From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Please also note that regardless of the above, because this is a Chemistry-related article the spelling of "sulfur" uses the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry agreed international form as defined here. Please do not copyedit the spelling back to "sulphur".

Unhelpful addition[edit]

The addition that is not at all very helpful

...never settling for more than a year or two due to violent opposition precipitated by his characteristically extreme actions.

Word coinage question[edit]

Were the words alcohol and zinc indeed coined by him? Aren't they of Arabic origin? Jorge Stolfi 20:38, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Adding some notes on zinc now. Jamesday 15:22, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Please see the etymology of alcohol and the discussion in Talk:alcohol. Alcohol was discovered by Islamic alchemists (possibly Geber or Al-Razi) in the 8th-9th century. I would think that both the substance and the word were introduced in Europe much earlier than Paracelsus, perhaps in the 12th or 13th centuries when the Islamic works began to be translated into Latin.
Jorge Stolfi 04:41, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have independently arrived at the same conclusion, and having checked this talk page and found a confirmation I'm removing the reference. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:13, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)


I deleted nonsense about his name. Google reveals he didn't have an umlaut "ö". Only four hits use it, all of them in English. Over 5000 hits in German show his name as "Hohenheim". Martg76 23:24, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)


The word literally means "medicine of wounds." It is possible that the contemporary translation of that would have been "surgery," but could someone confirm that? For one thing, I think Germans at the time would have used the Greek derived word "chirurgie" if they actually meant surgery. Hmoulding 19:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Your are right so far, i think. Nowadays - in modern German - "Arznei" would be understood more as medicine or drugs. But at this time it could have included surgery. Today we still use "Chirurgie" as the term for surgery. But its hard to say. I myself have a big collection of books between 1840 and 1920. And in in the medicine ones many (special-)terms exist in Latin (or sometimes greek) as well as "strange" germanised words. so my conclusion out of this would be: Chirurgie means surgery. Wundarzney should/can included surgical procedures but also medical treatment of the wounds.LotP (talk) 21:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Fullmetal Alchemist[edit]

I haven't seen the whole series, but when does it state that Paracelus, or in this case Hohenheim, became immortal? I don't think the reference should be there, considering that although Hohenheim may be based off Paracelsus, there is no conection between the two.

Around the end of the series, it is revealed that he has been transferring his soul from body to body to stay alive long after he would have died, on the order of 400 years, as has the woman Dante. Vanyel 22:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I know this is a bit old, but for those interested: Arakawa (the mangaka) may have just been slightly inspired by Paracelsus in choosing Hohenheim's name, but BONES (who produced the anime and rewrote the second half of the storyline) clearly worked off of this allusion in creating Hohenheim's past. I think it's pretty clear that Hohenheim is supposed to be the other world's Paracelsus (since it's made clear he never went through the Gate and saw our world until Dante sends him there at the end of the series). But they both lived at the same time, albeit in different realities, in the anime (the manga is of course a different story).
Check Flamel, they've borrowed part of his legend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Para = superior to?[edit]

You guys sure about this? My rudimentary Greek skills tell me "para" means "along side of" or thereabouts. Isn't "exo" superior? Peter1968 08:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The Read text says that "...[H]e assumed the cognomen of Paracelsus, applicable to one who has surpassed the learning of the celebrated Roman physician, Celsus...." (p. 97).

The wikidictonary states that the para- prefix means "beside, near, alongside, beyond". Acewolf359 17:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Superior to Celsus?[edit]

Is there a source for the idea that it means "superior to Celcus"? One might think that it was derived from Paraclete Hackwrench 05:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

According to Encyclopedia Britannica "para-Celsus" means above or beyond Celsus, a 1st-century Roman physician.

Removing Flamel remark[edit]

An anonymous contributor left this in the page:

In particular, Paracelsus rejected the magic theories of Agrippa and Flamel (N.B. This assertion regarding Flamel is problematic, since a.) no works by Flamel were in circulation prior to Paracelsus' death and b.) Flamel's theories are specifically alchemical and not magical)

