Talk:John R. Brinkley

Death dates

there's two dates of death listed-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.103.109.221 (talk) 02:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Gubernatorial elections

How could he have run for governor of Kansas every year in the early 1930s? Gubernatorial elections do not take place annually. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.176.151.6 (talk) 22:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Revert?

A lot of what I did was copyediting. Why the revert? [1] — e. ripley\^talk 14:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

em dash. You changed the en dash between birth and death dates to an em dash. The shorter en dash was correct.

The lead section. You put this sentence into the lead: "Some claim that between 1933 and 1938 Brinkley earned $12 million from his various medical schemes, which he used to purchase diamonds, cars, aircraft, a yacht (which was reportedly rented to the Duke and Duchess of Windsor for their honeymoon) and a large mansion." I don't see this sentence as being something worthy of the lead. The lead is for a brief statement about why Brinkley is notable, not for details.

Bigamy. Your changes erased Brinkley's short stretch of bigamy, where he was married to two women at once.

untold number. You tacked this phrase on to the ending of a sentence: "...an untold number became sick or died as a direct result, though Brinkley denied this throughout his lifetime." Hey, I would have denied it, too. "An untold number" is inadequate reportage for an encyclopedia. Here's where a cite would help a lot.

Percent, kilohertz and kilowatt. Using the percent sign is fine, as is using an abbreviations for kilowatts and kilohertz. No need to write out the words in each case.

Kicked back. Is "kicked back" too aggressive? I think so. The phrase 'sent a portion of their profit' is adequate to describe the relationship.

Astronomical. You added the sentence "The broadcast range and power of this station was astronomical and reached well into the United States." No, the range and power were higher than other stations, not astronomical. By saying 'astronomical', then saying 'reached well into the United States', you make it sound like the USA is out there beyond Alpha Centauri.

Broadcast license. You put the word 'broadcast' into a sentence which already contained that word. "Lost his license" is clear from context which license was lost.

XERA. There is a hidden comment that you ignored, saying that the XERA section is linked to the article XERA-AM. You deleted the hidden comment and changed the heading to say "Brinkley and Radio", making the mistake of putting a capital 'r' on radio. Your change left the XERA-AM article link hanging nowhere.

Deleted headings. You took out the headings 'World War II' and 'Brinkley Act'. I couldn't see why.

These reasons are why I reverted almost all of your changes. Binksternet (talk) 15:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

1. I believe WP's style manual agrees with you here, I didn't realize until I looked just now, but glad to know so I don't repeat mistakes.

2. I would agree with you that information about Brinkley's finances doesn't belong in the lead sentence, but then it wasn't placed there -- it was placed in the second paragraph, mostly because there wasn't a more logical place for it to go after I restructured the article. It seems appropriate to me to mention the magnitude of his fraud up top and that seemed a decent way to kill two birds with one stone (moving the information to a more appropriate place, and touching on the magnitude of his fraud higher.)

3. Erasing the bigamy information was totally unintentional there, so glad you noticed it. However that could simply have been added back in. In any case that was my fault and inadvertent.

4. There's no way to know how many people he killed, however it is clear that it's more than zero and probably less than Hitler. What exactly is wrong about saying he killed an untold number of people? No source that I know of will be able to say exactly how many, except maybe something in his court proceedings. Brock Pope's book mentions, however, that he was responsible for the deaths of at least some number of people, and his book is listed as a reference for the article generally. I don't have the book here in front of me, but when I find it I'll see if it has some more specificity. Regardless, the article should mention that he wasn't just grasping, he was also lethal.

5. Using the percent sign is not fine; it's improper writing style (AP stylebook isn't accessible online, but here's a decent summation [2]. Similarly, AP style is not to use metric abbreviations in copy; it's not very accessible to readers when you use the abbreviations. Incidentally, WP's style also supports AP's in these areas. See WP:STYLE.

6. I don't mind the change to kickback, though I think it's probably correct; it was at its base a practice meant to defraud people of their money and the method by which it was done is fairly close to the textbook definition of a kickback, although sometimes that word gets conflated with politics in popular usage. I won't quibble on that point though, it's not terribly important.

7. The way I've read XERA described, its level of broadcasting power in that time was unprecedented by many, many degrees of magnitude. I don't think astronomical is an incorrect term to use here: from Merriam-Webster 2  : enormously or inconceivably large or great. Regardless, to simply revert the information because you disagreed with one word is a little imprudent I think. Its magnitude deserves an explanation in this article, even if it's a short reference.

8. It is not immediately clear what license is being referenced from the context. The prior sentence mentions "at the clinic in the hotel he also performed prostate operations." The next sentence then says his license was revoked and doesn't mention radio until the second phrase in the sentence. It can only help to ensure our readers understand which license is being discussed.

