Talk:Materia medica

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles
	This article is supported by the Reference works task force.

Pharmacology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comments

Attempt at tightening (cutting out rambling) and NPOV. The term "allopathy" is itself only used in and from the POV of homeopathy.

The statement "Historically, ancient peoples believed in a benevolent god who would not make people intentionally sick and suffer." needs to be backed up. Which peoples, when? Surely not all of them.

What's "materia medica" translate directly from the Latin as?

Wouldn't "quackery" imply it was knowingly fraudulent, not merely ineffective? - David Gerard 00:05, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)

materia medica

Surely we should mention Dioscorides, who wrote a book under this title. To answer the gentleman's question above, this translates as "medial matters" pretty cut and dryly.--Ioscius ^(talk) 17:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

homeopathy / miscategorization

All references to homeopathy belong in the "Homeopathy Materia Medica" article. Materia Medica are general pharmaceutical treatises, and do not primarily concern the pseudo-science of "homeopathy". This includes inclusion in the "homeopathy" category.216.83.230.132 21:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC) Didn't realize I wasn't signed in for that comment. Typing monkey 21:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the homeopathy categorization for reasons stated above. Same for the discussion about the “doctrine of signatures.” I did leave the “see also” link for people who might be interested in homeopathy. I also removed unsourced assertions about the use of plants to treat disease “before recorded history” and such. The gaiagarden link was removed as spam. Referenced articles shouldn’t have shopping carts.Typing monkey 21:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with exclusion of homeopathy.

What's with the all-around disbelief of homeopathy? It goes against the sensibilities of western medicine, therefore won't ever be academically tested. 74.241.94.73 15:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

chinese stuff

Materia medica (Chinese: ??; pinyin: be(nca(o), in traditional Chinese medicine and pharmacy, is an ancient name of Chinese materia medica (??, or ???), or Chinese materia medica works (?????). In pharmacy, Bencao((Chinese: ??; pinyin: be(nca(o), also known as Herbals of medicinal works, is the ancient name of Chinese traditional drugs, and the materia medica works for in past Chinese dynasties.

I moved the above here as it is useless in its current state and disrupted the meaning where it is inserted. I do not know chinese but highly doubt that Materia Medica is a chinese title, but simply an english approximation of a title for a compilation of medicinal substances. There may be a place for it out of the first few paragraphs if it can be converted into useable English with no question marks. alteripse 03:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From this article, you would think all historical drug development was done by Muslims. Weird.65.217.153.100 (talk) 23:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]