Talk:Fred R. Klenner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fultz quads, first african-american survivors Let's see risk factors: poverty, mom 37 with physical issues, father, 56, hospital x-rays (20s, 30s, 40s fryer?) often used liberally then, premature, possibly familial link mentioned, ~1970s Virginia Slims cigarette advertising. Survivor is the (surprise #4) who didn't show up in the "family album" x-film (shielded)? Might be interesting to know if there was a position to source (dose) relationship in the three dead sisters, eh? Given the number of down checks, FRK did ok. Vit C did it? - yes just like JAMA & NEJM say all the time. puleeeeez.

This gratuitously denigrates the scientific and clinical life work of FRK that remains mired in controversy even today. Please find another home for this kind of irrelevant, morbid humor.

Son of heroically hard working, brilliant local physician goes to Duke. Drops out college, perhaps not hard working enough or not quite as bright as the old man. Floats along on trust and a lie, works at family clinic for several years. Old man dies, gradually forces lies out. Humiliated, overstressed amplifying any other weaknesses, son gets in trouble. Somewhat protected by family's status and trust, he pairs up with another disturbed soul, spirals out of control longer and wreaks more havoc. A tragedy for all. Interferes with the name, life and work of FRK. 02:41, 21 January 2006 137.229.184.137

Perhaps he should be inside separate entry under the book/movie tiles, I would class the current form as "distracting" with low relevance if not indirect character assassination of a controversial medical figure. 02:58, 21 January 2006 137.229.184.137

[edit] RfC

There was a RfC about whether to include implications his son was involed in murder. Without a great deal of knowledge on this, here is what I think. It should only be included in the article if it happened before he died which of course would have affected his life story. If it was after his death and the son is notable enough for his own article it should be noted in the See Also section.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 16:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

If it happened in his lifetime then I would include it in the biography. If everyone who learns about Klenner also learns about his son's involvement in a murder, then it is a 'notable' fact and also should be included (regardless of when it happened). Other than that I don't think it should be included. Matt 02:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

This drama, more than a year after Dr Klenner's demise, looks well outside the Klenner article's scope, at least several ways. The Wikipedia:Notability (people) policy on deceased people, the verification policy on Guilt by association seem pretty clear as does NPOV tutorial on Insinuation. See also Halo effect, Reductio ad Hitlerum, profiling. Several exact legal classifications (the action, his state) are also technical discussions if the son had become unfit but not yet diagnosed. I think dump it. 69.178.31.177 04:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

If it's a notable fact, I don't see why it should not be included. If it's true it's not libel. - JustinWick 20:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

It is malicious, extraneous claver (non-notable) for this article on a physician-scientist and his career work. Pls read the policy links, presented above. Pls see "subversion" below. --69.178.31.177 00:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

A biography should be about the person and the achievements of the person. The fact that he "achieved" a son, a marriage, a career and so on and so forth is relevant. But the doings of his family is not relevant unless it can be established that it affected Dr. Klenner and his work significantly. Just because murder is an interresting subject dosn't mean we should print it in connection with any given subject which has the slightest connection with it. Relevance or not - that is the question. May the Wiki be With us! WanderingWiki 18:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The question seems to hinge on the notability of the son's story. There seems to be no question of the notability of the father, or the connection between the two. If the son's story isn't notable enough, then the only inclusions warranted would be effects of the son's actions on the father's life. However, if the son's actions were notable enough to have an effect on public perception of the father, then an inclusion would be warranted regardless of the effect on the father's life. For example, what if Dr. Klenner's research had directly resulted in major findings after his death? Most would agree that such findings would warrant inclusion. In this case, I would recommend a brief acknowledgement of the connection. It seems that the hesitation to include such information is based on an unwillingness to impugn the character of this admittedly notable man. However, I personally don't think it reflects on his character at all, and furthermore believe that's not a proper basis on which to judge inclusion. Trevor 02:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Trevor. What his son did doesn't reflect on his character (and I wonder if there'd be such resistance to inclusion if his son had done something creditable). I don't think his son is greatly worth including in the article itself, but I'm more worried about the efforts of 69.178.31.177 to avoid even a link to a reference that mentions this detail in passing. It is a repeated issue with Wikipedia articles on alternative medical figures that proponents want them to be hagiographies rather than biographies. Tearlach 02:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] whale.to

see Talk:MMR_vaccine#Summary_of_Whale.to_controversy_for_RfC and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Whale.to--John^DO|^{Speak your mind} 07:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me see if I've got this straight. Let's say whale.to has 5000 web pages. 4990 of them are counterfactual nonsense (the moon is green cheese), hate, opinion, maybe Mein Kampf for the German citizens. 10 pages are pre-1923 JAMA articles. Are you saying someone can't (will be censored, attacked, blocked, Wiki war, whatever) directly link a drilled down specific URL to the old JAMA pages at whale.to to ease the dead trees (print) refs?

