Talk:Richard Steadman

message: I have added back the text on the Kobe Bryant rape allegation. The reason the consensual sex/rape case occured was that he was attending Steadmans clinic - surely significant and encyclopedic to mention. Rgds - Trident13 23:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that Kobe Bryant's rape allegation details are required, i.e.:
   "The prosecution collapsed when the alleged raped woman Katelyn Faber withdrew her support 
  to the State's case, although married Bryant admitted consensual sex had occurred"
should be removed; the first line is sufficient in my opinion. Thoughts? Ozzykhan 06:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It might be significant in Bryant's article, but it conveys no useful information about Steadman, so it is irrelevant here. Choalbaton (talk) 14:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Kobe Bryant

message: There's a comment in the source to the Famous Clients section requesting "alphabetical order please, and include a reference". The first request has been followed, but the second has been almost totally ignored. 81.159.58.45 (talk) 20:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not surprising when the text was hidden so that only only the miniscule minority of users who hit the edit button will even see it. To me that is a clear example of footnote fetishism out of control. It is absurdly over the top and not a valid use of limited editorial resources to add dozens of similar footnotes to this article. Such footnotes provide an illusion of greater reliability to those who mindlessly worship at the altar of academic procedure (more than truth and reason), but do not really make the article more reliable or informative. There is no doubt whatsoever that Steadman has treated many famous sportsmen, and fifty footnotes are not needed to prove that. Anyone who wants to check a particular case can use google for themselves. Anyone who wants to add a fake name to the list could add a fake footnote with a dead link as well: no one would ever bother to check all fifty! I have never noticed any correlation between footnotes per thousand words and accuracy in wikipedia articles in any of the fields about which I am well informed. IMO this whole obsession with footnotes is about creating an illusion of accuracy, not on improving actual accuracy. I've even seen simple factual errors in featured articles: they passed the "footnotes per thousand words" smell test, but apparently no one actually bothered to check all the facts! Choalbaton (talk) 14:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Similarly, I'm not sure we need fifty examples to establish that Steadman's a really really famous doctor who treats really really famous sportspeople. Rather than just indiscriminately add every athlete he's treated, the article would be stronger if it just had a solid or source or two explaining that he treats world class athletes. I'm going to take out the laundry list altogether. --Mosmof (talk) 15:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed - too long, too unencyclopedic, largely unref'd. It was also becoming a bit of an attraction in itself to imply "notability" on others. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 11:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  References? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Richard Steadman. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20110207183859/http://thesteadmanclinic.com/ to http://www.thesteadmanclinic.com
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) 07:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified