Talk:Hippocrates

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 20 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Soonerfan05.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Somebody (91.124.144.90 ?) is really messing around with this page

There are NUMEROUS vandalisms here, even after some reversions.

Why is it that whenever I type 'Hippocrates' into the Wikipedia Search it comes up with an article saying "Why do I hate Canada so much"?

statement/assertion should be removed.

"The Hippocratic work On the Physician recommends that physicians always be well-kempt, honest, calm, understanding, and serious."

In The Genuine Works of Hippocrates Francis Adams determined that he and other experts viewed On the Physician to be the work of someone other than Hippocrates. Too many people believe that what they read in wikipedia is factual. The statement should be removed because Hippocrates never made that recommendation. --Creatapy2019 (talk) 00:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

@Creatapy2019: There are two reasons why your objection here is not relevant. Firstly, the article never claims that On the Physician was written by Hippocrates himself. Instead it only calls it a "Hippocratic work," which is correct because On the Physician is part of the Hippocratic Corpus. Secondly, there is actually no agreement that Hippocrates himself wrote any of the works in the Hippocratic Corpus, but there is a consensus that they were at least written by his students, later followers, or other physicians within his circle who were influenced by him. In other words, the texts of the Hippocratic Corpus are relevant here in the same way that the dialogues of Plato and Xenophon are relevant to the article "Socrates"—not because Socrates wrote them, but because they were written by his students who knew his thoughts. —Katolophyromai (talk) 00:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful response. Perhaps it should be included in the article to clarify for future readers, who are less knowledgeable on the subject of Hippocrates. As it stands, it gives the impression that the statement originated with Hippocrates. The further away in time a Hippocratic work is presented, the more likely it is to be corrupted by semantics, translation errors, and personal opinion, much like the game of "telephone" as we all know, it is not possible for one person to know the thoughts of another. The student ALWAYS speaks from their own perspective, how can they not? Creatapy2019 (talk) 15:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

URFA/2020

Reading this article as part of WP:URFA/2020, I notice a few points where it may not meet the current standards of wikipedia's Featured Articles. In particular:

• There are some uncited claims, including three paragraphs which do not end in a citation.
• There are some quotes which need some more precise references: where does "to eat when you are sick, is to feed your sickness" come from? What is the source of the translation for the blockquote from On the Sacred Disease?
• Many claims are sourced to extremely dated references – are the eight claims supported by Jones 1868 still the consensus of modern scholarship, for instance? How about the four claims cited to the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica?
• I am not convinced of the reliability of some sources. For instance:
  • "L'influence de la médecine hippocratique sur la Guerre du Péloponnèse de Thucydide" – this appears to be a Masters' thesis, which is not generally considered to be the kind of "high-quality reliable source" asked for by WP:WIAFA (cf. WP:SCHOLARSHIP)
  • Hakim Chishti, The Traditional Healers Handbook, published by Healing Arts Press – what makes this a reliable source?
  • Rahman, Hakim Syed Zillur (1966), "Buqrat Aur Uski Tasaneef", Tibbia College Magazine. – what makes this a reliable source?
  • Starr, Michelle (18 December 2017), "Ancient Poo Is The First-Ever Confirmation Hippocrates Was Right About Parasites", Science Alert – is ScienceAlert a reliable source?
• Compared to the many dated or dubious citations, there are a fair few works that haven't been referenced yet seem like they would be natural fits for the article:
  • Cantor (2002) Reinventing Hippocrates
  • Langholf (1992) Medical Theories in Hippocrates
  • Smith (1979) The Hippocratic Tradition
  • Temkin (1991) Hippocrates in a World of Pagans and Christians (this is mentioned as Further Reading!)
  • Van der Eijk (2000) Hippocrates in Context

I have done a small amount of copyediting and started to get the reference formatting in order, but ancient medicine is really not my area, so hopefully someone with more expertise or interest will be able to pick up on the content points... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Add to the sources that should be widely used in this article: Jouanna (1999) Hippocrates (full bibliographical ref in the article; Jacques Jouanna is considered the no. 1 expert on Hippocrates, even before Wesley Smith). I won't be working on this, but I have some familiarity with the subject, and I will say that this article should not be a FA in its current state. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely. Another relevant and reasonably recent work that is included in the bibliography, but cited only once, is Pinault (1992) Hippocratic Lives and Legends... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't look like there's been any interest in nearly two weeks; adding to WP:FARGIVEN. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Ethnicity in the lead section

@Rsk6400: I quote, from MOS:ETHNICITY : "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability." care to clarify how the ethnicity of this scholar is relevant in the lede ?---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Only a few lines previous, the MOS says In most modern-day cases .... Hippocrates is no modern case, meaning our distinction between "nationality" and "ethniticity" is not applicable. But we might say that his being Greek corresponds in a certain way to our modern understanding of nationality - a primary marker of his belonging to a certain group and not to other groups. Rsk6400 (talk) 05:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Wikaviani, I think you've been applying too narrow an interpretation of MOS:ETHNICITY here. It says that ethnicity [...] should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability, but it also says that the opening paragraph should usually provide context indicating where the person was a citizen, national, or permanent resident when the person became notable. In other words, we do want to situate the subject culturally and geographically in the opening paragraph wherever that is possible and appropriate, we just don't want to deal with their parentage and ethnic background if that is not an essential part of what makes them notable.

So the fact that Hippocrates likely had a Greek heritage (it's actually very uncertain in this case) is entirely irrelevant for the lead, but the fact that he worked and lived in the cultural context of ancient Greece, notably including the context of the classical Greek medical and philosophical tradition, is essential information. Likewise, the fact that Antoine Lavoisier (which I see you've also changed) was of French heritage is entirely irrelevant to the lead of that article, but the fact that he belonged to the French nobility, was born and lived in the context of late pre-revolutionary France where he was executed for belonging to the nobility, is actually essential information.

Briefly, if it's about providing cultural and geographical context, it belongs in the lead. If it's purely about pinpointing the subject's ethnic origin, it does not belong in the lead, except where that ethnic origin is an essential part of what makes the subject notable. Maybe a good rule of thumb is that, if it feels like linking "Greek" as "Greek" or "French" as "French" would be appropriate, it probably does not belong in the lead. If no link to a Wikipedia page about ethnicity is needed (note that Hippocrates doesn't have it), that's probably a good indication that it's not about ethnicity. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 07:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Fine by me, thanks to both of you for taking the time to answer. Best.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)