"...and the compromise of WikiSource" ????? Please accurately link. 69.178.31.177 11:13 22 January 2006 (UTC)

All we are doing here is linking to e copies of papers published by Klenner. We are not endorsing everything that is hosted by that site. If anyone can show the papers have been tampered with to promote a point of view then that would be a reason not to link. Otherwise they should stay. Lumos3 14:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It's probably easiest if you join the discussion at Talk:MMR_vaccine#Summary_of_Whale.to_controversy_for_RfC rather than split the discussion. However, the current compromise between several editors who do not appreciate the tone of whale.to and those who rightfully argue that there is some important information on the site is to copy the old JAMA articles, etc. into Wikisource and link there instead of directly to whale.to. It's worked so far and we would appreciate any thoughts or comments within the context of the RfC discussion! InvictaHOG 17:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I've gone through the linked articles and fixed not only dates of the papers, but also entire titles incorrectly represented. Because the linked articles were clearly marked copyright of seanet without any sign on whale that there was permission granted to reproduce, I simply re-linked to the same pages on seanet. Hopefully this is an acceptable compromise! InvictaHOG 17:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] stealth subversion

The changed "fq" link under "see also" is clearly an attempt to subvert the RfC and applicable Wiki policies, discussed above. Pls stop this.

remarkable - The treatment/dosage itself was literally remarkable, still so after ~60 yr, people still talk about, goggle at it; several of its specific results were unusual and uncontested over several decades. This is an area of FRK's career that is theoretically of interest to most - childbearing - and concisely written by noting it as "remarkable". This is not mere puffery, not to mention citing a still disputed/fluffy policy. Webster's 1828 Dictionary - remarkable - 1. Observable; worthy of notice. 2. Extraordinary; unusual; that deserves particular notice, or that may excite admiration or wonder. }

The changed "fq" link under "see also" is clearly an attempt to subvert the RfC and applicable Wiki policies, discussed above. Pls stop this.

Conversely, choosing #4 (Corporate adoptions, golden futures) as the entry point for a six-part article, all of whose parts except #5 mention Klenner, could be read as trying to put a rosy spin on the whole reference. His role in the delivery and 'corporate adoption' is mentioned in #1, therefore it should be a reference. 86.133.141.120 21:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

First pg contains at least two inaccurate and/or prejudical sections, sensationalism at least, that impugn the featured subject, FRK. This problem was well addressed in the first two talk categories, above. It clearly violates at least three Wiki policy links. Frankly, I think the whole article is slightly biased at the expense of FRK. If we can't agree on a link, I might suggest a reference to contemporary (1946-1964) magazines about the Fq births instead. Right now #1 is accessible after #4 if the reader really has that much interest. #4 does show a downside to corp adoption. I am really disgusted with ad homs on the individual medical pioneers, "subtle" doesn't cut it. This link series is mostly peripheral to FRK himself. --69.178.31.177 11:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

First pg contains at least two inaccurate and/or prejudical sections

It's in a reputable publication: a major regional newspaper. Wikipedia's job is to summarise information from reputable published sources, and if some such sources take a negative view of someone, it is a breach of WP:NPOV to airbrush it out. Criminal relatives are of general biographical interest (e.g. Margaret Thatcher mentions her son Mark Thatcher's three million rand fine and four-year suspended jail sentence in South Africa). 86.139.139.57 14:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Specious several ways. Your "counter example" is clearly within the Wiki notability policy (per RfC discussion, above), Margaret Thatcher is still alive. Her son's ongoing 23 yrs misadventures with his own article several times longer than FRK, even while she's in power, get a toned down sentence in a loooong article. You have repeatedly tried to build up and justify including tertiary tawdry POV remarks, almost 60 yrs after the relevant event - notable survival and sustenance arrangements for inherently endangered births, after the life of a long snubbed humanitarian physician-scientist. That link violates several Wiki policies (and the initial RfC comment) no matter how you try to sugar coat the gratuitous poison as "reasonable". The Wiki article discusses FRK's medical life work, action and achievements. Showing up decades after his life with non-professional events occurring after his life by nonprofessional persons in a disparging way may meet some tabloid standards but Wiki is *supposed* to be an encyclopedia. Presuming 86.140+-1.xx.xx since Jaunary are all one author, your FRK additions have had a patterned, persistent scurrilous undertone despite repeated attempts to point out the various Wiki policy problems. --69.178.31.177 00:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the above discussion, I hope it was an accident that this diff [1] replaced a functioning reference with a broken link. If a newspaper text was used to source the article (and the article history shows that it was) then Wikipedia:Cite sources expects that it should be cited. Tearlach 01:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, the broken link was only for several days in April at most, apparent change in article's archival address. Actually the basic sources are Ebony and Life magazines ca 1946-1965, the newspaper article even uses the same photos.--66.58.130.26 08:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the link I added. The one you used is just to an isolated picture of the quadruplets; a direct link to the article text is more useful. Tearlach 10:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)