Talk:Bernarr Macfadden

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bernarr Macfadden. 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/20060909025410/http://www.sandowplus.co.uk:80/Macfadden/macfadden-intro.htm to http://www.sandowplus.co.uk/Macfadden/macfadden-intro.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Let's discuss this.  From my perspective, at least the bit about MacFadden distrusting medical science should be in the lead (by my count, 3 RSs mention it).  I do not know whether or not the daugthers' deaths should go there, but I would lean toward "no," since it is not primarily what he was known for, and it's still unclear to me if all three of those RS mention that incident specifically.  
I do not see how the cited sources are "shaky", as one editor puts it. Are there scholarly, secondary sources that refute them?  If not, each one is sufficiently reliable, even though they are journalistic/non-scholarly.--MattMauler (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm getting the Cohen book from the library again to see what he cited for his information on Macfadden; will probably take a week or two to get it. Schazjmd (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

text: Got the Cohen book. This is the relevant content (not cited in the book to a specific source): Schazjmd (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. Now listen as I tell you: THIS IS INCORRECT. At least is the part about all doctors being identified by our man as quacks. The part about his children dying is probably grounded, as I have said, in reality, or something similar, but if it's not sourced, what do you expect? This is not a primary source, and it clearly gets him wrong on one count, replacing a man with a cardboard effigy and hoping he won't notice because he's dead. Macfadden appealed regularly to the authority of doctors: "In spite of the fact that experienced nurses and doctors--from Florence Nightingale onward--have railed against this false doctrine, it is one that has persisted none the less . . .". And more directly as for "all doctors are quacks," look how often he cites names prefixed by Dr. If someone can find where he states that "all doctors are quacks," it's worth inclusion but with these qualifications; such attacks would be polemical and as such prone to obscure his true and just opinions. Samuel Enderby (talk) 03:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You are interpreting a primary source in order to go against a secondary source cited in the article. Please see WP:OR. As to the specific text you cite, he could be making the offhand reference to Florence Nightingale et al. because he knows that the average reader trusts doctors and is not in a hurry to let his private views of them as crackpots be known.  Also, the prefix Dr. can be for a variety of fields. He probably had great respect for biologists, physiologists, etc., even if not MDs. <--I have no idea if this is true or not btw; I am just saying it to show that WP:OR exists for a reason.  There are any number of reasons he could have written one way and then acted another. I mean, his views could have evolved too. A historian would know this, but we don't. While we can use primary sources to add information that is straightforward and non-controversial, we as editors are not qualified to evaluate complex primary sources or decide that our interpretation makes more sense than what a published secondary source says.--MattMauler (talk) 03:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

text: There is more than one secondary source (4 I think?) cited in the article that supports his distrust of doctors, but they are all journalistic rather than historical/expert. Although I don't think the info should be removed based on this, I do think it would be better to cite scholarly sources if they exist.  Currently, there is one citation of Robert Ernst's Weakness Is a Crime: The Life of Bernarr Macfadden. Syracuse University Press, 1991.  Does anyone have access to this text?  It seems like it could/should be cited a lot more for many different parts of the article, and we could potentially add some clarity to the issue we're discussing now.--MattMauler (talk) 03:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

text: William Hunt's book Body Love (1989) also looks like it might be helpful.--MattMauler (talk) 03:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

text: You are welcome to get a second opinion on whether it's original research. Meanwhile, the information should remain a part of the article.You are correct that MacFadden is only mentioned in passing in Cohen. As I said, however, there are other sources that also mention his mistrust of doctors (Bill Bryson, the Wall Street Journal, e.g.). These are not the most authoritative, but they clearly meet the Wikipedia definition of a reliable source. I still recommend we look in scholarly sources to either shore up this impression of him or dispel it.---MattMauler (talk) 12:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: William Hunt's book is on Google Books. It makes it clear that Macfadden's opposition to doctors was well-established. Some quotes:  Hunt describes him as . He writes  Schazjmd (talk) 13:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  MacFadden and medical science