| Revision as of 20:47, 14 June 2012 editPeter morrell (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,491 edits →Biography: reply← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 07:41, 8 October 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,012,264 editsm Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)Tag: paws [2.2] |
| (56 intermediate revisions by 35 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
|
{{British English}} |
|
{{WPBiography |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|living=no|listas=Hahnemann, Samuel|1= |
|
|living=no |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography |s&a-work-group=yes}} |
|
|class=B |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject France |importance=Mid}} |
|
|priority= |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Germany |importance=mid|unref=Yes}} |
|
|s&a-work-group=yes |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=low}} |
|
|listas=Hahnemann, Samuel |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Alternative medicine}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Homeopathy|importance=}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{WikiProject France|class= Start|importance=}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Germany|class=start|importance=mid|unref=Yes}} |
|
|
{{Rational Skepticism|class=B}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Alternative medicine|class=B}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{| class="messagebox standard-talk" |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| |
|
|
This article is within the scope of the ''']''', |
|
|
a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Homeopathy. If you would like to participate, |
|
|
you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
|
|
|} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Talk page header|search_term=Samuel Hahnemann}} |
|
== 250th anniversary == |
|
|
|
{{Notaforum}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{annual readership |expanded=|scale=}} |
|
This weekend, supporters of homeopathy are celebrating the 250th anniversary of the birth of Samuel Hahnemann |
|
|
|
{{OnThisDay|date1=2018-04-10|oldid1=835767601|date2=2022-04-10|oldid2=1081786594}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|algo = old(365d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Samuel Hahnemann/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
|counter = 1 |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{tan}} |
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 4}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== External links modified == |
|
*Given the short nature of this article, as part of a series on famous people in CAM, I have to question that almost half of the article is spent on two rather unimportant issues related to his life's work - namely the reference to Dr. Quinn (why not mention all the others who started a hospital or introduced Hahnemann's system into their country?) and the reference to quarantine. What about some major contributions, such as that he was one of the first to talk about hygiene, the value of fresh air, sunshine, etc., that he fought for the purity of medicines in an age of adulteration, leading homeopaths everywhere to fight for better medical standards, such that in the US and Canada, for example, the homeopaths formed the first medical associations, which the AMA was formed to combat, or that he was a famous chemist and medical translator, his texts used throughout Germany, that he treated royalty, a tradition that continues with the British and Dutch royal families to this day? He was also a strong opponent of "heroic measures" drawing medicines attention back to the Hippocratic nil nocere. |
|
|
Does anyone else feel this article really does Dr. Hahnemann a disservice? --] 02:55, 18 May 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
: no not anymore, it has been improved in the past year a lot I can see from the history list ] 16:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians, |
|
* Is it correct to call him Saxon? The page on ] shows that he was born in The Holy Roman Empire, and this page shows he died in France. Can we better call him Holy Roman/Saxon/French Herr Dr Hahnemann? -- ] 02:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have just modified 3 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes: |
|
:: Hahnemann considered himself a son of Saxony and a German. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101021000237/http://www.minimum.com/reviews/organon-sixth.htm to http://www.minimum.com/reviews/organon-sixth.htm |
|
|
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080517061612/http://www.hpathy.com/materiamedica/hahnemann-materia-pura/index.asp to http://www.hpathy.com/materiamedica/hahnemann-materia-pura/index.asp |
|
|
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120402112637/http://www.library.ucsf.edu/collections/homeopathy to http://www.library.ucsf.edu/collections/homeopathy |
|
|
|
|
|
|
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. |
|
== Biography == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}} |
|
I have added considerable biographical information, which ] has deleted. Is there some reason why Hahnemann's biography should not be included in an article about him? I am restoring the information. ] 21:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 05:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
