Talk:Edwin Smith Papyrus

POV complaint
In order to attempt to distort Egyptian medicine as far as its backwardness in regards to having many ineffective procedures, a user deleted my reference to this which is supported by the scholarship. Please read the reference I gave.

128.205.191.60 20:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

This article is not about ancient egyptian medicine, it's about the Edwin Smith papyrus. MickWlest 20:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

So, if you want to write on it, try History_of_medicine or start a new article Ancient Egyptian medicine. MickWest 20:19, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

POV complaint still affirmed
MickWest is altering my entry on the edwin smith papyrus having much ineffective medical practices in it. I offer the below resources in support of the POV tag which he takes down. I did balance my view by my favorable comments on the ancient Egyptian medicine. He took down the full commentary though which is that it had much ineffective practices. I don't appreciate the user trying to change history due to his attempt to support his position in another wikipedia area.
 * Proceedings of the 10th Annual History of Medicine Days, Faculty of the University of Calgary edited by Dr. WA Whitelaw - PDF file
 * The Edwin Smith Surgical Papyrus
 * MEDICINE - SMITH PAPYRUS - EBERS PAPYRUS

ken 21:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

I removed your parapgraph because it was a general criticism of Ancient Egyptian Medicine, which did not apply to the Edwin Smith Papyrus, which is generally regarded favourably. I quote from your reference:
 * The treatment of these injuries is rational and chiefly surgical; there is resort to magic in only one case out of the forty-eight cases preserved.

See my comment above for more appropiate places to discuss this, specifically History_of_medicine MickWest 21:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Responding to RFC

 * Hiya. I know nothing about Egyptian medicine or papyrii (papyruses?), for what it's worth. The POV tag is inappropriate -- the article takes no point of view whatsoever regarding the subject of the article. The addition of the paragraph isn't needed, or even appropriate, since (as has been pointed out) the article is not about Egyptian medicine in general, and makes no mention of the efficacy of Egyptian medicine. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 21:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

RFC affirmed
I was concentration on the papyrus in question in regards to its contents. I maintain the papyrus has much ineffectual medicine in it. I supported this. I see no reason to change history so Mickwest can attempt to support his view in another area. I don't see scholars disputing the fact that there is much ineffectual medicine in this papyrus. I suggest readers read the above links and see for themselves.

ken 21:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Perhaps you could provide a quote or two confirming "there is much ineffectual medicine in this papyrus". I'd be happy to see modern perspectives on this papyrus exposited here. MickWest 21:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Right. Some very specific information about this papyrus would be a real good addition. But the more general ones aren't. Give the reader a couple of sound bites so they can explore further. The links you provide above are full of lots of information; I'm not inclined (nor will the reader in general) to try to figure out how they support your insertion (which, I'd guess, is quite accurate.) --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 21:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

RFC still maintained
TO: ALL

Based on the links I provided I think there is certainly nothing wrong with saying the medicine in this papyrus had much ineffectual medicine in it although Hippocrates and Galen said they borrowed from ancient Egyptian medicine and it was pretty good for its day. The purpose of Wikipedia is to give general knowledge and resources for more in depth study. In short, I think the quality of the medicine in this papyrus is certainly germaine and should be expressed.

TO: Mickwest

I have regretably determined that you cannot be reasoned with.

ken 21:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Actually I agree with you - he quality of the medicine in this papyrus is certainly germaine and should be expressed. But none of your links actually say anything negative about this papyrus. Pehaps you have a quote? MickWest 21:53, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I agree too. Ken, please provide some text, with specific cites, describing the quality of the medicine in this particular papyrus. It would be a good addition. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 22:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Note there is already in the article a contrasting between this papyrus, and Egyptian medicine in general:
 * In 1920, the Society asked James Breasted to translate it, completing it by 1930. It changed medical history, since it showed that medicine on the Egyptian battle field stood in stark contrast with the irrational modes of healing the rest of Ancient Egypt utilized, as exemplified in the Ebers papyrus.

MickWest 22:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

RFC qualified but still maintained
Thanks Mickwest for relaying the information I put in another thread.

I believe it would be helpful to note that the Edwin Smith papyrus which concentrated on surgery had superior medicine compared to the ancient Egyptian Ebers papyrus and ancient Egyptian Hearst papyrus which had very ineffectual medicine that could also be dangerous (For those who are interested 72% of medical 260 presciptions in the Hearst Papyrus had no curative elements according to medical experts. Also, please see:The Mind Matters  Snoek, Frank J. PhD Diabetes Spectrum 14:116-117, 2001). It appears as if the Edwin Smith papyrus concentrated on surgery and was better than the rest of Egyptian medicine. That is certainly worth noting.

It also appears the time these papyrus were written were about the same time (please see: http://www.aams.org.au/contents.php?subdir=library/history/&filename=pharonic_egypt ).

128.205.191.60 22:53, 2 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Eh? I was just quoting the Edwing Smith article. As you can see the comparison you seek has already been made. MickWest 23:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

POV tag
I've removed the POV tag. No POV is being expressed by this article; the POV tag is not an appropriate response to a content disagreement that does not involve POV. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Full text or a translation
I understand the original papyrus is locked up somewhere, but would it be possible to get the text and the translation to this papyrus on Wikipedia? I'm sure no one holds a copyright to it after all this time. :) On a side matter, it would be interesting to find more Egyptian texts online, translated and available for everyone. Does anyone know if someone is doing this or if any other site has already done this? In a day and age where we can look up what the Edwin Smith papyrus is, you'd think you could look up what it says, as well. ;) Meresankh 17:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Moldy bread = antibiotics?
If this text says the Egyptians knew that mold cured infection then they developed antibiotics far before it was rediscovered in 1928. If so, that would be a key item to mention as far as the importance of the text of this papyrus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.51.248.154 (talk) 18:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I was wondering about that myself. This isn't the same thing as modern pharmaceutical methods, but it looks like they were onto something that worked.  Using honey is also effective; IIRC, that was done during the Civil War. Afalbrig (talk) 05:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

A prescription for a wrinkle cream!?!??!
I could not find any reference to any wrinkle cream prescription that the article claims exists in the Edwin Smith papyrus:

"...it also contains a prescription for a wrinkle remover using urea, which is still used in face creams today..."

Could someone please give a reference to this or remove it from the article? Here's a link to a translation of the actual papyrus: http://www.touregypt.net/edwinsmithsurgical.htm

The papyrus seems to be about trauma diagnosis and management, and nothing else. Amazingly, though, this tidbit of error has been widely quoted around the web.

24.129.13.231 (talk) 02:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've deleted it pending an appropriate citation. Next time, be bold and cut out that nonsense! - Oreo Priest  talk 11:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Similarly, I can't see a reference to mouldy bread used in treatment in the translation. Could a citation be included to a specific section of the papyrus or the note about the Edwin Smith manuscript including mouldy bread for treatment be deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.193.203.34 (talk) 06:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Cancer
Wasn't this the first account of cancer in history? - Joaquin89uy (talk) 14:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)