Talk:Alexis Carrel

message: I only whish to mention, that Carrel's apology of nazi eugenics is not to be found in the preface of the german edition, but in the last chapter - and there it remained - I actually have the 1957 edition  (31.-45 Thousand in licence for List) on my desk, see p. 252. --139.18.20.107 (talk) 11:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  About 'Man, the Unknown' 

message: Again, why do YOU care so much for this person? You are furiously slanting the article with undue weight towards one point of view. Piling on so much of one viewpoint that no person reading this can find ANY good in it is clearly an issue of inentional bias. Degrading and minimizing a person's accomplishments (which were barely even mentioned here before I added one line of his work) while adding hundreds of words of one-sided criticism, is not fair, nor is it balance. This site has a neutral point of view policy, which I suggest you read before "going after" another article like you have here. Unfortunatly, YOU seem to care very deeply that the article as it stood had not condemned this person sufficiently. The man is not Stalin, so I don't know where all your passion comes from. I'm willing to understand and support an airing of many points of views in an article, and clearly this guy's views on eugenics can get a full airing here without overwhelming the article, but your tactics (what was it, 10 or 12 major edits in one hour?) have been heavy-handed. Bear in mind that they are not the final word. More will be added about Man, the Unknown about his work to balance the spiritual, emotional and religious in life. But since you've turned him in to Himmler, I doubt that balance of a man's life work will be enough. Nhprman 04:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please do not vandalize the article 

message: If you have a dispute, air it.  Calling me names and deleting whole portions of the article accomplish nothing.  Wouldn't you prefer to argue your position in a rational manner?  You would convince more readers that way.
Don't be a book burner.
By the way, why do you care so much about Carrel?  Your strong feelings on this subject naturally raise that question.
Adam Holland
An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Alexis_Carrel article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add  to this page. — LinkBot 00:56, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please do not vandalize this page 

message: It is widely accepted that Carrel and Lindberg's perfusion pump was groundbreaking, and unsourced comments to the contrary were removed. Please provide proof that he was not a pioneer in this field. Below are just a few of the links obtained from googling "perfusion pump carrel." 
* http://mbbnet.umn.edu/doric/lindbergh.html
* PBS series: "...laid the groundwork for future developments in heart-lung machines and other devices."
* Lindbergh's contribution (in case you want to back off the trash talking on THAT article.)
* http://www.musc.edu/catalyst/archive/2002/co2-1perfusion.html Lindbergh-Carrel Prize.
Here's my point: where is the evidence that they actually INFLUENCED any subsequent artificial heart?  They may or may not have had good ideas, I'm not an engineer or physician so I'm in no position to judge.  However, to claim that they laid the groundwork for future innovations is not supported in any detail by the sources you cite.  There are assertions by those who work for institutions associated with Lindbergh and Carrel; there's a quote from a PBS series.  Where is a medical expert objectively evaluating the real impact of their work?  If this is "widely accepted" (I assume you mean in the medical community, among those with expertise) then present evidence!
Adam Holland 20:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lindbergh/Carrel collaboration defended 

message: I've added a significant amount of material on the above-refenced subjects.  It's all well sourced.  I think the connections to reprehensible politics are pretty clear and not all overstated.  Feedback?
Adam Holland 00:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eugenics, Fascism and Islamism 