: While the description of his work and the bibliography are splendid, the biography is woefully incomplete (cf. the German wiki, with a |
|
|
clear separation of the various stations of his life).] 23:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Haehl, Richard (1873-1932). Samuel Hahnemann : his life and work. |
|
I believe there is a confusion in the "Descendants" topic. The second paragraph ("His father, Mr William Herbert Tankard-Hahnemann (1922–2009)...") mentions that "his" (probably related to Samuel) father was born on 1922. This is not physically possible (Samuel was born on 1755). I believe there is probably some text missing, maybe "his" is related to one of Samuel's descendants... (this is my first interaction in Misplaced Pages, I'm sorry for any mistake/misconduct). Thanks. ] (]) 18:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
** translated by Mary L. Wheeler & W. H. R Grundy |
|
|
|
|
|
** edited by John Henry Clarke (1852-1931) & F. J. Wheeler |
|
:You are quite possibly correct; I will check some of the biographies and see if the paragraph can be improved, including some good source material on this topic. thanks ] 20:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
** vol 1 https://archive.org/details/b29001742_0001 |
|
|
|
|
|
** vol 2 (Supplements) https://archive.org/details/b29001742_0002 |
|
== Bibliography == |
|
|
|
--] (]) 20:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC) |
|
I do not understand the two sub headlines which say "Other works cont´d", please explain what this means, thank you. (I am Pernambuco and I have made many edits to the ] article. ) ] 01:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==request from the ] page == |
|
|
I am involved in a cleaning up process of the article ] but it is a lot of work, I could use help from others, if someone wants to help just go there, and I am also active on the Talks page with the user "Debbe" (a wiki-pedia friend of mine who helps there) so thank you in advance for your help with fixing that page ] 21:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Reputation as a scientist == |
|
|
|
|
|
Does this need to be so lengthy? It really has an air of desperately trying to ''prove'' Hahnemann's worth, and could really be about a third of the length without losing much actual information. It is skating over the edge of NPOV, in my opinion. It's even more ironic that that bumf leaves out one of Hahnemann's non-homeopathic achievements - that of discovering a test for arsenic that is still in use today. I'll add the bit about the arsenic test, and see if anyone has comments about the other glurge in the next month or so before I think of a way to edit to something resembling objective fact. ] 11:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: yes, I agree, and this is a problem that we have with other homeopathic related articles too, I am working on improving ] in this regards, so if you want to help I say thank you to you ] 13:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Ditto. I'm going to take a shot at condensing that section down a lot, it isn't really that relevant. ] 22:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: Alright, I took a shot. I hope I haven't been overly harsh, but there really wasn't much there to salvage. The giant list of works he'd translated was not relevant at all, and the bit before that was just constant gushing praise, all from the one source. I kept the bit about the ], since that seems to be verifiable and concrete. ] 22:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: o.k. well I like most of what you did, it is actually a much better page now, but I have a little concern, and it is that you also took some of the references/sources away. Well, I added one back in, so maybe now it is fine ] 02:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: Seems good to me! Sorry if I did that, I might have been a bit overenthusiastic with my deleting. ] 18:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::you sir are an idiot who should be banned from wikipedia ] 21:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Woah, easy, easy. I'm not saying that any of this is true or untrue, it's just not encyclopaedic. It's more like an advertisement than a serious biography. The objective is to summarize the life of Hahnemann, not to interminably list reasons why he's wonderful. Articles on far more prominent and famous scientists are nowhere near as fawning. If you have any reason why this huge list should be kept, please post it here. I'll leave it in place for the moment to give you a chance to reply. ] 00:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
How strange that this article highlights Hahnemann's early essay on the adverse effects of coffee so prominently while concealing his importance as a chemist/pharmacist early in his career, not least the fact that he compiled a/the standard reference work for pharmacists, das Apothekerlexikon! Very curious, don't you think? The German article is far superior and I would volunteer to translate it however the state of the English one suggests that that would be a waste of time! <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Memorial (photo)== |
