Talk:The Barefoot Doctor
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group. | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Taoism WikiProject.
This project provides a central approach to Taoism-related subjects on Wikipedia. |
|
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
Contents |
[edit] Citations needed
I just tagged all the stuff that's clearly value judgment in the text with "citation needed" tags. It's probable that SOMEONE has said all these things about mr. Russell, but they need to be presented as citable statements by someone, not as "facts that need no authority".
Things like book publishings and appearances on BBC I've left without tags, since they're statements that are clearly either false or true, and can be checked by a more-or-less mechanical lookup process. Statements like "many people have been helped" and "he is the perfect choice" are just not amenable to a false-or-true judgment; we need to know who makes that claim.
If there's nobody providing backing for the claims in a reasonable time, I'll just take them out of the article. --Alvestrand 08:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] guardian talk
we need to add a mention of when the guardian talk crowd turned him over - it's mentioned in Private Eye so a source exists - anyone know the issue? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fredrick day (talk • contribs) 21:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC).
example:
"A case study, Mr Barefoot: my bus has crashed - I've got a compound fracture in my right leg, the bone is sticking out from under the skin and is wedged into the 'Used Tickets' receptacle, my skull has had a good old thump against the seat in front and is impersonating a boiled egg after the first thump with the teaspoon, and my ribs have been broken into bits like a packet of smokey bacon crisps someone has stood on. What herbs and aromatic oils would you recommend?"
1Z 04:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Link from the GU talk page
- This link was too good not to mention in the article. Added! --Alvestrand 16:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sadly it's not good enough as a source. We can't extrapolate the claim "Russell's practice has elicited a fair amount of skepticism" from the Guardian talk page - we can extrapolate "Russell was once criticised by members of the public who didn't like him, when he was part of an online chat forum", but that's hardly encyclopaedia material. --McGeddon 10:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
what about the fact that his employer sent around a memo asking employees to go on and write nice things as mentioned in private eye? 193.35.133.151 11:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- It's a bit weak, as scandals go. We can't really extrapolate anything very interesting from it, beyond "newspaper is concerned about profile of columnist", and it doesn't tell us anything about Russell himself. The sex scandal and scientific criticism are well documented and can be expanded from reliable sources, but I don't think the Guardian talk page can be taken anywhere. --McGeddon 11:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- How about putting it under a new heading, such as Trivia, Career (as in down hill) or Public Humiliations?Gowt 15:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Scandal?
I understand that there was some kind of sex-scandal? Does anyone have any citations referring to his alleged sleeping with his patients (can a man with no medical qualifications actually have patients?)? 134.146.9.19 15:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC) CaptLockheed
[edit] Needs looking at
This page currently reads like an advert written by Mr Barefoot. Do we really need BD is devoted to making the world a sweeter place for everyone. at the end? Actually, I'm going to remove it myself. MyNameIsClare talk 15:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Removal of harmful material
Hi guys. You'll see from the history that I have been trying to remove the second paragraph under the contoversy section. I feel strongly that it is outwith the spirit of wikipedia and breaches the official ethical and stylistic WP policies, which state:
Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm".
The paragraph I am trying to remove is clearly damaging and harmful. Wikipedia editors aren't there to set themselves up as moral arbiters or judges of people's behaviour, especially when we only have a small amount of the true facts available to us. Whatever view we might take about this, wikipedia isn't there to act as a kangaroo court, allowing people who feel they have been wronged to use it as a platform to take their revenge on someone who is essentially helpless to reply. It just makes a laughing stock of wikipedia.
79.68.45.127 (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Normally I would agree but we have to look at this within the context of his proffessional activity - if he was working as a world famous expert on physics, then i'd agree that it had no bearing and should be removed - but it occured within his work as a healer/guru/therapist so had direct bearing on his activities in that sphere.
- In regards to facts - wikipedia is not about truth, it is about verifiability - and in this case, we have an excellent source (The Guardian) and are just citing their reporting, we are NOT acting as the primary vehicle so that is a red herring. Since the section is so small, I would not even say that it is being given undue weight. Finally An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". - I'm sorry that's just too simplistic for what we are dealing with - everything has to be examined on it's own merits and with full understanding of the context - it would be a whitewash to remove this sourced relevent information. --Fredrick day (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- This would be a fair comment if we were spreading rumours from a weak source, or presenting blandly neutral facts with a disapproving slant, but we're quoting a serious Guardian news article here. An article about therapists, in which Mr Russell's behaviour is singled out in detail, with quotes from complainants and patient groups, and a response from Russell himself. The tone of that section needs more work, but it's definitely relevant, and it's definitely possible to write the story up in a way which is neither "sensationalist" nor portrays us as "moral arbiters or judges of people's behaviour". --McGeddon (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Rmoved R.D Laing claim
Removed: "He has studied under prominent Western practitioners such as R. D. Laing in addition to leading doctors of Chinese medicine."
No reliable citations given for either. If he studied with Laing then evidence should be easy to provide. AS to "leading doctors of Chinese medicine - again proof should be easy to find if correct.