message: Can we talk about this line?:"According to Wallace in American Axis, Carrel deliberately overstated Lindbergh's role to gain media attention (Wallace, p. 101)" 
The section below, written by a Navy doctor (and well-footnoted, incidental bolding about Carrel is mine) tells a different story, noting that the concept is entirely Lindbergh's: 
:::As was the case with most of his pursuits, the genesis of Lindbergh's interest in biomedical research can be found in personal challenge. In 1929 his sister-in-law was diagnosed with rheumatic heart disease, a disease that carried with it a poor prognosis due primarily to an inability to perform surgical procedures on a beating heart. Once Lindbergh learned that the lack of the surgeon's ability to provide artificial mechanical means of circulating oxygenated blood prevented a cure, he Amade up his mind to design a pump capable of circulating blood through the body while the heart was being repaired. ... Armed with his ideas, an innovative mind, and spirit of adventure, Lindbergh pursued his goal of designing and building a mechanical heart/lung machine. For more than 100 years, physiologists had tried to maintain organs alive outside the body with no real success. ...Lindbergh presented his concept to a number of physician acquaintances, one of whom arranged a meeting with Dr. Alexis Carrel of the Rockefeller Institute. Lindbergh knew of and respected Carrel whose research emphasized blood vessel suture techniques (for which he was awarded the 1912 Nobel Prize in Medicine), and the culture of cells. Carrel was a pioneer in tissue culture research and wrote prolifically on the subject from the early 1920s. While Carrel's work in the culturing of cells had been ground breaking, he was unable to proceed into the areas of tissue and whole organ culture. He was keenly aware of the technical problems associated with organ perfusion in general, and with cardiopulmonary bypass in particular, most notably the need to add oxygen into the perfusate, a problem finally solved in 1953 by Dr. John Gibbons, the first to use such a bypass system successfully on a patient....
While yes, it is a glowing piece, and reprinted on a "fan" site of Lindbergh's, I cannot disprove it, and I certainly don't think many facts here on Wikipedia have more proof than this that yes, Lindbergh was a medical pioneer, and deserve the credit he got. Just like Carrel.
Interestingly the same story about his sister-in-law can be found on the Loyola University Healthcare System site: "On finding that there was no way to keep organs alive outside the body in order to do this, he worked with Nobel Laureate and surgeon Dr. Alexis Carrel on a solution to that problem, Lindbergh invented a glass perfusion pump that would make future operations possible. He also found a method for washing blood corpuscles and invented a way to rapidly separate plasma from whole blood by using a centrifuge. Science carried the first news of Lindbergh's perfusion pump in June 1935. In September, the Journal of Experimental Science carried his highly technical description of the pump. Lindbergh's results were validated as a major breakthrough." (NOTE that last word, which someone told me was NOT the case with this medical device's creation on the Lindbergh page.) 
Not to get too far off the topic (Carrel, after all!). But perhaps we can go back and correct that article on Lindbergh, who also did not get his medical due because of his unpopular political views? Nhprman 05:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lindbergh's contributions not exaggerated by Carrel

message: I added factual, provable data about the perfusion pump, careful to qualify it and not exaggerate its importance (after all, it ONLY paved the way for open-heart surgery. But God knows, we wouldn't want to exaggerate THAT and risk edits!) I also left large chunks of the defamatory Islamism section, since we definitely (apparently) want this devoted Catholic to be viewed as an Islamist sympathizer, though I had to mention that he was a Catholic mystic who hated Islam and really had no use for other religions. I say again, a newspaper article the mentions "The superficial commonalities between Carrel and Qutb" is NOT sufficient proof of anything. 
And Adam, can I ask who is the Rudolf Walther you quote? I did a Google search and the only thing I came up with is a German furniture salesman who is now a philanthropist. What are his credentials to be questioning Carrel and making accusations and connections to Bin Laden? With someone with NO body of work or references online, I don't think this is a proper source, but I leftit for now while we have a polite conversation about it. Nhprman 01:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Careful, factual edits made 

message: Deleting my sources from the notes is clearly inapporpriate.
Feel free to add your own sources that support your views, or question the reliability of mine in the discussion page.
Adam Holland 18:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop deleting sources in the notes section 

message: Carrel influenced Qutb.  Check Qutb's footnotes.
What is the basis for your disagreement?  Qutb cited Carrel more than any author except Mohammed.
Adam Holland 18:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop imputing motives, deal with facts 

