Talk:James Manby Gully

Recent changes

So sourced information about his joining the British Homoeopathic Society is not appropriate, but the unsourced and editorialized "In 1842 he read a paper by Vincent Priessnitz, an Austrian surgeon who advocated hydrotherapy. Almost overnight, Gully gave up his surgery in London and set up his first "water cure" clinic at Malvern with James Wilson, another hydrotherapist." is okay? Lara❤Love 02:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added a fact tag to the "almost overnight" claim, which is in Dana's version too, and added the SOH link back without the WP:SYN. The slander of Charles Darwin cannot be inserted in this page unless there is very good evidence that homeopathy helped Darwin in any way. Also, what typo are you referring too? The quote contains an archaic spelling of homeopathy, but it is accurate and a quote. If it's something else please say what it is here or just fix the typo! It's much better to engage in discussion when making controversial edits that massively change the POV of an article --88.172.132.94 (talk) 09:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Reverted to original citation re Ullman's book. Good references re relationship. Why delete something that is obviously a decent go-to reference? --Flagtheerror (talk) 14:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Danaullman provided a link to Darwin's writings which stated that his more than twelve years of serious symptoms were significantly improved after just eight days of Gully's treatments. Treatments which included water-cure and homeopathic medicines. Did Darwin's health improved during the couple of months at Gully's clinic? Was homeopathic treatment part of the care provided by Dr. Gully? If not, then please explain it to me, because this is how it all reads to me. Lara❤Love 00:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That is WP:SYN, and also incorrect. Darwin specifically does not attribute his improvements to homeopathy. The fact is we have no idea what Darwin's illness was, and he frequently had spontaneous remissions. To attribute this to homeopathy when Darwin didn't, and when there is still no evidence that homeopathy is an effective treatment, is not true or verifiable. I suggest you read the quackometer review of Dana's book that deals with this issue. "Over a couple of months" his health would often improve or decline; this is normal for everyone! The way you are reading it is with the massive bias that Dana has introduced on top of it. There is no evidence that supports Dana's thesis that homeopathy works, and that it worked in the case of Charles Darwin. If there was a quote from Darwin saying he believed homeopathy helped, then great - add that. And if we knew what illness he had and what remedy he was given we could look at the clinical evidence, at least (if there was any good evidence for homeopathy). The fact is none of this has happened, and Darwin is (rightly) dismissive of homeopathy. It is also worth noting that the "water cure" involved what we would nowadays call a stay at a relaxing spa with pools etc; something that is shown to have clinical benefits - unlike homeopathy. We still can't add that to the article as there is no evidence that this is what lead to his "improvement". In regards to homeopathy, Darwin agreed with modern science. --88.172.132.94 (talk) 07:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, and I am concerned that 88.172's strong POV against homeopathy influences his editing. He and 147 took out the reference to the fact that Dr. Gully was a member of the British Homoeopathic Society, beginning in 1848 (the year before Darwin sought his care) and until at least 1870. I'm totally confused why would this fact not be a part of his biography here. Please try to separate out your anti-homeopathy attitudes here. When I provided a specific link to his book in which he wrote about the benefits of homeopathy alone and/or with water-cure, this is factual NPOV information, with a link to an online reference (this is just the type and quality of information that is perfect for wiki). As for Darwin, his health played a major factor in his life. He was so ill that late 1848 that he was unable to attend his own father's funeral, and a couple months later, Darwin wrote that he was so ill that he could not work one day in every three. He not only began to feel better after being at Gully's clinic, he went back there on numerous occasions. I did not write that "homeopathy cured Darwin." I wrote that Gully's care, which included water-cure and homeopathic medicines, provided significant health benefits despite Darwin's skepticism of these unconventional modalities. The link that I provided to Darwin's statement 8 days after treatment began with Gully had Darwin acknowledge that he had experienced a skin rash shortly after treatment began, and his experience was that he felt better in general when he experienced such skin problems (he compared this experience with those of people with other problems who feel better when they temporarily experience symptoms of gout). Perhaps I could add this statement, with a specific quote from Darwin, because this is a common experience in homeopathy and is a part of what is called "Hering's law of cure." If 88.172 wants to then refer to letters from Darwin when he experienced other skin rashes, with subsequent improvement in Darwin's health, that have no reference to any homeopathic and/or water-cure treatment, this would add to the body of information. However, I don't think that there is anything like this in his writings. As for knowing what disease Darwin had, this is not important. What is important was that Darwin was exceedingly ill, that he experienced great benefits from Dr. Gully, and that Darwin had such appreciation of Gully that he once referred to him as "my beloved Gully." Dana Ullman ^Talk 13:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact (I believe, I haven't checked) that JMG was a member of BHS is in the article, and was put back in by User:88.172.132.94. You state "Darwin was so ill" etc, which is not relevant here in the article about JMG. The fact that Darwin gently mocked him in his writing is notable, hence included. Why don't you try and get your opinions about Darwin included on Darwin's page, and then we could have a wikilink. I don't think you'll get very far though. Darwin claimed that Gully's treatments helped him "not one jot", your opinion as to whether Darwin was lying is your opinion, and not backed by the available facts. It might be easier to prove that homeopathy works now rather than that it worked sometime in the past. If you can prove it works, then we'll be more inclined to believe it has always worked. PS: Have you read WP:SYN? Please Dana, be constructive, and direct your wikipedia energies away from these topics or stop trying to make controversial POV edits. --147.171.255.159 (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The above comment is by me, I forgot to sign in --RDOlivaw (talk) 16:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right. Gully's membership was put back in. Because you have no problem acknowledging this fact, you should have no problem if I (or anyone) also provides reference to the fact that Gully was also a member in 1870. In this same vein, I want to show the evolution of his thinking and practice by noting: Gully added increasing references to his positive experiences with homeopathic medicines in subsequent edition of his water-cure book.(pages 46-48). I think that these are constructive points.

As for Darwin and Gully, the article presently states that Darwin was a "personal friend" of Gully's, but there is no reference to this. Who wants to take that one out? In fact, Darwin didn't know him prior to becoming a patient. A shipmate from the Beagle and his cousin, Fox, referred Darwin to Gully. Darwin had great admiration and appreciation for Gully, and there are many references for this. Yet, the article, as presently stands, suggests that Darwin had neither admiration or appreciation of him. We're not being honest or accurate here. I do not want to engage into a discussion of homeopathy or its efficacy. I only want to discuss Gully, his treatment of Darwin, and the results of this treatment, according to Darwin. Dana Ullman ^Talk 17:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

References

Fact tags

Hi. I believe the two fact tags that Peter has added should be citations to the books in Further Reading. Does anyone have access to these books? --88.172.132.94 (talk) 07:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I simply added them because the paragraphs in question seemed totally unsourced and thus blatant OR; I don't have the books, thanks Peter morrell 07:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

He wasn't questioning why you added them. He is asking if anyone has access to books listed in further reading so as to cite these sentences as you have requested. Lara❤Love 14:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have Death at the Priory, which has a very good chapter entirely devoted to Gully (and not just as a suspect in the murder case). Mr Ruddick did pretty extensive research and I'll provide refs over the weekend. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 17:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like it could be a good source, Moreschi. Peter, I think your fact tags are justified and didn't mean to imply otherwise. I should have called this section "Career sources" I guess. Anyway, no offence intended or taken. Thanks --88.172.132.94 (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Bah, can't find the book. When I do I'll fix this up. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 10:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Gully cures Darwin claims/inferences

