Talk:Bernie S. Siegel

New York Times Best-Seller's List

There can be no better source for the statement that a particular book was on the NY Times' Best-sellers list than the New York Times itself. This is not a "Primary source"; that would be Siegel's own blog saying this. The same article in the Times states, "The leading nonfiction paperback was Love, Medicine & Miracles, which is a book by Bernie S. Siegel about the importance of the patient's mind and emotions in the treatment of serious illness." and later in the article, "The listings are based on computer-processed sales figures from 3,000 bookstores and from representative wholesalers with more than 28,000 other retail outlets, including variety stores and supermarkets." The editor who placed this tag, who also nominated the article for deletion and has questioned whether the subject was a best-selling author or notable at all, should take note of this.Rosencomet (talk) 16:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

This is incorrect, Siegel's own blog would be a primary and self-published source. A primary source is not solely in relation to the topic of the article, it is in relation to the text you write. For example, if an individual worked at a specific university and we cited there university as evidence of this then that would be a primary source. Whole classes of sources can be primary sources, for example, all patents are considered primary sources, all statistical data are primary sources. WP:RSEX also highlights the New York Times as being a primary source: More recently, primary sources have been put online, such as the complete run of the The Times, the New York Times and other major newspapers. In the field of science for example, the opinions of a particular research as published in a peer reviewed journal would be also a primary source whilst a review would be a secondary source. Even this example isn't perfect, as parts of an article published may be primary (such as his new findings) but his review of the field in his introduction would be secondary as he is reviewing other existing sources. A reviewer who makes new statements of opinion that the primary literature doesn't meanwhile would be a primary source for those opinions. Similarly for a list, the list is created by the NYT, it is not a secondary account of information elsewhere, it is the primary source of that information. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

What you don't seem to accept, no matter who explains it to you, is that sometimes a primary source is perfectly acceptable, even best practice. To use your example, citing the curriculum or catalog of a university to support the statement "Dr. Smith is a professor of Physics at Columbia University" is perfectly proper. Any other source would almost certainly be quoting that one. It would NOT be a good source for the statement "Dr. Smith is a brilliant teacher".Rosencomet (talk) 22:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

You need to calm yourself down. The issue isn't over one or two primary sources but that the the whole article consists of these primary sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Got to go with Rosencomet on this. There are times when primary sources are non-controversial, as in the above example re: a professor teaching at a university--the inclusion of the institution's web page for said instructor is not controversial, nor is the inclusion of the Times list. The guideline as written at WP:PRIMARY states in part

Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source.

The Times list is not controversial, nor is it being misused, nor being interpreted in such a fashion as to require a secondary source to buttress that interpretation. Sourcing for the article does currently include non-primary sources, though it can be improved--that of course, would render much of this discussion moot, and methinks everyone prefers a good argument. It often takes a bit of time to bring an article up to encyclopedic speed, so to speak, and the current objections, and disagreements, would be largely neutralized with the addition of sources as provided at the AFD discussion. 99.156.65.73 (talk) 11:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

On re-reading the article in its current state, I don't find the description the whole article consists of these primary sources an accurate one. If it's not a good article candidate, it surely isn't an egregious example of inappropriate referencing, is not a puff piece, and apparently contains few or no unsourced controversial claims. Good work has been done here in response to the AFD. 99.156.65.73 (talk) 12:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The lady doth protest too much, methinks

Insisting that Bernie Siegel is a "Bestselling author" seems to be an exaggeration. He had one title which sold well 20+ years ago, however this title's appeal was not enduring and has not achieved any notability since. --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The title was a national bestseller (across all categories) for over a year, and has remained an in-class bestseller continuously for over 20 years, so its appeal has certainly proven enduring. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I have found two of his books that were on the New York Times Best-Sellers List, and one stayed on at least six years (1988 - 1994). Rosencomet (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

This is simply standard English usage. Someone who has had a book on a legitimate Best Seller list (and none are more legitimate than the NYT) is the author of a bestselling book, which makes them a bestselling author. Yworo (talk) 00:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The "Watkins List"

