Talk:Robin Murphy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template.
  • If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
  • If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

This article is within the scope of the Homeopathy WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Homeopathy. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Contents

[edit] notability

This individual meets criteria for notability described in Wikipedia:Notability (people)#special cases under "creative professionals: scientists, academics, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals":

  • The person has received notable awards or honors--NO
  • The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors--YES
  • The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique--NO
  • The person has created a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work (YES, most notable for creating a new and popular homeopathic reperatory, see bibiolography) which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or multiple independent periodical articles or reviews (YES--book reviews cited) Abridged 17:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Views

Not useful external links, but these might be useful for statements on his views. Adam Cuerden talk 18:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] replying to some edit summaries, IBSN frustration

  • For Homeopathic Remedy Guide, H.A.N.A. Press, Virginia, 2000 (2nd Edition of Lotus Materia Medica, retitled, IBSN 0-9635764-0-2). I can't get this link to turn blue and when I search on it, I get a different book in one engine and nothing in the others. I know the number is correct because I actually own a hard copy of the book and checked. We need a librarian!
  • Sorry for the word "comprehensive". It was a bit of a misnomer. The Murphy materia medica compiles material from all of the classical materia medicas, modern ones, etc and puts it in one place. I chose that word to describe that process, but it probably isn't quite right. Abridged talk 13:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
It's not the worst choice, but it has connotations of completeness, and doing away with the need for most other books that are inappropriate. "Derivative" probably has problems in the opposite direction. There is a word for what he did, but I cannot think of it offhand... Adam Cuerden talk 16:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Sure, no problem, I just wanted to explain my choice of words so not to come off as POV. Abridged talk 16:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Rossami changes

  • This user removed details of the subject's training and degree diff from an article saying he "Removed some biographical content that is not normally appropriate to an encyclopedia". Please see a discussion on this topic for another homeopath. I changed this back because I think that the details of where a subject trained and what professional degrees he has are perfectly appropriate to the encyclopedia.
  • Rossami also edited a description of when the subject became interested in homeopathy and award won in his naturopathic training from the bio. I have just found this guideline which does not seem to suggest this content was inappropriate. In any case, I have not put that bit back because I don't want to get into an edit war. Abridged talk 14:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Neither do I want an edit war. My edits were primarily style-considerations made after comparing this article to many other biographies. The award, if I understood it correctly, was a scholarship award by which I understood a grant. When considered as a whole, scholarships are handed out rather freely. I don't know of another well-written biography which lists a scholarship in the article. There was no evidence that this particular scholarship was in any way special. If you have hard evidence to the contrary, add it back.
      Training and degree are more mixed. They are occasionally found in a biography but not normally once the person is established in their field. Until the person becomes really famous and readers become interested in every trivial aspect of their history. That's a harder call. I don't think it adds anything to this article but I won't change it back. Rossami (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2007

(UTC)

      • I don't think the scholarship needs to go back---it is not a big deal. I think the degree is important, however, to mention for folks in this particular field given discussion on other pages. Abridged talk 00:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)