Any claims, or implied claims, that Gully's treatment, whether it was the water cure or homeopathy, in some way helped Darwin will be removed unless it is backed up by good sources. Good sources include a quote from Darwin saying something like "Those treatments really helped me". Dana's additions are again in violation of WP:SYN. Darwin did not attribute his improvement to the treatments given, we can not infer anything from the fact he writes that he feels better later. He also feels worse after that, and he is specific in ridiculing the treatments. Hence I will revert and do so without any peril. Please discuss contentious edits here first. --88.172.132.94 (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. In addition, at best, if Darwin improved after these treatments, this is still no evidence in favor of Gully's methods. Any scientist knows that larger samples controlled for biases (rater bias, placebo effect, etc) are necessary to show whether a treatment is effective (or more effective than an alternative treatment). The only value for this article of the Darwin story would therefore be purely anecdotal. (And lest someone wants to interpret this remark as anti-homeopathy, let me emphasize that the foregoing applies to mainstream medicine, too). --Crusio (talk) 20:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This page is not for discussing what homeopathy is or what evidence there is about its efficacy. This page is devoted to the life and work of Gully. Actually, I have followed 88's advice precisely. You asked me to quote Darwin saying that he got better from the treatments that he was given, and I have done so. My edits were direct references to Darwin's letter, just as the information above it was links to his letters. You do not seem to have antipathy towards those statements, and thus, you are showing strong POV. Please note that Darwin has clearly asserted that this improvement, 6 weeks after arrival at Gully's clinic, was more than twice as long as any improvement that he had had in the past year. Please also note that I did not attribute this improvement to only homeopathic treatment but to the treatment that he received from Gully. Darwin is very appreciative of Gully, and if you want, I can give reference to the numerous times that he went back to receive his care. In fact, according to numerous biographies, Darwin had little respect for medical doctors, except Gully. I suggest that you pull away from editing subjects dealing with homeopathy due to your strong prejudice against it. Consider getting an admin to mentor you because it seems that your strong POV-pushing is over-the-top. It is not enough to just get your fellow anti-homeopathic friends to add their comments and have them explain why Darwin's letters in which he comments on his skepticism of homeopathy are OK, and yet, his letters on his significant improvement at 8 days after treatment and after 6 weeks after treatment are not OK. You cannot have it both ways, despite your pushing to make it so. Once again, stop making homeopathy the issue. The issue here is that Gully's treatments (water-cure and homeopathic medicines) led to improvements in Darwin's health that he himself has acknowledged...and my references to Darwin's letters confirm this.Dana Ullman ^Talk 22:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

As I read Darwin's letters, it seems evident to me that 1/ He clearly credits Gully for his improved condition, 2/ He attributes this completely to the water cure, and 3/ he doesn't believe that Gully's homeopathic treatments help him at all. It would seem to me that neither of the two contested versions describe these facts correctly. Danaullman's version suggests that Darwin was helped by the homeopathic treatments that Gully gave him, whereas 88.172.132.94's version states that Darwin was not helped at all by Gully. I strongly recommend that you two stop this edit war and try to come to a mutually acceptable compromise. As for the accusations flying around, please assume good faith. --Crusio (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Crusio...I agree. Darwin does give Gully credit. Thanx for acknowledging this. Now, we simply have to acknowledge what Gully's treatment of Darwin was. I did not write that Darwin believed that homeopathy helped him, nor have I ever written that Darwin "advocated" for homeopathy. Instead, I acknowledged that Darwin was skeptical of homeopathy. I also wrote quite objectively that Gully's treatments (water-cure and homeopathy, which were the two treatments that Gully was KNOWN to provide Darwin) had a very positive effect (no one knows which treatment had the beneficial effect, and that is why it is important to acknowledge that Darwin was given water-cure AND homeopathy; one or both of these treatments helped him). I provided links to Darwin's letters about this. A further fact to consider is that Darwin experienced a skin rash 8 days after treatment began. These skin symptoms, in particulary, often called an "aggravation of symptoms" or a "healing crisis," is entirely consistent with homeopathic experiences and treatments (it is considered an externalization of the disease). Someone wrote that Darwin stopped going to Gully's clinic in 1852, but s/he didn't reference this. In fact, it is unreference-able because it is not true. Darwin even went to the Malvern clinic in the late 1850s after Gully retired and was treated by Dr. James Smith Ayerst, another medical doctor who specialized in homeopathy. Should I reference this? Perhaps someone who has not edited here can synthesize a mutually agreed upon summary. I'm open. Dana Ullman ^Talk 01:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Gully personal friend of Darwin?

I am not sure whether I agree with Daneel that "my beloved Dr. Gully" shows that Gully was a personal friend of Darwin. I could imagine someone who is being helped by a hysician saying something like that, without a more close personal relationship existing. So I still feel that a reference is needed for this statement. If it is founded only on "my beloved", then the statement could be deleted, as "my beloved" is already quoted in the article. --Crusio (talk) 09:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

How about removing the brackets, and saying "for whom he had a great personal respect". I don't really see the personal friend to be contentious though, Darwin writes of him fondly and that phrase is used in the external review of Dana's book. The only external criticism of this phrase I know of is from Dana Ullman (on his website), where he says that calling him a friend is somehow a criticism of homeopathy. --RDOlivaw (talk) 11:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right and that is acceptable. However, I feel that the article is becoming a bit unbalanced. It's supposed to be about Gully, but half of the section on his career is about Darwin who, after all, was only one of many patients. --Crusio (talk) 12:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I think the point of this section should be to show what Darwin had written of Gully, and not to turn into a debate on whether Darwin took or benefited from homeopathy. I think this point was mentioned previously. --RDOlivaw (talk) 13:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

No one has provided evidence that Gully and Darwin were "friends." Instead, Darwin simply had a lot of respect for Gully. Because Darwin generally had quite negative comments to say about most physicians, his respect for Gully is notable. I am compelled to delete any reference to the "friendship" between the two, unless and until some substantiation is provided. Dana Ullman ^Talk 00:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey REOlivaw...there is simply no evidence that Darwin and Gully were friends. I do not consider anyone's ficticious statement that they were friends to be any type of "criticism" of homeopathy; I simply consider it a myth. Wiki is not for myths. If I'm wrong and if you have evidence of their friendship, please show it. I'm open. You also just restored the statement that Darwin stopped going to Malvern in 1852, but despite my request for a reference to this fact, you chose to not provide one. Maybe you missed my comment (that happens)...but can you do so now? That said, I will soon provide a reference that Darwin went back to Malvern in the late 1850s when Dr. Ayerst (a homeopathic physician) took over Gully's practice there. Please know that I am a reasonable man, but we all just want good references for whatever anyone says. Dana Ullman ^Talk 14:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

New reference

I think most of the fact tags can be replaced by references to the following publication found by RDOliver. However, I've had a go at using the ref tag and putting it in, but it seems to appear twice whereas I'd like it to behave properly. Can anyone fix it/point me to the place where it says how to do this? Thanks. Ref included here: --88.172.132.94 (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

References

Request for comment

There is a content dispute regarding letters written by Darwin regarding his views of homeopathy both before, during and after receiving said treatment in connection with other treatment at Gully's clinic. Early letters express skepticism of homeopathy. Letters during Darwin's treatment at Gully's clinic express Darwin's belief that the treatments (of which he received both homeopathic and water treatment) seemed to be improving his health more than he has previously experienced. Also, Darwin refers to Gully as "my beloved Dr. Gully". It is debated here whether that justifies a claim of "personal friendship". The main questions are: Are some of these letters more relevant for inclusion than others? Does including only early letters of skepticism violate NPOV? Does inclusion of all letters place undue weight on one of many patients treated by Gully? It may be necessary for an uninvolved party to assist in drafting a compromise here. Lara❤Love 15:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