Please do not add this again. It's not a WP:RS for establishing WP:N. --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

No, it's a well-known authority in its field. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

It is well known for expressing WP:FRINGE views and therefore does not qualify as a WP:RS. --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

You obviously don't understand WP:FRINGE. You are making personal judgements about the validity of the field, rather than how the publication is regarded within that field. If someone had used the Watkins List as a citation to the statement "Dr. Siegel is one of the 100 most influential people in the world", I would totally agree that it is not a reliable source. But for the statement "Watkins List includes Dr. Siegel as one of the most influential people in the world", it is the BEST source. Is it notable that he is included? That depends on Watkins List's standing IN ITS FIELD, and I believe it to be high; and no one has the right to scrap it because you personally happen to disagree with the order with which they list those on it. Rosencomet (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Rosencomet. The source is not fringe. We do not exclude topics simply because they are matters of belief. New Age is mainstream. New Age books and magazines are have sections in mainstream bookstores. You are misreadding WP:FRINGE. Yworo (talk) 23:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:N is not the correct policy for establishing what is present in an article, WP:DUE is. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm somewhat astonished. Mind Body Spirit magazine would seem to be the perfect example of a WP:QS. This publication frequently represents WP:FRINGE topics as if they were fact. They are not known for reliable reporting or fact-checking. In any case I think the discussion is now moot since we have agreed to use the link in a less prominent way and to provide additional context about who MBS are and why their opinion would be considered questionable by the normal standards of wikipedia. --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Mind Body & Spirit

Your assessment of the value of Mind Body & Spirit is irrelevant. It is a respected magazine within its genre'. If it was being used to support the notion that Siegel is more influential than the Pope I would agree it should not be there, but the purpose to which the reference WAS used was proper, supporting the contention that Siegel is a notable author, just as a musician can be considered more notable by being entered into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame even if you think much better musicians were passed over that year, of if he won a Grammy even if you think it's ridiculous that the judges placed him over someone you think is a much more deserving ar tist.Rosencomet (talk) 16:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Mind Body & Spirit magazine were reporting a list compiled by Watkins (who are a British Bookshop). There is nothing to indicate that this source are a reliable authority on the relative infleuence of these personalities. The fact that Bernie Siegel (who is unknown outside a small ecclectic clique) is ranked higher than The Pope strongly confirms that this list is not a WP:RS for identifying whether this person is WP:N. Furthermore, it's obvious that the purpose of the article was to sell a special edition of their magazine. WP:ADVERTISING is not considered to be a reliable source of any kind of information. --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

No, Watkins is not only a bookshop; it is a publishing house that also runs a bookshop, and the Mind, Body, & Spirit magazine is within its field a significant publication. Siegel is not known only in some clique - to which this editor does not belong - but is widely known as an author, speaker and workshop teacher to people who (like Broyard) who do not at all agree with Siegel's views - as I don't - but respect him for his energy, persistence, and skill. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

What are we to make of the fact that this publisher thinks that Bernie Siegel is more spiritually influential than The Pope. This is obvious nonsense. How on earth could a man who's most notable achievement is getting a book onto a best-seller list 20 years ago be more notable than the patron of the Catholic Church? One can only conclude that this ranking is nonsensical, inconsistent or heavily biased towards the esoteric views of Watkins readers. That is to say this is most probably a WP:FRINGE perspective. --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

See above under Watkins List. Your judgement that a choice made within this list is "obvious nonsense" is irrelevant. The reference is not being used to support the statement that "Bernie Siegel is more spiritually influential than the Pope", and you don't get to discount the fact that Siegel is in the list because you, personally, disagree with the order of the list (which I do, too, but that's not the issue). There are plenty of Wikipedia articles about absolutely notable subjects that involve fringe ideas, and there should be. No one is asking you to agree with those ideas, but you must accept their existence, and there are millions of people who ascribe to New Age ideas and many read the hard copy or web version of Mind, Body and Spirit.Rosencomet (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

