesting in context. When did Miller or Garden last practise medicine? Is either of them known for it? Garden has never played on his credentials as a physician, Miller did, with 'The Body In Question. Goldacre is a monster celebrity among nerds but would the man on the Clapham omnibus recognise him?

Anyway, this is not going to replace Famous Belgians as my favourite way of whiling away the long winter evenings. Guy (Help!) 09:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Jacky Ickx. -Roxy the dog™ bark 10:03, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

European Stan.-Roxy the dog™ bark 10:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

a controversial ER Doctor. -Roxy the dog™ bark 10:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Clearly, nobody is seriously discussing this, so I want to propose a name change for this article which more accurately reflects its tone. How about Notorious Celebrity Doctors, because though the title includes all celeb docs, and the article as written only includes the quacking end of the spectrum. I'm not joking. -Roxy the dog™ bark 11:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

hm.. i hear you. it would be useful to make this comprehensive if we can. see above... Jytdog (talk) 00:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I am ambivalent about this. While I am ideologically sympathetic to having an article at, say, media charlatan, I don't think it would be easy to keep within the bounds of policy. Guy (Help!) 22:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Also this

[1]. I have no more words. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Bones McCoy and Hank McCoy. -Roxy the dog™ bark 11:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I can't access it at work, would anyone care to summarize for me? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

It's life, Jim, but not as we know it. -Roxy the dog™ bark 15:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

As amusing as that is, I guess I'll have to wait till I get home. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)