Talk:History of medicine/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

History of Medicine in the United States

I propose to start an article on History of medicine in the United States. I will start with a bibliography (which I compiled for Citizendium and add some text from here and elsewhere. Such an article is lacking although we do have Osteopathic medicine in the United States. My expertise is in some specialty topics (eg demographic history, nursing history), so I hope others will jump in as well. Rjensen (talk) 01:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Bravo! Even the undersigned, with little experience of nine pin and less of jum pin, can see that this new topic is already producing results good both for itself and for History of medicine, and for the Alternative medicine topic which is attempting (in a comparatively amateurish way) to describe the curious 20-21c. episode designated CAM, now in the later stages of playing out in N.America and everywhere else. Qexigator (talk) 09:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

My contribution is as follows: The beginning of the article says that "...The Greeks went even further, introducing the concepts of medical diagnosis, prognosis, and advanced medical ethics...." This is simply not so. One of the outstanding characteristics of Chinese medicine is its level of deailed structure, which includes ample descriptions of diagnosis, not only in acupuncture but in herbal medicine as well; the same is true of Ayurveda; so these are concepts that need clarification. The use of the words "empirical" and "science" and their derivatives are also abused throughout contemporary articles, but that's another story; in short, all knowledge comes from empiricism and I think it is wrong to try to discredit or undermine other systems by labeling them "empirical". For example, how did Newton come about his laws of physics? He carried out experiments, he wrote about them, and then made systematic generalizations that are now called laws. The same is true in other fields of knowledge, and herbal medicine is no different. 15:33, 24 June 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1Asiim (talk • contribs)

Post WWII

The entry claiming a cured HIV case (ref 134) should be retracted, or modified at least, and maybe then loses its merit for inclusion on this "History" page (altho certainly that story belongs on HIV pages). HIV dropped below detectable levels, but it was not a cure. Two years after the initial report, the patient developed detectable HIV which was interpreted as a reactivation, not a newly-acquired infection. Would someone more skilled than I please help edit this point? This is my first contribution and I don't know what I'm doing. N Engl J Med. 2015 Feb 19;372(8):786-8. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc1413931. Viremic relapse after HIV-1 remission in a perinatally infected child. Luzuriaga K, Gay H, Ziemniak C, Sanborn KB, Somasundaran M, Rainwater-Lovett K, Mellors JW, Rosenbloom D, Persaud D.

Healiconia (talk) 23:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up! I went ahead and removed it. Also, please don't hesitate to edit yourself - the worst that could happen is that you make a mistake and someone undoes your change. :-) Sunrise (talk) 23:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Expand section Prehistoric medicine

The existing section gives the impression that the only medical practice of prehistoric people were in herbal remedies and to resort to magic. The article Prehistoric medicine, though it does lean heavily in that direction, does mention evidence of surgery (mainly trepanation) and dentistry. (see also Dentistry#History) This section should be re-written to provide a more balanced overview based on actual archaeological evidence using proper reliable sources. 73.219.226.54 (talk) 21:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Dubious

"The first known Greek medical school opened in Cnidus in 700 BCE." This claim, and the claim following it are also both made at Ancient Greek medicine, 4th paragraph. Please post discussion at Talk:Ancient Greek medicine#Dubious and once resolved, changes should be made to both pages.

73.219.226.54 (talk) 20:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Time to overhaul this article and its subarticles.

Greetings, folks! This article clearly needs a lot of good work. I'd like to start a project to overhaul it and its related subarticles. Anybody with good experience in evaluating and developing references and Wikipedia style is most welcome. The article is a summary of the articles underneath it, so it will take a "ground up" approach, starting with the lowest level articles in the chain, then building up to the main article. I, personally, will be working only Western medicine, though Eastern medicine, including Far Eastern need work, as well.

I'm going to divide my work into time periods:

• Prehistoric medicine and Ancient Egyptian medicine
• Ancient Greek medicine and Medicine in ancient Rome
• Medicine in the medieval Islamic world and Medieval medicine of Western Europe
• Renaissance to 18th century
• 19th century
• 20th century to present

At the moment, the last three time periods are not divided into subarticles, unlike the rest of the article. I believe this should be done for consistency, to keep this article down to reasonable size, and keep it as a summary overview of the entire arc of history, rather than a detailed discussion of any one time period.