My point was that MBS Magazine is self-evidently a questionable source WP:QS, and therefore should not be used as a reference to establish the subject's notability. The relevant policy reads: websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion. Questionable sources should be used only as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see below. They are unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

This actually falls under WP:RSOPINION. Any "top 100" list, whether it is of books, films, or people, is an opinion piece. Mind Body Spirit is a reliable source for its own opinions about the relative order of spiritual personalities. It is not derogatory to the subject, so is not in any way restricted by WP:BLP. It is not stated as if it were an absolute truth, it is clearly stated as the opinion of the magazine. Therefore, there is no issue here and no legitimate argument for exclusion. Yworo (talk) 00:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

You consistently rely on primary sources for your information, I suggest you consult WP:BLP. If a reliable secondary source think it's important that he came in the top 100 in this list they will point it out. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

And you are consistently and intentionally misusing the term "primary source". I ignore those who don't play fair, and that accurately describes what you are doing here. Yworo (talk) 19:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not twisting the meaning of the word. I will re-paste the text from above: Whole classes of sources can be primary sources, for example, all patents are considered primary sources, all statistical data are primary sources. WP:RSEX also highlights the New York Times as being a primary source. WP:RSEX specifically mentions the archive of the NYT being a primary source for a lot of information. For example, you want to say that Siegel featured on the NYT best selling list, but the NYT is not a "second-hand account" and not "at least one step removed", it is the original source of the information. A secondary source would be a source that mentions the fact, such as the Los Angelese times someone else has already mentioned. Thus if you replace the source with that one it is no longer primary sourced, instead WP:DUE is given by the secondary source (LA times). Opinions are primary as well, I suggest you also read the wikipedia article on primary sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you are. A source can be primary for one purpose and not for another. The New York Times would be a primary source for an article about the New York Times, but for the statement "This book was on the New York Times Best-Sellers List" it is, self-evidently, the BEST source (although not necessarily for the fact's notability). In this case, if the SUBJECT claimed to be on the NYT list, it would be a primary source, because it would be a statement by the subject of the article about himself. Even then, as in many cases, primary sources are proper for certain kinds of data, AS LONG AS THE FACTS ARE NOT CONTROVERSIAL - for instance, if the subject's website was the source for his birth date. No one is contesting the information about these books' inclusion in the NYT list, and there is no reason to, especially with a citation leading to the ACTUAL LIST. To expect an editor to find another, obviously inferior, source FOR THIS FACT - one which would probably just have been derived from the New York Times itself (where else?), is absurd. This is Wikilawyering, and it is non-productive. If it will end this stupid logjam, the citation can be moved to the talk page, and the fact should no longer NEED a citation. You cannot, however, claim that it DOES need a citation and not accept the list itself as sufficient.Rosencomet (talk) 20:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I brought the issue to RSN, they agreed that it was primary Wikipedia:RSN#Bernie_Siegel_-_Primary_Sources. My issue with the sourcing is that whilst yes, uncontroversial primary sourced facts can be fine, we have an over-reliance on primary sources in the article, hence we need more secondary sources, we don't need to remove the primary sources at all. That is why I added the primary sources template to the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

How did you get nothing but "they agreed that it was primary" out of Wikipedia:RSN#Bernie_Siegel_-_Primary_Sources? I invite everyone in this discussion to review it (don't worry, it's short). Every comment concluded that the citations were proper, should not be deleted, and that no secondary sources were needed. One called the uses "best practice". One editor flatly asked "I think you don't want this stuff and are hunting, here and elsewhere, for a reason to exclude it. Could I possibly be right?" And your comments indicated you were not listening to what they said, as does your report here of their conclusions.Rosencomet (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Andrew Dalby said the list was a primary source, you contended earlier that This is not a "Primary source. Bbb23 appears to be contending that although they are primary sources they are probably not an issue. None have commented yet on the over-reliance on primary sources in the article. So I am puzzled as to how you interpet this as a comment in agreement with you. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Reliable references

