Talk:Byzantine medicine

	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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Middle Ages Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Greece: Byzantine Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Greece portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece 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.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Byzantine world task force.

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.

Anyone

Anyone wanna help me add a bit about oriental influence and other stuff?

I think something has been confused somewhere along the line...the Vienna Dioscurides is a sixth-century manuscript of the works of Pedanius Dioscorides, a first-century physician (so he's just Roman, not Byzantine). Adam Bishop 16:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, ill change it. but it says Pedanius Discourides was Greek, not Roman. Anyways, im trying to collect some information on byzantine hospitals, as apparently they were quite influential. got any ideas?

Not off the top of my head. And regarding the comment you made before editing it out, no I do not hate Greeks, but I don't think I like you much. Adam Bishop 23:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The feeling is mutual. Believe me.

Hospitals

I am curious as to where the information about Byzantine hospitals comes from? I have some contradictory information from some research I have done. Because of this I have already done some editing. Zimmer1048 (talk) 04:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the medicine?

This article would be greatly improved by adding a list of notable medical treatments and theories developed in the Byzantine Empire.--Wikimedes (talk) 19:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Iconoclastic problems" and martyred saints

As well as various grammar and style corrections, I am going to change the sentence "After the iconoclastic problems had been resolved,[when?] this usually involved symbols of saints such as SS Cosmas and Damien, who were killed by Diocletian in 303, and were the patron saints of medicine and doctors" to " This often involved images of the physician twins and martyrs, SS Cosmas and Damien, patron saints of medicine and doctors". There has not been any previous reference to "iconoclastic problems" in the article and explaining that would be a digression from the topic. The date of the legendary martyrdom of the two saints is also irrelevant to this article.Smeat75 (talk) 21:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also deleting the sentence "This idea, combined with the vast resources Byzantine physicians had at their disposal, was one of the first times in history that a state has actively sought to expend resources on a public healthcare system." This sentence, as quite a few others in the article, needs citations for verification. There are too many unsourced assertions there - did the Byzantine physicians have vast resources? Was it one of the first times in history that a state has actively sought to expend resources on health? Can it really be described as a public healthcare system? Maybe so, but all those statements need sources, if someone finds sources for them they can be put back in.Smeat75 (talk) 21:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gives WP a bad name

This is exactly the kind of article that gives WP a bad name. 2 references, and a clearly positive worldview about Byzantine (Christian) medicine. Almost every article on Wiki about the legacy of Christianity has this slant. Makes a blanket statement such as the following:

"Therefore it could be argued that previous misrepresentations about Byzantium being simply a 'carrier' of Ancient Medical knowledge to the Renaissance are wrong"

Based upon a single instance of Demetrios Pepagomenos "describing" gout.

And then it says things like the following a couple of times, based on nothing much more than the previous example.

"though Byzantine doctors expanded upon the knowledge preserved from Greek and Roman sources"

But then the author's own enthusiasm for embellishing the facts gives it all away:

"This compendium, written in the late seventh century, remained in use as a standard textbook for the following 800 years."

Hmm. if the compendium written in 700 was basically just a collection of ancient medicine, and was used as "the" text book all the way up to the end of the Byzantine empire, how much expansion of knowledge could there have been? Contradictions like this are rampant in these biased articles

It's depressing and tiring to see so many religious editors trying to redefine history in a positive light for their faith. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia of knowledge, not propaganda. Mark Beronte (talk) 08:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What were the Asclepeions if they were not flourishing medical establishments?

The article says "The Byzantine Empire was one of the first empires to have flourishing medical establishments. Prior to the Byzantine Empire the Roman Empire had hospitals specifically for soldiers and slaves. However, none of these establishments were for the public." This is plainly false, because the healing temples of the pagan divinity Asclepius were primarily medical establishments attended by student physicians from Hippocrates to Galen.

"The most popular venue for healing, however, was temple medicine. It was free, open to anyone of status or class or gender, and, if our texts and material evidence can be believed, quite successful. In ancient Greece and Italy, most gods possessed the power to heal, and the sick flocked to their sanctuaries for a cure or to pray for future health. In Greece, the most popular healing sanctuary belonged to the god Asclepius." Athens Journal of Health March 2014; Anatomical Votive Reliefs as Evidence for Specialization at Healing Sanctuaries in the Ancient Mediterranean World; By Steven M. Oberhelman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.146.146.89 (talk) 04:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]