9. I don't see why we need a hidden comment saying there's a link to another article; maybe I'm misunderstanding, but can't we just link to it somewhere? Or else mention it outright.

10. I removed the section breaks at the end because it looks sloppy to have so many of them with so little information. We shouldn't have section breaks for every one paragraph. I consolidated a lot of the information together so that it flowed better without the need for so many choppy section breaks.

My edits also did things like fixing that's and which's, I uncapped governor (titles are only capped when they appear directly before someone's name), uncapped "State Printer" and made many other stylistic corrections. Some of what is being discussed here could have been fixed or reinserted very easily without undoing the rest of my improvements. So, we have a few disagreements here, but I'm sure we can discuss them and find a middle ground. — e. ripley\^talk 15:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think the change from 'by' to 'through' was needed. If you feel the changes from 'which' to 'that' are an improvement, bring them back in. 'State Printer' is deleted as unnecessary. The one instance of 'governor' that you changed to lower case is still that way; it was a good change. Percent signs aren't exactly forbidden by the style guide, they are recommended against in popular articles vs. technical ones where they are accepted. I'm more used to dealing with technical articles, so I'll accede the point here where the subject is pop culture. The XERF-AM article is the one that benefits from the section heading being exactly XERA, not this article--they have a link that is John_R._Brinkley#XERA which will only work if we don't change the header to something else. Yes, we need references to back up the injuries and deaths, and to get rid of that ugly template splashed above the article. Binksternet (talk) 17:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. I am going to revert to my last version then, fix the points where we both agree or acceded to the other (which, I think really are most of them) and let's go from there. I think we'll end up pretty close to one another. — e. ripley\^talk 20:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Medical doctor

How could Brinkley be a medical doctor without finishing an education for it? --DrJos (talk) 10:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You missed May 7, 1915 in Kansas City, the date when Brinkley earned/bought/attained the degree he sought, a degree that wasn't useful in, say, New York where the AMA was powerful, but was recognized in eight other states. Binksternet (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The whole language of this article is unencyclopedic

"Crooned"

Are you kidding me? this is not an encyclopedia entry, it's a crime novel that needs more volume, needs a complete rewrite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.14.223.47 (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:John R. Brinkley/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: WTF? (talk) 04:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The prose is very good and easy to read. The article follows the manual of style guidelines.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Most information is cited by the Brock 2008 reference, though there are a good number of other citations as well, and they are reliable. For the references with web links in the inline citation, they need to include more than just the link and title -- full citation information should be provided, as much as possible -- author, title, publisher, date of publication, as well as the date the URL was retrieved. This is important, such that, in the event the link becomes 404, the citation information can still be useful in verifying the information.

One other minor issue: IN the 'political career' section, it states that, "Brinkley reacted to losing both his medical and broadcast licenses by launching a bid to become the Governor of Kansas,..." So, if he lost his broadcasting license, how could he later use, "his radio station to help his campaign"? Doesn't really make sense?

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I think that all of the major aspects of his life and career are covered, so it's reasonably complete.

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The article seems to be written in a pretty neutral tone, which is commendable, considering the controversial nature of Brinkley.

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No edit wars or WP:3RR violations.

4. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Only one image is present in the article, and it is tagged and captioned. Not sure if I'd agree that it's a copyrighted image -- the image may very well be out-of-copyright (copyright expired) -- but the non-free fair-use rationale is acceptable, so it's fine.

Additional comment: An image of one of the advertisements he used for goat gland transplantation might be useful to add to the article?

1. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I think the article mostly meets the six GA criteria and can be promoted once the issues above are resolved. I'll leave this on hold at WP:GAN until 6/29/2010 so that they can be worked on. WTF? (talk) 04:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Response

Thanks very much for taking the time to do this. I'll work on the issues you've raised as I have time over the next few days (anybody else who wants to, of course feel free). — e. ripley\^talk 13:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not very familiar with fair use rationale so I have stayed away from trying to locate a decent picture. I found quite a few in the holdings of the Kansas State Historical Society (which I think is likely where the picture we're now using is from). It includes quite a lot of other things that could be informative for the purposes of this article, including an advertising pamphlet on Brinkley's hospitals here. I considered inserting a picture of him from their holdings, but when I looked at their usage language, I wasn't quite sure that it would work for our purposes. Their FAQ first says that materials online have been evaluated to adhere to fair use and aren't believed to violate any copyrights, but then below it, it says that they don't guarantee that materials posted online are not copyrighted and require you to fill out some permission form "and pay applicable usage fees" for the purposes of using them on another website. So I stayed away from it. Here's the FAQ: [3] Maybe I'm misreading or reading more into it than necessary, but I'd appreciate someone else with a better grasp of image copyright and fair use doctrine take a look first. — e. ripley\^talk 18:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• I think I've fixed up all the web cites now. — e. ripley\^talk 17:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• On the question about his using radio to influence his gubernatorial campaign after he'd lost his radio license, I *believe* (but need to check) that he simply used XER, and counted on it being strong enough to reach into Kansas. If that's the case it should be made clearer. I will try to fix up any confusion here, once I figure it out myself. — e. ripley\^talk 17:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be the case. I've made a notation in the article to this effect. Unless I've missed something, I think that pretty much addresses everything above. Thanks again. — e. ripley\^talk 18:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I added a photo of mother and son, and I can add more when I get the chance. Binksternet (talk) 19:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