Can anyone provide any reliable references here, in why you think this article should be kept? I am currently searching and will add any that I find. GreenUniverse (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

RFC

What kinds of source are appropriate for alt-med topics? In this case we have a biography of a living person, I think we need some clarification as to what sort of reference might be used to establish this person's notability. In particular, can publications which would normally be considered unreliable from an academic perspective be considered reliable sources to establish an individual's notability within an esoteric community? --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• WP:FRINGE#Reliable sources is quite clear on this: fringe topics do not get any special dispensation to use less-reliable sources than other topics. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

There are no exceptions. I don't think we need an RFC on this; we have an AfD where it can be shown he is not notable. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Sources that meet WP:RS may certainly be used. These sources are not self-published. Books or magazines that are published by publishing houses with editorial staff are considered reliable, regardless of the topic. You may not judge the topic deficient. You must show that the source does not meet the requirements of WP:RS. Yworo (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

No, this is completely false, sources are typically not declared de-facto reliable or not, it depends on the topic. I can provide two easy counter examples. A newspaper on a medical or scientific issue are generally considered unreliable. See WP:MEDRS and WP:SCIRS: The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

It all depends on what fact is being supported, and how the data is being used. For instance, there could be a prominent periodical serving the Flat Earth Society. If it stated that a particular author in that community was notable due to his many respected-in-the-community books, polls showing the regard he is given within the society, his status as a public speaker, and the incidence of his being quoted in the works of other writers in the field, it could well be a reliable source for that purpose. However, it would not support the validity of the Flat Earth theory. A general newspaper could not support a fact like "medicine X cures cancer" (they are not a peer-reviewed medical board, and not equipped to do so), but be perfectly proper to support "Dr. Smith, at his recent appearance at the National Medical Center, stated that medicine X cures cancer." Also, a newspaper may be just fine in stating whether a person is considered notable in his field, even if his ideas are far from mainstream. A famous dissenter from the mainstream can be very notable, regardless of whether he is right or wrong; and being non-mainstream is no guarantee of right or wrong, as the examples of Pasteur and Curie can attest.Rosencomet (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

We wouldn't use a flat earth periodical to establish notability we would use more reliable sources. A flat earth periodical is reliable for the opinions of flat earth believers though. A famous dissenter from the mainstream such as Deepak Chopra also has his notability conferred on him by his mentions in mainstream sources (of which there are really lots). We don't lessen our notability requirements just because a person is involved in a fringe group or fringe theory. Remember though that notability only governs the existence of articles, it does not govern what we put into it. WP:N is for the creation of articles, but WP:DUE dictates what goes into that article. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I've been asked to comment. How can I help?Jobberone (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC) If there is not interest in RfC then I will withdraw. Please, leave a message on my talk page if you need me. Thanks.Jobberone (talk) 04:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Primary and undue sources

The article appears to be filling up with primary and undue sources from the NYT. That he was #9 in the NYT 1988 book list for non-fiction is irrelevant if no reliable secondary source gives it due weight etc. The sentence here: He has taught residential workshops at locations including Wainwright House, Hollyhock (an island retreat in Canada), and the Greenwich Library appears to be based on one line mentions in large articles (guides) in the NYT, this appears to be undue. I suggest people check Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS as well. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The New York Times is really the only reliable source for their Best Seller lists, because of course they are copyrighted lists and won't appear elsewhere. The actual lists published by the NYT are used in hundreds or perhaps thousands of articles on books. In fact, they are regularly used to replace other claims as to the book being on the lists, particularly claims by authors and publishers, which are not always reliable because they both stand to make money from sales of the books. If you posted the above claim on the WP:WikiProject Books, they would howl with laughter. Yworo (talk) 00:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