message: I think we need some perspective here. 99.9% of people would say "Qutb, who?" I say "So what" that someone this obscure made comments about someone (let's face it) as relatively obscure as Carrel, whom probably 95% of people say "Carrel, who?" Further, it's great that you have sources. But 1) they are obscure, as if someone in the Hickville Gazzette newspaper criticized someone in federal office (Congress/Parliament). That's not significant, nor does it merit mention in an encyclopedia article. 2) A flood of quotations from an obscure sourse BURYS an article in scandal, when in fact this is being thrust onto the article with FAR more weight than it deserves. Bottom line: Carrel did NOT create or sponsor terrorism, Islamism or radicalism. That someone took his words and may have used them to justify elitism or whatever in Islam is really not Carrel's fault, nor is it commonly known. Therefore, I will not attempt to totally erase this, because that would be (and has been) tedious. However, I cannot watch you turn 2/3rds of this article into a rant about an ALLEGED connection with Islam, bin Laden and this obscure philosohper of hate Qutb (which even your cited quote says is SPECULATIVE) in nature. If we cannot come to an agreement here, and allow this article to gain proper perpsective, I'll call for mediation. I'm trying to be reasonable and work with you, but will be bold in making proper, measured edits in  the meantimeNhprman 19:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please stop giving undue weight to obscure sources 

message: Your recent edits are over the top, and speak to a deep-seated hatred of the subject. I must stop typing because my anger is going to get the better of me. I can't believe you have so much hatred in your soul for this man. This encyclopedia article is NOT the place for you to use your POV to make people out to be monsters. I AM DONE BATTLING YOUR JIHAD against this ariticle. I am calling for it to be blanked and/or removed. Nhprman 20:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slanderous, biased article 

message: I have to say, for those who will come and inspect this article, that I have worked to come to terms with the person who has continually defaced this article with large quantities of POV material but it has not worked. For every non-biased, positive or neutral sentence I have added to this article on the subject, User:Adam_Holland has added three more paragraphs of obscurely-sourced, rabidly negative material. I cannot keep up with each breathtakingly biased new entries each day, especially long quotes taken directly from BLOGS. His citations of books for sale via Amazon.com must also violate policies. Even his subheads have been POV and over-the-top and are designed to throw the subject into disrepute. This man was not Hitler. He was not a Nazi. Like 70% of French society, he was a collaborator on some level with the occupiers. The fact that he was cleared of ALL wrongdoing before he died is not mentioned here. He was misguided on eugenics, as was a great deal of the scientific community between the wars, though he was a NOBEL PRIZE-winning scientist who created a method to save thousands of lives in WWI and built (with Lindbergh) a method that allows us to do open-heart surgery. (I did manage to sneak this relatively positve material in - though Mr Holland with many reverts downplayed his well-accepted contributions with words like "alleged" or "claimed.") And despite this article's VOLUMOUS quotations of very obscure sources, Carrel had NOTHING to do with Bin Laden, for God's sake, since he died in 1944!! But mitigating this person's overwhelming biases has become a full-time job and I cannot do it any longer on my own. Admins, I ask you to not throw up your hands and say, "POV, needs more talk." This needs mediation NOW. Nhprman 20:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, how I can sympathize with you. I, too, tried to fight POV in dispute-prone articles but gave up. Wikipedia is too big, with too few policing POV. The POVers will always have the upper hand. By the way, I noticed that the article as it stands now does not even mention Carrel's Nobel Prize?! Or is that disputed as well? --Smithfarm 08:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV-checkers: Look here first 

