Talk:Medical Renaissance

Basic outline completed
The basic edition of this article was completed some days ago. I shall add more to this soon but please feel free to relieve me of my role if you have anything you'd like to add. =]

Hi there. This bit:

''The Reformation of the Roman Catholic Church during this time was itself due to many things, including the perception of corruption within the Church.[citation needed] The ideas of Galen, a Greek physician of the 2nd century AD, were enforced and adopted by the Church; Galen was a Monotheist and his ideas did not question any of the Church's, additionally his ideas had been the accepted wisdom of the medical world for over a thousand years; anyone who went against these ideas were either punished or suppressed, and that was unlikely considering that the Church controlled the teachings that went on inside the medical profession and universities. Individuals such as Vesalius (see below) found it very difficult to overcome such opposition and were forced to dissect human subjects in secret, because it was banned. However once they began investigating they found things which challenged Galen's theories on the human body,[9] because Galen had only been able to dissect animals. In 1531 Johannes Guinter published a Latin translation of 'On Anatomical Procedures', written by Galen, in which he stressed the need to dissect human bodies, bringing to light a previously unknown approval of human dissection. This discovery would prove vital in the lifting of the ban on human dissections. Thanks to the recent invention of the printing press (see above), news of the discoveries made by invididuals such as Vesalius was impossible for the Church to stop spreading, having been severely weakened by the Reformation''

Is pretty much completely wrong. Especially the part about human dissection being banned. If I have time I will get in and have a hack at it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.205.116.242 (talk) 11:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep up the good work
hioHABSDibsIDbfidhbsifjhdasihfgipuhsugdes I like your other article and this as well... Maybe say something about the mithridate and their use of theriaca: a tincture containing opium, viper venom, etc. I find it fascinating! --Browneatmidnight (talk) 04:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Where does this come from?
Where does the idea of the "medical Renaissance" come from? The only source from the article that is focused on the concept is an unsourced diagram on a school website. It appears occasionally in historical literature, but as far as I know it usually refers to medicine during the Renaissance or more specifically to the developments in the 16th and maybe 17th centuries. The inclusion of people ranging from Vesalius to Koch makes it pretty ill-defined chronologically. A much more common term, which would probably be a better subject for a Wikipedia article, is "Renaissance medicine".

I'm removing the other Wikipedia articles used as references; these are not appropriate sources.--ragesoss (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC) I don't see any good reason to change the topic title to anything but the current one. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if you're unable to find anything on the Medical Renaissance, but I assure you it is an integral part of medical history, I'm not going to make it up am I? In the GCSE History course I am currently doing (I'm 14 by the way), we have just literally finished a whole topic on the Medical Renaissance, and in the book I'm holding, The Development of Medicine for OCR GCSE, there is a whole section devoted to it, comprising a notable amount of the book! MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 11:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying is that, from what I can tell, scholarly sources have used the term "Medical Renaissance" only occasionally, and then in a sense that seems to be different from what your textbook describes. Certainly, important things happened in medicine during the Renaissance and the following centuries (this is often described as part of the Scientific Revolution), but the question is whether the this is a coherent, well-defined topic or just the idiosyncratic approach used by the authors of your textbook.--ragesoss (talk) 21:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * To be honest I think you're trying to draw blood from a stone. The term Medical Renaissance in the sense that I see it, is the period of advancements in medicine from 1500-1750, which is the period I, and subsequently the article, have encompassed. I would like to think that this topic is well-defined and fills in a previously empty hole in Wikipedia, and I certainly don't believe that I am idiosyncratic in my work.

Complete rewrite needed
The article falls very far short of current Wikipedia standards. While "medical Renaissance of the 16th century" is a topic that can be found in respectable literature, much of the existing content smacks of original research. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I have cut back quite severely, given the poor quality of the writing and referencing. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review Suggestions
Below are three ideas for edits on the Wikipedia article:

1. Put Role of Medical Advancements in Society section above Individuals section.

2. Add references and fact check the information in the “Anatomy” section. There is a lot of information with very few citations.

3. Expand on how the way human anatomy was studied in this era. Braziti1 (talk) 19:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Braziti1 (talk) 19:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: History of Science to Newton
— Assignment last updated by Patt0400 (talk) 18:04, 13 December 2022 (UTC)