If anyone can evaluate its veracity, please make the appropriate alteration -- the statement doesn't belong in the article, however. --Ogdred 04:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about "doesn't belong in the article." Isn't it a valid point that Paracelsus can't reject a theory that wasn't formalized while he was alive? If anything, it might be more accurate to suggest that Flamel's alchemy ignored Paracelsus's theory. Perhaps the article's sentence should be changed to "Paracelsus rejected the (magic? alchemical?) theories of Agrippa." Hmoulding 19:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd have more concern with the treatment of Flamel as magical - but then again, it depends on your definition of magic. Firstly, he predates the concept which was rather more the invention of the 1420s than the 1390s when he was working. Secondly, he was rather more religiously oriented, having learned from the Jewish compilers of the Zohar at Leon how to read the Book of Abraham. Thirdly, there is just a possibility that the Book of Abraham may have been released by the Jewish congregation in Brussels, who were the only pogrom in the period when Flamel acquired the Book. This pogrom's descent also runs into the alchemical roots of Jan van Helmont's discoveries in hard chymistry, which did a lot to dismount Paracelsus, so it would be better to ditch the "magical" as it may actually be an anachronistic claim from modern descendants of the esotericists of the 1600s than his own comments - I note the last known owner of the work, Emma Calvet, as a case in point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Origin of the word "bombastic"[edit]

The association of "bombastic" with Paracelsus appears to be taken as fact in many places. In particular, I found a reference to this in a very old medical text that belonged to my grandfather. Unfortunately, I haven't the foggiest idea where it is now. Googling for "bombastus bombastic" shows a lot of statements attesting to this as well. I found an entry at with the claim that it comes from an obsolete word for cotton padding. This too makes sense (ie puffing up one's words). Here are some what appear to be credible claims to a link to Paracelsus:

Here's a reference from "Sorcerer's Stone: A Beginner's Guide to Alchemy" by Dennis William Hauck. "Paracelsus was so confrontational in discussing his ideas that his middle name (Bombastus) became synonymous with the loud and self-reverent speaking style of "bombastic" people.".

So then, why if "bombastic" had its origins solely in an old word for cotton padding, does it show up much more often relating to Paracelsus?

Frotz661 22:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

A bombast was a medieval word for a type of mortar/cannon too, if memory serves me correctly. That would be more consistent with an al/chemistry pursuit as well. I can't find a reference right now, maybe someone else can.

Khallus_Maximus 01:31, 25 August 2011 (PDT)

Citing a quotation to him that he didn't say?[edit]

"The dose makes the poison." (A popular short version.)

The original quote is:

Appeared in the article. Adding the short "version" of a quotation adds nothing to the article, and only increases the chance that a casual reader will become misinformed, it has been removed.Acewolf359 17:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the quote should remain, though, after the original quote and with a caveat. There are plenty of sources that cite the short version. Frotz661 21:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Paracelsus' image[edit]

I have modified the caption, reflecting the uncertainty about the subject's identity and linking its author to the school of Quentin Metsys. The painting is sometimes attributed to Metsys himself, but that's controversial. More importantly, it's far from certain that the portrait depicts Paracelsus. There are other, albeit less colorful, images available which are certainly of him. I suggest that the current image be replaced by this one, or, even better, the "sure" image could be placed in the infobox and the colourful portait moved below. I may proceed to do that in the near future. Stammer 06:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello - Could someone please share some more information on this picture - the source and its current location. What you mention Stammer - Please share any source of this uncertainty. Mysteriumen•♪Ⓜ 14:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysteriumen (talkcontribs)



Indeed, the remnants of alchemical traditions can still be seen in modern medicine. For instance, the Caduceus has been adopted as the prime symbol of western medicine.

The caduceus remark is incorrect, see Caduceus and Rod of Asclepius for details. In light of this, I don't think the first sentence can stay without some substantiaton. Shayno 11:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Your might be right on the second sentence. The first one, however, should be allowed to stand, as it is indubitable that modern chemistry had its roots in alchemy, through both Harvey in the UK and van Helmont on the continent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Wandering through - David Gelsinger[edit]

I am just wandering through and wondered if anyone has checked the various David Gelsinger book references. These were added in two successive edits on August 15, 2007 by the anonymous IP user (whose IP block is at the University of California at Santa Barbara (see here: [1]) and whose user contributions consist only of these two entries, made one minute apart, as shown here: [2]). The diff between the way the article was before and after those two edits is shown here: [3]. These refs give publication dates for the Gelsinger translations, but no publisher or ISBN numbers. The only material to be found online by David Gelsinger is this:

