Talk:George Soulié de Morant

Untitled

This article is mostly bogus as current research shows. It is based on his own writings, which do not conform in a lot of points with historical facts. To pick a few points which are mentioned in the wikipedia article:

• ) Georges Soulié added "de Morant" himself, posing as an aristocrat.
• ) GS was never a consul in China, he received that honorary title upon returning home
• ) There was no cholera in China in 1901 (the year he said he witnessed it)
• ) His works on acupuncture are full of errors

These points are taken from the following german article: (Aertzeblatt is an official "newspaper" of the german medical association (Bundesärztekammer))

In general, the German article comes to the conclusion that he simply invented things and presented them as facts. A charlatan. 193.41.41.132 (talk) 11:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC) crabel

I tagged the article for the reasons stated above and the lack of reputable 3rd party sources in the article. There is also a some more detailed and sourced information at the folllowing german wiki : http://www.esowatch.com/ge/index.php?title=George_Souli%C3%A9_de_Morant --Kmhkmh (talk) 03:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S.: A closer inspection shows, that the article in the Ärzteblatt is badly researched polemic. Though it raises some valid question regarding an uncritical view of de Morant, much of its detailed criticism is badly researched and doesn't hold up under a closer inspection. You can find a more detailed discussion of the problems at de:Diskussion:Akupunktur#"Akupunktur_im_Westen:_Am_Anfang_war_ein_Scharlatan"--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

edit 2022: updated archive link to the discussion mentioned above: https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diskussion:Akupunktur&oldid=79496851#%22Akupunktur_im_Westen:_Am_Anfang_war_ein_Scharlatan%22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.14.98.44 (talk) 11:23, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

• diplomat, scholar ? Is an honorary "consul second class" a diplomat? I believe not. And to be called a scholar, should one not be connected to a university or school? This article is poppycock. Possibly based on Soulié's invented biography. Someone has been gullible, but is that not rather common in alternative medicine ? Riyadi (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Regarding the diplomat: Yes a consul or actually anybody in a diplomatic service can be considered a diplomat. Moreover in 1917 he was on explicit mission of the French government to set up an archeological research institute in China.

** I have no idea what an "explicit" mission is, but I read in the FR Wiki that the mission never took place. Riyadi (talk) 10:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Regarding the scholar: Scholar is vague term, that ultimately might not describe much more than a learned person, who's teaching or publishing. In any case Soulie published a large body on of cultural works on Asia (unrelated to alternative medicine) and was a member of the Société Asiatique, hence you can definitely call him a scholar.
• As far as the "invented biography" is concerned I wouldn't be surprised if he has embellished his biography quite a bit in particular regarding his experience with traditional Chinese medicine and maybe with regard to his diplomatic functions. But be that as it may the information in the article is essentially correct (up to 1 or 2 minor point which might need the attribute according to him). The rest can be checked independently of his autobiographic material.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

References

Text referred to in article is not "ancient"

The Zhen Jiu Da Cheng was written in 1601, putting it firmly within what most would call the modern period. Granted it is basically a collection of earlier source material.Parufus (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)parufus

Yes the term ancient seems unappropriate here. Though in general terms like "ancient era" and "modern era" primarily refer to development eras of the European amd Mediterranean cultures and cannot simply be transferred to other cultures.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George Soulié de Morant. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/6P7AZLrTR?url=http://classiques.uqac.ca/classiques/chine_ancienne/B_autres_classiques/brise_clair_de_lune/soulie_brise.doc to http://classiques.uqac.ca/classiques/chine_ancienne/B_autres_classiques/brise_clair_de_lune/soulie_brise.doc

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 07:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)