|
|
FYI, there is a CreativeCommons licensed photo of the Washington D.C. memorial described in this article: . It might be worth uploading to wiki commons. --] 05:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
== WikiProject class rating== |
|
|
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. ] 08:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Suggestions == |
|
|
|
|
|
Here are some suggestions for improving the article. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Expand the intro. The intro should be a 'summary' of the entire article. One sentence is no where near enough. |
|
|
|
|
|
* Improve the flow of the article itself by removing quotes where they are not needed and paraphrasing them. |
|
|
|
|
|
*Format the "External links" section. All should contain bullets and the name of the link should be the name of the site. After that you can add a "short" explanation of what the link is. |
|
|
|
|
|
*Format the references. All of them. helps a lot. Also, Newer references from different sources won't hurt either. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Marsh test== |
|
|
''However, the most common test (and used even today in water test kits) was discovered by Samuel Hahnemann. It would involve combining a sample fluid with hydrogen sulfide (H2S) in the presence of hydrochloric acid (HCl). A yellow precipitate, arsenic trisulfide (As2S3) would be formed if arsenic were present.'' ] 17:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
That's not the Marsh test (reaction results not stable). I'll figure a way to rewrite it, but a source would be useful. ] (]) 17:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Here is a reputable source but I don't have full access...maybe you can check it. ] 18:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Hahnemann's test for Arsenic is mentioned on page 202 of this book which is also downloadable. ] 18:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Actually, I don't think it is. Could you quote from your downloadable source? It appears that Hahnemann is used as a source of legal effacy, not chemical tests. ] (]) 18:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
You can search for the word 'arsenic' on this text which is reputable if not RS. He definitely did pioneering work on arsenic in chemistry and as a poison. I can give published book sources that are not online. ] 18:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:On page 52 of Trevor Cook, ''Samuel Hahnemann Founder of Homeopathic Medicine,'' UK: Thorson's, 1982 he says "Hahnemann made an indirect contribution to chemistry in publishing a test for wine, which came to be officially adopted in Prussia and known as 'Hahnemann's Wine Test.'...to test for poisonous lead in wine...the basis of the test was the preciptation of the sulphides of lead, mercury, copper and tin by the addition of a solution of hydrogen disulphide (sic; it should be dihydrogen sulphide) gas dissolved in water." are we confusing this wine test with an arsenic test by Marsh?? ] 18:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Ref #9== |
|
|
This ref appears as 'Bradford, op cit' BUT in the html text it should say in an earlier ref: Thomas L Bradford, ''Life and Letters of Hahnemann,'' 1895...blah blah it appears in the html but is not visible in the article footnotes and I can't work out why...can anybody please correct this? thanks ] 20:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
This is where it appears: ''In the Spring of 1811 Hahnemann moved his family back to ] with the intention of teaching his new medical...'' BUT the ref does not appear in the list. weird?? corrected. ] 20:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The problem was that when you re-use a ref eg <nowiki><ref name=skaylarkbio/></nowiki> you need the backslash each time you re-use it otherwise it isn't formatted as a separate reference. ] (]) 20:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Right, wonderful. Thanks, Tim! job done. ] 21:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Bad para== |
|
|
This paragraph: ''Hahnemann tested substances for the effect they produced on a healthy individual and tried to deduce from this the ills they would heal. From his research, he initially concluded that ingesting substances to produce noticeable changes in the organism resulted in toxic effects. He then attempted to mitigate this problem through exploring dilutions of the compounds he was testing. He claimed that these dilutions, when done according to his technique of succussion (systematic mixing through vigorous shaking) and potentization, were still effective in producing symptoms.However, these effects have never been duplicated in clinical trials,and his approach has been universally abandoned by modern medicine.'' is badly written, factually inaccurate and largely unsourced. I propose to try and improve it with better wording and good sources. ] 05:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Born 11 April, not 10 April== |
|
|
tells us: |
|
|
|
|
|