We may also want to revisit the question of a world history of medicine versus a history of Western medicine. Right now, this article purports to be a world history, but is actually very strongly tilted towards Western medicine. It does have a couple sections on some Eastern traditions, but only in context of ancient times, while these traditions have continued into the modern era. It may be reasonable to retitle this article "History of Western medicine", creating a History of Eastern medicine article, and moving History of medicine#India and History of medicine#China to that article. A new "History of medicine" article would be drafted to address a world view, including not only Western and Eastern medicine, but the medical traditions of Africa, Australia and the Americas, as well. These may be stubs, at first, but I believe it's better to have stubs and acknowledge where material is missing than to have an unbalanced view of world history of medicine.

Thoughts and comments are welcome. I'm looking to work closely with existing users who have an interest in these pages. I'm not a subject matter expert, but I do historical research and have a good understanding of the process. I'm willing to help anyone willing to learn how to evaluate and improve these articles.

Hi-storian (talk) 23:29, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

the above suggestions seem well thought out...

• Medicine Renaissance to 18th century
• Medicine 19th century
• Medicine 20th century to present

the above topics could be further expanded into their own articles...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Ozzie10aaaa: Right. That's part of what I'm proposing. More specifically, I believe these sections should be split into separate articles, and then new summaries of each article be added to this article in their place. Hi-storian (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

sounds very good--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The article Traditional medicine seems to fill a void in the coverage of the history of medicine in some parts of the world and is a likely candidate to be integrated into this series of articles as a subarticle(s) in some form. Hi-storian (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

making this an article on "History of Western medicine" (ie 1500-2016) is a good idea. Rjensen (talk) 02:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I think this depends a lot on how we want to define medicine and what perspective we want to take. If the goal is to focus on the background of what is accepted as medicine today, then "Western" medicine will naturally predominate. Likewise if we describe the scientific aspects of medicine, or if we refer to medicine as that which is effective at curing people. The "Greece and Roman Empire" section is overly long, but I would prefer not to divide by civilization at all if possible, except as necessary to distinguish different philosophical approaches to medicine. Weight should be primarily evaluated based on the long-term impact and relevance of individual people, events, or discoveries. Sunrise (talk) 05:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Sunrise:True ... the nature of the article depends on the definitions we use. The general convention that Wikipedia uses for articles titled "History of (subject)" is that it covers a world-wide perspective, through the entire sweep of time. These articles are generally broad overviews, with links to subarticles that treat sections of the main article in more detail. That said, this article, as it stands, does not meet that convention. This is why I propose renaming this article to "History of Western medicine" and creating a new "History of medicine" article that does cover a full, global perspective.

We tend to think of Western medicine as the "one true medicine" ... but in some parts of the world, such as India and China, very different forms of "medicine" are still dominant today. Granted, Western medicine is making inroads, and is likely to become truly global, but it's not quite there today. This view also neglects the fact that Western medicine was dominant in different parts of the world at different times, and that in places and times where Western medicine was not practiced, there were other forms practiced. Also, even today, "alternate medicine" is practiced by some. Many of those forms developed as a counter reaction against Western medicine, as it existed at the time. Alternate medicine is also a part of the broad history of global medicine, though it does not belong in Western medicine. The history of non-Western medicine is best structured first by regions, such as India and China, then by time. Western medicine, on the other hand, is best structured by time periods, such as I described above, then, secondarily, by regions, where there is a fork in the traditions. The medieval period is the most notable example where the traditions fork, with the Greek tradition being preserved and extended in the Islamic world, but in decline in Europe. The differences between these two views (global and Western) seem to suggest two articles, hence my proposal. The global article would be free to cover a wider scope of "medicine" and explore non-western traditions, while the Western article could tell its story, uncluttered by traditions that had no influence on it. Hi-storian (talk) 06:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I can't say that medicine wasn't influenced by many traditions (I think I'm using the term "medicine" as largely synonymous with what you call "Western medicine," i.e. "that which is effective at curing people" - except that it only a tenuous connection to historical medicine in the West). The issue is that the above arrangement presupposes a definition of medicine that is not the (only) definition of medicine today. Is medicine the attempt to cure people, or the act of curing people? By the latter standard, there is very little medicine at all outside what you call the Western tradition, and very little in ancient Greece as well. If medicine is treated as a science, we use the latter standard - if an art, then it is ambiguous. Either way, see below for some suggestions. :-) Sunrise (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree that this article needs overhaul. The opening sentence is currently a self-reference and this needs to change.