No that is not true. Independent secondary sources that draw attention to the books place in the Best sellers lists would be a reliable source as to the significance of the mention and due weight would be satisified WP:DUE. What you are doing is looking at the list and finding a particular book in it and then deciding that this has due weight for a mention in an article about a person based on the primary source. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Not an issue, since multiple reliable sources refer to status on NYT bestseller list and sales of a book in excess of a million copies. 99.156.65.73 (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Which reliable secondary sources do and why aren't we using them? IRWolfie- (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Multiple sources I've noted at the AFD page, including those you've disparagingly referred to as 'clippings'. My question is why you haven't sought them out and added them. 99.156.65.73 (talk) 17:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

NYT bestseller lists are not primary sources for an article about Bernie Siegel. But on top of that, there's also an LA Times article that explicitly addresses the issue: "Former Yale Medical School surgeon Bernie Siegel's 1986 book, "Love, Medicine & Miracles," reappeared on the list this spring after spending more than 52 weeks on the bestseller list in the late 1980s and selling more than a million copies."[1]--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a primary source for the information on the list; they are the ones that collected the data and created the list. I suggest we use the non-primary sources instead of the primary sources to give due weight. We can then use the primary sources to supplement these secondary sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm starting to have a change of heart about this. It seems that Bernie really was somebody who was briefly famous in a single country. At the time a number of reputable newspapers commented (with some surprise) at the healthy sales of his books. The LAT article does seem to be a reliable secondary source for the sales of his book. I think our focus should be on identifying more reliable sources like this in order to make the article better. Perhaps we would be better off not deleting this article if we could get it to reflect the reliable information about the subject. --Salimfadhley (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I should highlight that I don't propose removal of the content at this stage if secondary sources can't be found immediately, rather I just think we should beef up the sourcing. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Re-evaluating this article...

I'm beginning to waver on whether this article should be deleted. It seems that Bernie Siegel was indeed (briefly) a famous person (in a single country) who had a number of best-selling books in the 80s. Today he is not a famous person. His books have had no lasting impact on any aspect of humanity but they were briefly popular and that might be enough.

In any case Wikipedia is full of trivia (e.g. relatively unknown actors who played single roles in 80s sitcoms), so to retain the page does not seem WP:UNDUE. On the other hand I still have great concerns that the article represents his career as primarily a doctor or medical person, where any scan of the sources would show that regardless of his medical qualification the overwhelming bulk of his career (healing, writing, speaking) has been in the fields of alt-med, spirituality and fringe-science. He is not an influential person within mainstream medicine and it is highly irresponsible to present him as such.

It's also wrong to overstate his spiritual importance. In particular citing that he appears as #25 in the Watkins "Spiritual 100" definitely gives a misleading impression. As I mentioned before, this list is obviously flawed as it ranks Bernie ahead of internationally famous individuals who are in the news on an almost daily basis. Mind Body Spirit magazine are an example of a WP:QS and should never be used in a WP:BLP as a reference about a third party. Noting his appearance in this chart in the opening paragraph definitely gives WP:UNDUE weight to a source which is not reliable. --Salimfadhley (talk) 18:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Undue is the wrong policy for the existence of articles. It is covered by the notability requirements. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The article says nothing about Siegel's "spiritual importance". It doesn't even call him a spiritual leader or figure. It does, and IMO rightfully so, point out that a prominent New Age publication ranks him in the top 100 in that category. That is a whole different thing; it supports notability. NO ONE is using this fact as support for a statement about how spiritual he ACTUALLY is, and they should not. And again, your assessment about the order in which the people on that list are placed has NO bearing on the matter, any more than you could discard the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame list if they ranked a musician higher than one YOU consider much more desering. That would be YOUR opinion, and no one is asking for it, or asking anyone to agree with Watkins. It is being reported, not judged, and that is as it should be.Rosencomet (talk) 20:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually how reliable a source is determined by discussions typically, see WP:RSN where they often take place. We judge whether something should be mentioned based on WP:DUE weight. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Rosencomet, the language that the publisher uses to describe their spiritual 100 list include phrases like "This list is meant to serve as a positive guide to some of the leading modern teachers that are alive today" and the list's formal name is "list of the 100 Most Spiritually Influential Living People". Any normal reader would interpret this as an indication of some kind of importance or notability!