*The baptismal register of Meissen contains the following record : (British Journal of Homeopathy, Vol. 13, p. 525): ''"Christian Friedrich Samuel Hahnemann, born on the morning of the 11th of April, of 1755; baptized the thirteenth day of April of the same year, by M. Junghanns. Father, Christian Gottfried Hahnemann, painter. Mother, Johanna Christiana, born Spiess."'' The worthy pastor, M. Junghannes, was of the Lutheran faith, and the infant was baptized on the Sabbath after its birth according to those tenets. The date of Hahnemann's birth has usually been given as the 10th, and not the 11th of April. The town register gives the 11th, and at the celebration at Meissen, in 1855, of the hundredth birthday, the 11th was the day selected. |
|
|
|
|
|
On that basis, I'm changing the date. -- ] (]) 09:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
It is incorrect he was born 11.45pm on the 10th april. Bradford is NOT a reliable source of info on his life. Everyone else gives 10th check Haehl for example. ] 09:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I agree. According to some German books that are available on the web, Hahnemann celebrated his birthday on the 10th and also put the 10th into his autobiography. One source says that according to his daughters he was born around midnight. I think this would be consistent with "born on the morning of the 11th". Since both dates are arguably correct, it's best to go with the majority. |
|
|
:Or we could say explicitly "midnight 10th/11th". --] (]) 10:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::OK, so we have dispute between reputable sources. When that happens, I think our job is not to "choose a winner" based on the majority opinion, but to state that we don't actually know precisely when he was born, and to report what the differing sources say. Some say it was 11:45 pm on the 10th; some say it was around midnight 10/11th; but the birth registration says it was "the morning of the 11th". I think the birth registration, being the primary source, deserves primacy, even if the majority of secondary sources disagree. We can say that, for example, his birth registration put it on the 11th and the town celebrated his centenary on 11 April 1855, but that Hahnemann himself claimed to have been born on the 10th and many secondary sources use that date. We should be aware that individuals are generally not the best source of information about their own births, particularly when it comes to births around midnight, because they were in no position to form an objective opinion about the time, and they had to rely totally on what they were told, years after the event, by their mothers, who in turn are usually not the best source of objective information because they had their mind on other things at the time. |
|
|
|
|
|
::We can't just assume it happened at the stroke of midnight. No births happen at precisely midnight, because no births happen at a precise moment in time, which is what midnight is. Births take more than a split-second to occur. Probably his mother went into labour on the 10th, and most of the labour occurred on the 10th. But births are dated at the conclusion of labour, not the start of labour, and we don't know exactly when it concluded. It was almost certainly either at least a second before midnight (10th April) or at least a second after (11th April). Even if, in the extreme case, the time-keeper looked at their watch and the second hand was exactly on 12.00:00 at the moment the baby popped out, that still means it was by now 11th April because midnight is the start of the new day, not the end of the previous day. -- ] (]) 01:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
No, we do not have a dispute between RELIABLE sources, we have agreement across the board, except for Bradford, which is widely acknowledged as being NOT a reliable source. On that basis, YOU'RE POV pushing and your argument rests on a very flimsy basis. It is an incorrect fabrication. There is nothing more to say; he was born late 10th April. ] 05:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I don't think that's very fair, Peter. My sole interest is accuracy; I have no personal opinion one way or another. I aim to keep an open mind; those who attempt to close down discussions (''"There is nothing more to say"'') might be more relevantly charged with having an inflexible point of view. I know that Misplaced Pages's threshold is verifiability, not truth, and that 10th April is certainly verifiable; but so is 11th April, and we can't just pretend that records supporting that date don't exist. www.suite101.com/article.cfm/homeopathy/90779 says something about the confusion: |
|
|
:* ''On the 10th/11th April 1755 Samuel Christian Hahnemann was born in Meissen, Southeast Germany. The confusion in date arising as a result of him being born very close to the midnight hour: the church records show the date as the 11th; Hahnemann maintains it was the 10th!'' |
|
|