As for structure, I would say that "medicine" without a modifier refers to modern medicine as practiced worldwide by formally trained doctors. In my view one can't really speak of modern medicine before the 19th century (although some key anatomical and physiological discoveries were made in the 17th and 18th century, they had no real clinical impact until the 19th). Other important traditions certainly need discussing. JFW | T@lk 09:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Improvement is very necessary. However, I'm with High-storian on the question of scope: "History of medicine" must be both global and cover the full span of recorded history, whether or not a modern medic would consider the practices effective. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jfdwolff:@Chiswick Chap:@Sunrise: Thanks, Chap! Although, JFW does raise a valid point. Modern medicine does have a valid concern about being confused, in the public mind, as being co-equal with less credible practices that claim the term "medicine". Sunrise also seems to be speaking to the same point. JFW talks about "'medicine' without a modifier", but there is a modifier, here, "history of". As I explained, there is also an implied word as well, "world". It comes from the unqualified use of "history of". This seems to be where the confusion comes from. What I'm proposing is to separate the history of the modern scientific medicine from that of older traditions that do not have a scientific base. It is a undisputable fact that these traditions existed in the past, so from the perspective of history, they cannot be ignored. Yet, there is no direct link from those traditions to what we see today, except for a tenuous link between the Western tradition in the 19th century, when that tradition gradually evolved into what we recognize as "modern" medicine.

These concerns, both valid from their differing perspectives, is what drove me to propose the split. The way I see it, this allows both views to be expressed. On the one hand is the view that from ancient times, different regions of the world developed different traditions that they called, at the time, "medicine". One of those traditions evolved into something different, by applying the scientific method to sift through proven facts from superstition. Yet, in some parts of the world, the older traditions still prevail. On the other hand is the view that what we call "medicine", today, has no real connection to the older traditions, and needs to be interpreted in its own light. Both valid points.

I sense the real concern may be not so much in should we split the article, or not, but rather, what do we call it, and how do we keep the general public from associating or confusing one with the other? Fortunately, Wikipedia has a simple solution that it uses on a large number of pages, a disambiguation header. On the "history of medicine" article, at the very top of the page, we would say something like "This article is about the historical practice of medicine throughout the world, from prehistoric times to the present. For a more specific discussion of the history of modern medicine in the western world, see 'History of Western medicine'." Likewise, at the top of "History of Western medicine", we would say something like "This article is about the history of modern medicine in the western world. For a more general discussion of the historical practice of medicine throughout the world, from prehistoric times to the present, see 'History of medicine'." This way, we distinguish one from the other, and people looking for a different perspective know where to go. Hi-storian (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that using hatnotes would be a good idea. I'd be fine with "History of medical practices" as the main article and will gladly support that. As an aside, if the hatnote for the Western article reads "modern medicine," it might be better to name the article after modern medicine instead. "Western" would potentially overlap with several other articles, like Ancient Greek medicine. And as you pointed out, it isn't a phenomenon limited to the West nor the only practice found in the West. Sunrise (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@Sunrise: Thanks, as for the title of the new article, I did put some thought into it. There are arguments for and against both "History of Western medicine" and "History of modern medicine". Here's how I settled on Western.

"modern" medicine

for: It isn't just Western. It's a modern era development.

against: There are some parts of the world where "modern" medicine is entirely different from Western medicine. Some may take offense that we're saying they're not modern. Where do you draw the line when "modern" medicine begin??

"Western" medicine

against: It come from the Western world, but isn't just "Western", anymore.

for: It did come from the Western world, and there is no clear dividing line where one day it was ancient medicine, then modern medicine the next. Western medicine evolved into modern medicine throughout the 19th century. At the start of the 19th, it's clearly not science based, at then end, it clearly is. In between there's a mismash where the old traditions slowly die out, and the new traditions take root. Historically, Western medicine and modern medicine are conjoined twins. Clearly two separate individuals, but with no clear dividing line between them. They share common parts (the 19th century), which you cannot call one or the other. The expansion of Western medicine is clearly tied to the expansion of the Western world. The global economy is Westernizing.

