Talk:Fidel Pagés

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Question[edit]

How can Fidel Pagés be claimed as the discoverer of epidural anaesthesia, when as the article notes his used of this was based on prior work by German and French doctors? Justin talk 23:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Justin! That's what sources say. It seems that several surgeons experimented with anesthesics in the epidural area (that is, the area around the spinal chord) but they were not able to succeed in obtaining segmental anesthesia for surgical purposes (they were only able to reduce sensibility). It was Fidel Pagés the first one to document what is known today as epidural anesthesia. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 16:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've changed the wording and I think it's clearer now: the previous experiences were with anesthesics in the epidural area (it can be called epidural anesthesia, but it's not what we understand today by that name). Thank you. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 16:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make the point, effectively he refined and improved the technique but didn't discover it. He would be better described as a pioneer of the technique rather than qualified as the discoverer. Also it wouldn't be the first time for a technique to be developed, forgotten and then re-invented which the article implies but doesn't say - see for example blood transfusions. Just some suggestions for improvement. Justin talk 17:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To say that "he refined and improved the technique but didn't discover it" seems to run the risk of being WP:OR...
There are several words used by the sources (Medicine journals mostly) applied to the episode or to the person when the technique of epidural anesthesia was first used and described:
  • discovery[1]
  • author[2]
  • first use on humans[3]
  • father of the technique[4]
  • introduction[5]...
So here you are: several sources say that the discovery was wrongly assigned to someone else until the error was corrected and Pagés given full credit, that Pagés was the first to use epidural on humans, that Pagés is the author... Therefore, it would seem that it's quite correct to use the expression "discovery" and "discoverer" (as well as the words author, father of the technique, ...)
About the term pioneer, I am not too sure: here you can see that Dr. C.J. Massey Dawkins is called the "British pioneer" of epidural anesthesia in 1942 and at the same time it is stated that Dawkins "correctly ascribed its introduction to Fidel Pages". It sounds as if "pioneer" is not applied to the first person who applied a technique...
Therefore, I'm very sure that "discovery" is OK.
In a different line of thought, seeing that you're interested in some article that I write: should I assume that you don't keep any bad feelings towards me and that I can write in your talk page? (I would like to leave a comment there which is not exactly related to Fidel Pagés but about our relationship in WP...) Thanks! -- Imalbornoz (talk) 18:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I gave some honest advice, you can either choose to take it or ignore it - your choice. Personally from the evidence you have presented, a partisan source might describe him as a "discoverer" or there may be a failure in translation, either way given his work was based on pioneering work of others to describe him as the discoverer seems inappapriate - I must say I'm surprised the DYK didn't pick up on that. I can correct it myself at some point, when I have the spare time. Please don't post on my talk page, I have no desire for a relationship, I was discussing content nothing more. Justin talk 11:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am very surprised by your comment. I suppose that you have not taken the time to look into the sources. BTW, talking about partisan (?) sources in this topic (partisanship in a medical paper about an event 90 years old???????) is pretty ridiculous (and runs the risk of reflecting the same type of attitude that got you topic banned by the Arbcom). Come on, stop thinking in terms of "parties". -- Imalbornoz (talk) 22:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I draw your attention to WP:CIVIL about not flinging arbcom decisions in people's faces, just as you always fling things back in my face for which I've already apologised. I was not referring to the original paper but the much later revisionist paper giving him credit as discoverer. I did read the sources, I was not thinking in terms of "parties" and simply offering a well-intentioned comment and advice. Justin talk 09:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fidel Pagés. 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:

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) 08:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fidel_Pagés&oldid=1203803593"