message: The "Alleged influence on the rise of Islam" section appears to be more about Qutb than Carrel. In general, if A influenced B, in-depth discussion of this influence belongs in the article on B, not A. Therefore, I suggest that the entire section (to the extent that it isn't original research) be moved to the Qutb article and included here only by reference. --Smithfarm 21:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to chime in here, because SURELY, you're not saying 14 paragraphs in a HUGE article like Marx' (which represents less than 1/6th of the entire article) is equal to flooding an article with negative speculation about the subject that now account for more than two-thirds of the text? Also, even the sources you cite say Carrel had only "superficial commonalities" with latter-day radical Islamic thought, and see him as an "unwitting" influence on it. Clearly, those influenced by Marx were ADMITTEDLY influenced by him, and not just "superficially" and "unwittingly." I don't see a part of the Marx article listing those who were "unwittingly" influenced by his philosophy, since that would be unfair, as it is here. So the analogy simply is not obvious to me. Nhprman UserLists 01:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It's relevent, but not worthy of 2/3rds of the text. Islamism was not Carrel's life work and as it is, it's skewing the article and looks like an attempt at guilt by association. If influence was there, then that's fine. Mention it by all means, but in proportion. But you've hit on a good analogy with Marx. Think of this: Fidel Castro was DEFINITELY influenced by Karl Marx. But in the Marx Wikipedia article there is NO mention of Castro, and in the Castro article, there is ONE LINE about his being influenced by Marx ("In a nationally broadcast speech on 1961-12-02, Castro declared that he was a Marxist-Leninist and that Cuba was going to adopt Communism.") That's it! If I wanted to tar-and-feather Marx, I'd perhaps try to fill up the Marx article with long paragraphs about how the dictator Castro used his words and thinking to subvert democracy and human rights in Cuba, based on his reading of Marx. But that would be inappropriate, even if true, since this isn't the purpose of the Marx article. It also impunges Marx's character, saying that he is somehow responsible for how others used his words and thoughts, many decades after his death. While a mention that they HAVE been used in this way may be appropriate, loading up the page with all the horrible things done in his name may be seen as POV-pushing. I think some of that's going on here, even if subconsciously and unintentionally. Nhprman UserLists 15:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qutb section should be moved 

message: I've found literature including supporting documentary evidence concering Carrel's membership in the Parti Populaire Francais, the French collaborationist party led by Jacques Doriot.  The evidence includes two clippings from PPF newspapers listing Carrel as a member and discussing his activities.  Any objection to including this information in the article?  I can post images of the clippings as well. Adam Holland 18:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't know this, but am not at all shocked by it. If he remained in Vichy, it's not a surprise he was supportive of the regime, as was that party. Millions of Frenchmen collaborated. While it certainly can be mentioned (and I'd go as far as saying "should be" mentioned) I would simply ask that we don't re-hash every word of the very detailed article on the party that already exists. That "Carrel joined, in 193x, the Parti Populaire Francais, a pro-business, authoritarian party that distrusted democracy and later collaborated actively with the German occupation," or some such other permutation of the same thought, is not at all an untrue or inflammatory statement in the least. Nhprman UserLists 20:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carrel was a member of the PPF 

message: I've found some very good information concering Carrel's specific contributions to vascular and transplant surgeory.  This is almost entirely positive and should both round out the article and make Nhprman happy.  I have a gif image of Carrel's diagram of his first big innovation in vascular surgeory (which he did in Lyons in 1902), his technique for the vascular anastomosis.  I'm looking into the copyright for this image.  I'd like to put in something concerning his work with Charles Guthrie in Chicago, which is what led the way for transplantation surgeory to his Nobel Prize and his international reputation.  My understanding is that they were very close to successfully transplanting organs from one dog to another, and that the invention of heparin to prevent clotting was the only missing piece of the puzzle.  I'd also like to add some material on his work at the Rockefeller Institute, and his innovative work concering vascular surgery during World War I.  Any objections to this specific, well-sourced material going into the article?  
Adam Holland 18:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means! It sounds like a good bit of research you've done and it would certainly be an asset to the article. Nhprman UserLists 20:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carrel's medical contributions 