In the end, I can't see how to describe it in two words other than "Western medicine". Hi-storian (talk) 00:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

For this point, my opinion isn't as strong as for choosing "History of medical practices" over "History of medicine." For the choice of Western vs modern: you seem to mainly point out the difficulty of defining "modern medicine" (which I agree with), but I don't think it should be any more difficult than defining "Western medicine." I don't think there's much dispute that their typical usages refer to approximately the same thing; I think the primary concern with "modern" is the potential confusion with "modern era," but that could be clarified in the article. For the most part, other practices used in the modern era are categorized as "alternative medicine" and/or "traditional medicine." Another relevant point is that "Western" with respect to medicine is often used as a pejorative (like the term "allopathic medicine"), so I consider it best practice to avoid it when possible. Sunrise (talk) 03:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, it's been a couple weeks since the last comment, so I think everyone who is an active user here has made their comments known. I appreciate all comments, whether you agreed with my proposal or not. I believe we have consensus that this article needs to be overhauled, and that it's best for the last few sections be converted into subarticles in their own right, and leaving summary paragraphs in this article. That would fully convert this article into a "meta"-article, providing a summary overview, and allowing readers to get a quick sampling of this very broad topic and allowing them to "drill down" into subarticles on the areas and eras that interest them most. Right now, this article is more of a hybrid, starting as a meta-article in the earlier sections, then changing over to a straight article in the later sections. It becomes a bit overwhelming to a reader who is new to the topic.

Where we do not have consensus is in the naming of proposed articles / sections. The discussion has exposed sensitivities to certain names, some of which I was not aware of in making my initial proposal. This has caused me to re-assess the proposal, and I agree that while the general idea has merit, it needs some re-balancing and further refinement before proceeding. I have also become aware of the article Traditional medicine, which does fill in many of the gaps in a global discussion of early medicine, but has its own problems by focusing strictly on geography, while ignoring historical eras, and the question of if the practice is still in use, i.e., "traditional medicine" or has died out, i.e., "ancient medicine". Some of the subarticles of this article are also used as subarticles of Traditional medicine, so whatever path is taken, needs to take that article into account, as well.

So, at this point, I'm going to put my initial proposal on hold, while I try to develop an improved proposal that takes all comments here, and the additional considerations of Traditional medicine into account. Hopefully, that new proposal will get full consensus, which I think is important to achieve before making any substantial changes. Thanks for your comments ... they will, in the end, lead to a better article structure that will meet the needs of a wider audience. Hi-storian (talk) 19:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear friends, How can I explain this to the world again that there is a man who can cure HIV/aids I was HIV over since 5year I have being into HIV drug I can’t anymore I decide to look for help then I found post by miss randy write about this great man dr.alimo telling people about how this man have cured her HIV I don’t believe that, because all I have in mind is HIV had no cure, thank god for my life today am HIV negative through the power of dr.alimo contacted this man for help because who write about him drop an email of the man I pick the email and emailed him for the cure this man told me what to do about the cure well, am from england this man cast a curing spell on me and he told me that he will call me after the cure is done truly he did I was cured for 45mins spell what a wonderful man thisA DR. if you need his cure just Email him now dr.alimoherbalhome@outlook.com) thank you once again the great dr. for what you have done for me, if you are out there, since passing through any of this problems listed below: 1) If you want your ex back. (2) if you always have bad dreams. (3) You want to be promoted in your office. (4) You want women/men to run after you. (5) If you want a child. (6) You want to be rich. (7) You want to tie your husband/wife to be yours forever. (8) If you need financial assistance. (9) Herbal care (10) if you want to cure your HIV (11) If you want to cure your cancer (12) if you want to cure any disease just contact him now with this Email dr.alimoherbarhome@outlook.com or call +2348084847967 or whatsapp dr on +2347052302954 thanks dr — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.210.225.41 (talk) 20:18, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of medicine. 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/20080716112340/http://www.imageofsurgery.com/Surgery_history_art.htm to http://www.imageofsurgery.com/Surgery_history_art.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: 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) 16:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of medicine. 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/20080131223744/http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/library/wdc-lib/historical/artifacts/roman_surgical/ to http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/library/wdc-lib/historical/artifacts/roman_surgical/

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) 10:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

The Galen-section contains some erroneous information:

The wiki-text states that: “…because some of Galen's ideas were incorrect; he did not dissect a human body nor did the medieval lecturers”.

