Talk:Timeline of medicine and medical technology

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)

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)

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)

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


 * 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Timeline of medicine and medical technology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add 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.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)