  • (1) Archives of multiple attempts in 2007 to create a Wikipedia article on the author David Gelsinger in three different versions; \these cited the Wikipedia Paracelsus article, two very brief personal pages, and/or a library holding at the University of Santa Barabara as the only sources. In each case creation of the article was declined for inclusion in Wikipedia due to having no 3rd party sources.
*Attempt to create the page was declined by GrooveDog 00:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC) here: [4]
*Attempt to create the page was declined by Powers T 15:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC) here: [5]
*Attempt to create the page was declined by Ben 10:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC) here: [6]
  • (2) Archives of a 2007 proposed Wikipedia article comprising a List of UC Santa Barabara scholars in various categories for the years 2001 - 2007 inclusive -- of which the only years filled in are 2003 and 2004 and the only name filled in is David Gelsinger (twice). The article was declined for inclusion in Wikipedia due to "lack of context".
*Attempt to create the page was declined by Precious Roy 00:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC) here: [7]
  • (3) a List of vegans page at Wikipedia on which David Gelsinger appeared in the category of "Authors" despite the fact that the list creators specifically asked for exclusion of people who do not have Wikipedia articles (i.e. no "red ink" or "black ink" names). The ref to Gelsinger was first added on September 4, 2007, here: [8]. The edit was made by anonymous IP user (whose IP block originates at the University of California at Santa Barbara, as you will see here: [9] and whose contributions consist only of repeated edits to the List of vegans page and attempts on August 20, 2007, to create the David Gelsinger page, as you can see if you look here: [10]). I deleted Gelsinger's name from the List of vegans page -- along with the names of several other "black ink" people who were using the list to link to their blogs.
  • (4) The 2 source pages cited in the "David Gelsinger" article proposal, those being (A) a "World Vegans" page consisting of 3 blog entries from 2007, showing that Gelsinger travels between Santa Barbara and Santa Rosa, California, and that he is or was a student at UC Santa Barbara, with a permanent telephone number in Santa Rosa (perhaps his parents' home), and (b) a page called "Lagoonerville" with 3 poems on it and a link to a custom-t-shrt site that sells "Lagoonerville" t-shirts. The book of poems, "Lagoonerville", is shown in a photograph, but there is no way to order it. It looks like a blank black journal book with a drawing pasted onto it.
  • (5) Records of a law case in which David Gelsinger sued two people in Santa Barbara, California for defamation which he said took place in 2004 and caused him to lose meal privileges at UC Santa Barbara; the case was dismissed because the statute of limiations had expired by the time he filed his complaint in 2006. He appealed the dismissal and the ruling was upheld in 2007.

A search at google for "David Gelsinger" (in quotes) plus "Paracelsus" yields only the Wikipedia Parcelsus entry and its many clones. A search for "David Gelsinger" (in quotes) plus "ISBN" yields only the Wikipedia Parcelsus entry and its many clones.

I do not think these translations have been published. They may be part of a hoax or game perpetrated upon Wikipedia by David Gelsinger or they may exist in manuscript form, but in either case they are not available to the public. I am deleting them. 07:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Anon IP user / (the IP block is registered to the California State University Network) seems to be David Gelsinger again, as outlined above -- and he has re-added his supposed translation credits, again without any publication data, See here [11], here [12], and here [13].
I again call upon him to provide some proof that these translations exist in third-party verifiable form and are notable for the purpose of inclusion in Wikipedia.
Until verifiable evidence of their existence and notability, such as an ISBN, a publisher's name, or URLs pointing to availablity online or in print, is forthcoming, these translations do not meet Wikipedia standards. I am again deleting them.
Note that the same pattern of adding Vegan notability for David Gelsinger is also followed by the new IP block user, the same pattern as has been outlined above:
  • Sole edit by is here [14]
* 01:01, 14 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Paracelsus‎ (→Works)
  • Edits by are here: [15]
* 01:55, 14 November 2007 (hist) (diff) List of vegans‎ (→Authors)
* 01:11, 14 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Paracelsus‎ (→Works) (top)
* 01:09, 14 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Paracelsus‎ (→Works)
* 15:42, 17 April 2007 (hist) (diff) KLST‎
* 15:21, 17 April 2007 (hist) (diff) WJCL (TV)
I have little faith in Wiki adminstrators, but this seems to be a situation that equires some form of management. The fact that the offender is utilizing public university IP blocks makes the task of control difficult, but it is certainly not my role to play watchdog here, so passing this information along to administrators seems the best course of action. 08:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

