User:Mpatel58/sandbox

DYK Draft for Cesare Lombroso

• ... that Cesare Lombroso believed George Eliot was insane, partially due to her height?

Cesare Lombroso Contribution

Cesare Lombroso descended from a line of rabbis, which led him to study a wide range of topics in university. Despite pursuing these studies in university, Lombroso eventually settled on pursuing a degree in medicine, which he graduated with from the University of Turin. After leaving the military, Lombroso operated and oversaw an insane asylum in Pesaro. Lombroso married a woman named Nina de Benedetti on April 10th, 1870. They had five children together, one of whom--Gina--would go on to edit Lombroso's work after his death. Later in life Lombroso came to be influenced by his son-in-law, Guglielmo Ferrero, who led him to believe that not all criminality comes from one's inborn factors and that social factors also played a significant role in the process of shaping a criminal.

Cesare Lombroso, in addition to his contributions towards criminality and his notion of 'degeneration', believed that genius was closely related to madness. In his attempts to develop these notions, Lombroso traveled to Moscow and met with Lev Tolstoy in hopes of elucidating and providing evidence for his theory of genius reverting or degenerating into insanity.

Lombroso's The Man of Genius provided inspiration for Max Nordau's work, as evidenced by his dedication of Degeneration to Lombroso, whom he considered to be his "dear and honored master". In his exploration of geniuses descending into madness, Lombroso stated that he could only find six men who did not exhibit symptoms of "degeneration" or madness; Galileo, Da Vinci, Voltaire, Machiavelli, Michelangelo, and Darwin. On the other hand, Lombroso cited that men such as Shakespeare, Plato, Aristotle, Mozart and Dante all displayed "degenerate symptoms". In order to justify which geniuses were 'degenerate' or insane, Lombroso judged each genius by whether or not they displayed "degenerate symptoms", which included precocity, longetivity, versatility, and inspiration. Lombroso suplemented these personal observations with measurements including facial angles, "abnormalities" in bone structure, and volumes of brain fluid. Measurements of skulls taken included those from Kant, Volta, Foscolo, and Fusinieri. Lombroso's approach in using skull measurements was inspired by the work and research in the field of phrenology by German doctor Franz Joseph Gall. In commenting on skull measurements, Lombroso would make observations such as "I have noted several characters which anthropologists consider to belong to the lower races, such as prominence of the styloid apophyses". This observation was recorded in response to his analysis of Alessandro Volta's skull. Lombroso connected geniuses to various health disorders as well, by listing signs of degenration in chapter two of his work--some of which include abnormalities and discrepencies in height and pallor. Lombroso listed the following geniuses, among others, as "sickly and weak during childhood"; Demosthenes, Bacon, Descartes, Newton, Locke, Adam Smith, Boyle, Pope, Flaxman, Nelson, Haller, Korner, and Pascal. Other physical afflictions that Lombroso connected with degeneracy included rickets, emaciation, sterility, lefthandedness, unconsciousness, stupidity, somnambulism, smallness or disproportionality of the body, and amnesia. In his explanation of the connection between genius and the "degenerative marker" of height, Lombroso cites the following people: Owning, Ibsen, George Eliot, Thiers, Browning, Louis Blanc, and Swinburne among others. He continues by listing the only "great men of tall stature" that he knows of, including Petrarch, Schiller, Foscolo, Bismarck, Charlemagne, Dumas, Peter the Great, and Voltaire. Lombroso further cited certain personality traits as markers of degeneracy, such as "a fondness for special words" and "the inspiration of genius".

Lombroso's methods and explanations in The Man of Genius were rebutted and questioned by the American Journal of Psychiatry. In a review of The Man of Genius they stated, "here we have hypothesis claiming to be the result of strict scientific investigation and reluctant conviction, bolstered up by half-told truths, misrepresentations and assumptions. Lombroso's work was also criticized by Italian anthropologist Giuseppe Sergi who, in his review of Lombroso's The Man of Genius--and specifically his classifications and definitions of "the genius"--stated "by creating a genius according to his own fancy, an ideal and abstact being, and not by examining the personality of a real living genius, he naturally arrives at the conclusion that all theories by which the origin of genius is sought to be explained on a basis of observation, and especially that particular one which finds in degeneration the cause or one of the causes of genius, are erroneous." Sergi continued by stating that such theorists are "like the worshippers of the saints or of fetishes, who do not recognize the material from which the fetish is made, or the human origin from which the saint has sprung".

Second Article Assignment

Assigned self Cesare Lombroso to work on.

Nomination for Good Article Status

Classmate Aeisenstadt1 nominated article #1 (Jean-Nicolas Corvisart) for GA Status, category: Biology and medicine

Spring Break Assignment, Response to Critique and Article Edits

A well-structured article and clearly organized article. Made a few edits under "Biography," adding links to the wiki articles on significant terms and figures that were referred to. Prior to that there were no links. There is a lack of variety in sources in the "As Napoleon's Physician" section. I suggest backing up claims with more sources rather than repeatedly referencing a single source. There may be a slight confusion in the article as well. In "Biography," it is mentioned that Corvisart dies 4 months after Napoleon. In the following section, however, it is suggested that Corvisart dies before Napolean, and the quality of physician care following Corvisart changed: "Upon Corvisart's death and Napoleon's eventual decline in health, a marked difference was noted in efficacy of care and treatment style among the doctors who assumed the post as Napoleon's physicians." Please clarify this apparent contradiction. Also, consider removing the term "ironically" in the last sentence of the Biography section. This introduces an element of subjective evaluation on the author's part. The last paragraph in the "Legacy" section lacks sources. Please add. Overall, a thorough analysis and an informative read. Emarti84 (talk) 22:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your critique and review of this article. I misread the source that you referenced in the 'As Napoleon's Physician' portion of the article, which is the portion that I wrote. I have corrected the statement--the passage I was reading from stated that the doctors who assumed the 'governmental physician' or 'chief physician' role upon Corvisart's death were not as competent as he etc. Unfortunately, the English sources that reference Corvisart are limited, but I will continue to try to find additional sources to provide variety and support for this portion of the article. Again, thank you for your comments and very relevant suggestions. Mpatel58 (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer Reviews (Due 3/17/17)

1) Crawford Long

Feedback on Article for Ssimko1

Hey, I really liked your contribution and enjoyed reading what you had to write about Crawford Long. To further improve your addition, I would recommend reformatting it so that the legacy section flows better--maybe relate the information about Long's legacy and posthumous honors in a way so that it connects with the previous sentences instead of having disjoint facts. When you write: "In 1879, the National Eclectic Medical Association declared that Long was the official discoverer of anesthesia.[17] “Doctors Day” is celebrated on March 30 every year to commemorate Long’s contributions. The University of Pennsylvania memorialized Crawford W. Long in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, April 1912, with a bulletin and bronze medallion.[18]" It just seems like a list of facts as opposed to an article. Alternatively, you could potentially start a new section detailing the honors awarded to Dr. Long as a section separate from his legacy.Overall, I feel your article was really well-researched and cited, great work! Mpatel58 (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

2) Sarah "Crazy Sally" Mapp

Feedback on Article for LWebb15

Hello, I very much enjoyed reading your contributions to this article. It seems very well-researched and I think it's a super interesting topic. Some ideas that might improve the article I had are to rename the first section, titled 'family'. You might want to change it to 'Early life' or something to that extent, as that section is more so about her background as opposed to strictly her family. In addition, certain sentences could be rephrased so that they are slightly easier to read. For example, when you say: "Sarah Mapp was baptized in 1706 near Wiltshire, England. She was the daughter of John and Jenny Wallin" It might read more clearly if you wrote: "Sarah Mapp was born to John and Johnny Wallin in 1706 and baptized near Wiltshire, England." The way it currently reads make it unclear what year she was born in, as she may have been baptized sometime after her birth. Overall, I thought this was a great article! Mpatel58 (talk) 01:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Blurb for 3/10 assignment

...Did you know that Jean-Nicolas Corvisart forced Napoleon Bonaparte to take hot bathes daily...? Source: "Dally, J.F. Halls. "Life and Times of Jean-Nicolas Corvisart (1755-1821)"

As Napoleon's Physician

Napoleon was said to be a 'difficult' person to treat in the clinical setting, as he demanded a full explanation for each aspect of the ailments he experienced. Napoleon often refused to take prescribed medicine and was skeptical as to the practice and application of medical treatment, save that suggested by Corvisart, who he deemed as both competent and reliable.

