Talk:Joseph Lister

The section on Lister's early years is a little confusing at times. Could it be made clearer? It speaks of his father, but at times it is hard to tell if his father or Lister himself is being spoken of. It mentions his mother and then the next sentence is "the couple" had their last child in 1855. I assume this is in regard to Lister Jr. and his wife, but it follows right after talking about his mother and just previous to that about his father and the microscope and all. Could this be edited and cleared up? Thanks! 172.58.123.28 (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2018 and 8 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Smonsibais, Jacobgpx.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Listerine

I removed reference to the Listerine mouthwash in the first paragraph, not because it's incorrect or shouldn't be mentioned, but because it appeared like it was an achievement for which he should be remember for. It's like leading an article on Einstein with a mention that the dog in "Back To The Future" was named after him, factually correct, but out of place trivia.

I think that the information about Listerine should be re-included into the article, if only to clear up misconceptions that Lister invented it himself. Leeuwenhoek 02:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

birth

What date was he born in?

joseph lister was born in 1827

Cultural depictions of Joseph Lister, 1st Baron Lister

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 18:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy of Lister getting Goodyear to make rubber gloves

There is a near identical claim made on the wikipedia page for William Stewart Halstad.

Possible link to Joseph Lister's items on “Himetop – The History of medicine topographical database”

I suggest that somebody, interested in this page, could insert an external link to the following page describing, with pictures, some Joseph Lister’s memories: http://himetop.wikidot.com/joseph-lister

I don’t do it myself because I’m also an Administrator of this site (Himetop) and it could be a violation of the Wikipedia Conflict of Interest policy. Thanks for your attention.

Luca Borghi (talk) 10:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Adding reference material at WikiSource

I have started to add information for s:Author:Joseph Lister. Something of specific interest is the seminal paper s:On the Antiseptic Principle of the Practice of Surgery. More to be added. -- billinghurst (talk) 12:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

DEAR ADMINISTRATOR

excuse me but you keep deleting useful information that the people want to. for example: kids doing assignments. i have added useful information and you have deleted it. 124.183.199.186 (talk) 02:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Thank you 124.183.199.186 (talk) 03:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.199.186 (talk) 02:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC) 

Abandonment of phenol

May be worth adding something here: One of the first reports of adverse effects of chemicals on healthcare workers was the use of carbolic acid (phenol) sprays by Lister (Newsom, 2003), who stated “…as regards the spray, I feel ashamed that I should have even recommended it…”. He abandoned its use in 1889 after recognising the hazard.

Newsom SWB. Pioneers in infection control--Joseph Lister. Journal of Hospital Infection 2003;55(4):246-53. 21:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deeuubee (talk • contribs)

Lister -- and the birthday of modern medicine (doing less harm than before) in 1865

"Lister disappears into germ theory's prehistory, and is merely 'the English disciple' of Pasteur, a role in which, it must be said, he cast himself. As a result, the nature of the first crucial meeting between science and medicine is scarcely explored and its character is systematically misunderstood. ... Lister's work is hopelessly underestimated if one takes at face value his own unduly modest suggestion that it followed straightforwardly from reading Pasteur. To make the leap that Lister made [and it may have been the biggest leap in medicine so far] you needed to be a microscopist (to have seen all the invisible creatures in the air), a bacteriologist (to understand that every operation was a bacteriological experiment), and a surgeon, accustomed to struggling with sepsis." (David Wootton, 2006: Bad Medicine -- Doctors doing harm since Hippocrates, pp. 229, 239) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.2.161.4 (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The article seems to say that Lister heard about new research, applied the techniques, which were successful -- scientific method. That quote seems to say Lister figured it all out. This isn't to diminish Lister's work, but like Fleming's discovery of penicillin, he stood on shoulders of giants. In that article, Lister is said to have cured a patient's infection with a mold-derived "Penicillium". I'd think that book would focus on toxic dangers of phenols. 68.149.10.39 (talk) 04:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

King Edward VII

The King had his operation to drain an appendix abscess on 24 June 1902, not August as here described. The King's appendix was not removed.

See Wikipedia articles for Sir Frederick Treeves who performed the operation.

The King's coronation, due to take place on 26 June, was postponed until 9 August.

86.135.112.185 (talk) 19:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Joseph Lister/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Very little info on his personal life, reasonable on his surgery career. Needs references. Ignores any mention of his initial dismissal of the need for cleanliness. Errabee 03:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 17:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 20:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Wine auction

Not worthy of comment in the main article, but perhaps of interest to a passing researcher, might be an auction, by Messrs. Christie, Manson & Woods, on 21 May 1912, “The Cellar of Wines of The Right Hon. Lord Lister, deceased, late of 12 Park Crescent, Portland Place, W.” Some of the Ports were bottled by Lister and Beck, seemingly unrelated. (My pictures 21339/40.) JDAWiseman (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joseph Lister. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170202001531/http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/library/archives/history/frieze/ to http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/library/archives/history/frieze/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Joseph Lister. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151125042654/http://www.lister-institute.org.uk/about-us/our-heritage/ to http://www.lister-institute.org.uk/about-us/our-heritage/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161122224155/http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/library/archives/history/frieze/lister.html to http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/library/archives/history/frieze/lister.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Plan for update

I plan to update this article. It only has 6k covering Lister's life, which is drastically too short. I plan to take it up 40k-60k and submit it for GA. scope_creep^Talk 17:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Old section

References

Use later TODO

1. between 1883 and 1897 as Sir Joseph Lister, Bt.

Quotebox

"Without such freedom there would have been no Shakespeare, no Goethe, no Newton, no Faraday, no Pasteur and no Lister."

—Albert Einstein's speech on intellectual freedom at the Royal Albert Hall, London after having fled Nazi Germany, 3 October 1933.

for use later. scope_creep^Talk 22:46, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

References

The big four

The guardian review of The Butchering Art: Joseph Lister's Quest to Transform the Grisly World of Victorian Medicine, mentions the big four. What were they?? scope_creep^Talk 18:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Unprovable

In 1889 he was elected as Foreign member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.

scope_creepTalk 21:20, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Main Todo List

1. Info on Carbolic acid.
2. Question of KCVO still to be settled.
3. Wakley gave up on 20 December 1879
4. 1852 was when he did first caustic liquid on open wound.
5. page [1] Gross, Lister, two paintings. DONE. In diffusion section.

scope_creepTalk 11:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

A ref on his surviving papers

More than 30 of his early school papers are still preserved.

References

Honours

I note he has KCVO among his postnominals but no reference in the detailed Awards section as to when he was awarded the Royal Victorian Order (founded 1896 so one is unsure if it was awarded by Queen Victoria or Edward VII). Did he become Sir thereby?Cloptonson (talk) 07:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Cloptonson: I couldn't tell you at the moment. I went through the section to copyedit it, but never checked yet whether it was applicable. A reader came in and sorted the list in the lede and that was already there, I think. The man was awarded quite an enormous number of awards and honours, more than probably anybody else in history. You could have one huge article on these awards alone. I read a bit about the fund that was created after his death, doctors sending money from outer Mongolia, Southern Africa, Australia, so it takes a bit of time to take it in. I'll check Godlee and come back to you in a couple of days. scope_creep^Talk 13:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Understand. I only called this out because it is a high British honour in the gift of the sovereign, so would be sourceable in the London Gazette and contemporary biographical reference books like Who's Who. It just looked a major inconsistency to me.Cloptonson (talk) 13:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Yip. I can't find in the 20odd documents have on him with an Adobe document search on Royal Victorian Order ore on KCVO. I'll do a better search later. I notice from other surgeons who were Serjeant-Surgeons to the queen, e.g. [2] that one of them was KCVO. Were they awarded it, for being Surgeon to Queen I wonder? scope_creep^Talk 14:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Cloptonson: The KCVO has been taken out. I think it is accurate to say that he wasn't awarded it. User:Mandsford found a newspaper.com entry, from The Guardian an article, dated 12 February 1912, which doesn't mention the KCVO. I think being that close, in time, it would be entirely accurate. At the time it would be universal news, and the man was so famous, ultra-famous really. I suspect the other editor assumed the fact, as everybody else in that position, would have been awarded it. Certainly, it is possibly something to do with OM being prepared. I don't know if at the same time frame, it could be that. Thanks for posting that. scope_creep^Talk 17:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Cloptonson: I have several biographies on Lister now. I checked everyone of them and none of them mention the KCVO, so it looks like you were right. scope_creep^Talk 08:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Size