The problem is that MBS magazine could never be considered a WP:RS for anything other than it's own opinions. Opinions of an unreliable source should not be used in articles about third-parties. I urge you once again to check WP:QS and WP:BLP. As a compromise I propose that we include this link in a lower section. We could call it "appearances in esoteric media". Perhaps we could find a way to to avoid giving this one source undue weight. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it merits a section of its own, unless you have more to add. I see no problem moving it to the "Author" section, since it is more than likely he was included in this bookstore's list based primarily on his books, tapes & films. Rosencomet (talk) 22:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the mention is fine as long as some context is provided, as in provide a short description that Mind Body Spirit is a New Age publication. It explains why the Pope etc feature low on the ranking for spirtuality etc whilst still being verifiable, that would seem to satisfy WP:FRINGE etc. It's still primary, but so is everything else in the article, until we start using secondary sources it's hard to know where the due weight should be. We can use some of the WP:TERTIARY encylopedia sources that Binksternet found to establish where the general due weight lies in the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd be much happier to see this text moved to the bottom of the Author section with additional context as per IRWolfie-. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Jerome Groopman comment

I wonder if we might move the Jerome Groopman comment out of the "Medical Career" section. This comment was published many years after Siegel had retired from general practice. At that time his he would have been most noted for his writing/spiritual teaching work. I think the comment was actually a critique of one of his books so it would be most appropriate to move it into the "Writing Career" section. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

It really belongs with the New Age part of his career, where indeed his books belong also. I suspect it got dropped where it is in the, um, extensive reshaping discussion of the article. But I also suspect there will be time enough for gentle editing and improvement now. with best wishes Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Would you be happy for me to make that change. I do not think I'd need to change the wording much, as I said I'd mainly move it into the "writing career" section. --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Concerns about Further Reading section

I note that this section is a growing list of unverafiable offline sources of questionable relevance to the subject. Rather than attempt to catalogue every single book in or out of print which has mentioned Mr. Siegel, perhaps we could whittle this section down to only be best (most reliable, verifiable) sources concerning his life's work. Also, it's not clear from the citation how all of these are relevant, for example:

• Friedman, Howard The Encyclopedia of Mental Health
• Kahn, Ada P. (2006). The Encyclopedia of Stress and Stress-Related Diseases

Are these books even relevant to the subject (other than tangentially)? --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

You are misusing the word "unverifiable". These sources are verifiable, go to your library. Sources are not in any way required to be verifiable online. Yworo (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I have verified them, and a good thing too because the subject did not appear to be listed in Friedman, but rather a book of the same title by Kahn. Page numbers have been supplied. These are encyclopedia entries under the subject's name. Yworo (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

By the way, the entries are very similar, if not identical. I myself would not object to removing the earlier of the two, but let's wait for feedback from the editor who added them... Yworo (talk) 17:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Of the two books I mentioned, I found "The encyclopedia of mental health" in the Cambridge University Medical library but not "The Encyclopedia of Stress and Stress-Related Diseases". Neither of these books were held in any of my London Borough's collections. By the way, if you have access to either of these books, could you find a way to share extracts. I'd be interested to know what these texts say about Bernie Siegel --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

It's about a four paragraph entry. Starts by mentioning Love, Medicine and Miracles, calling it "best-selling". Verifies his M.D. and B.A., verifies founding of ECP, discusses his approach to alterative therapy, and verifies that he "travels extensively to speak and run workshops sharing his techniques and experiences". Yworo (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

If that's all there is it barely counts as "further reading" since it's not imparting any useful information beyond what we already have in the article. Perhaps we should use it in the article as a reference to support his qualifications or new-age teaching. I think either book would count as a reliable source for this purpose.

Agreed, that a published compendium is more appropriate as a reference than as further reading--the same would be true if, for instance, the article on Babe Ruth listed 'The Annotated History of Baseball'. 99.156.65.73 (talk) 13:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm also interested in the "The Historical Dictionary of New Age Movements" entry. I'm not disputing your use of this source but I was wondering if you might provide a relevent excerpt. Thanks! --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Concerns about the intro paragraph

The paragraph currently reads: "Bernie Siegel (born October 14, 1932) is an American medical doctor, pediatric surgeon, and writer on the relationship between the patient and the healing process as it manifests throughout one's life. He is known for his best-selling[1] book Love, Medicine and Miracles."

I'm concerned that intro paragraph gives a misleading profession of a career dominated by conventinal evidence-based medicine. He's most notable for his later career as a writer and esoteric healer/speaker not his earlier, unremarkable career in medicine. We know for sure that he once qualified as a physician however AMA currently list him as as "inactive" in the state of CT. I'm wondering if it is appropriate to describe him as a doctor up-front? --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

See WP:LEAD. The lead is required to summarize the article. We don't leave significant careers out of the lead, though we can qualify them with "former". Yworo (talk) 15:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, I believe your version works better. --Salimfadhley (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

"Former" works for me. Gets over what might seem like unqualified commendation without being unfair or denigratory. JonRichfield (talk) 06:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Great, just to avoid confusion, Yworo's edits dealt with all of my concerns. --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand. Has his M.D. been taken away? Is he still licensed to practice medicine? What makes him a "former medical doctor"? Perhaps he is a former pediatric surgeon, I don't know, but I don't see "former" in other Wikipedia articles about doctors no longer actively associated with hospitals. Is he still a consulting doctor and/or surgeon? Is this move really towards accuracy?Rosencomet (talk) 13:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the intent was to show that he no longer practices medicine. The AMA list him as inactive which means that he no longer works as a doctor even though he may once have done so. I understand that AMA lists doctors as inactive if they do not wish to take part in the professional development activities which would be required of a doctor who was practicing medicine. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "former medical doctor". He remains a medical doctor whether he now is associated with a hospital or not, whether he writes in the field, whether he is a consultant... unless somehow his degree has been revoked, he is still an MD. Rosencomet (talk) 17:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

We use the word "former" to distinguish former professions all the time, say for sports players, a former football player is one who no longer plays. If you'd rather use "retired", feel free. One could also use the word "unlicensed". The point is that he no longer practices, nor is he licensed by any state to practice. Yworo (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree to the above. We can contrast "doctor" with "aircraft pilot". It's possible that a living person may not have flown an aircraft since the Korean war. We would definitely call such a person a "retired pilot" or a "former pilot" to distinguish this person from somebody who presently flies aircraft. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

They are not comparable. Once someone receives a medical degree, he is a medical doctor, an MD. It is comparable to being a Bachelor of Science or a PhD. You may be a retired surgeon, but not a retired medical doctor, which he isn't, anyway. You certainly can't call him "unlicensed" with no evidence that he does not have a license. You know he had one; what evidence do you have that he no longer has one? These are terms which, I have to point out, you are pulling out of thin air. Why not refer to the AMA or some medical agency about the term "former medical doctor" instead of guessing about "contrasting doctor with aircraft pilot". One is the result of earning an academic degree and the other is a profession. A PhD is a Doctor of Philosophy forever, regardless of his activities, and an MD is a medical doctor regardless of his activities. I have verified this with two doctors I know; you are welcome to look for a medical school or text for verification, but not to guess about similarities to football players or pilots. This is an absurd way of arriving at an answer. Reviewing the Wikipedia article on the subject, a medical doctor or Doctor of Medicine is someone who has received that degree; there is no mention of an expiration date. Perhaps if the term was "practicing Physician" it would be otherwise, but I see absolutely nothing you have presented that says Siegel is a "former" or "retired" medical doctor, or if there even is such a thing!Rosencomet (talk) 01:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I just looked at the first 60 articles in the pediatrician category. None are described as "former medical doctor", although several were retired from practice to become professors, researchers, authors,or other positions. I then searched the phrase "former medical doctor" on Wikipedia and found fewer than ten entries, mostly people who had their license revoked for terrible acts. One who has a medical degree and is retired from being a practicing physician is NOT described as a "former medical doctor".Rosencomet (talk) 03:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Did you review articles about individuals who gave up medical practice to pursue some other career? Normally "former" is an adjective which can be used before any profession (doctor, lawyer, priest, soldier) to imply that the person no longer performs that function. In this case the use of the word "former" is doubly warranted because the subject is one who provides biomedical advice but from outside of the framework of regulated medicine. --Salimfadhley (talk) 19:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