In 1799, Corvisart and fellow French physican Paul Joseph Barthez were appointed by the French government as 'physicians of the Government'. When Barthez died in 1806, Corvisart was given the title of 'chief physican' and attended to Napoleon and his family, consisting of the Empress as well as the Imperial House and court.

In August 1803, Napoleon sent for Corvisart due to chest pain and a sudden cough. Napoleon had been characterized as reluctant to access his physicians, including Corvisart at first. Corvisart quickly diagnosed Napoleon with a pulmonary congestion, which he did not disclose to the emperor out of regard for his well-being. Instead, he treated the condition with a vesicant, which proved to be effective in countering the pain and congestion. In retrospect of the succesful and tactful treatment, Napoleon was quoted as saying, "I saw that Corvisart understood my system, and that he was the doctor who suited me, so I attached him to myself". Corvisart's treatment of Napoleon included a strict regiment of hygiene. Corvisart instructed Napoleon to take a hot bath daily, which Napoleon adhered to. Napoleon was also said to have suffered from breathing difficulties and respitory issues, which Corvisart treated to the best of his abilities. Napoleon was also said to have contracted a violent case of the scabies, which Corvisart was able to effectively treat with a concoction of ointments and salves containing olive oil, alcohol, and 'powdered cevilla'. Upon Corvisart's death and Napoleon's eventual decline in health, a marked difference was noted in efficacy of care and treatment style among the doctors who assumed the post as Napoleon's physicians.

Corvisart also treated Empress Joséphine de Beauharnais, attempting to cure her sterility. When this treatment failed and Napoleon divorced Empress Josephine, Corvisart alienated Marie Louise, Duchess of Parma with his brash and frank mannerisms, leading to his disaffection from Napoleon. As such, Corvisart and Napoleon's relationship is said to have spanned from 1804 to 1815.

Corvisart acted as more than just an appointed physician to Napoleon. Corvisart also acted as a liaison between Napoleon and Edward Jenner in releasing English prisoners of war in June 1806. The prisoners, Mr. William Thomas Williams and Dr. Wickham, were friends of Jenner, and Jenner held esteem for them as educated men. In this capacity Corvisart was given a copy of the letter Jenner had written to Napoleon, entreating his release of the British prisoners in July 1806. Corvisart adressed Mr. Williams and relayed Napoleon's decision—that he and Dr. Wickham were to be allowed to return to their native England, as Napoleon could not refuse a request from Dr. Jenner. Corvisart was remarked to be "exceedingly punctual in making all Jenner's requests known to His Majesty". Jenner also entreated the release of prisoners named Mr. Gold and Mr. Garland, and again went through Corvisart to ask the favor of Napoleon.  However, due to a 'subordinate' official, the release command from Napoleon and passed through Corvisart that would have freed Mr. Gold was lost, leading to an additional three years of imprisonment from 1809 to 1812, at which point the release order was recovered. In return for the liberation of Jenner's companions, Corvisart asked for Jenner's assistance in freeing a French officer, Captain Husson, who was captured after a tactical defeat. Jenner was unable to influence the English government into releasing Husson, to Corvisart's dismay.

A journal entry by Barry Edward O'Meara suggests that Corvisart and Napoleon had a close repartee, and that Corvisart was often able to stifle Napoleon's concerns with and objections towards medicine and the medical practice.  Napoleon also often adopted a casual tone and joked with Corvisart, asking him questions such as, "how many patients are you going to kill to-day?", to which Corvisart responded "Not many, Sire". Additionally, Corvisart was said to have feuded with Antoine Portal over treatment of Napoleon. As Portal became more influential in the French medical scene, he attracted the attention of Corvisart, who would not permit him to engage with the Imperial family, out of a deep dislike. In December 1808, Napoleon granted Corvisart the title of 'Baron' in recognition of his services and dillegence as Napoleon's physician. Napoleon also awarded Corvisart with the title of 'Officer of the Legion of Honour', leading to Corvisart's admittance iinto the Academy of Sciences in 1811.

M Patel Sandbox Page