message: Please see :Talk:Sayyid Qutb#Connection to Carrel for the motive of removing the part alleging links with Qutb. Lapaz 20:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edit here makes an abundant amount of sense, as does the analysis of Vector4F. Citing the Islamists connection to Carrel is kind of like calling the radical Muslims "Nazis" because they happen to share the anti-Semitic views of that German party. It's a ludicrous comparison. Of course, you have to understand putting this inaccurate, exaggerated information here was simply an attempt by someone with an anti-fascist fetish to defame a brilliant man who, like MANY in that era, was misguided on some issues, such as the value and morality of eugenics. Such a belief simply needs a mention in an NPOV article (and certainly shouldn't be covered up) but the intent instead was to tie him somehow to Bin Laden, because that would permanently defame Carrel with a modern twist. Thanks again for your common sense edit. Be ready to revert it back at least once, since this other guy is on a jihad against Carrel. - Nhprman 22:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Note to anyone who wants to revert Lapaz' edit, check out Vector4F's May 5 analysis of Carrel and Qutb on that same Talk page. Nhprman 22:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sayyid Qutb 

message: I have a question, If I can edit this page so how can I trust these articles? anybody could edit pages!  Kam
:By moving your question here to the discussion page, where it belongs, I've demonstrated how. Instantaneous fact checking helps ensure that articles remain fair. On the other hand, this particular article has been the focus of an editor who was (and probably still is) intent on slandering him and making Dr. Carrel look like a Nazi, when in fact, the issue of his life and sympathies is much more complex than that, and he deserves a fair treatment of his life here. Unsupported assertions about his relation to Islamism was also included, but it was cut from the article, for the most part (though it is still there in small pieces.) So you are VERY wise to not trust everything you read, but for the most part, Wikipedia offers a good first place to look for almost any subject. Nhprman List 20:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question re: editing  

message: The added comment regarding the 1936 German publication of his book that Dr. Carrel "thus applauded the Nazi T-4 euthanasia program" is inaccurate.  First of all, no one could have offered any such opinion of that infamous program in 1936 because it was not enacted until 1939 (it was canceled in 1941 due to strong Catholic protest).  What Carrel was referring to was the draconian measures adopted early on by the Nazi against criminals, petty or heinous, similar to the ones he himself advocated.  But the given quotes that supposedly support this claim do not prove that he supported the execution of those of "inferior stock" unless they had committed some type of crime or engaged in anti-social behaviour he considered harmful to society.  From what I have read about him I personally doubt he did, which is speculation but so is the assumption that he supported the Nazis' crimes against the innocent.  In A. Scott Berg's Pulizter Prize winner Lindbergh, Dr. Carrel is described as an eccentric far-right racial mystic, but also as a devout Catholic who despised the Nazis.  From what I gather, his views seem to be more an attempt to reconcile Joseph de Maistre's "Pope, King, and Hangman" counterrevolutionary ideals with eugenics than the modernist and proudly amoral combination of social Darwinism and neo-paganism that fused Nazi ideology.   If that assessment reeks of the "no true Scotsman" argument, then so does the unfounded allegation that he "applauded the Nazi T-4 euthanasia program" simply because of his "relation to eugenics and fascism."  Neither of those two movements were necessarily synonymous with Nazism, and many of their proponents and sympathizers strongly opposed the Nazis.  Of course Nazism couldn't have happened without eugenics and fascism, and one could argue that like many influencial ultra-rightists, Dr. Carrel perhaps bears some responsibility for Nazi barbarity on account of failing to openly condemn the Nazis for the way they appropriated the kind of ideals he promoted.  That might raise the debate over whether Senator Joseph McCarthy was wrong to suggest the same thing regarding the equally (arguably even more) atrocious barbarities of Stalin and Mao.  Who says we should give the far left the benefit of the doubt, but not the far right?  This is not written as an endorsement of Dr. Carrel's views, but the unverified and subjective claim that he actually "applauded the Nazi T-4 euthanasia program" is not an accusation to be taken lightly and I'm deleting it unless someone can offer solid evidence to verify this otherwise defamatory claim. 03:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I don't see any evidence that he knowingly "applauded" Nazi forced euthanasia