I am planning for about 270k for this article. I seems to be the rough size for these level 4 GA, FA articles. scope_creep^Talk 11:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Dates of moving

1812 Joseph Jackson Lister transferred the wine business to 5 Tokenhouse Yard 1818 Married Isabella Harris; they had 3 daughters and 4 sons, of whom one, Joseph Lister, became Baron Lister of Lyme Regis, the famous surgeon, and another, Arthur Lister, became a botanist. c.1822 They moved to Stoke Newington 1824 Proposed an improved design of microscope lens to overcome spherical abberation, which became the state of the art. 1826 Lister bought Upton House, West Ham, where he lived for the rest of his life. [3] scope_creep^Talk 20:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Books articles to get

• Medical Innovations in Historical Perspective - Science, Technology and Medicine in Modern History (Hardback) John V. Pickstone (editor). Lindsay Granshaw article is interesting.
• Joseph Lister: The man who made surgery safe (Pathfinder biographies;no.15) Hardcover – Import, January 1, 1963 by Frederick F. Cartwright
• Crowther MA, Dupree M. medical lives in the Age of Surgical Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University press; 2007.
• Descriptive catalogue of the surgical instruments formerly the property of the late Lord Lister, in the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons of England by Alban H. G Doran 1915

scope_creepTalk 15:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Todo

• 1873-74 is missing from Godlee.
• Removed FFPS from post-noms in lede. Doesn't seem to mean anything but for some reason its there. Replaced with FRCPGlas.
• Need to find more information on Listers Microscope and who made it.Y

scope_creepTalk 14:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Peerage title

@Scope creep: The issue of The London Gazette announcing Lister's peerage reads in part: "Baron Lister, of Lyme Regis, in the county of Dorset". This indicates that "Baron Lister" alone is the official title of his peerage – everything after the first comma is the territorial designation – so we should have "The Lord Lister" in the infobox; this is not just colloquial or daily usage. Additionally, since Lister was granted a hereditary peerage (despite not having any heirs to inherit it), we should have "1st Baron Lister" in the lead. This parallels exactly what the Wikipedia article on Lord Kelvin uses. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 17:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ravenpuff: It seems accurate. I just needed to explain it to me to provide some clarity. Thanks for that. Sorry I reverted. scope_creep^Talk 18:39, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ravenpuff: Can you update the section where is describes getting his peerage, stating he was Baron of Lyme Regis and make sure the wording is correct. It was written ages ago by somebody else I don't know if its accurate. scope_creep^Talk 07:04, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ravenpuff: It does have small section but I don't know if its accurate. I does look ok though. scope_creep^Talk 07:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@Scope creep: No worries! The section appears already to have the correct phrasing describing Lister's peerage. I have taken the liberty to add some links and tweak some extraneous capitalisation, though. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 07:29, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ravenpuff: Coolio. Thanks for updating and doing the infobox. Its been need done for ages, who knows how long. scope_creep^Talk 07:38, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Todo

Papers added to the physiology section in edinburgh may not be physiology papers. scope_creep^Talk 01:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC) Thats not the case. scope_creep^Talk 08:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

List of Publications of Lister in the British Medical Journal

William Hentry Dobies obit at [4] contains a list for reason. scope_creep^Talk

Being Lister: ethos and Victorian medical discourse

Article that describes the difficulties that Lister had in writing and why he never produced a biography. A section is perhaps needed, a small section. scope_creep^Talk 08:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Letter on imflammation

Letter, brmedj06853-0047a Letter listers views on imflammation. Describes his views on imflammation when he stayed. Contrary to Hunter. scope_creep^Talk 22:33, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

• Inflammation, suppuration, putrefaction, fermentation: Joseph Lister's microbiology Ruth Richardson. On his inaugural lecture in London.

scope_creepTalk 20:51, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Testimonials Glasgow

https://archive.org/details/b2493074x/mode/2up?view=theater

scope_creepTalk 08:37, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Todo

• 1873-74 is missing from Godlee.
• Removed FFPS from post-noms in lede. Doesn't seem to mean anything but for some reason its there. Replaced with FRCPGlas.
• Still missing sections in pysiology to complete. scope_creep^Talk 23:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
• Erichsen section, house surgeon might now be out of order. scope_creep^Talk 10:11, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

keep for later

References

Document is good for 1847 lancet article definitions

Statistics and the British controversy about the effects of Joseph Lister’s system of antisepsis for surgery, 1867–1890. scope_creep^Talk 02:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Why he never wrote any books

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jmh.2008.000270

Dud sentence

For three days in November 1859, Lister examined Pus corpuscle from the eye of rabbit as well as blood taken from the heart and arteries.