We cannot claim that the homeopathy helped, only that Darwin believed the water cure to help him. However, Darwin eventually stopped taking the cure regularly as he realised it wasn't really helping. His views on homeopathy didn't change before or after, and it is only relevant here in that he mocked James Gully. Darwin took the water-cure and homeopathy, ridiculed Gully and homeopathy, and initially believed the water cure to help his condition, but eventually decided it only relieved the possible psychosomatic symptomatology. Any debate as to whether homeopathy (or the water cure) helped Darwin long term should be had on the water cure page, the homeopathy page, and the Darwin and Darwin's illness page as it is not relevant here. Only Darwin's views of Gully and his treatments are relevant. The letters are good sources for Darwin's opinions, but not good sources for whether or not Gully cured him (either by homeopathy or the water cure). The fact that weight scientific evidence shows that homeopathy doesn't work, and that the water cure only makes you feel better, are also relevant - unless there is absolute proof we cannot go against these (but this is a separate issue). --RDOlivaw (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

What do the verifiable reliable sources say. That's what Wikipedia says. It is WP:OR to make "personal friendship" from a 1st party source. There needs to be a third party source stating that they were personal friends. Likewise there needs to be third party sources stating that Gully's cures were effective if it is to be included in this article. FWIW it seems that Gully is only notable as he treated Darwin. So that's what the article should reflect IMO. Shot info (talk) 23:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Surely if Darwin had written "my good friend James Gully" that would not be OR, even though it is a primary source. However, I do not know of any such sentence and I agree with what you say. --RDOlivaw (talk) 12:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No one ever wrote here that "homeopathy helped Darwin." What was written was that after Gully's treatments, which included water-cure and homeopathic medicines, Darwin began to feel considerably better. This is NPOV fact. My edit was: Despite Darwin's skepticism of homeopathy, the results of Dr. Gully's care, which included water-cure and homeopathic treatments, were significant, even within eight days. Even though Darwin had over 12 years of persistent nausea and vomiting, heart palpitations, and severe boils, and two years of fainting spells and spots before his eyes, Darwin experienced such great relief that he wrote, "I am turning into a mere eating and walking machine." He also wrote here, "I now increase in weight, have escaped sickness for 30 days, which is thrice as long an interval, as I have had for last year." I felt that it was important to include this last quote and reference because some people had asserted that Darwin's symptoms had ebbs and flows, and this quote shows that THIS improvement was considerably longer than any other improvement that he had had in the past year. If Darwin's first person statement are not enough, I can reference his wife's statements about her appreciation for Gully's care. Also, some people here are asserting that Darwin's illness was "psychosomatic." Although stress may have aggravated some of his symptoms sometimes, this doesn't make his entire illness "psychosomatic." Darwin initially became ill in South America, far away from the pressures of the stress of English life. Dana Ullman ^Talk 13:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, with regards to the first statement - it is WP:SYN to make this "Despite Darwin's skepticism of homeopathy, the results of Dr. Gully's care, which included water-cure and homeopathic treatments, were significant, even within eight days" as you are using two facts and drawing a conclusion. It is better to have a third party source which states the two. As for the other quotes, again, Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Feel free to quote the reliable source that says all this rather than pulling together Darwin's quotes, a variety of facts and then drawing the conclusion of this research in this article. If Gully was notable, there should be plenty of reliable sources out there (and what is a reliable source?). Shot info (talk) 03:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Quite apart from the fact that stress-induced illnesses are really not psychosomatic in my eyes, and that it is difficult to know whether or not Darwin experienced stress while in South America, it would appear that it is hard or even impossible to establish the nature and causes of Darwin's illness today. Similarly, it is near impossible to establish whether or not Gully's treatments contributed to Darwin's health improvements and even if we could, it would be impossible to say whether it was the water cure, the homeopathy, or some combination of the two. The only facts that we have is what Darwin and his wife wrote about Gully and what they believed Gully's treatments accomplished or did not accomplish. Anything else is pure conjecture and speculation. --Crusio (talk) 14:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur about the article, and add a comment of my own that psychosomatic symptomatology does not mean the illness was psychosomatic, and as a more general comment that psychosomatic illnesses are real illnesses --RDOlivaw (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No one knows from which disease Darwin suffered. However, we do know that he got considerably better shortly after Dr. Gully provided water-cure and homeopathic treatment. This is fact and is directly linked to Darwin's writings. Darwin's letters are not conjecture; they are a description of his experience, and we should describe the results of treatment. I don't mind saying that Darwin considered the results to be significant, though no one knows if water-cure, homeopathy, or the combination of the two were the primary reasons for these positive results. What isn't a fact is whether he had a "psychosomatic" illness or not, and although the link provided is broken, it is still simply conjecture. As for Darwin's use of water-cure, he went back to Gully's Malvern Clinic and to Ilky Wells water-cure and Moor Park water-cure center. It would help if people who choose to edit here do more homework before doing further editing. We need better scholarship. Dana Ullman ^Talk 03:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Dana, Wikipedia doesn't do "scholarship". I encourage you to review WP:OR by what is allowed in Wikipedia. Your above statement, while it may be the truth and even correct, is largely a matter of original research. If you are drawing the conclusions from a reliable source, by all means put them into the article, however they are being drawn from a variety of primary sources and the research is being performed here - which according to Wikipedia's policys is forbidden. The research side of things really needs to be performed outside of Wikipedia and published in reliable sources. We then write an article based around this. Shot info (talk) 05:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

In due respect, I have reviewed WP:OR, and my references/links are not "original research" or "unpublished materials." My references and links to Darwin's letters (which have been published and which also have been summarized by many authors)...and this is not simply "my" research. Further, my sources are verifiable AND reliable (no one has yet to doubt them for this). I'm not clear what you're trying to say other than POV pushing and promoting of inaccurate information (such as the incorrect assertion that Darwin stopped going to Malvern or other water-cure places in 1852...that is plain-ole-wrong. If you wish to assert it, provide the evidence. Dana Ullman ^Talk 05:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You really do need to read WP:OR again - particularly the sections on primary sources. The sources that you need to supply are not that "Darwin said this or that" but the inferences what Darwin meant by "saying this or that" which are your actual edits. This is the core of original research. By all means, add in the reliable sources that has clearly articulates that "Darwin meant this or that" but pulling that from several primary sources is sythesis - or rather original research. BTW, please don't mischaracter my comments as POV pushing (etc) particularly when you say that you are unclear what I am trying to say. If you are unclear please ask. This is what Wikipedia is all about. Prehaps you need to review what Wikipedia is not about to help clarify why you are having problems with other editors. Contrary to your opinion, most editors follow policy and policy trumps others claims of "POV". Shot info (talk) 12:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

References

Dana's Synthesis

The line, added by Dana, shown below, makes an implication of cure, is synthesis, and also not very relevant to the JMG article. What Darwin thought about Gully is relevant, this sentence isn't. It is also poorly worded, incorrect in fact (Darwin's scholars?), and ungrammatical (which is also ungrammatical).

