Jump to content

Talk:Physician writer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anglophone associations

[edit]

The 'Anglophone associations' section really needs a clean up. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 15:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this meaningful?

[edit]

The article begins with a list of physicians that were writers... Then it tries to justify why these are special in any way, but utterly fails at that... From the arguments made one could claim that engineer writers, philosopher writers, politican writers, historian writers, etc. are also a special kind of writer with a special advantage... Shall they deserve a space of their own? I say they do not... Rather than wasting space in that way a category could exist to group people with more than one career by the mixture of careers they have and an article about writers might make mention of careers usually practised by writers besides literature (many writers are, for example, lawyers or philosophers if not politicans or historians, and many sciences also co exist with this activity indeed writers that are writers and nothing more are more the exception than the rule and more outstanding at that). Said this, I find this article nonsense, BS that is... But I do not know how to make a call for speedy deletion.Undead Herle King (talk) 22:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The phenomenon of the physician-writer has been remarked on frequently, and for a variety of reasons some people find this list of interest. Nihil novi (talk) 22:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I never meant the list must be deleted, as I have said, it deserves, at best, a place among similiar lists... The article however, it does deserves deletion... As it fails to be anything beyond a mere list. And that's something that gets a place as a category, nothing else.Undead Herle King (talk) 04:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the list serves, since User:Nihil novi expanded it, also the purpose of name dropping on behalf of "Polish glory", especially in section "15th century". Copernicus, for example, had German as first language, had studied law and obtained a doctorate, then was ordered to study also medicine (without a degree) in early the 1500s in Italy to serve his colleagues in the Chapter of Warmia. He also treated Prussian nobles, corresponding in German with them e.g. in 1541. The "16th century" section features another two unknown Poles, while is does not mention highly influential physicians like Vesalius, Paracelsus, Nostradamus. This list is at best useless, I added the "prod (proposed deletion)" tag, automatically. If that is removed, the next step is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. -- Matthead  Discuß   13:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Paracelsus and Vesalius qualify, as physicians. Nostradamus, however, was not a physician but an apothecary. Nihil novi (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion

[edit]

This list is not any more "useless" than any of the other Wikipedia lists of interest. And, yes, this list is very interesting, and the text remarking on physician writers is well written and also of note. In fact, a physician writer is not the same as a lawyer writer, or an engineer writer. A physician's life is unlike that of any other person, and frequently an all-consuming passion. It is indeed unusual to find a physician writer, and the combination is worthy of examination. The commenter who, (rather shrilly, I may add) is screeching for deletion seems to be carrying a personal agenda, of which physician resentment is a prominent part. So you're not a doctor, deal with it.98.170.198.63 (talk) 04:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the list could be kept but the accompanying text removed? It is poorly written and dispensable. Lines like: "A factor that may predispose some physicians to write is a superior level of intelligence and concomitant curiosity. The average physician has an I.Q. of 130. Professional writers often wonder how busy doctors find the time to write." have absolutely no place in any encyclopedia. If the article remains, this sillyness should be removed at the least.

I hope I am wrong about this, but I cannot help but think that the article stems from the vanity of one Ken Strauss, MD, who also has (somewhat inexplicably) an article of his own which is linked to the list. Publishing a novel via a vanity press does not grant the right to vanity publish wikipedia articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.52.144 (talk) 18:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Musset isn't a physician but only a syphilitic poet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.131.182.178 (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Psychoanalytic writers

[edit]

Rather surprising not to see Freud, Jung, Reich (and others) who wrote many books not only regarding their specialties but also concerning cultural or sociological matters. But I'm out of time here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larrykoen (talk • contribs) 23:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you. Any more nominees? Nihil novi (talk) 05:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:BERNARD DE MANDEVILLE.png Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:BERNARD DE MANDEVILLE.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests May 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:BERNARD DE MANDEVILLE.png)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Physician writer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Physician_writer&oldid=1209750198"