References

Articles on specific events

Article on Lister rolls:

• King, Louise (1 November 2011). "The Lecture Rolls of Sir Joseph Lister". The Bulletin of the Royal College of Surgeons of England. 93 (10): 369.

Keep for later use possibly? scope_creep^Talk 06:36, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Current status

The article is on its way. Its take a lot of reading to understand what had been going on between 1865-1867, both to try and understand the papers, which are apparently quite difficult to understand on their own and in order to get the references sorted and read with papers that cover that period. Reading through a lot of very specific references had taken time. scope_creep^Talk 09:11, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Sterility experiment

"In 1871 Lister prepared an experiment to demonstrate to his students that the air carried organisms that could be killed by heating, he modified four flasks, by extending and drawing their necks into a narrow tube that was bent in at an acute angle. Using three of the flasks in an experiment with the fourth used as the control, he filled each with his own fresh urine. In the control flask the urine quickly became infected with a mould, while the other flasks remained clear and unclouded as the dust and organisms could pass the angular bend."

This is, at best, an unclear description of the experiment. One flask should have easy access (no neck) for air-borne organisms to access the flask, the long recurved neck is supposed to prevent them from contaminating the other flasks by gravity preventing access. Both types are, however, open to the air. 157.231.151.76 (talk) 08:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi, its very raw text. I started looking at it, and started writing it, and then stopped, as I will still working in the 1860's. Can you suggest a better description of the experiment and it could go in. I think you have spurred me to get back to the article. Thanks for posting this. I shows me that folk are really reading the article. scope_creep^Talk 08:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Urine Sterility experiment

An address on the Antiseptic System of Treatment in Surgery. (Medico-Chirurgical Society of Glasgow, 2 May 1868.) British medical Journal, 1868, 2, 53-6 (18 July): 101-2 (1 August); 461-3 (31 October); 515-7 (14 November). Manuscript with related notes, mainly autograph: R.C.S. 33 Observations on Ligature of Arteries on the Antiseptic System. The Lancet, 3.

So urine experiment described in the paper above was started on October 1867. p55 vol II of collected papers. One of several experiments in that paper. scope_creep^Talk 22:06, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Winter lecture course

to finish. scope_creep^Talk 23:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Unexplained revert

Not sure why errors were restored to the article. The work is by Cheyne W. Watson not W. Watson Watson, and the ref needs to use |last= not |first=. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi @ActivelyDisinterested: It was gallery change you did. You said it was overly wide on mobile. I'll split it today into two parts. scope_creep^Talk 10:53, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

So why did you mass revert, rather than just undoing that one edit? Even if you couldn't do it automatically, you could just have restored that part of the wikitext manually. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:55, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Breaking links

