Talk:Timeline of medicine and medical technology

Medicine Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

History Mid‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

History of Science Mid‑importance

	History of science portal This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2021 and 13 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Haileybeard.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Snuggie therapy

Snuggies appear to some sort of cult, and it is likely that one of them put the mention of it treating chronic diseases there as a joke. I have removed it for now, as the reference links to the main page of a universities research and has no mention of snuggies helping chronic diseases. --84.13.233.167 (talk) 22:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright

Copyright Permission to modify and distribute this and other timelines originally developed by Niel Brandt have been granted to wikipedia. See Talk:Timeline of transportation technology

Exclusion of claim for Muhammad's discussion of contagions

The Source book, 'Contagion: Perspectives from Pre-Modern Societies' contains some interpretations of the Qur'an, not all direct facts from the Qur'an. This claim in the suspect article is such an interpretation. The information in the Qur'an discusses many topics. Including disease causing entities (insects, etc). The Qur'an nor the cited book details the encyclopedic authenticity of this claim of contagions.
-bddrey —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bddrey (talk • contribs)

The item in question is:

c. 610-800 - Muhammad discussed the contagious nature of leprosy, mange and sexually transmitted disease. (reference is: Lawrence I. Conrad and Dominik Wujastyk (2000), Contagion: Perspectives from Pre-Modern Societies, "A Ninth-Century Muslim Scholar's Discussion". Ashgate, ISBN 0754602583.)

What in terms of the policies of WikiPedia is/are the objections? Does the reference not say what this says it does? Are there other reliable sources supporting significant views that Muhammed didn't discuss contageon? Where in WikiPedia policy is there prohibition against interpretation? WP:OR precludes editors from interpreting, but citing interpretations in reliable secondary sources is encouraged. Please also see (WP:BRD). Zodon (talk) 07:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Direct source for the contrary of the item in question. Here is a source that says Muhammad did not teach of contagion. "Muhammad himself had overturned Arab tradition in denying the possibility of contagion"

Joseph P. Byrne, "Daily life during the Black Death", Greenwood Press, Westport, Conn., 2006. ISBN: 0313332975.

The wavering majority of research discusses that Muhammad did not discuss contagions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bddrey (talk • contribs) 22:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sounds like there is no clear consensus among researchers. Either noting the various opinions, or just leaving it out is okay with me. Zodon (talk) 05:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leonardo Da Vinci

There is a long gap in the timeline, sparing out Leonardo's work in anatomy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.85.15.182 (talk) 21:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

discredited therapies

I question the inclusion of "the discovery" of the lobotomy. I am not sure discovery if the way to describe the procedure and wonder whether the goal of the article is to include all manner of medical treatments, irrespective of their later being shown to be harmful.--Jrm2007 (talk) 02:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Format, Style, and Punctuation: '.'

Should each line that is a sentence end with a period—or should all periods be removed ? . . . Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The form and style appears to be one-line entries. There are four entries in the Middle Ages, 1000-1500, that violate this style. Does anyone care? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of the entries between 1944 to 2007, there are 55 that have [18] after them, but that isn't working properly as a footnote. At the bottom of the Article is an improper line mentioning the title of a book, but the referenced website doesn't link properly, and furthermore is no longer current in finding the book. Is an Amazon ref appropriate? Does the book have accurate information? FYI, the book has high reader review-ratings, all five of them. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The [18] reference

The [18] which appears beside numereous items on the list, as text, not superscripted link , is useless. It is listed in reference section as a link to www.1001beforeyoudie.com, which is not a reference but a list compilation itself, with no extra information whatsoever on the items. I'm deleting it.

Wictator (talk) 21:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Timeline of medicine and medical technology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140809164308/http://www.contraceptiononline.org/contrareport/article01.cfm?art=93 to http://www.contraceptiononline.org/contrareport/article01.cfm?art=93

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]