Despite Darwin's skepticism of Dr. Gully's hydrotherapy and homeopathic treatments, Darwin's scholars, Adrian Desmond and James Moore assert, "His sickness subsided, the tremors vanished, his strength returned, and he put on weight".[8] --RDOlivaw (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

When I previously linked to Darwin's letters, you called this "synthesis." When I quote scholars of Darwin who have written one of the leading biographies of the man, you say that THIS is synthesis. In this latter case, I am simply saying what Darwin scholars are saying (there is no synthesis involved). Below is a better version of what I am proposing:

Despite Darwin's skepticism of Dr. Gully's hydrotherapy and homeopathic treatments, Darwin scholars, Adrian Desmond and James Moore, asserted that shortly after Darwin began Gully's care, "His sickness subsided, the tremors vanished, his strength returned, and he put on weight".[8] Dana Ullman ^Talk 22:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

They're both synthesis to claim or imply that Gully had anything to do with it. Also, they're using the same sources you do. We and they have no evidence that Gully effected a cure by any means. There could be a million reasons why Darwin felt better, and unless we have a source where Darwin says or implies Gully helped, it's irrelevant - especially to this article. Also note that still while under "the regime" he got worse... and then better again... and then worse... As if it had no overall effect. Have a look at the Darwin's illness page. Hope that helps. --88.172.132.94 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

In due respect, 88, I never said that Darwin was "cured" by homeopathy or by water-cure or by anything. Only YOU and select other skeptics have used that word (I realize the irony here, but this is part of the POV-pushing that is evident from you...sad, but true). I simply reported that Darwin said 8 days after treatment began and a month after treatment began...and further, I quoted that Darwin scholars have said about this as well. Darwin's precise words one month after arriving at Gully's clinic were: "I now increase in weight, have escaped sickness for 30 days, which is thrice as long an interval, as I have had for last year; & yesterday in 4 walks I managed seven miles! I am turned into a mere walking & eating machine." [1] Perhaps we can say that these results were either the results of Gully's treatments or just a very unusual coincidence. Either way, the changes in Darwin's health IS significant and notable, especially in the light of the fact that he was previously so ill that he couldn't attend his own father's funeral...AND he could not work 1 day in every 3. This is notable and verified. Dana Ullman ^Talk 23:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This does not appear to be synthesis, it is a recitation of verifiable facts backed by reliable sources, any synthesis which takes place is in the mind of the reader and is not performed by the writer. —Whig (talk) 23:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Whig, you really need to read up on Primary Sources in WP:OR. Shot info (talk) 23:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

How is this synthesis. I know practically nothing about Homeopathy or Gully or Newton. But I can't imagine a more NPOV statement. What this tells me is that man was ill, he received treatment that he was skeptical of and didn't particularly care to go through, but he did. He saw early results that impressed him, however he was not cured. Throw in that sentence from a previous version about how he later decided it only treated symptoms or whatever and it clearly explains the sequence of events and what happened, as documented in the letters of the man himself. It does not promote Homeopathy, in fact, in my opinion, it doesn't shed it in a particularly good light. So I don't see what the opposition is. The addition needs a copy-edit, but it should not have been reverted. Lara❤Love 16:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this relevant to an article on Gully? --88.172.132.94 (talk) 16:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Lara that this disputed section does not promote Homeopathy, and that it doesn't portray it positively.

• I also don't see what the opposition is.
• Yes this information is relevant to an article on Gully. Arion 3x3 (talk) 16:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

What does it have to do with Gully? We have Darwin's quotes about Gully, and the fact he took the treatment for 5 or so years, then stopped it (and why). There is enough info about Darwin in here --88.172.132.94 (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact that Darwin was one of Gully's most famous patients, the story about Darwin IS notable. Dana Ullman ^Talk 18:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm I incorrect in my observation that Gully is only notable because of his notable patients? If so, then I agree that this addition warrants inclusion. It gives further detail about Gully's treatments, how they were perceived, the affects they appeared to have and the patients subsequent opinion on the treatment. It's neutral, comprehensive and well-sourced. Perhaps the proposed addition can be added below and possible changes or improvements discussed. Lara❤Love 21:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanx LaraLove...as an admin, you are more experienced than me (and probably many others here). I appreciate your confirmation that there is no WP:SYN in my edits here and that they are notable. I have found that some editors insist that I use Darwin's words only and not make "synthesis," and yet, when I only quote Darwin's precise words, they still call "synthesis" or don't consider Darwin notable. There is a tad bit of irony here that these "defenders of science" don't consider Darwin notable, especially in the light of the fact that most Darwin biographers mention Gully. My info was undone again by 88. He doesn't seem to listen to me or to you. What can be done here? Dana Ullman ^Talk 03:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dana. The implications you make from Darwin's words are the synthesis, and the implication you made from the secondary source you used (that use the same words by Darwin) are also synthesis. However, the "meat" of your inclusions are included - with out your editorialising, implications, and what you term "POV pushing". Lara's edits are usually good, but she is not an expert in this area, and your view of her as some kind of authority is contrary to wikipedia policy and also I'm sure her view of herself on the wiki. I'm also sorry our discussion on your talk page has been hijacked, but maybe we can continue it now? The article contains the information you wanted included now. Thanks --88.172.132.94 (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Career section

This section needs expanding urgently. There is enough information in the ref we already have to write more about Gully (not Darwin). Suggestion: Move beliefs and causes section into Career? --88.172.132.94 (talk) 10:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Charles Darwin's illness

Hey 88, we've made some significant progress on this article. Fab. You wrote that Darwin stopped seeking Gully's care in 1852 that the Gully's treatment only had temporary effects. While this may have been true about his nausea and vomiting, I have never found that after Gully's treatment that Darwin suffered from several serious symptoms from which he had experienced prior to Gully's care, including fainting spells, spots before his eyes, heart palpitations, and severe boils. Any comment here before I add this to the mix? Dana Ullman ^Talk 17:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes I have a comment: please don't add this. Go and add it (after discussion) to Darwin's illness page if you like. Absence of evidence doesn't equate to evidence of absence, as you've said before. And I'm sure his symptoms continued throughout his life, as can be easily verified by looking at the many sources on the Darwin's illness page. Also, wikipedia is not the place for original research ("I have never found"), which is what you are proposing to add. There is already more than enough about Darwin in here. Expand the Career section if you want to improve the article, with information about Gully. The additions you are proposing are OR and SYN. --88.172.132.94 (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I should not (or would I) say that "I have not found...." Of course...while Darwin did write numerous times throughout his life that he continued to have his digestive problems, but Darwin did say that "Gully did me MUCH good" and it can be noted that Darwin never again complained about fainting spells and spots before his eyes after Gully's treatment of him. Dana Ullman ^Talk 00:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No you can't say that,as it isn't true and can be verified by looking at the numerous sources on Darwin' illness page --88.172.132.94 (talk)this

By the way, the reason why the other quote from Gully about his use of water-cure AND homeopathy is notable is because Gully used BOTH of these treatments, and it is notable that he felt that they worked well together. In fact, that is a significant statement. Dana Ullman ^Talk 00:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

We say he used both, and have reference to him using homeopathy in addition to water cure. The extra quote adds nothing, except getting more mentions of homeopathy into the article which seems to be one of your goals. You do realise that the "water-cure" has been debunked as anything other than relaxation therapy an placebo? I wont mention homeopathy.... --88.172.132.94 (talk) 10:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Then again, we can hardly regard Gully's 1856 book as a particularly authoritative source for information about homoeopathy since, in the same footnote as the comment about homoeopaths' observations of the Water Cure increasing the effectiveness of homoeopathy, he says of homoeopathy, "But I speak of the whole subject with diffidence, my experience being as yet limited." Brunton (talk) 12:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It has been verified that Gully was a member of the British Homoeopathic Society in 1848. Due to the depth and breadth of homeopathic materia medica, it is common for homeopaths to be humbled by their own limited experience during the first 20 or so year of their practice, especially in the light of their colleauges, many of whom have practices for 20, 30, and more years. The reason that the quote about homeopathy AND water-cure is notable is that Gully asserted that they work well together. Please explain why THIS isn't notable, or I will assume that your undo-ing is vandalism. Dana Ullman ^Talk 19:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Membership of the British Homoeopathic Society doesn't seem to have been restricted to medical practitioners; the Liga Medicorum Homeopathica Internationalis website describes it as "a lay/medical society to collect the necessary funds" to found a hospital which opened in 1850. Gully's "diffidence" wasn't in expressing an opinion about the minutiae or scope of the materia medica; it was in expressing an opinion on the whether homoeopathy should be used in the treatment of chronic conditions - the subject matter of his book. Brunton (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Brunton, you're mixing up modern info about the LIGA with 1850 info about the British Homoeopathic Society, which was the professional organization of practicing homeopaths. Learning to use homeopathic medicines for chronic illness requires a significantly greater amount of experience in homeopathy than the treatment of acute illnesses. The bottomline is that it IS notable that Gully felt that homeopathy and water-cure seemed to work well together. Thanx for your support for that notability. Dana Ullman ^Talk 20:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The information is from the Liga website, but is about the BHS. Brunton (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. He WAS a member of this organization. Darwin noted that Gully prescribed homeopathic medicines to him. I'm not clear what your point is, but it is clear that Gully utilized water-cure AND homeopathy and that he felt that they worked well together, despite some people's efforts to delete this quote directly from Gully. Dana Ullman ^Talk 14:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