@Scope creep: You broke a wiki link while manually reverting your bold experiment with unusual spelling (preventitive? really?). I fixed the link, and you reverted that. Could you explain what is this you are doing? Also you removed a wiki link allegedly "for moment until article is fixed". Could you explain how this is supposed to help fixing anything? Thanks. Retimuko (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@Retimuko: How are you? What makes you think its unusual spelling. I did notice the Lister insitute is actually the Lister Institute of preventive medicine, but I think that is modern take. I suspect but I'm not sure, since I last left a message that it was preventative medicine up to some date in the 20th century, not "preventive", hence the reason for reverting. scope_creep^Talk 18:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@Retimuko: I think the watch phrase is that I'm not sure. scope_creep^Talk 18:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@Scope creep: You managed to avoid answering both questions. Question 1: You broke a link while manually reverting yourself, and then reverted my fix. Could you explain why? Question 2: You removed another wiki link "for moment until article is fixed". Could you explain how removing a link should help fixing anything? Thanks. Retimuko (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Originally I thought the name of the term was "Preventative medicine". That is the term that was used, I think its used, in the 19th century according to Godlee. When I originally created the link in the lede, I put in sentence that said for something like "Preventative medicine" in the lede, from Godlee. That was linked to Preventitive medicine, which was removed back to Preventive healthcare which is modern thing, which no longer fits the 19th context. The lede is junk anyway. So when I saw you changing it back to Preventive healthcare and linking it on its own, I thought that was wrong and I still do and reverted it. It doesn't fit the narrative. I changed the Lister Istitute links before realising its called preventive medicine. I never actually looked at the title. Removing the link, because the link is not suitable. scope_creep^Talk 18:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Does that make sense? scope_creep^Talk 18:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Not quite. You tried to rename Lister Institute to "preventitive" (and you don't seem to see the mistake), then reverted yourself manually, breaking the link in the process by removing the last "e" in "medicine" (and you still don't seem to see the problem). I fixed that, and you reverted the fix. All this makes an impression of some sort of disruption on your part. Retimuko (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@Scope creep: When are you going to put the link back that you removed "for moment until article is fixed"? It seems wrong not to link to an important concept for the context of the article. Retimuko (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@Retimuko: I don't know. I want to work on Lister but I'm working at WP:NPP at the moment. Probably next week. Is it bothering. I will need to look at Godlee to see if it is the correct term. There is something there I don't know about and need to look at it, but not at the moment. If you want to change it, crack on but its likely going to change but it doesn't quite fit the period, but could be a grammer. I don't know. The lister instute bit is a spelling mistake. scope_creep^Talk 17:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Todo on Inflammation research at Edinburgh

This time, stimulation of the section had no effect except when the section would spontaneously contract. The experiment enabled Lister to conclude: " Still to finish this and marker removed. scope_creep^Talk 07:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Todo

• Intramural part is missing from Edinburgh lecturing.
• Showed the first bacterial culture at his inaugural lecture in London. Need to add context. Why?
• He managed to get a b.lactis culture isolated. When and where. What is b.lactis, Bifidobacterium animalis?
• He subsequently published his results in The Lancet in a series of six articles, running from March through July 1867. Where are those six articles? These are antispectics?
• Lister's first operation. When and where was his first public operation. Need to dates to finish the sentence.Y
• Page 97 of Wrench. 29 June 1863 for Pasteur paper was most important.
• William Henry Dobie [5] who was Listers dresser in Edinburgh and London. He made case notes on Listers operations, lectures. p.105 of Medicine and science in the 1860s : proceedings of the sixth British Congress on the History of Medicine, University of Sussex, 6-9 September 1967 / edited by F.N.L. Poynter. 1860 Paper. Where are they? Unable to locate them? scope_creep^Talk 18:43, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Archives of the Royal college of Surgeons possibly.

• Hand-painted poster used at Lister’s inaugural lecture at King’s College London. Contact Kings College London and see if there is images that are in public domain available. Do the same for Listers rolls.
• Robert Koch and Lister had independently discovered that airborne pathogens are rarely as pathogenic as those found on surgeons or instrument. After that point, Lister no longer used the spray.
• Richardson & Rhodes 2013. Try and put in individual page numbers for this ref.

scope_creepTalk 19:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

* 1858 An Inquiry Regarding the Parts of the Nervous System Which Regulate the Contractions of the Arteries. This section is still to finish.  scope_creepTalk 04:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Copy edits: Pause for feedback on edits

I am slightly exceeding my remit by triming a bit, and want to make sure that is ok. Pretty sure nothing of value got removed but there was nothing really wrong with what I removed either (see "trim" edit summaries), especially early on. If that is how words come out no worries but this is the value for readability of fresh eyes also. I want to make sure these are fine without doing more of them. I understand that the article does not purport to be finished and that is fine; my work does not either and I am still skipping around fixing small things that jump out as improvable without doing harm.

The main important problem with passive voice, just to explain this a bit in case nobody ever has, is that sometimes it hides weasel. For example, in the sentence "The synagogue was burnt down" we do not say who burned it, or even, I think, how it burned. (Burnt vs burned is definitely an ENGVAR thing that I might still be getting somewhat wrong, and this article is in British English. Always correct this and let me know if I do something with this that looks wrong to you.) Sometimes it must be used because we do not know who lit the match. Even then though, you could say "The synagogue burned down" but once again, that may be American English. Remember that Canadian English sublimely blurs the two ;) I have had people complain that it probably wasn't spontaneous combustion. And sorry for the distressing example btw, but many pixels have been spilled over this in Holocaust articles and this constitutes warning that I am kinda confused about "burnt" ;) "Married" vs "were married" is in this same vein.