:As I said before, what Hahnemann believed is not significant. Hahnemann could only have been certain it was the 10th by being told second-hand by his mother, the doctor, the midwife, or someone else who was there. If this is the true date, how do we explain the official record showing the birth occurred on the 11th? What does Haehl say about the issue? -- ] (]) 06:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry to have given that impression; I am not trying to close down a discussion. Maybe we can cite a source which says the date is disputed? I happen to know, having studied Hahnemann's life in depth for so long, that Bradford is NOT a reliable source and often gets things wrong. On that basis alone you cannot say he is a reliable source or take as gospel anything he says. That is the basis of my view. Haehl I will check for you, here you go: ''"the physicians of ] have claimed the 11th as his birthday, because it is thus entered in the church register of ]. But I have ascertained from Hahnemann's own daughter that he, Hahnemann, was actually born on April 10th at approximately twelve o'clock midnight. For this reason he celebrated his birthday, until the eighty-ninth year of his life, on the 10th of April. It would therefore be incorrect and unsuitable that on account of error, committed by a beadle one hundred years ago, it should be postponed. Every true follower of Hahnemann will celebrate it like his Master on the 10th."'' (Haehl, volume 1, p.9). I guess you will still continue to argue your case, but this is the most reliable source we have. ] 06:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:No, that's absolutely fine in terms of putting the matter to rest as far as I'm concerned. We have a published statement that the official record was erroneous - end of story. Thanks for the ref. (I guess an Inspector Frost or a Hercule Poirot would still wonder how his daughter could be so certain of the true date, since she was not there at the birth, and the person she got the information from, her father, got the information second-hand himself. So one could argue that Haehl used only a third-hand source. But that's not for us to concern ourselves about at Misplaced Pages because we'd be getting away from verifiability and into scientific accuracy.) However, to save future debates, maybe we could include a footnote explaining why we think 11th April is wrong. -- ] (]) 08:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Great, that's a nice outcome. Someone can edit the above quote, or a variant of it, to a footnote of his birthdate, indicating that Bradford gets it wrong or at least that the date of his birth has been disputed by some folks, even in his own times, but that the predominant view is that he was born ~12 midnight of the 10th April. If I can find time to edit that into the text I will do it, maybe tomorrow. thanks ] 15:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Explanation of major edits == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hello, everyone. Thought I'd explain the rationale behind my major overhaul of the article. Much of the changes are structural and copy-editing revisions. I tried to even out the sections and got rid of some excessive use of quotations from primary sources. For the most part, I tried to just rephrase the information as it appeared in the text. I also tried to give a more intuitive explanation of homeopathy in the lead. |
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps more controversially, I deleted the "Achievements" section. My reasons for doing this are as follows: |
|
|
|
|
|
1. First and foremost, this section does not represent a neutral point of view. It cites ten of Hahnemann's achievements ... solely as defined by Harald Gaier, a prominent follower of homeopathy. These "achievements" do not reflect any sort of consensus or recognition by the scientific or medical community and are purely sectarian hagiography (and many of them read as nonsense to me). |
|
|
|
|
|
2. It is list-like which I believe violates Misplaced Pages's general style guidelines. |
|
|
] (]) 16:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)Dennis Boocho |
|
|
|
|
|
:On first sight your changes look excellent to me. Thanks. I don't think deleting the Achievements section was controversial. It was added 5 days ago, and I guess most people watching this article felt it wasn't appropriate and weren't sure what to do about it. Just deleting it was a good option if there wasn't anything worth preserving. (I didn't bother to check that.) ] ] 17:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Orphaned references in ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
I check pages listed in ] to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for ] in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of ]'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for ''this'' article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article. |
|
|
|
|
|
<b>Reference named "Ernst":</b><ul> |
|
|
<li>From ]: |
|
|
{{citation |
|
|
|author =Ernst E, Pittler MH |
|
|
|title =Efficacy of homeopathic arnica: a systematic review of placebo-controlled clinical trials |
|
|
|journal =Arch Surg |
|
|
|volume =133 |
|
|
|issue =11 |
|
|
|pages =1187–90 |
|
|
|year =1998 |
|
|
|pmid =9820349 |
|
|
|doi =10.1001/archsurg.133.11.1187 |
|
|
}}.</li> |
|
|
<li>From ]: {{cite journal |author=Ernst E |title=Obstacles to research in complementary and alternative medicine |journal=The Medical Journal of Australia |volume=179 |issue=6 |pages=279–80 |year=2003 |month=September |pmid=12964907 |url=http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/179_06_150903/ern10442_fm-1.html}}</li> |
|
|
</ul> |
|
|
|
|
|
<b>Reference named "Ernst2005":</b><ul> |
|
|
<li>From ]: |
|
|
{{citation |
|
|
|author=Ernst E |
|
|
|title=Is homeopathy a clinically valuable approach? |
|
|
|journal=Trends Pharmacol Sci |
|
|
|volume=26 |
|
|
|issue=11 |
|
|
|pages=547–8 |
|
|