"Whatever" indeed. If the BHS wasn't a professional organisation then, then I am worried about it's inclusion in this article without further exposition? --RDOlivaw (talk) 14:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if this is somewhat off-topic, but it relates to material that another editor is attempting to include in the article. "In late 1838 [sic: actually it was in 1848], Charles Darwin was so ill that he could not attend his own father's funeral". It is not entirely clear that this is actually the case. According to Janet Browne's Charles Darwin: Voyaging, while he missed the funeral he was not to ill to travel. According to a letter written by Erasmus Darwin at the time, "Charles did not arrive till too late". He missed the departure of the funeral cortege from the house, and therefore remained there with his sister Marianne Parker who was too upset to attend the funeral. Darwin had been delayed at Down waiting for his wife to return from a visit to her sister, and had passed through his brother's house in London the day before the funeral. Browne writes, "later on, Darwin stated that it was his ill-health that had prevented him from attending, in the sense of delaying his journey" (my emphasis). It is something of an exaggeration to say that he was too ill to attend the funeral. He was certainly well enough, before starting Gully's treatment, to travel to Malvern.

Regarding the suggestion that Darwin's recovery under Gully's treatment was miraculous and unprecedented, his condition seems to have gone through cycles. There were other occasions when Darwin felt too ill to work. In 1840 (again from Browne), for example, he felt so ill that he attempted to resign from the position of secretary of the Geological Society on grounds of ill health, but they changed the rules so that he didn't need to attend the meetings. He stopped work and traveled to his father's house in Shrewsbury, where under reassurance that he would get better, and orders to rest and take "as much calomel as he wanted" he soon improved. After a week he felt well enough to return to London and accept an offer to join the council of the Royal Geographical Society. Brunton (talk) 09:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Will try to get the Darwin section into order shortly, his experiences along with Annie in 1851 and his treatment in 1863 are significant. It should be noted that he had a return to severe illness and a similarly "miraculous" recovery when he resumed water treatment in 1857. .. dave souza, talk 13:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The same material has been added to the article again, evidently with no reference to this talk page (otherwise it might at least have the correct year for Dr. Darwin's death). It's altready been reverted twice - is another revert appropriate/permitted? Brunton (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

As said above, I've researched Darwin's treatment by Dr. Gully, using books by biographers of high repute, and have shown the sequence and context of the treatment. . . dave souza, talk 22:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems to tally with what I remember from Vol 1 of Browne - haven't got around to reading Vol 2 yet. Brunton (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it's largely based on her books which I'm informed are the best biographies now, together with some points from Desmond & Moore. .. dave souza, talk 00:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Gully's use of homeopathy AND water-cure

One of Dr. Gully's unique contributions to medicine and healing is that he recommended the COMBINED use of water-cure and homeopathic treatment. This is notable, and the reference to a quote from Gully is important. An editor frequently deletes this quote. Can I get feedback on whether this notable and verifiable fact should or shouldn't be here? Dana Ullman ^Talk 14:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

That he used both is in the article. The quote is incomplete and doesn't add anything to the article. --RDOlivaw (talk) 14:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Friends, instead of UNDOING each other, let's make an effort to talk here. Although the present article makes it clear that Gully specialized in water-cure, he used homeopathic medicines. Where does it say that Gully felt that using both of these therapies together provided a special benefit that was beyond what each provided? Below is the quote that I thought was notable. Perhaps it was my introduction to the quote that didn't work for some people here. If so, what is a better introduction to this notable quote?

Gully wrote about his observations of his fellow homeopaths and his own experiences with the synergistic treatment benefits of homeopathy and water-cure, “Homeopathic practitioners have observed that patients under the water cure are more susceptible to the action of their remedies than other persons, and that therefore the results may be more accurately calculated. I have found this assertion to be substantially correct; and it confirms the vivifying influence of the water cure over the bodily functions” (page 48)(this reference to the page # is to the same reference to Gully's book that is mentioned in the article. Dana Ullman ^Talk 03:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Where's the bit where he says he doesn't know enough to draw conclusions that was mentioned earlier? --DrEightyEight (talk) 09:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh here it is, in the same footnote: "But I speak of the whole subject with diffidence, my experience being as yet limited." Easy to miss --DrEightyEight (talk) 09:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you've provided the accurate quote, though your editorializing (WP:SYN) is not correct. Where does he say that he doesn't know enough to draw conclusions? The point of the quote that I provided was what he said was the experience of homeopaths, and because he was a member of the leading homeopathic organization and wrote about homeopathy in his famous book, the quote that I provided is notable. My first homeopath practiced for 70 years, and at 95 years of age, he flew to Greece to study with a homeopathic colleague. Now, let's stay on topic: where in this article does it say that Gully not only used water-cure and homeopathy, but he also felt that they worked well TOGETHER? Curious minds want to know. Dana Ullman ^Talk 17:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah so you finally understand WP:SYN? You have made progress! However, maybe I speak to soon. I suggest you read the quote again, after looking up "diffidence," and note he says his experience is limited. And also note he talks of others, not himself, in making this statement - it may not be his belief at all. And maybe you should read the article; it says he uses homeopathy and water-cure, adding references to his book (didn't you write that bit?) Is "My first homeopath" your next book title? The rest of that sentence is unreadable. You also haven't shown notability, you've only asserted it. Also, please assume good faith (as you've recently been reminded). My question was genuine, and then I quickly found and posted the answer. Why would he use them together if he thought that it was detrimental to either? Lastly, some general, constructive, advice: a course on critical writing would be of huge benefit to you. How are your studies of dilutions coming along? --DrEightyEight (talk) 20:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

One cannot necessarily assume that two treatment modalities are synergistic, but in THIS case, Gully says that it is. In 1856 when Gully wrote this statement, he had been a member of the British Homoeopathic Society since 1847. While it is not perfectly clear if he includes himself in the category of homeopath (despite the previously mentioned fact), at the very least, perhaps we should say: Gully asserts that the experience of homeopaths are that water-cure and homeopathic treatment have a beneficially syneristic effect (then, we give the quote). Does THAT work? The reference to "my first homeopath" was a reference to the fact that virtually all homeopaths feel that their experience is limited...and more education is necessary (thus, this is why after practicing homeopathy for 70 years, he sought to learn more from a homeopathic colleague). Dana Ullman ^Talk 23:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Is Gully's comment about the use of hydropathy and homoeopathy together really notable? Gully himself doesn't seem to have thought it important enough to include in the main text of his book on the Water Cure: all the quotations relating to it cited so far seem to be from a single footnote. Perhaps this is because of Gully's lack of experience with homoeopathy, also mentioned in the same footnote. Brunton (talk) 23:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