On the 5 December 2007 user added the Gelsinger references back. I cant see any additional verification has been provided, cf. the discussion above, and delete the references.Power.corrupts (talk) 15:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
On the 19 June 2008 user added the Gelsinger references back. Deleted.
Gelsinger, if this IP is you, why dont you create an account named Gelsinger, provide the original German quotes, properly referenced of course, and then offer your translation into English. In this way, other people may check your translation and it is no longer original research, merely translation. You can't have your name on the Wiki article however, but everybody can see from your account name in the history section, that you did it. This is more constructive than adding them back, and other wikipedians deleting them according to WP:OR. Power.corrupts (talk) 06:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Probably because there's a number of editors, like yours truly, who've become hacked off with Admin's bureaucracy and have abandonned their account. The founding principle here was Ignore All Rules, which they seem to have forgotten - we feel that a good case will stand in its own right without the support of reputation, which is too often used abusively by Admin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Paracelsus' Name[edit]

I hope someone has this on watch...anyway, my question regards Paracelsus' full name. Wikipedia lists Phillippus Theophrastus Aureolus Paracelsus Bombastus von Hohenheim. However, theres also significant documentation on the internet for Phillippus Aureolus Thephrastus Paracelsus Bombastus von Hohenheim. My experience as a member of Alpha Chi Sigma says the second, and we've got a lot of old documentation that agrees. I was wondering if anyone had a specific citation for his name. EagleFalconn (talk) 21:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Allen G. Debus, "Paracelsus and the medical revolution of the Renaissance", p. 3. Fconaway (talk) 20:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Definition of the name Paracelsus[edit]

Udo Benzenhöfer indicates that it is likely the name Paracelsus arises from the latinisation of "Hohenheim" and not, as indicated, from the sense of "beyond or surpassing Celsus" (Benzenhöfer, Udo "Paracelsus" In: Dictionary of Gnosis & Western Esotericism Ed. by Wouter J. Hanegraaf (2006, Brill: Leiden) p922). —Preceding unsigned comment added by KDonachie (talkcontribs) 15:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Why would a person wanting a boasting name choose to compare himself with Celsus, who is not only obscure, but known for being wrong by those who do know of him? I find it highly unlikely. --Klausok (talk) 19:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, here's some OR from a non-Latin speaker: "celsus" apparently means "high" or "highly", and "para" has various meanings including "ready" or "skilled". So I would translate "paracelsus" as something like "highly skilled". "Hohenheim" means "high home" (I do speak German), so the "high" part matches, but I can't see how to make "para" match up with "heim". Looie496 (talk) 20:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

the name paracelsisus can't be connected to the name hohenheim. it's just an coincidence that in both names a part is "high". its more like a pseudonym. Like Nostradamus or Shakespere had in reality other names.LotP (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

16th century - "Medieval"?[edit]

Seems a bit late on for such a characteristic. Vorravorra (talk) 09:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Exterior link malfunction[edit]

The link attached to "Paracelsus and the medical revolution of the Renaissance - A 500th Anniversary Celebration from the National Library of Medicine, theme essay by Allen G. Debus." is faulty, in that the NLM website no longer has that address available, could someone who knows this page more intimately than I figure out what to do with it. SADADS (talk) 16:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes check.svg DoneFconaway (talk) 18:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

NPOV Legend and Rumour[edit]

A bit like shooting fish in a barrel, given the section heading, but here goes: the creators of the Rosicrucian/Masonic corpus in the seventeenth century made a number of claims which appear to be historically unsubstantiated. That therefore means this section should be more heavily qualified than it is, as it appears to take their self-justifying assertions as fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Paracelsus the Magician[edit]

The first sentence of the third paragraph of the biography section states, "Paracelsus did not think of himself as a magician and scorned those who did.". Why, then, did he write a book called The Archidoxes of Magic and develop an alphabet called The Alphabet of the Magi??Lily20 (talk) 22:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC) No, well, I'm deleting the sentence.Lily20 (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The homunculus[edit]

I see no mention of Paracelsus' famous claim of creating a mini-human by mixing several fluids/parts of the body and burying it in dung for a month or so (I am not inventing that last part, Google "Paracelsus homunculus" if you don't believe it). The tale of the supposed homunculi, including one that he supposedly claimed was his assistant, are rather widespread and well known, yey I see no mention of it in this article. (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


This article needs much more than it actually has. Paracelsus was a very influential (though nowadays forgotten) philosopher of early modernity —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The dose makes the poison[edit]

He said something close enough to this:

"All substances are poisons; there is none which is not a poison. The right dose differentiates a poison…."Yale University