|year=2005 |
|
|
|pmid=16165225 |
|
|
|doi=10.1016/j.tips.2005.09.003 |
|
|
}}.</li> |
|
|
<li>From ]: {{cite journal |author=Ernst E |title=The efficacy of herbal medicine--an overview |journal=Fundamental & Clinical Pharmacology |volume=19 |issue=4 |pages=405–9 |year=2005 |month=August |pmid=16011726 |doi=10.1111/j.1472-8206.2005.00335.x}}</li> |
|
|
<li>From ]: {{cite journal|author=Ernst, Edzard|title=Is homeopathy a clinically valuable approach?|doi=10.1016/j.tips.2005.09.003|journal=Trends in Pharmacological Sciences|volume=26|issue=11|date=November 2005|pages=547–548}}</li> |
|
|
</ul> |
|
|
|
|
|
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. ]] 22:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Hahnemann University Hospital == |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure just where this info should go but, I think it's at least worth mentioning that Hahnemann University Hospital is named after him. |
|
|
"Hahnemann University Hospital, established in 1885 and named after Samuel Hahnemann, the founder of homeopathy, is a hospital in Center City, Philadelphia. It is affiliated with Drexel University College of Medicine and serves as its Center City Hahnemann campus." http://en.wikipedia.org/Hahnemann_University_Hospital ] (]) 17:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: We could add a wikilink to that article in a "See also" section. I'll do that for you. -- ] (]) 19:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Claims about Cholera are just plain wrong. == |
|
|
This edit reverted my changes and added even more bias by claiming the essay is "notable" (says who ?). I had asked if the previous editors had actually read his essay and I don't believe that they have because, |
|
|
* the word "pathogenic" is in double-quotes in our claims and so this means it is used in-line in the reference. It is not. Read the essay and hunt for the word "pathogenic" - it does not exist. Perhaps it is lost in translation ? The reference is in English though. |
|
|
* the second if the claim about the bacteriological source ...when in fact he is just re-iterating what was well known in public journals !. His full text is..."The most striking examples of infection and rapid spread of cholera take place, '''as is well known''', '''and as the public journals likewise inform us,''' in this way:". He then goes on to describe the contents of those well known public journals and describes a vector which we know now to be dubious. At best he's a Texas Sharpshooter. At worst, well we know there is no scientific basis for any of his stuff so at best he's just re-phrasing existing texts. The significance of the 1831 essay is that he thinks doctors and nurses are the vector and that his camphor drops are the panacea. I'm reverting. ] (]) 20:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Nobody has reverted your edit i simply added back the minute living creatures which was notable because no doctors thought that in the 1830s. Even infection has a poor history as doctors did nor believe in infections for centuries. Are you a medical historian? I think not else you would not say the things you say or the way you say them. ] 20:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::Sorry but you are very confused - you did revert the text and worse - you have added even more unsubstantiated claims that fail ]. You should also read ]. I removed unreferenced text. I did this because I was reading about ] and so this article was an anomaly. Sure enough reading the references it is utter nonsense. You reverted my change in that you added the same text back in that I removed and, worse, gold plated it with extra wording that made it even more unreferenced. I added the talk page entry which explained my reasoning and then reverted your edits. You reverted my edits claiming edit war. ] (]) 20:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Disputed == |
|
|
|
|
|
The edit re-introduces claims which the reference does not support. The re-introduced edit says, |
|
|
"while also more notably conceiving of Cholera as a "pathogenic" disease caused by "excessively minute, invisible, living creatures." |
|
|
|
|
|
My objections to this which the other party has not addressed are, |
|
|
* who says that this is "more notably" |
|
|
* where in the reference does it say "pathogenic" (we have it in double-quotes so should be pretty easy to source). |
|
|
* who says that he said that this was caused by "excessively minute, invisible, living creatures." |
|
|
|
|
|
Before you edit the section can you please actually read the essay. The essay very clearly presents existing knowledge where is says that "The most striking examples of infection and rapid spread of cholera take place, '''as is well known, and as the public journals likewise inform us''', in this way:". He then goes on to describe the contents of those well known public journals and describes a vector which we know now to be dubious. |
|
|
|
|
|
He did not initiate this claim - he is paraphrasing existing public journals. ] (]) 20:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Far from being a novel or obscure perspective, this was a very hot topic of that day on which seemingly everyone had an opinion. For an illuminating review of the "anticontagionist", "contagionist", and "transmissionist" positions and their changing support over the years of the early 19th century, I commend to editors: |