The source for the above assertion is “Medieval Medicine: A Reader” by Faith Wallis on page 14, 26 and 222.

However, it is incorrect of saying that medieval lecturers did not dissect a human body. Wallis is neither stating anything about medieval lecturers not doing dissection. Rather, on page 231 she mentions that northern Italian universities and an Italian named Mondino de’Liuzzi (around 1300) from Bologna did human dissection. So medieval lecturers DID dissect human body.

That was pretty much what I have read other places: in “Galileo goes to Jail and other myths about science and religion”, Katharine Park states that human dissection does not seem to have been practiced in classical era, apart from a little exception in a brief period in the fourth to third century B.C.E. in Ptolomaic Egypt when Herophilus and Erasistratus made dissection but that had more to do with Egyptian culture of mummification rather than because of ancient Greece culture.

Around 1300 CE dissection seems to be done in regularity, and on Page 46 Park states that: “In the late thirteenth century we find the first evidence of the opening of human bodies on the part of medical men, in connection with municipally mandated autopsies to determine cause of death in the interests of criminal justice or public health. The appearance of human dissection—the opening of corpses in the service of medical teaching and research, continuous with modern academic practices—took place around 1300 in the Italian city of Bologna”

Correct me if I have missed something.

Here is another source, but the same historian: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2011/04/debunking-a-myth/ En historiker (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Medicine in Ancient Persia

I think you should add a section on medicine in ancient Iran, discussing the academy of Gundeshapur, one of the first recorded uses of cranial surgery and the status of the physicien in ancient Persian Empires compared to Greece and Rome. Here are some articles that could help you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Iranian_medicine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_of_Gondishapur

http://www.iranreview.org/content/Documents/_Academy_of_Gundishapur.htm

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/ancient_medicine_mesopotamia_iran.php

In addition, an expansion of your section on Islamic Medicine would be welcome such as mentioning the works of Avicenna, Razi and Al-Zahrawi. I know you have already referenced them, but a little more detail on their work would be most welcome.

Anyway these are just some suggestions and your article is already pretty good but as we all know, there's always room for improvement! --Hmarami22 (talk) 05:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Jingoist insertions

Modern Medicine is apart from the herbal cures of south Asia, China, Africa, South America etc. It might be a good idea to remove all such insertion from this article, and place them in some jingoist pages connected to the respective regions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:D40A:ABA4:7CDA:7D96:5A3F:5950 (talk) 14:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of medicine. 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/20111011000611/http://www.ispub.com/ostia/index.php?xmlFilePath=journals%2Fijps%2Fvol4n2%2Fsushruta.xml to http://www.ispub.com/ostia/index.php?xmlFilePath=journals%2Fijps%2Fvol4n2%2Fsushruta.xml

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) 03:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Prophet Enoch is the first Physician of the world.

Yes DSaeed111 (talk) 14:07, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

External links section needs a careful review

For example, the histmed.org link is WP:SOAP.

In an attempt to de-escalate the disputes between myself and Rjensen, I may not be prompt in responding to comments here until the other disputes are further along. --Ronz (talk) 05:03, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

The majority of external links seems fine to me. Links to reliable collections of further or more specialized material directly pertaining to the article topic is just what one wants to see there. Museum and library collections are suitable for this purpose. (Couple of dead/slipped links in there, though) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:55, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Maybe some should be kept as appropriate per NOT and EL. The problem is that some are definitely not, and so blatantly that it gives the impression that the section is getting little or no attention.

