Talk:Heroic medicine

Heroic medicine was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (May 25, 2017). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Information from this article appears on Portal:Medicine in the Did you know section.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Henryschuh.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changes

User:Mr-Natural-Health has made some changes on this article that I see as more than a little questionable. I'm marking the article as NPOV dispute until this can be resolved. -- Pakaran 07:30, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Leaving this page as-is for now. I don't know what Mr. NH is trying to do here, but it's not particularly POV or harmful, this can stay a stub - I need some sleep. -- Pakaran 08:28, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Now that this is protected, can someone who isn't emotionally involved decide what, if anything, should stay here? Thanks. -- Pakaran 08:29, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

To start with, the first sentence needs reworking. It seems to be a vendetta against conventional medicine. Of course, I guess this is "POV without reference?" Pakaran

The neutrality of this article is disputed.

You cannot remove the POV from a protected page.

I removed the POV twice, but the changes were reverted back. --Mr-Natural-Health 08:35, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You removed the article several times. -- Pakaran 08:37, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Like it or not, heroic medicine is a historical part of the history of conventional medicine. Ergo, it must be covered in one article or another. So, stop destroying my creativity!!!--Mr-Natural-Health 08:48, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'm wearing my user hat in regards to this article, which you ripped most of the content out of in the past. If you want to talk with another sysop as regards your proposed changes, feel free to. There's a hundred and thirty-some of us. -- Pakaran 08:50, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I shall repeat: It is a historic fact of the history medicine. It either will be covered in a separate article or repeated in what ever article that talks either about heroic medicine or the age of heroic medicine.

History is NPOV. :)===Mr-Natural-Health 08:53, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I just separated out the history from the present-day usage - "Age of Heroic Medicine" is actually the term used by the medical establishment, not just in alternative medicine. We could probably keep the neutrality dispute to this page if we put the history onto Age of Heroic Medicine.

(I'd do it myself except for the disputes so far from it having started just like that!) - David Gerard 00:40, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the correct article is Age of Heroic Medicine. That is why I created it. I give up trying to discuss logic with you emotional people. -- Mr-Natural-Health 15:29, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I changed a bit of the leading sentences and added details on some famous practicers of heroic medicine. I'm considering fleshing out the article a bit in the future. Cnpacyna (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm planning on doing a larger edit on this filling more details on heroic medical physicians and actual techniques used. Let me know if you have any suggestions! Cnpacyna (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A related discussion is taking place

A related discussion is taking place in Talk:Criticisms of Anti-Scientific Viewpoints. The twist is that the argument is being made in reverse.

Criticisms of Anti-Scientific Viewpoints is nothing but a tirade on why some people are imagined to hold anti-scientific viewpoints. Long angry speeches, usually of a censorious or denunciatory nature, that is a diatribe, like this article have no place in an encyclopedia. All supporters of Alternative medicine should vote to delete this article. -- Mr-Natural-Health 15:24, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Anyone know where the name comes from? I just read this article and it left me wondering. fabiform | talk 23:55, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Feedback

Good, concise intro and straightforward, sourced explanation of practices and examples.

It may be good to mention how heroic medicine got it's name.
Comment on success rate of notable figures in heroic medicine to explain why practice lasted for over half a century rather than just using popularity such as Rush's treatment of Yellow Fever outbreak to justify practice.
George Washington's case is an interesting example of failure. More examples of failures and maybe successes would be good to see why this was considered best standard for care.

Solid read. Hnguye68 (talk) 22:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Timeframes and the replacement of heroic medicine

I'm a bit confused by the time range mentioned in the intro section (1780-1850), while the Practices section begins by stating that heroic medicine is not associated with any particular timeframe. What does the 1780-1850 timeframe refer to? I'd be inclined to agree with the claim that there is no definitive "start time"; however, it would be good to give a general timeline of the methods associated with heroic medicine (bloodletting, purging, etc.). My understanding is that these were not necessarily the primary treatment methods under humoral theory, so when did they rise in popularity?

Second, I'm not sure it's correct to say that heroic medicine was replaced primarily by homeopathic/alternative views. Heroic medicine was an orthodox practice, while hydropathy and homeopathy were never mainstream. It'd be more accurate to name some of the orthodox treatment concepts that succeeded the ideas of heroic medicine.

Let me know if you have any questions/counterarguments - I'm happy to discuss where I'm coming from!

Henryschuh (talk) 22:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a good article in here struggling to get out

I feel bad about this because I can only point out the problem without being able to fix it. The article has an essay-like tone that I'm having trouble characterizing, but it's there. It reads like a story with a beginning, middle, and end. Great start, but not ready for the main page. Again, I wish I knew how to fix this. E Eng 02:26, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Heroic medicine/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 10:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article has both a maintenance tag and paragraphs without citations, so it is not ready for GAN, and I will therefore quickfail it. --FunkMonk (talk) 10:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]