I wonder why another writer is so keen to debunk the idea that Parcelsus said this. I assume good faith, but I can't help wondering whether this is being used to hide or even discredit the whole notion of the dose-response relationship, for political reasons. I'm thinking about the Alar scare, the dioxin controversy, and so on. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the way it's stated in the article makes it clear that "the dose makes the poison" conveys the thought well. It's not the sort of language that would have been used in his time. Frotz (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Let's not confuse the idea with the wording. Paracelsus linked dosage to toxicity.
  • All substances are poisons; there is none which is not a poison. The right dose differentiates a poison from a remedy. [16]
But it doesn't matter who said it first, or how the concept was expressed. All that matters is whether it's a valid scientific principle.
There is a dispute over whether the same thing can be harmful to humans at one level but beneficial at another. Or at least a dispute over this, in certain matters. See Linear no-threshold model and Precautionary principle.
I think, to be neutral, we should describe Paracelsus as having written about the relationship between dosages of chemicals, and how benign or harmful they are. Unless he wrote in English, the exact wording may be obscured slightly by translation, much as Occam's Razor is. --Uncle Ed (talk) 11:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Blake Reference[edit]

Paracelsus is referred to in Plate 22 of William Blake's "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell". Given the Shelley and Melville references being mentioned, I think this should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Paracelsus article - Pop Culture[edit]

In the "Pop Culture" section of this article are included references for Blake and Melville. I have never seen them described as figures of pop culture, and Melville especially was a fine literary artist not a pop artist. The "pop" literary artists of his time would have been those who wrote nickel Western novels. I realize that in some ways today the idea of fine art has been destroyed, or deconstructed, and every art form is supposed to be pop in some way. But let us remember that this idea started only around 1960, and for centuries before that there were fairly clear distinctions between fine and popular art (although these were sometimes bridged). A 3-piece peasant band playing simple folk music at a country wedding would have not been considered working in the same realm as Beethoven. Is Beethoven now to be considered a pop artist? Is Wikipedia to reach back into the past and turn fine art into pop art retroactively by relabeling using our culture's own very recent standards? I have written this here because I do not know if my being able to edit also includes adding a new section into which I would move these two artists, out of the Pop Culture section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

In the 2009 film "9", there's a book shown entitled "Annals of Paracelsus", which describes some of the alchemical symbols on the Talisman, a plot-important object. predcon (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

British/American English[edit]

Following up on an editor who has changed numerous articles from American to British English, I changed this one back. Said editor, prior to being blocked, had changed this to British English with the edit summary "spelling" (ze believes Americans misspell various words compared to "proper" (British) English).

In any case, once the editor was blocked for... um... let's call it incivility, I reverted several of hir edits made in a pointy fit. Those that included a meaningful edit summary I generally addressed. Those without summaries, I reverted as vandalism (including several prods applied without explanation to articles I had created. I had inadvertently failed to explain my reasoning on this one.

Anyway, VenomousConcept reverted this to British English with the explanation, "For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used." On the face of it, this is the best explanation given on any of the reverts. Certainly better than claiming that a disease article should use British English because the guy who discovered it was British, making it a British topic. (Oxygen is American, everyone else should stop using it, I guess.) However, the original article, as far as I can tell, has no indication of a variety of English. Looking back from VenomousConcept's edit, it seems to have changed the stable/established use in this article, contrary to Wikipedia's general consensus to retain that (when the article is not particularly tied to a region). Thoughts? - SummerPhD (talk) 02:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