This is not a weasel kind of article, but I did see passive voice somewhere in the article where I made no change because I was not certain who was performing the action. A more minor problem is that opening a subordinate clause with "who was" gives the reader a new grammatical structure to parse, and impedes readability. Readability is a goal on Wikipedia. As mentioned in an edit summary, "who was" can always be replaced with a comma without loss of meaning, at least in American English.

Feel free to change any edits you disagree with, although I prefer that you do not use revert, as haters sometimes point to reverts as errors. I have been pretty talkative in edit summaries and intend to continue this a little while until we are both comfortable that I am doing what you want. Since our last talk I am taking this to include verb tense. There were some places where I changed "did" to "had done". ( As an example - don't remember the specifics ) The distinction there is that "did" is past but continuous and might still be ongoing, while "had done" means the action is finished and over, probably a long time ago. I am pretty sure this is not engvar, just a mistake, although a small and common one or possibly just overly casual writing. Many people do not make this distinction in spoken English for example. A subtle point; feel free to disagree with it.

Comma splices are also common. Complicated to explain, but can be looked up. That is definitely the name in English. Can always be fixed with a period, or "and" or "but" or the like.

If you are comfortable with this level of editing I will proceed this way the next time I want to do something productive but not very hard for me. Elinruby (talk) 03:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby: I checked it, its fine. A very good copyedit I'd say. If you can point where your unsure of who is performing the action, I can check. I do know sometimes its not clear. Verb tense is something I'm bad at. Its not engvar. I make continual mistakes on it, pushing it into the present instead of the past or the incorrect tense and always have to check the article, a couple, sometimes weeks after to make sure I've not left something in. It happens in almost all article I write. Its a continual bugbear. I seem to drift off when I'm writing it. I'll make the block up, write and then I'll drift as though they are in the present and the tense will change. Strong imagination I guess. If there is any weasel words, post them if unsure. Comma splices, never heard of them. I'll check. I'll watch out if its drifting into Canadian English, although may be hard to spot. I like the sound of subordinate clause. I'll check what it is, unsure. I don't think I've captured everything from your paragraphs. I really want to improve my writing by your processing of the text. I'll have another read of it later today. scope_creep^Talk 10:24, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I feel its looking better already. scope_creep^Talk 10:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

• RL calls but weasel is not really a concern in this article. It comes up more in things like "it was determined that fixing this should be de-prioritzed".
• On verbs, this is a common issue involving the difference between casual spoken language and formal written language so do not be down on yourself. Remember I have specifically been trained on this and done it RL. I advise getting the words out any way you can and going back as you are doing.
• Don't get hung up on the name of things. I learned formal grammar in French so sometimes I find it hard to explain English grammar. Most English speakers do not get formal instruction in this until college afaik at least in North America.
• a comma splice is another example of spoken vs written language. Here is an example. "I really am glad it is spring,it makes me sneeze though.' There are two complete sentences there, spliced together with a comma. A fast way to fix it is to say "but it makes me sneeze." This tells us what the relationship is between the two parts. The sentence still assumes that the reader/listener knows that the speaker has hay fever.
• Re casual vs formal: notice that much of this is written as if I am speaking to you and I am paying less attention to whether the sentence has a verb.

Hth. If you are fine with this level I will do some more scattered edits like it between other tasks. Timing unclear as spelled out on your talk page Elinruby (talk) 10:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Further reading on the grammar advice