|
|
:*{{cite journal |url=http://www.cbmh.ca/index.php/cbmh/article/view/356/355 |title=The rise and fall of anticontagionism in France |author=Heaman EA |journal=Can Bull Med Hist |volume=12 |year=1995 |pages=3-25 |pmid=11609097 }} |
|
|
:*{{cite journal |journal=Int J Epidemiol. |date=2009 Feb|volume=38|issue=1|pages=7-21 |title=Anticontagionism between 1821 and 1867: The Fielding H. Garrison Lecture. 1948 |author=Ackerknecht EH |pmid=19188202 |doi=10.1093/ije/dyn254 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
:*{{cite journal |title=Commentary: Ackerknecht and 'Anticontagionism': a tale of two dichotomies |author=Hamlin C |journal=Int. J. Epidemiol. |year=2009 |volume=38 |issue=1 |pages=22-7 |pmid=19188203 |doi=10.1093/ije/dyn256 }} |
|
|
:] <small>]</small> 21:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2023 == |
|
In the 5th Organon of 1833, in stark contrast to all his new homeopathic metaphysics (e.g. vital force and miasms) there arose at the same time his decidedly modern and bacteriological views about the “excessively minute, invisible, living creatures…of which the contagious matter of cholera most probably consists.” (S Hahnemann, The Mode of Propagation of the Asiatic Cholera, 1831, in Lesser Writings, p.758; see also Haehl, 1, 173-179 & Bradford, 253-7: Thomas L Bradford, The Life and Letters of Hahnemann, Philadelphia: Boericke & Tafel, 1895; Richard Haehl, Samuel Hahnemann, His Life and Works (2 volumes), London: Homoeopathic Publishing Company, 1922) He was thus a pioneer of bacteriology WAY before Koch and Pasteur. You should know all this if you wish to criticise the points made. Even Dr John Snow, as is well known (but not to you!) who showed Cholera was a water-borne infectious disease had to prove to **sceptical doctors** of the day that the infection in London was coming from a water well which he sealed and thus stopped the infection. Get your facts right. I am sure you will find online sources for all these ahem FACTS. ] 03:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::Hahnemann very clearly says in his own words (or the translation) that ""The most striking examples of infection and rapid spread of cholera take place, '''as is well known, and as the public journals likewise inform us''', in this way:"" - (the colon is important here in the essay) I've made it bold to highlight the relevant words, so thus in that essay Hahnemann is simply reiterating what was commonly known. Hahnemann then says that it was the doctors that were the vector, does a bit of product placement, complains about the competition and that's history. On this matter he is not prescient to the later work of both Snow (in isolating the primary vector as water) and (then undiscovered) work of Filippo Pacini in isolating the bacteria. My change highlights what that essay was really about in his own words. If you want your version then you're going to have to find someone else notable who says that what Hahnemann suggested in that essay was prescient to later science. Good luck to that. ] (]) 08:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:1800's medicine was barely beyond alchemy. Lucky for the world real medicine has accepted germ theory, and all the other scientific principles that make up evidence based medicine. Like Hahnemann University Medical School (which I believe is now the Drexel University School of Medicine) no longer cares about homeopathy and does real research in real medicine. If you're implying somehow that homeopathy is anything more than 1800's science, you'd be wrong, because there still is no evidence that homeopathy does anything but quench thirst. And skepticism today has a meaning that you're abusing in implying that 1800's physicians are representative of today's physicians. However, describing what Hahnemann believed in a historical since is perfectly useful to the article. And you're an expert on the history of homeopathy, so this article would benefit from your sources to improve this biography. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 03:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
{{ec}} |
|
|
:@Peter, I take it you address the above comment to me. If not, please clarify. If you look at the history of our ] and ] articles, you will see that in fact I ''am'' somewhat familiar with the topic having referenced much of those articles. If you read the papers I cited above it is fairly obvious that there ''were'' sceptical doctors as you say, but that does not mean that there was unanimity. Indeed those papers discuss the heated debate that went on. However, you seem to wish us to take Haehl and Bradford as ] ] when in fact their writings reflect uncritical admiration for Hahnemann that would make a politician blush. We need to be more cautious than that. Of course, if you are convinced they are actually independent and balanced in their reporting on him, we have ] to discuss the question. ] <small>]</small> 03:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Samuel Hahnemann|answered=yes}} |
|