While I'm loth to enter this minefield, I'm going to tiptoe in.... This was the second ever edit to the article, in 2002, and includes the word "travelled" with the British English double ll in the middle. It's the first emergence of any word which has alternative US/British spellings so I guess it sets the precedent. I'm going to change an -ize to an -ise, and we'll leave sulphur as it is - then I think we are done. (For the record, although I'm a UK editor I looked at the first edits with a firm commitment to going with whatever they showed - please accept my good faith on that!) Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 19:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Good eye! I spot checked through the first couple of years and didn't find anything. (I was unaware of the British use of "travelled" and would have skipped right over it.) Unless anyone has anything particularly compelling to add here, I think we're done. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC) one question: About the sulfur/sulphur issue, given this do we have any policy that draws a bright line on the issue? The only thing I turn up is Wikipedia:SULF#Element_names which clearly sides with "Sulfur", "even if they conflict with the other national spelling varieties used in the article" (assuming this is a "chemistry-related article"). - SummerPhD (talk) 05:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Given that WikiProject Chemistry has rated this article as high importance (see top of page) I guess we must assume that this is indeed a "chemistry-related article". So we have the awkward situation of an article drafted in British English, but where the IUPAC naming convention mandates sulfur. For what it's worth, they also prefer aluminium and caesium, so it's two out of three for the eastern side of the Atlantic... It'll probably cause ruptions but I'll change the article. Which will probably need watching for evermore because people will want to copyedit it without reading this talk! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 09:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I think it's odd as well, but I trust that the long, laborious discussions that led to it found consensus. FWIW, I did a brief search and cleaned up some of the "aluminum" uses in clearly chemistry related articles. On this side of the pond "aluminium" sounds pretty weird to my ears. "Caesium" isn't a word I run across in my field, but I'm sure it could stand some clean up as well. I'll put it on my "to do list", between eliminating "broadcasted" and replacing "will be" with "is scheduled to be" :) Thanks, KDB. - SummerPhD (talk) 11:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
In what way can you claim that 'oxygen is American' just out of interest? If you look at the page on oxygen it was discovered by Joseph Priestly who was English. VenomousConcept (talk) 12:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
VC, I suspect it was a joke - possibly irony, which we always say the Americans don't do.... I guess this proves us wrong! We seem to have reached an amicable compromise, by being mutually respectful and following policy. Hopefully a good model for future interactions. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 12:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Joke? Yes. Irony? No. IIRC, Priestly was chased out of England. I figure he took oxygen with him. (Since he had no idea what he'd actually discovered, maybe he doesn't get it either.) Note: It's pretty easy to find articles that should use "aluminium" or "caesium" but don't. There's no way I'm gonna be able to do them all by my lonesome. Care to help out, VC? - SummerPhD (talk) 17:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Kim, it seems we were in error to think that Americans understand irony.VenomousConcept (talk) 12:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


One of the things that Paracelsus is noted for, at least in my area, is his early noting of miners' lung disease - in this case lung cancer from inhaling radon. The text notes (under contributions to medicine) "Paracelsus' major work On the Miners' Sickness and Other Diseases of Miners ...", but this book does not appear in the list of "Works" (it was apparently published posthumously). Is there a reason for this? Is it perhaps included under one of the other "works"?

If not, I will put it in. I would appreciate any comments.

Baska436 (talk) 09:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


He died at the age of 47 of natural causes??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

coinage of the term "gas"[edit]

The passage states that Paracelsus is credited with the creation of the terms "chemistry," "gas" and "alcohol." This appears to be a direct quote from the foreword to "The Hermetic Writings of Paracelsus, Vol. I" by A.E. Waite (pg. 6). However, this statement is at odds with two other sources who credit Jan Baptista van Helmont for the introduction of the term gas. The first is from "The History of Chemistry" by Sir Thomas Edward Thorpe (pg. 63) and the second is from an article titled "The Dawn of Science" by T Padmanabhan The Dawn of Science. In addition, I did a word search through both volumes of Waite's translation of Paracelsus's writings, and I didn't find a single mention of the word gas. Does anyone have any further research that might clarify this issue? Jdlawlis (talk) 21:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Significant additions[edit]

Had to add significant milestones of his work and life. All of it formulated originally based on Swiss/German sources. I have found that English language sources for Paracelsus are often not exact enough and do not separate historical fact from fiction (but I gave some nevertheless). His travels to Asia and Africa are absolutely unproven. It is unlikely that he reached that far but rather was in contact with knowledge maybe transferred through invading armies from the East. What was not mentioned but can be historically verified, is his contact with Erasmus von Rotterdam and Frobenius. That this was not mentioned in his biography was shocking to me. Also, he was very much a folk oriented academic, also with social consequences when he once allied himself with rebellious farmers. He consulted controversial healers at the time, witches, women. That will be added when I have found correct sources. However, the comparison with Luther is indeed a bit sketchy. He was free enough to see Luther's constraints and of course he must have been negatively impressed by the already bloody battles that were fought in the name of religious denominations. In contrast to Luther, P. was a pure humanist and actually a reformed catholic rather than a protestant. Of course, this should not add to the schism of today but it is worthy of reflection. To what extend his contributions had impact on a social level, is very well discussed in the German edition. But nothing I have written was translated word by word. I am an adherent of his philosophies in as far we need to find new combinations, and to merely translate the sources does not serve a purpose. Jung's work on P. is also highly interesting because C.G. Jung studied original texts; a link to his book was therefore imperative. In my opinion, the picture of P. should also be changed. The current image is a romantic depiction of his appearance. There are indeed prints of his time that would reflect his looks in a more realistic way. The bust or statue respectively illustrated herein, which stand in his birthplace in Einsiedeln and Salzburg, are based on this original print. He was certainly not part of the noblesse, even though his name does imply that. Osterluzei (talk) 14:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC)