Talk:Barefoot doctor

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 5 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SSchlhmr. Peer reviewers: Atsang99, Epant25.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

'The End...'

NO DISCUSSION! I can't fathom how this page has existed for several years, and there is no discussion here. Am I overlooking an archive link?

Do not misunderstand me: I LOVE the concept and execution of the Barefoot Doctors program in Communist China (I wouldn't be much of a ragity man if I didn't). I am not a communist, but not all of their philosophy was bad. I am very interested to see how these French initiatives, and the UN mandate overall, play out.

I have made an edit, and I feel I should comment here. In the 3rd section, last paragraph, the third sentence said, "It pays 10..., by insuring coverage..." I changed it to read, "and insures coverage..."

Now I am not at all conversant with this program. An American nursing friend mentioned a book, "The Barefoot Doctor's Manual," which I was seeking when I found this article. My immediate concern is that I not change the meaning conveyed in the sentence. The English should be correct, of course, so if you have to revert my edit for meaning, please address the scansion of this sentence, or get some help.

There are issues here. I hope to edit some more, as time allows. This article has great potential. With lots of work, I think it could be a featured article: at the very LEAST, DYK material. Rags (talk) 19:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Authenticity

Coco Dong is gone. Coco Dong made one edit, which was reverted, and never attempted to contribute to this project again. His writing was weak. He didn't copy-edit his work, and he left no spaces between sentences. Not ONE space, like many who are accustomed to blogs and email. NONE. Butted each sentence up against the period of the previous sentence. His contribution was his own personal observation. WP:OR, without a doubt. None of these things are acceptable in an encyclopedic article on this project. But his/her voice was authentic. Listening to it, you could almost smell the rice paddies. (Is that a racist remark? It's not intended that way. Maybe rice fields are more Vietnam than China. I don't know.) Coco Dong was never welcomed to en.Wikipedia. No explanation was given for his revert. Maybe I'm maudlin. Maybe not. Coco Dong spoke, wrote, and read at least two languages. Probably more. He could use a computer, or he never would have found this article. I find this unacceptable. In certain precincts there is conversation about encouraging new editors. "Don't bite the newbies!" I've heard more than once. I am a very stubborn, hard-headed person at times, and I got through my first edits/reversions by main force and muleishness. I started out blanking pages. That was not my intent, but I did it enough times that I believe I was blocked for a time. I persisted, and I learned. But I can speak and write (and read) tolerably well. I would argue that this is a LARGE project, with a LARGE need for manpower. I read messages on talk/project pages often which are written not much better than Coco Dong. I would argue that we don't know what training, what knowledge, what native skills and abilities he/she brought to the table, and now, three years later, we aren't likely to. Be patient with our ESL brothers and sisters. Try to spare them a little time. I once knew a family of Dongs. I assumed from the first that Coco Dong was a pseudonym, but possibly not. In south-central China the name may be quite common. "Coco" I don't know about.

This is what he/she wrote [5Nov2012]:

"+ What the most inportant things that barefoot doctors left fot us is the spirit of being a doctor.People in backcountry treat 'barefoot doctors' as angels because they are a group of people who really take care of poor people and serve them from the bottom of their heart.According to the medical institution in 21 centruy,wards of hospotals are more and more sumptuousness,fee of medicine is more and more high,this inappropriate medical institution makes the relationship between doctors and patients more contradiction.People around the world miss the spiritual core of barefoot doctor———sincere."

This is not encyclopedic. It could be polished up and lipsticked, but it would still be WP:OR. But there is value here. I don't know where this belongs. Not on this talk page, either, but SOMEWHERE. We threw away Coco Dong. We shouldn't throw away this sentiment, as well. That's all I'm saying. Rags (talk) 06:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Plans for revising

Hello, I'm currently a student at Rice University and hoping to expand and improve this article. I think much of the information is a great start, but there is also much room for more information in many of the subsections, such as "Training" and "Historical Legacy". Additionally, I propose that the "International Development with NGOs" section be removed, as I'm unsure how it relates to the article. If you have a better understanding of how it relates, please let me know! Additionally, if you have any suggestions for what could be improved, I'd love to hear them. Please see my User Page for a list of scholarly sources I'll be reading in order to hopefully contribute some more peer-reviewed information to this piece. SSchlhmr (talk) 04:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal

Hello all, I will be working on this article for a WikiEd course at Rice University. My current proposal involves moving information from the lead to a new section titled "Background", adding two subsections under the "Work" section, namely "scope of practice" and "income", and deleting the "International Development with NGOs" section. Aside from this, I'm planning to update all other existing sections and expand them with academic journal information. Please see my sandbox for a more detailed proposal along with an annotated bibliography. I plan to add more sources in the future as I continue researching SSchlhmr (talk) 15:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Update

This is an update on the "international development with NGOs" section, that I was planning to remove. I now understand why this section is here. Unfortunately, I have absolutely no knowledge of the french language, and did not understand that "médecins aux pieds nus" translates to "barefoot doctors". I will no longer be removing this section, a I now understand why it is relevant. In case anyone can help make the relationship between the NGO and China's barefoot doctors clearer, that would be great!! SSchlhmr (talk) 21:15, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Peer review

Your revisions add greatly to the existing article. Provision of additional key information which was missing in previous revisions, and the reinforcing and addition of several supporting points where needed contributes greatly to a more thorough understanding of the topic. I am very impressed by the breadth of new information you have added to first three sections, and the clarity with which the information is presented. Additionally, the sources you utilized are clearly recent and up-to-date, which is greatly reflective of the current literature.

There are some changes I would suggest. These include: An expansion of the current NGO section for a thorough understanding of its relevance to the article. Omission of this section could also provide better flow. A revision of the ‘Historical legacy’ section could also be beneficial in minimizing a small argumentative tone that appears in the article writing.

The addition of some images could be add much to the article. Specifically in the sections relating to history, education, and training, which strongly invoke imagery to the reader, the inclusion of media could aid with understanding.

Additional links from other articles could be added, beginning with the articles who are already linked within your article to establish a clear connection between the two topics.

Additionally, some grammatical errors could be corrected through thorough proofreading of the article, and critical analysis of your citations and references could also be beneficial.

Improving the coverage of subtopics in some areas, and small correctional measures, like the ones stated above, are some things that could be performed to efficiently improve the quality of the article.

Great job! Epant25 (talk) 02:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review

I was really impressed by the sections you added. I feel like they really set the stage for helping me understand the importance of the topic as well as why and what exactly a barefoot doctor is. I was also impressed by the fact you provided such a good history and background of Barefoot doctors especially because it is the history of another country and because sorting through the amount of information must have been difficult. The sections and edits you did made the article overall more informative and easy to read. I could kind of guess you perspective as feeling more strongly about health for rural populations. Words like “Essential” and “important” in your Background section should be qualified by adding the context of the source. I don’t see many pictures but I feel like different pictures of barefoot doctors especially woman barefoot doctors could be used for the Selected Individuals section. For the “Selected Individuals” section, the source seems pretty recent and scholarly, but there was only one source used. While this is a more historical section that probably doesn’t have too many conflicting sides, I might use more sources to see if there are any contradictions to that information and just to add more perspectives. Overall good job on source selection. I would definitely add more context about your sources in the article. For example, you could include the researcher, the location of the source, or date just to provide more context to your article. Currently it seems like you have the opinions in the article rather than the author. You could fix that by adding context about the author. For example when you states how healthcare access in rural areas was essential. I feel like you should link that to the source. Most importantly, I would reference more sources in “Background”. In that section, I would also use more active voice, add more context to specific people and events like the cultural revolution, and be more neutral by putting sources in context. I would also add more pictures to supplement the “Selected Individuals selection” Atsang99 (talk) 19:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Missing historic dates

Just a quick note: This page mainly concerns a historic period, with lots of pivots and transitions. But citation of these timepoints were missing but for a few. (Even Chairman Mao's June 26 Directive isn't dated.) This, mingled with the format of in-line source reference, makes a very difficult read. Sillyvalley (talk) 06:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)