Hahnemann's 1831 essay on Cholera propagation, which I quoted, is seemingly not online, but his complete edited by Dudgeon are online and downloadable, which contains the essay, so you can check it there. I think you know very well who I was addressing and it wasn't ]. Factually, yes I do regard Haehl as a very reliable source, probably the most reliable, though it is true that Bradford sometimes gets his facts wrong. Interpretation of facts is another matter, however. ] 04:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Change "pseudoscientific system of alternative medicine called homeopathy" to "scientific system of alternative medicine called homoeopathy" ] (]) 10:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
{{ec}} |
|
|
|
:] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> Nah. See ] ] (]) 10:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
::Editors may also find (in French) ''Traité des moyens de désinfecter l'air, de prévenir la contagion et d'en arrêter les progrès'' by ] (1737-1816) discussing the use of chlorine disinfection to be interesting. Of course he refers to it as vapour of ], but its the same stuff. It rather predates Hahnemann's 1831 fluff. Page 284 is particularly interesting. ] <small>]</small> 04:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2023 == |
|
Hahnemann's fluff? Thanks for showing you are no more 'serious' than the other factually uninformed and equally biased person. No point in continuing with this. Count me out. ] 04:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:If you like. But fluff is fluff. We work with the best quality ], ] we can identify. Not doctrinaire screeds based on nothing more than ]. When you want to do things the serious way, WP will still be here. ] <small>]</small> 05:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Edit semi-protected|Samuel Hahnemann|answered=yes}} |
|
== Incorrect date in reference by John Henry Clarke == |
|
|
|
word ' psuedoscience' should be replaced by 'alternative science of therapeutics' ] (]) 10:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> ] and ] establish that pseudosciene can and should be labelled as such. ] (]) 11:03, 28 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
: Facts are facts, ] are just plain falsehoods. There is science, and anything that pretends to be science but isn't is not "alternative science". It's just plain pseudoscience, quackery, mumbo jumbo, and it can kill. -- ] (]) (''''']''''') 20:16, 28 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::How many people have died from homeopathy? Citations? Define "mumbo jumbo". Is that a scientific term? ] (]) 21:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::How many exactly is unknown, but this website collects cases: . Another harm is that believing in it seems to increase people's gullibility. |
|
|
:::It is consensus within science that homeopathy is very much pseudoscience. |
|
|
:::This page is ]. It is for improving the article. Since WP rules say that reliable sources beat your own opinion, you have nothing useful to contribute here. --] (]) 06:25, 3 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2023 == |
|
We have it that "John Henry Clarke wrote that "In 1787, Hahnemann discovered the best test for arsenic and other poisons in wine, having pointed out the unreliable nature of the "Wurtemberg Test," which had been in use up to that date."" but Hahnemann wrote ''Poisoning by Arsenic. Its Treatment and judicial Investigation'' in 1786. Clarke is thus wrong (unless Clarke is referring to a later translation). I would also say that we have a problem with using Clarke given the partisan nature of the publishing house and the only other test at that time (in '''1786''' that I know of) was by Scheele (from 1775) as the mirror tests of Metzger were in '''1787'''. Is the "Wurtemberg Test" that Clarke (or Hahnemann ) is referring to the tests of Scheele or of Metzger (unlikely as it came out in 1787) - Was Clarke confusing Metzger and Hahnemann work and thus the wrong date ? I find little on this "Wurtemberg Test". ]'s later work used Scheele and Metzger: and there is no mention of Hahnemann other than Misplaced Pages which says "the most common test" etc etc. Hahnemann may appear "most common test" but not by many people it would seem. I'll tag the ] entry with a ''says's who'' and we need someone to verify what Clarke has said - I don't have his book. ] (]) 08:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Samuel Hahnemann|answered=yes}} |
|
BTW the edit that added the "most common test" was added back in 2005, here which substantially changed the original. I'll see if that is true about the water kits. ] (]) 13:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
change pseudoscientific to scientific ] (]) 09:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:] '''Not done for now:''' please establish a ] for this alteration ''']''' using the {{Tlx|Edit semi-protected}} template.<!-- Template:ESp --> See the above edit request and ] and ]. Edit requests are not meant to change consensus. '''<span style="border-radius:6px;padding:1px 5px;background:#30a;">]]</span>''' 02:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC) |
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Change "pseudoscientific system of alternative medicine called homeopathy" to "scientific system of alternative medicine called homoeopathy" 1.22.224.147 (talk) 10:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Not done: Nah. See WP:RS Cannolis (talk) 10:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)