Museum and library collections tend to being helpful for us as editors for verification and expansion purposes. But for the general reader, it's unlikely, especially when we're working with such a broad topic. --Ronz (talk) 00:59, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

The museum list helps users. Museums of medicine are designed to attract people interested in the history of medicine. They present visual learning experiences quite different than our flat text. The readers of this article are interested in the history of medicine (or they would not be here.) So now they know of places to go--the more that are listed the more likely one is close to them. Rjensen (talk) 08:09, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

So a WP:LINKFARM too without regard to EL, directing editors away from the many other relevant articles within Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 16:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I was bold and removed the links again. Given the discussion at Talk:Military history and [1], I hope this is uncontroversial. --Ronz (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I made a careful review and made sure they comply with wp:linkfarm and do not mislead readers or overwhelm the article. Rjensen (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd hoped we could avoid this. Consensus was almost completely against your "careful review" last time. I see no reason to expect any difference this time around. Please reconsider the situation.

If you can duplicate what we did last time, list each link and give rationale for it's inclusion, that would be a good start. --Ronz (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I'll revert if there's no further attempt to gain consensus per WP:ELBURDEN. I have no grudge here, and would simply like to get on with fixing these problems. If it would help, I will go through them one by one with more specific edit summaries as I remove them. --Ronz (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

threats of vandalism don't help wikipedia. Have you examined ANY of the sites? you have not commented on any of them. I note that you have zero editors' support--as opposed to me and Elmidae and the various editors who put in the links in the first place. Lone wolf attack. Rjensen (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry you've chosen to attack other editors rather work cooperatively. --Ronz (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Starting cleanup following NOT, EL, and consensus at Talk:Military_history

I started by removing the list of "Scholarly journals, libraries and societies". This is a simple linkfarm, and corresponding links from Military history were removed after our lengthy discussions there. Simply linking a journal, a library, or a society is inappropriate per NOT and EL. --Ronz (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

you are violating WP:LINKFARM = There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. Rjensen (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

They aren't "content-relevant links". They are links to related websites.

Such links were removed from Military history after the discussion there. --Ronz (talk) 19:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Nonsense--they are links that are highly relevant to the history of medicine. Rjensen (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Your arguments were similar for Military history. It appears you are ignoring that RfC. --Ronz (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I came here via a request for a third opinion. Thanks for asking. The problem with a list of scholarly journals, libraries and societies is that although the list might seem a reasonable length now, there are dozens of similar websites from around the world that are equally relevant and useful to the reader. For really obscure topics where the number of relevant external websites is very small, it can be good to list them all. But those really are the practical choices - list all of them or list dozens of them. Obviously, we can't list dozens here so my view is that we should list none. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd like to assume that we can remove the links at this point, as there's no consensus for inclusion. --Ronz (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I think so. WP:Consensus says that if there is no consensus on whether to include an external link, it is usually removed. I suggest copying them to the Talk page as they might be useful as sources. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for your help. --Ronz (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Removed from article: Scholarly journals, libraries and societies

These appear useful for finding further references and resources for improvements to this article, as discussed above. --Ronz (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences since 1946
• Medical History open access scholarly journal; quarterly since 1957
• American Association for the History of Medicine,
• History of Medicine, United States National Library of Medicine
• Medical Heritage Library the Medical Heritage Library uses grants from major foundations to digitize the most important resources

Dubious claim ("...The Indians introduced...")

The introduction includes a claim about the historical role of ancient Indian medicine. Not only do I instinctively doubt the accuracy of it, but it is also without any reference to back it up.

My spontanous idea was that this was contributed by someone with affinities to Hindutva and related ideologies.

Unless it should be supported by clear statements from reliable and convincing sources, the sentence needs to be either modified/reworded, or completely removed. --129.206.185.172 (talk) 10:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Most inaccesible sentence in Wikipedia history

I'm guessing that this sentence means something. I haven't the foggiest what it is: "Much of the philosophy of traditional Chinese medicine derived from empirical observations of disease and illness by Taoist physicians and reflects the classical Chinese belief that individual human experiences express causative principles effective in the environment at all scales." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wuapinmon (talk • contribs) 18:32, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

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): Proy1198.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 18 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mellifluous7.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Anachronism in prehistory section

Islam originated in the early 7th century CE. So explain this in pre-history section: "During that process the most primary way of treating a illness was to see the prophet muhammad and few others in the early Islamic community which used prayer to heal your sickness from the deadly diseases" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.30.120.56 (talk) 20:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Medicine

Dxx 68.207.171.196 (talk) 15:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Dubious claim in islamic medicine section

Bolded claim in this paragraph:

Hospitals served as a way to spread these novel and necessary practices, some of which included separation of men and women patients, use of pharmacies for storing and keeping track of medications, keeping of patient records, and personal and institutional sanitation and hygiene.