• comma splice
• relative clause
• dependent clause

Elinruby (talk) 16:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Big pass for lots of small changes as described above. There are I think three what tags (noted in edit summaries) which I expect to be able to resolve myself from context when I re-read. If I have to stop tonight before I do I will make doing it my top priority tomorrow so don't worry they are not going to hang there. Some of this is "just sounds better" and may possibly be engvar, but a whole lot of it is replacing "x, who was a.surgeon" with "x, a surgeon" and the like. I am contemplating a brief essay on readability and have some content questions, but will not be touching those until I talk to you. Just letting you know that this copy edit is less extensive than it may look. In a couple of places though I can tell that you had trouble explaining a medical concept, and I can definitely see why. Digestion and the lymphatic system is an example of this. I have no clue, but the grammar is sound. I made some changes to word order about this in some cases that probably help, but left things as they were when I had any doubts at all. Bottom line, feel free to check me but be aware that I may fall asleep before checking myself. Also very few of the things I am changing are actually grammatically wrong, since you seem to have been worrying about this. Let me reassure you on that. It's all style stuff and verb tweaks mostly. But that is what readability is about. A series of small tweaks to promote the principle of least astonishment... Sort of interested in the inflammation discussion. Going to try to finish that then re-read.

oh PS, one of the what tags was me balking at "frog's web" but it seems that this is the actual name of the frog body part? You define it further down the article, so the location of the definition should be addressed, but this is the stuff I mean when i say the what tags will go away. Mostly a note to myself. Elinruby (talk) 06:38, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

ok, tired now and afraid i'll start typing in my sleep, which would be Bad. There is no deadline. What tags persist. Look at them if you have time but they are very cautious and can probably resolve them myself by checking the sources. One is a question about who did something. One was about whether "frog web" is correct. The one I just added was for "separation" where I think you mean "suppuration" but I didn't want to guess and was too tired to look. There were a couple other typos in the paragraph that looked like autocorrect though, and i know *my* phone doesn't like "suppuration". I can't remember the other one but there would be an explanation in the edit summary or the tag itself. I will check the tags tomorrow if you don't do it tonight (2am here). Elinruby (talk) 09:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Morning @Elinruby: Sunny hot day in Scotland almost in October. Freezing yesterday. Frogs web. Thats the real name and hadn't heard of it. I'll move the definition up. Everything in the medical community has a name and sometimes its very difficult to research it. The explanaton for medical processes are sometimes very difficult to understand. I'm concerned about reader understanding. If you dont understand tell me. I don't know if there is a tag for it. What? may work. It took 4 months to get a handle on the antiseptic treatment, the theory of germ disease as it relates to imflammation, which is still to be done in that antiseptic main section. Not much, but I'll leave as much of the current text in place. Supparation is pus formation. Again, took a bit of time to link the term with the modern equivalent. That is part core of the antiseptic treatment, which still needs updated as some confusion around old wound treatment and new improved wound treatment with Hainy. I'll look at the what? tags. Geez, I know what you mean, about typing in your sleep. Now i tell myself. Go to sleep and close my pc and I go to sleep right there. No longer hanging on with barely open still trying to type. I'll had a look at the definitions of the comma splices and the clauses. Knew the clauses but not the former. I started using it almost immediately on a military article. On "x, who was a.surgeon". I tend to be wordy. Anything that shortens it is ideal and fine with me. I trust you implicitly. scope_creep^Talk 11:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

On the "1858 On the Cutaneous Pigmentary System of the Frog" what tag. I'll need to check the source. scope_creep^Talk 11:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

(ec) Ok, not concerned. Go ahead and take the tag off now that you know there is a question. Elinruby (talk) 12:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

typed out a long discussion of readability and lost it. Gah. Bottom like you are in the 90% percentile when it comes to what I usually deal with. Will try later on readability but that is just because you seem to want to know. All is good. Going to go work on the excrutisting church article now, can't make that worse than it is Elinruby (talk) 12:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

a few more scattered edits along the same line. Going lightly. I think some detail may be excessive but if the article is not really finished it is too soon to work on DUE. I am thinking of writing an essay on passive voice since this is a pervasive issue but I want to see what already exists. And again, this is an issue of readability not grammar. In certain settings passive voice is usual, particularly older medical and scientific texts, but is not a style we want to emulate. But do not stress over this. What I am describing is an area for improvement and not anything that is actually wrong. Elinruby (talk) 20:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby: I've been following the books and they've tended to be heavy on detail due to the celebatory nature of his achievements, so every single facet. scope_creep^Talk 21:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