No, you keep mischaracterizing the term "Medical Doctor". It means someone who possesses an MD, NOT necessarily a practicing physician. I can accept calling Siegel a retired pediatric surgeon, but he is still a medical doctor unless his degree is somehow revoked. Being an MD is NOT a "profession". An MD may go directly to being an author for the rest of his life without ever having a practice as a physician and still be a Medical Doctor. He can consult, he can be a lawyer in the field, he can be a politician and use his expertise to enlighten his work, or any number of choices. He is NOT a "former" medical doctor any more than a PhD is a "former" PhD. You keep trying to insert, I'm afraid, a personal prejudice about whether Siegel in "mainstream" or getting an "unqualified commendation" or "outside of the framework of regulated medicine", which is your real editorial critique, but that is NOT what the term "medical doctor" means, no matter what level of respect you do or don't have for the work Siegel does. He received an MD and is a Medical Doctor; to call him "former" implies that his degree was taken away, which is not the case. He is an MD who is presently "the academic co-director of the Experiential Health and Healing program at The Graduate Institute in Bethany, Connecticut". Your implication is that since he now writes books about the relationship between mind and body he doesn't get to call himself a medical doctor, in spite of his MD. This is simply wrong. You don't get to demote him because of your personal opinion about the field he writes in or is "best known for". Rosencomet (talk) 06:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The word doctor (in the context of medicine) implies a number of things beyond having once achieved a medical qualification. Most people would understand this word to mean somebody who is licensed to practice medicine. In the case of somebody who holds a medical doctorate but is unlicensed (for whatever reason) it's probably better not to use the word doctor but to simply state his qualification (e.g. Bernie Siegel M.D. is....)

Your understanding of the word "former" is not consistent with normal usage. For example we use the phrase "former marine" to indicate a person who has honourably discharged from that service. The word "former" can be prefixed to almost any profession without suggesting that the person ended their career shamefully. --Salimfadhley (talk) 10:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

No, you are simply making this up as you go along, and making invalid comparisons. A marine is NOT an academic office. The term Medical Doctor is NOT a "profession". Read Medical Doctor for once before continuing to make these comparisons. The truth is that Bernie Siegel is still an MD, still a Medical Doctor right now, and your attempt to state that he is a former doctor is false. Google his biographies; they say Dr. Bernie Siegel or Bernie Siegel MD, which is also the name of his website. His books characterize him that way. Articles about him do the same. There is also no evidence that he is not licensed to practice medicine. DEAD doctors are still referred to as "MD"; what is the status of THEIR licenses? I DID, by the way, use "Bernie Siegel MD", and Yobol reverted it with no explanation. Rosencomet (talk) 15:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I did explain. Read my edit summary, which pointed you to WP:CREDENTIAL. He is a retired physician or doctor, but still holds the degree of MD. I think you two are talking past each other at this point. Yobol (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps so. As long as there are no more attempts to characterize him as a "former" or "retired" Medical Doctor when he is obviously actively using his MD in his present profession, has not had it taken from him, and is credited as Dr. or MD everywhere, I can live with the present text.Rosencomet (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bernie S. Siegel. 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/20120215072938/http://www.learn.edu/faculty/ to http://www.learn.edu/faculty/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120818005107/http://lumenznetworks.com:80/siegel to http://lumenznetworks.com/siegel

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bernie S. Siegel. 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/20120314015925/http://www.ecap-online.org/background to http://www.ecap-online.org/background
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://extapps.ama-assn.org/doctorfinder/member.do?id=1332249661298&index=0&page=1
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://lumenznetworks.com/siegel

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)