Talk:Bernarr Macfadden

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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 {{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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 15:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

MacFadden and medical science

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)

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)

I myself am perhaps a bit shaky in my age but what I meant was that the sources were written and published quite some time after the death and Macfadden's alleged scorning of it but do not to my knowledge directly cite their own source for this claim. They do seem to be rely-able sources in general but sources to be relied upon entirely regarding this point they are not! It seems they reference Macfadden in passing; fine books perhaps but the manner in which they bring him up and put him down does not take the character of an assertion of exclusive fact, which we need for a Wikipedia source (no?). There's probably a kernel of fact here but if the sources are reliable then there should be something better to relied upon for it, viz. that which they relied upon: they are likely at least exaggerating for narrative purposes, harmless in their own context but unduly damaging when promoted elsewhere...? I mean that just as his "distrust for medical science" seems to be very exaggerated; in his own books and he cites doctors and occasionally even recommends that his readers consult them. Maybe worth noting as well that while his health recommendations do seem compatible with a contempt for medicine when looked upon in our time, they were somewhat consistent with contemporaneous mainstream views. Even then they are not so outlandish -- read his books about nutrition and he's largely just telling you that you need vitamins, whole grains etc., carbohydrates ought to be the main source of energy etc. etc.: much of it is still repeated today, though maybe in a less eccentric tone. Samuel Enderby (talk) 22:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Got the Cohen book. This is the relevant content (not cited in the book to a specific source):

The Graphic was the brainchild of publishing millionaire Bernarr Macfadden. While other publishing magnates like Pulitzer and Hearst may be been willful and even eccentric, Macfadden was a genuine crackpot. He believed that all illness could be cured by a combination of physical exercise and proper diet. In Macfadden's view, all doctors were "quacks". He thoroughly believed what he preached and it cost the lives of two of his children, who were denied proper medical treatment.

Schazjmd (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

'tain't original research, Matthew. If you're so fastidious about the definition of "interpretation" as to insist that what I'm doing is "interpretation" not simply applying the Law of Identity, how about we say "Macfadden thought all doctors were quacks and that all health problems could be fixed by eating right[cite journalist]. M'fadden believed that a competent physician should be present in the event that a catheter needs to be inserted [cite the man himself]." Let the readers sort it out for themselves...? He references practicing physicians, albeit mostly for their scientific contributions, but nonetheless indicating that he don't see them as QUACKS. If we resign ourselves to trusting "a historian" then this hypostatized ideal of a historian ought at least to have glanced across a few of these pages, which your journalists don't seem to have done. Again: they mention him anecdotally or in passing. Always (it seems) in the character of "Bernarr Macfadden, who thought that doctors were quacks and on that account sent two of his children to the glue factory, presided over a considerable amount of public influence in the '20s..." They're hardly authoritative, nor do they seem to pretend to be on this point.Samuel Enderby (talk) 06:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

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)

William Hunt's book is on Google Books. It makes it clear that Macfadden's opposition to doctors was well-established. Some quotes:

Throughout the five volume work harsh words for doctors abound, but the chapter entitled 'Medicine, the Science of Guessing' gives a focus. Plainly Macfadden found as many absurdities in the medical literature as his doctor readers found in his.

The big problem with the profession, in Macfadden's view, was that doctors in their commercial greed turned away from the principles of Hippocrates. Hippocrates found diseases in the fluids of the body--as did Macfadden. One cannot improve on Hippocrates.

Hunt describes him as generally antagonistic to medical opinion. He writes

Quacks and other foes of the AMA like Macfadden labored persistently to convince the public that the AMA was suspect on all fronts--and were remarkably successful.

Macfadden, by his own admision, was utterly innocent of scientific training yet pontificated and advertised himself nationally as a health expert--even daring to diagnose and prescribe by letter.

Macfadden announced the establishment of the American Protective League, dedicated to saving people from "absolute autocracy", and inviting members to help him save the country from the doctors. "Are you going to submit to medical tyranny?", Macfadden asked the public.

Cramp explained Macfadden's tactic: "After damning the medical profession from Dan to Beersheba, and thus playing for the support of all the cultists, faddists, and quacks, he now turns around and attempts to get the doctors to say that they believe in his particular brand of physical culture. Those who are will to admit this he will 'recommend' as physicians who are safe to go to. It should be quite obvious that any recommendation from Bernarr Macfadden is a heavy liability for a decent physician."

Schazjmd (talk) 13:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)