And, irrespective of whether Gully thought this important, is his comment that "homeopathic practitioners have observed that patients under the water cure are more susceptible to the action of their remedies than other persons, and that therefore the results may be more accurately calculated" particularly notable in the context of, for example, current practice in homoeopathy? Are there modern homoeopaths who subject their patients to Gully's Water Cure regime in order to make them more susceptible to homoeopathic remedies? Is this really an important observation of Gully's? Brunton (talk) 23:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This material has been reintroduced to the article twice now without further discussion here. We don't seem to have consensus on whether this should be included (I didn't make either of the reverts, so at least one other editor must have misgivings about it). Before this is added again we need consensus on whether this is really an important discovery of Gully's. Is there any evidence that current homoeopaths (or even those contemporary with Gully) have used hydropathic regimes as a means of increasing the effectiveness of homoeopathy? Did any of Gully's contemporaries feel it worth writing about this? If not, then this does not appear to be a notable discovery. Gully himself doesn't seem to have thought it worth more than a brief mention in a footnote to a book about his "Water Cure". If he didn't feel it worth reporting this more extensively because the homoeopaths of whom he wrote in the footnote had already published their findings about the synergistic effects of homoeopathy and hydropathy in a more prominent manner, perhaps it would be better mentioned in articles about them. Brunton (talk) 09:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree it should be better cited; just saying page 48 tells us nothing. What book does that quote come from? Unless that can be improved then maybe it should stay deleted. Peter morrell 12:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It's from a footnote to the 5th (1856) edition of Gully's The Water Cure in Chronic Disease[2], found on pp. 47-48. If this is included, it's probably giving undue weight to something that Gully only seems to have thought warranted consideration in a brief mention in a footnote, in which he seems unwilling to come to any firm conclusions as to the capabilities of homoeopathy because of his "experience being as yet limited". Brunton (talk) 13:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If it's such a minor point then it can stay deleted, yes? Peter morrell 13:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Brunton (talk) 13:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It has once more been put back into the article without any reference to this discussion. Brunton (talk) 18:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed it again, as the reasons for leaving it out are good. If DanaU adds it in again maybe action should be taken? This does fall under the probation, after all. --77.251.112.201 (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Undue

From a quick look at Browne's Charles Darwin, Voyaging it's clear that Gully's treatment of Darwin included various water treatments, exercise, diet and a regime of early rising etc. . She discusses the treatments and their success before mentioning homeopathy in the context of Darwin being ribbed by his friends – "Grudgingly Darwin conceded that Gully's penchant for fashionable clients and his weakness for homeopathy and mesmerism put him at the cranky end of medicine." It'll be appropriate to describe the sorts of treatments used by Gully, including clairvoyance, and avoid the undue weight currently being put on homeopathy. I'll try to summarise the treatments shortly. ... dave souza, talk 23:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

One of the common experiences of homeopathic patients is called a "healing crisis," that is, a worsening of skin symptoms or an externalization of symptoms or a re-experience of old symptoms prior to an improvement (commonly referred in virutally every book on homeopathic methodology to a "Hering's law of cure", named after the Father of American Homeopathy Constantine Hering, MD. You might want to mention that Darwin experienced a skin rash within the first 8 days of treatment.[ http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwinletters/calendar/entry-1236.html] This type of skin rash is not a typical result of waking early or of dietary changes described. Although one cannot be certain if this was from homeopathic treatment or any of the other treatment (or just the idiosyncratic ebb and flow of symptoms), however, the concurrent improvement in internal symptoms with the emergence of external symptoms is a unique and common result of homeopathic treatment. By the way, Gully did not do clairvoyance diagnostics himself; it was conducted by someone else, and this was of the diagnostic sort, not a treatment modality. There's a funny/sad story in the history about Darwin's skepticism of clairvoyance which you may find. Dana Ullman ^Talk 00:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This page is about Gully, not Darwin. Can you please stop trying to crowbar support for your awful book into wikipedia articles --DrEightyEight (talk) 08:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, just shows the importance of referring to a respected historian and biographer, such as Browne, rather than original research using primary sources. However, the Darwin correspondence already cited does have some useful detail backing Browne's assessment. Letter 1234 — Darwin, C. R. to Darwin, S. E., [19 Mar 1849] describes the treatments, exercise and diet (and stopping snuff) and also has footnotes citing Gully. In relation to the discussion above, f5 is of interest: "Gully was strongly against the administration of medical drugs for chronic disorders (Gully 1846, p. 513 n.) and cautious in his use of homoeopathic remedies: ‘although I might be induced to try to subdue a passing but troublesome symptom, I could not trust to remove the essential nature of a chronic malady by homœopathic means’ (Gully 1846, p. 83 n.)." [italics as in original] ... dave souza, talk 09:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Quammen's The Kiwi’s Egg: Charles Darwin and Natural Selection suggests that the skin rash Dana is claiming as a "healing crisis" was actually caused by the repeated scrubbings that were also part of Gully's hydropathic regime. Brunton (talk) 10:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Dr88, Despite all of the recent warning about problems editing the homeopathy pages and the atmosphere here, you'd think that you would choose to be more dignified. Can we try that? Can you also avoid editorializing about my book? That said, thank you for mentioning it again. To clarify, I'm not trying to "crowbar" anything. My proposed edits are reasonable, verified, and are well-sourced. Darwin was one of Gully's most famous patients, and his story is a fascinating one and very notable.

As for Darwin's skin problem shortly after treatment began, Darwin had a different opinion about his skin symptoms. First, despite many visits to water-cure establishments, he didn't get skin rashes from this treatment. On March 5, 1863, Darwin wrote a letter to J. D. Hooker (a botanist), noting: “A good severe fit of Eczema would do me good, and I have a touch this morning & consequently feel a little alive” (Burkhardt, 1985, XI, 200). On this same day, he wrote his cousin W. Darwin Fox: “I am having an attack of Eczema on my face, which does me as much good as Gout does others” (Burkhardt, 1985, XI, 255).

What is interesting here is that Darwin was either taught or learned from his own experience a common observation in homeopathy: that symptoms on the skin or in the extremities (the symptoms of gout manifest in the big toe) are important externalizations of the disease process that should not be suppressed through conventional drugs. Because homeopaths and other advocates of natural medicine recognize the “wisdom of the body,” symptoms, even acute and painful ones, are ways that the body is working to push out and externalize internal pathology. Dana Ullman ^Talk 02:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This is all irrelevant, Dana. You're talking about Darwin again when the page is about Gully. We have a V and RS that says Darwin didn't experience a "healing crisis". My comment regarding your book is based on my reading of the material related on your website, and reading reviews of your book. It is also about the off-wiki Dana Ullman. Your opinions and OR, especially those about Darwin, are not relevant to this page --DrEightyEight (talk) 07:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Or perhaps Darwin was merely employing irony, as he did in other private correspondence. Brunton (talk) 13:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

See, for example, letter 489 on the Darwin Correspondence Project website, in which he wrote "I want practice in illtreating the female sex.— I did not observe Lyell had any compunction: I hope to harden my conscience in time: few husbands seem to find it difficult to effect this." Brunton (talk) 00:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It also appears that the idea of a "healing crisis" was not unique to homoeopathy (what sort of effects do you think "heroic medicine" had?), but was a fairly common idea in medical thinking of the 18th and early 19th century, when Darwin's own father was a practising doctor. The symptoms of gout in particular were regarded as protecting patients from other more serious conditions, to the extent that patients were often congratulated on their first attack, since it was associated with long life (and good breeding). See Roberta Bivens: Alternative Medicine: a history, OUP 2007, p. 49. Brunton (talk) 08:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Brunton...you are right...the concept of the "healing crisis" is not limited to homeopathy, but in homeopathy and natural medicine, a "healing crisis" refers to an "externalization" of symptoms (not just a random worsening of symptoms, as was commonly experienced by bloodletting, mercury pills, and other heroic treatments). Darwin specifically experienced a skin rash, which is a part of the homeopathic and naturopathic observation of externalization of symptoms. Darwin's experience with Gully IS notable, especially since most biographies of Darwin mention him. As for Gully's appreciation of other therapies, he was a member of the British Homeopathic Society. If Gully was a member of a parapsychological society, please reference this. If not, this is not as notable as is his affiliation with homeopathy. His membership provides veriable and notable references. DanaUllman^Talk 19:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Spiritualism etc

