Talk:James Manby Gully

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Fact tags 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Gully cures Darwin claims/inferences 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Gully personal friend of Darwin? 

message: 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:  
Swinton, William E hydrotherapy and infamy of Dr James Gully, 1980, Canadian Medical Association Journal. Retrieved on 2008-01-14.
--88.172.132.94 (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New reference 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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. http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwinletters/calendar/entry-1236.html 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."http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwinletters/calendar/entry-1240.html 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Request for comment 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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."  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)

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

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

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
thread_title:  Dana's Synthesis 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Career section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: It's from a footnote to the 5th (1856) edition of Gully's The Water Cure in Chronic Disease, 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)

text: I agree.  Brunton (talk) 13:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It has once more been put back into the article without any reference to this discussion. Brunton (talk) 18:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Gully's use of homeopathy AND water-cure

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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.  DanaUllmanTalk 19:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Undue

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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) DanaUllmanTalk 05:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

text: 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).  DanaUllmanTalk 22:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  I have made this change, but left out the ... as we have no refs yet. >>Partyoffive (talk) 11:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.  DanaUllmanTalk 04:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

text: 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), 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.  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)

text: 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.  DanaUllmanTalk 14:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Brunton...found it.  In the book, "James Manby Gully" by Phyllis G. Mann, chapter 10 "Two Sons: Towards a Climax". This book is here:  but not read-able online.  Also, there's a wiki reference to Hastings' son here:  . 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.  DanaUllmanTalk 17:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Trimming Darwin section 

message: 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)
replies: text: That would be a good addition I think. SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 07:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Gully & homoeopathy 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Affair with Florence Bravo 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on James Manby Gully. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  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  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 ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  James Manby Gully and Slavery