I'm not sure why this would be considered a "necessary practice". I've tried to do some research, and the results have been mixed (it seems like typically state and religious authorities place importance on it, but experts are more skeptical). As I'm not a medical expert, and removal might be contentious, submitting this here for discussion. Mattva01 (talk) 07:48, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I've reviewed the claim and it's in the source: The main Arabian hospitals were centres of medical education and introduced many of the concepts and structures that we see in modern hospitals, such as separate wards for men and women, personal and institutional hygiene, medical records, and pharmacies.

I support keeping it unless anyone can show evidence that it's contradicted by most sources. The citation points to a relatively highly-cited paper (~100 citations according to my database) in a very reputable journal. DFlhb (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Txtoon, Mast0406, Dinodentist308.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

What are the main methods and principles of study the history of medicine??

What are the main methods and principles of study the history of medicine?? 103.166.59.118 (talk) 12:53, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Revamping

Hi all, sorry took a break from this page as there is a lot to update on it. A lot of the text that was on the page feels out of place, so trying to create a better wiki-narrative to it. Please do edit the edits! Jamzze (talk) 06:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

V. detailed traditional chinese medicine section

Hi all, the section on traditional chinese medicine is a bit too detailed for a top-level history of medicine article.

Have moved this information to the traditional chinese medicine article instead. Copied below for easy access.

Historiography of Chinese medicine

When reading the Chinese classics, it is important for scholars to examine these works from the Chinese perspective. Historians have noted two key aspects of Chinese medical history: understanding conceptual differences when translating the term 身, and observing the history from the perspective of cosmology rather than biology.

In Chinese classical texts, the term 身 is the closest historical translation to the English word "body" because it sometimes refers to the physical human body in terms of being weighed or measured, but the term is to be understood as an "ensemble of functions" encompassing both the human psyche and emotions. This concept of the human body is opposed to the European duality of a separate mind and body. It is critical for scholars to understand the fundamental differences in concepts of the body in order to connect the medical theory of the classics to the "human organism" it is explaining.

Chinese scholars established a correlation between the cosmos and the "human organism." The basic components of cosmology, qi, yin yang and the Five Phase theory, were used to explain health and disease in texts such as Huangdi neijing. Yin and yang are the changing factors in cosmology, with qi as the vital force or energy of life. The Five Phase theory Wu Xing of the Han dynasty contains the elements wood, fire, earth, metal, and water. By understanding medicine from a cosmology perspective, historians better understand Chinese medical and social classifications such as gender, which was defined by a domination or remission of yang in terms of yin.

These two distinctions are imperative when analyzing the history of traditional Chinese medical science.

A majority of Chinese medical history written after the classical canons comes in the form of primary source case studies where academic physicians record the illness of a particular person and the healing techniques used, as well as their effectiveness. Historians have noted that Chinese scholars wrote these studies instead of "books of prescriptions or advice manuals;" in their historical and environmental understanding, no two illnesses were alike so the healing strategies of the practitioner was unique every time to the specific diagnosis of the patient. Medical case studies existed throughout Chinese history, but "individually authored and published case history" was a prominent creation of the Ming dynasty. An example such case studies would be the literati physician, Cheng Congzhou, collection of 93 cases published in 1644. Jamzze (talk) 12:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Sub sections deletion or split

The regional histories of medicine would best be served in their own articles (and some already have their own); they don't need to be on the main History of Medicine page as well. I wouldn't object to a very broad overview of a short of "global" history of medicine (as an introduction), but my concern is that duplicating the information on each region unnecessarily bloats this page while under-serving each of these topics in their own right. I fully intend to write a "general overview" sort of thing for this page, but I wanted to ask the opinion of others before removing large amounts of information. (Particularly if those pages have caretakers more familiar with their subjects than I!) Laldowaldo (talk) 21:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Sounds entirely reasonable to me (though I haven't contributed to this page, so far!) Kitb (talk) 23:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I do object to "removing large amounts of information" and a "broad overview", neither of which are necessary at this point. Khirurg (talk) 16:31, 15 January 2023 (UTC)