"As for Gully's appreciation of other therapies", Quammen, a work that you have cited elsewhere as supporting your claim that Darwin's biographers acknowledge that Gully was a homoeopath (so you presumably regard as a reliable source), gives mesmerism and clairvoyance almost as much prominence as homoeopathy. Other Darwin biographers also refer to Gully's belief in mesmerism and clairvoyance, as did Darwin himself. The reference for Gully's belief in spiritualism comes from the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, an authoritative source for biographical information on British figures, which says not only that he became "a fervent believer in spiritualism", but also acted as "friend and protector" to spiritualist medium Daniel Dunglas Home and edited a book called Drawings Descriptive of Spirit Life and Progress. By a Child Twelve Years of Age. Brunton (talk) 09:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That said, what is your point? It was typical of most intelligent people between about 1830-1920 to give credence to such things; see Arthur Conan Doyle as yet another example of a highly educated Brit who believe all sorts of 'weird stuff,' weird stuff by today's standards that is. Whatever Gully and Darwin subscribed to should be placed in the historical context of their times, NOT in a (pejorative?) context of modern times - get it? thanks Peter morrell 09:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

If we're going to include a section on Gully's beliefs, we should include beliefs that biographers feel notable enough to mention. The purpose of this article is not to fit Gully into the context of homoeopathy - we should include his other beliefs as well. Brunton (talk) 09:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, but you have still not answered my point. Nobody is suggesting a SECTION, it is you who have raised this issue about beliefs in your attempt to downplay his well-known homeopathic affiliations. Peter morrell 09:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

There already is a section headed "Beliefs and causes", which mentions his beliefs in the value of homoeopathic medicines, mesmerism, diagnostic clairvoyance, and spiritualism. Dana raised the issue above (19:24, 8 March 2008), and appears to be suggesting that the references to "other therapies", which he seems to regard as parapsychological, be removed as not sufficiently notable. Biographers of figures contemporary with Gully seem to think them notable enough to include. The article about Arthur Conan Doyle, by the way, includes far more discussion about spiritualist beliefs than does this article. Brunton (talk) 10:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. In which case maybe that sentence needs a short intro to say something like Typical of many figures of the day [add ref] Gully also believed in,etc. Do you think that plus a cite would be a good addition? Peter morrell 10:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Here [3] is an excellent source showing the link between spiritualism and somen's suffrage in the USA, and here [4] is a good UK example. I will suggest a wording later. Peter morrell 11:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

A belief in homoeopathy is also, perhaps, typical of many figures of the day. The ODNB for example, while it considers spiritualism notable enough to mention, makes no mention of homoeopathy. Brunton (talk) 12:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Which DNB are you referring to? the massive multi-volume tome or the concise? I have both and will check tomorrow in the full-size version. Homeopathy in Britain was by no means marginal in the 1850-70 period. Peter morrell 12:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The ODNB reference is to the full edition, published 2004, Vol 24 pp. 227-229. And I was wrong: it does say, after briefly describing his hydropathic regime, that he "later developed an interest in mesmerism and homoeopathy" (I think I missed it on a quick scan of the article because the word is split between two lines - I've found it on a more thorough read through).

I agree with most of the current version of the section as you have edited it, but I would take issue with the suggestion that women's suffrage is now regarded as a "fringe subject". If it isn't pursued much these days, it is simply because women now have the vote in most countries. Do you mind if I remove it from the sentence about "fringe subjects"? Brunton (talk) 14:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I see your point BUT both cites refer to women's suffrage and spiritualism, etc so it would damage the context and flow; maybe we need to think of an alternative word to 'fringe' rather than remove the term 'women's suffrage.' They certainly all were fringe at the time! What do you suggest? Peter morrell 15:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I change the word fringe to fashionable. Hope that helps, thanks Peter morrell 15:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That's better, but I still don't like the idea of lumping women's suffrage in with the others. I think we can stay with "fringe" and simply remove women's suffrage from that sentence: it is mentioned in the first paragraph of the section, so Gully's context as a supporter of women's suffrage is there. Either that or try to find sources for the prevalence of spiritualism etc. outside the context of the women's suffrage movement. Is this RS enough? It was the first hit in a search for 'victorian spiritualism', but there are plenty more to choose from. Brunton (talk) 15:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have rephrased it again, but feel free to tweak it further or add refs like that one you listed. Changed fasions to movements which I think is better. Peter morrell 15:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Naw that ref you gave is not a good source. However, here are some good ones we might use: William Leith, Spooked by Victorian Spiritualists, The Telegraph, 18 February 2007, [5]; Matthew Mulligan Goldstein, Theosophy and Madame Blavatsky, University of Texas, on The Victorian Web [6]; Peter Lamont, Spiritualism and a Mid-Victorian Crisis of Evidence, The Historical Journal (2004), 47: 897-920, Cambridge University Press [7]. I think we can add those anywhere we like in that section. thanks Peter morrell 18:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

References

Trimming Darwin section

The Darwin section, though well sourced and accurate, is about one paragraph too many I feel. I'm not suggesting removing any one paragraph, just refactoring them to be more consise. Suggestions welcome here. --88.84.144.193 (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

While the information was chosen for relevance to Gully and his treatment, It's my intention to cover much of it in modified form in the Charles Darwin's illness article. If consensus is that we keep the section here, it can be cropped back to focus more on Gully. .. dave souza, talk 22:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Virtually every bio on Darwin gives reference to Gully...and with good reason: this story is notable for many reasons. I like the idea of an article about Darwin's illness, but I do not think that the info here on Darwin/Gully should be shortened. I would prefer expanding this article. If I have the time, I would love to make reference to Gully's leading antagonist, Charles Hastings, a physician who later founded the British Medical Association. By the way, Orangemarlin chose to delete the entire section on Darwin, though Peter Morrell undid this vandalism (I define vandalism by large-scale changes in an article without discussion). I hope that editors who may even be skeptics of homeopathy may want to maintain notable information that may in part be pro-homeopathy (the bottomline here is that this info is not entirely pro-homeopathy) DanaUllman^Talk 05:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe that stuff should be moved to the Hastings bio? Peter morrell 08:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the Gully/Hastings drama has a place in both bios, and my new contributions to the Gully article provide a RS that is not OR (an anonymous editor suggested that this was OR, despite the RS reference, suggesting this editor's POV). DanaUllman^Talk 22:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

The second paragraph of the Hastings material should be removed. It uses poor, nonWP, language, and has nothing to do with the subject. The last part of the first para, "simply barbaric," should be removed also. Some more detail of what the criticisms were might be interesting, and Gully's responses if any. Can we try and do this without adding a massive editorial slant (unlike the current edit)?? Let's bring it here for discussion.--70.131.213.201 (talk) 08:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

 Not done I think an editprotected here is premature - plus I'm not sure exactly what bit you want removed. You've only got three days to wait until the protection expires anyway, so use that time to talk it through (which is exactly what you seem to be doing, so I applaud you for that), and then get on with writing what seems to be a generally good article when you can all chip in. Happy‑melon 19:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

<undent> I propose that the first paragraph regarding Charles Hastings be changed to:

Sir Charles Hastings, a physician and founder of the British Medical Association, was a forthright critic of hydropathy, and Dr Gully in particular. Sir Charles frequently wrote articles about the “dangers” of hydropathy ...

with the ... being replaced by references to these writings and perhaps an overview of his critique. The second paragraph adds little if anything (especially as the article is about Gully), and should be removed. I have removed the editorial critique of Sir Charles from the paragraph above also. To do: update the reference to the cite template. >>Partyoffive (talk) 15:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)<<