GA passed

Looks like the issues are resolved. The article can now be listed. Good work! WTF? (talk) 01:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Very minor issues (but issues nonetheless)

Los Angeles Times should be ital as the name of a newspaper. Also, technically it's The Kansas City Star, not the Kansas City Star. Also, JAMA should be ital. Relink of "Kansas City Ecelectic Medical College" should be redir to Eclectic Medical University". Would correct these myself but it's edit-protected. 75.252.252.66 (talk) 02:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Likewise, it should be The Des Moines Register. And the Roy Faulkner bio linked to is a footballer, not a country music player, so disambiguation is in order. 75.252.252.66 (talk) 03:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, in 1941, it was still the Post Office Department and was three decades from becoming the USPS. 75.252.252.66 (talk) 03:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Got it! Thanks for the notes. Binksternet (talk) 02:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Ready to go through FA Review?

Is this ready to go through Wikipedia:Featured article review, or are there clear shortcomings that should be remedied? I am thinking this would make an excellent main page FA because (a) I don't recall anything like this appearing, and (b) quite simply, it's very interesting article.--A bit iffy (talk) 14:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

When I was helping expand the article I concentrated on Brinkley's early career: his rise. What is not fully covered yet is the long progression downward into bankruptcy and public condemnation. More could be made of his effect on radio broadcasting as well. The Resler book on radio was not cited at all. Binksternet (talk) 15:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

popular culture

should there be a section on popular culture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patbahn (talk • contribs) 05:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Is the naming of a beer by Free State Brewing in Lawrence Kansas "Brinkley's Maibock" considered pop culture? The tie in is that a bock beer traditionally has a goat on the label and the brewer/historian thought of this connection immediately. Video at http://www.freestatebrewing.com/beer/brinkleys-maibock/

I have no idea how to properly add this to the article (or even if it would be proper to add to the article). I came to this article because of the mention in the brewery video on why they made the name and learned some Kansas history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.33.8.198 (talk) 00:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Not a demagogue.

The term "demagogue is best reserved for politicians who scapegoat minority groups using unidimensional rhetoric. Brinkley had the goat part down but not the scape. Carpenter, P. M. 2004. "What Qualifies as Demagoguery?," History News Network, George Mason University, October 18 http://hnn.us/articles/7603.html Burressd (talk) 03:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

You are looking at one person's definition of the word. Other definitions are in use, definitions that are much broader. In any case, Wikipedia worries less about how the word is defined and more about whether Brinkley is described as a demagogue. He is:

• "All in all, John Romulus Brinkley was a genuine American phenomenon, a demagogue with a Jimmy Valentine finger on the pulse of the people." 1959, Harold Mehling, The Scandalous Scamps.
• "All in all, John Romulus Brinkley was a genuine American phenomenon, an ingenious demagogue with a master's finger on the pulse of the people." Reader's Digest version of the above.
• "In the postwar years, the best-known physician was John Brinkley, a demagogue who announced over the radio that he could transplant goat glands to humans, rejuvenating their bodies while reducing enlarged prostates." 1990, Lawrence Jacob Friedman, Menninger: the family and the clinic
• "John Brinkley, right-wing demagogue." 2009, Pope Brock, Charlatan: America's Most Dangerous Huckster, the Man Who Pursued Him, and the Age of Flimflam

There's also a comparison by Eric Juhnke of demagogue Norman G. Baker to Brinkley, with Juhnke concluding they were very similar. See Demagoguery in the Corn Belt: Iowa's Norman Baker. Juhnke says that both men fed the anxieties of rural people.

If your source said that Brinkley was not a demagogue, then we could use that source in the article. However, the source never mentions Brinkley. Binksternet (talk) 03:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

His far-out ideas were in medicine not in politics, where his views and appeals were mainstream, in my opinion. So I think NOT a demagogue and NOT: "far right." Rjensen (talk) 20:54, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John R. Brinkley. 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/20070927014852/http://www.matthewmusial.com/brnkpgs/brnkpgs.htm to http://www.matthewmusial.com/brnkpgs/brnkpgs.htm

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: 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) 18:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John R. Brinkley. 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/20080709010024/http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2008/07/04/07 to http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2008/07/04/07

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: 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) 17:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)