nod, maybe something to look at eventually but if you are still working on the article and it isn't really finished yet there is little point in looking at due. As an example though, it probably doesn't matter what time a speech or a surgery started. I just looked and am not finding anything in MoS about passive voice. Are you aware of a guideline about that? So far I am only trimming where I am pretty sure it makes no difference whatsoever, but I do not have my ego tied up in this and am just doing the best I can. If somebody thinks I am wrong about something then fine ;) Elinruby (talk) 21:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I know what you mean. I don't think your necessarily wrong. The one thing that is a sure killer of FA is not having sufficient detail and its early days. Same with passive voice. I do plan to split it into multiple articles. On Mos, no. It would be interesting if you could write an article. That would be cool. Some of it can certainly go in source articles possibly, but too early to tell. Its not wasted effort. I've not looked at it, still on NPP. scope_creep^Talk 21:49, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Also part of it, even now he is celebrated in the medical community. When something is discovered, a song and dance is made of it, e.g. when his first op was discovered, somebody wrote a paper, so quite hard to see what is core important. scope_creep^Talk 21:58, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

You're right, it is supposed to be exhaustive. I do not suggest doing anything at all about this atm and certainly would not anyway without talking to you. Just saying that when we do get to DUE I don't think it matters whether the speech or the surgery started at 8:15 or 8:20 or whatever for example. But I haven't touched anything like that yet either and at the moment I don't plan to. Don't worry, be happy. Change any edits you don't like. Where should I take an article that has been really bad for more than more than ten years but that we really do have to have? I don't want to volunteer to fix it but don't think I should leave it the way it is. Although I did just make it more or less English. Elinruby (talk) 00:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Anyway, apart from that horrible article I just stumbled across -- yeah, the article comes across as a bit of a hagiography, but it is hard to both-sides something like reducing mortality rate. There is room for some discussion there but not trying to have it right now. No question though that antisepsis is *the* one thing that is most important about Lister if you had to pick just one thing. The blood clotting cascade is also huge though. Have not tried to even think about this so far. Like I said, I recommend you get the words out any way you can, then edit. Elinruby (talk) 10:19, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Morning @Elinruby: I take your point and yes, acutely spotted. Its another thing which is evident in the books and obviously comes across like that. It is very hard to convey both the before and after pictures of what it was like, folk dying from a scratch from a nettle or a rose, wards full of dying folk hence the hagiographic nature of the type of papers that seem to predominate around that time, particularly Godlee which is one of the core biographies. For me, the whole thing, the vision, the life was encompassed when I read tha doctors in Outer Mongolia sent money in to establish the Lister medal. It was astonishing to read it. Money came from everwhere. It was a revolution. That is one the primary drivers for including a ton of detail. But it will need looked at. I'll try and trim it down nearer the time, make it more practically written and do that moving forward, if I can. There is certainly less of it in the newer papers. The article is structured as his early life, the experiments in Edinburgh, the antiseptics and then the diffusion of that work + all his awards and so on. That would be 5 articles. I was planning to do a complete bibliography of all his work as listed in so many books. Other misc details about his large library dissappearing. I planned to add the design of his ward in another article. The ward was kept by the Henry Welcome Foundation and stored/displayed in the Science Museum in London. scope_creep^Talk 10:44, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

As you say, nearer the time. A good copyedit hopefully and somebody nearer the time who can say for sure what is core important. Perhaps a medical historian. I do worry about it. scope_creep^Talk 10:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

It makes a lot more sense as five articles. When I say I am used touch worse, the horrible article I mentioned is Taras Bulba-Borovets - I fixed like the five most appalling things and it is still chock-full of POV (not sure if that is apparent to those unfamiliar. It can't be AfDed because that would be like not having a article on Cromwell. There's already been who knows how many arbcoms. Drop it at ANI and flee? Elinruby (talk) 11:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Cleanliness in the wards

p.128 Goldee. Wards, marine sponges scope_creep^Talk 21:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Cameron improved dressing p.64

The core of the improved dressing seems to be putty made of carbonate of lime, instead of plain putty as used on Greenlees. Need to check Fisher. scope_creep^Talk 20:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Question on "1858 An Inquiry Regarding the Parts of the Nervous System Which Regulate the Contractions of the Arteries" section

I assume that "irratability" is in quotes because the spelling is not standard for modern English? If that should actually be "irritability" then it doesn't need to be in quotes, as while it is a technical term it isn't especially so for the subject matter. Just checking. Elinruby (talk) 17:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)