That's a reasonable approach, the current version looks like synthesis trying to make a pov case. .. dave souza, talk 18:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I have made this change, but left out the ... as we have no refs yet. >>Partyoffive (talk) 11:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)<<

There was a "false consensus" here (above) due to [Partyoffive] being found to be a sock, and 70.131.213.201 as a Tor exit. The reference to the journal article has already been established as RS, and this additional information provides additional depth to the lives of Gully and Hastings. DanaUllman^Talk 04:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

<undent> The eminence of Gully's son is notable, and the fact that Hastings' son was also opposed to altmed, while tending to the trivial, just about bears mention. However, attacks on the character of Hastings' son are unrelated to Gully and mere propaganda in terms of this bio. Have trimmed accordingly. While the references have been accepted, they're obviously from a partisan source and should be considered with care. .. dave souza, talk 08:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of this paragraph. It doesn't really add anything to the life of Gully. The paragraph recently reinserted makes a bald assertion that their sons were antagonists, but doesn't say why or whether the antagonism has any relevance to James Manby Gully. It appears to be completely unsupported by the reference given (Bradley, J., and Depree, M. A Shadow of Orthodoxy? An Epistemology of British Hydropathy, 1840–1858, Medical History, 2003, 47:173–194; available online, BTW[8]), which as far as I can see doesn't even mention William Court Gully or George Woodyatt Hastings. The article is 22 pages long; if the reference is there but I've missed it, please could you give a specific page reference? The whole paragraph seems to have been copied and pasted from here[9]. And finally, it's unlikely that Gully's son was "speaker of the British House of Lords" as the position of Lord Speaker was not created until 2006, by which time he had been dead for almost a century. Brunton (talk) 08:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It is the House of Commons, not the House of Lords (I made that correction). I will review my reference to the sons of Gully and Hastings on Monday when I go to my office. Thanx for helping provide accuracy. Please know that I am more interested in accuracy than any partisan POV. DanaUllman^Talk 14:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I've provided a link to the full text of the reference. Can you confirm whether or not it supports the assertions made in the article? Brunton (talk) 15:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone provide a source for the statement that the dispute between Gully and Hastings was continued by their sons? The reference currently provided doesn't appear to do this. If no RS for this statement can be found it should be removed. Brunton (talk) 12:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Brunton...found it. In the book, "James Manby Gully" by Phyllis G. Mann, chapter 10 "Two Sons: Towards a Climax". This book is here: [10] but not read-able online. Also, there's a wiki reference to Hastings' son here: [11]. His nefarious dealings are notable. My previous reference was a good one for Sir Hastings' antagonism towards Gully and towards hydrotherapy, but not for their son's dramas. DanaUllman^Talk 17:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a page number and direct quotation for the Mann reference? I know where I can get hold of a copy. As for the notability of the junior Hastings' "nefarious dealings", perhaps they're notable as far as an article about him is concerned, but they're not relevant to J M Gully (or his son as far as I can tell). Brunton (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I've now got the relevant chapter. It doesn't appear to support the claim that there was a particular rivalry or continuing dispute between George Hastings and William Gully. The book talks about the parallels between their careers, and talks about Gully "overhauling" and "outstripping" Hastings in his career, but is short on actual facts to support the idea of some continuing dispute or rivalry between the two men. It does give an account of a negative view of James Gully in a history of Malvern that Hastings wrote (and implies, without citing any supporting evidence as far as I can see, that this was some sort of "revenge" upon William Gully for having been a Member of Parliament at the time Hastings was expelled), but this was published after William Gully died so there wasn't much chance of a dispute over it. His viewpoint on Dr Gully is hardly unlikely given the influence his father would have had on him, and certainly doesn't require explanation in terms of any hostility towards William. An earlier passage (page 45) also tries to establish some sort of rivalry between the two men, and describes Hastings as "one who would appear to have nursed hostility towards Dr Gully and especially his second son - as would be demonstrated in years to come." This "demonstration" doesn't seem to be forthcoming.

It may be that there's something I've missed here; if so could you give the page reference and direct quotation that supports your position? Brunton (talk) 20:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It's been over a week now, and no reliable supporting evidence has been forthcoming. I therefore propose removing the unsupported statements, "this dispute was continued by their sons" etc. I can see no evidence that the younger Hastings was "actively opposed to unconventional medical treatments" beyond his assisting his father in lobbying for and drafting the 1858 Medical Act, which obviously isn't "continuing this dispute" after the involvement of JM Gully and Charles Hastings; George seems to have been more interested in campaigning for social, legal and penal reform than medical issues (see for example his ODNB entry). Should the reference to Gully's son becoming Speaker of the HC be kept? Brunton (talk) 23:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've again read through the chapter that Dana claims to support this, and still found no good evidence. I'm therefore removing the statement. Brunton (talk) 08:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a fair edit IMO because the story is rather tangential to the life of James Gully period. Peter morrell 08:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

References

Gully & homoeopathy

Although Gully was a member of the British Homoeopathic Society, and made a number of statements in which he said he believed homoeopathic remedies to be beneficial in some cases, it also appears that he didn't feel he could rely solely on homoeopathy. His comments about homoeopathy in the footnote to The water cure in chronic disease... were notably cautious, including comments about his lack of experience with homoeopathy and his comment that "although I might be induced to try to subdue a passing but troublesome symptom, I could not trust to remove the essential nature of a chronic malady by homœopathic means".

Further, he doesn't appear to have believed in the fundamental principle of homoeopathy: in a letter published in the BMJ in 1861 he wrote: "It may shock the homoeopathic world when I say that I never much cared for the doctrine of "like curing like"; and that I do not believe it to be of the universal application that they suppose". I propose editing the article to more accurately reflect his views on homoeopathy by adding a reference to this, as at present it portrays him as entirely in agreement with homoeopathy. Brunton (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

That would be a good addition I think. SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's very interesting and ties in well with his focus on hydrotherapy with homeopathy appearing to be a sideline along with mesmerism and clairvoyance. dave souza, talk 08:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Affair with Florence Bravo

I'm a bit confused here. Currently, the article describes an affair with Florence, a married woman. But in the next paragraph, Florence falls in love with and marries Charles Bravo. Who was her first husband and what happened to him? Did JMG bump him off too? (I don't have access to ref 40) GyroMagician (talk) 23:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

See Florence_Bravo#Background. Florence Campbell married Alexander Ricardo in 1864. He died in 1871 -- he was an alcoholic and they had been separated but not divorced. Florence married Charles Bravo in 1875. Groomtech (talk) 06:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

While Florence Ricardo was free to have an affair with Dr Gully after the death of her husband in 1871, Dr Gully was not. Though separated, he had married Fanny Court on 9 Jun 1831 in Liverpool and she was still alive. Should the article make this clear? Hors-la-loi 12:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hors-la-loi (talk • contribs)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on James Manby Gully. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.schs.org.uk/samplepaper.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on James Manby Gully. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.schs.org.uk/samplepaper.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101009073345/http://www.malvernhealth.org.uk/about.html to http://www.malvernhealth.org.uk/about.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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 08:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

James Manby Gully and Slavery

University College London have published a document called [Wandsworth and Slavery (1)] that indicates that James Manby Gully inherited estates in Jamaica and enslaved people there, and later got given slave compensation.

That information really needs to go into the "Early life and education" section, as the sentence that mentions he was "the son of a wealthy coffee planter" must be talking about the same Jamaican estate. I've not found anything to establish his father already owned slaves when he died and left the estate to James Manby Gully, so I don't want to make an edit yet, as I'm not sure how to word it.

I also do not know how much money the government paid Jamems Manby Gully in slave compensation (so can't tell how much owning slaves helped him fund his medical work.

Can anyone, who knows this subject matter better than me, help? Big Mac (talk) 12:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)