message: I have added subsections to his scientific work, and moved the material on surgery up to give it proper prominence, as his most important contribution and the basis of his Nobel prize. The notorious experiment on the chicken heart tissue, which used to be the lead for this section, has been brought down to the third subsection, and extended to show that this work has never been replicated and is now considered refuted. The results were either poor experimental protocols, or possibly a deliberate fraud, though not necessarily due to Carrel himself. I was alerted to this problem by a commenter at PZ Myer's Pharyngula blog, though the article is actually based on research I made on my own behalf to track down reliable sources and get the full story. (Hat tip: Blog comment by "Colugo" on July 18 2007.) There is probably scope to clear up a bit the content in subsections to better fit the new structure. The current content was  obtained by moving around previously existing paragraphs. -- Duae Quartunciae (t|c) 02:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chicken heart experiment refuted 

message: In Carrel&redirect=no&oldid=228088932 the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) 
* "Jaki" :
** Rev. Stanley Jaki Two Lourdes Miracles and a Nobel Laureate: What Really Happened?
** Stanley Jaki Rev. Stanislav Jaki Two Lourdes Miracles and a Nobel Laureate: What Really Happened?
DumZiBoT (talk) 11:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot report : Found duplicate references ! 

message: I just want to note here that in the last few days, the category "Vichy regime" has been changed to "French collaborationists" and now to "French Nazi collaborators." Considering about half of the nation was under Vichy control for several years, and that the vast majority of people just kept their heads down and "collaborated," I see the increasingly dark description of them rather pointless, and defamatory. Dr. Carrel perhaps by accepting his "dream" position of a Foundation under the Vichy regime was more guilty than others. Not everyone felt that he was, and he died before his name could be cleared. This article has a long history of defamation by Leftists intent on making this man (and anyone to the Right of Marx) into a monster. I fully expect the category to be changed any day now to "French Nazi monsters." - Nhprman 14:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The defamation continues

message: In a documentary on surgery I watched recently, it mentioned that Carrel had one blue eye and one brown eye. Rare, interesting, but is it worth mentioning? Quinnfeld (talk) 23:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Blue eye, Brown eye

message: The beginning on the article says he was a Nazi sympathizer, but the article doesn't really mention that. It says he was a scientist in the Vichy regime, but that doesn't necessarily mean you're a Nazi sympathizer. Is there anything else about this? --AW (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You are totally correct. It's a POV statement and an unwarranted slur, since he's not on record as having "sympathies" with the Germans or  the Nazis. Feel free to delete that wording. Long ago, I grew weary of arguing the point with a couple of zealots with an agenda, so I won't get back involved, at this point. Nhprman  21:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Nazi sympathizer"? 

message: Beleive Dr. Carrel,Wrote  many articles was even on the Board of the Readers Digest magazine.No mention in article of this Dr.EdsonAndre'JohnsonD.D.Ulc Dated8/8/1021stcent2decideMoiAndreLibre (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of Dr. Carrels connection with magazine Readers Digest 

message: I first want to thank everyone who has put a lot of great effort and information into this article.  My request for expansion is not to accuse anyone of boas, but rather to inspire people who know more about certain aspects of his life to expand those section.  An excellent article will serve the information needs of all the variety of interests that may draw someone to it.  I came here researching the history of cardiovascular medicine; I am sure many end up here researching Nobel Laureates.  But this man's life is so interesting that people will end up coming here if they are interested in any of the following:
Nobel Laureates
Medical history esp. vascular surgery and heart-lung machine
Eugenics esp. relating to Nazi Germany
Lourdes, miracles, and conversion stories
Readers Digest
Charles Lindbergh
First, please expand the opening summary.  All of these aspects should be mentioned in the opening summary paragraph to key in people that come to the article from all those areas.  I myself found the article to be highly focused and detailed on his eugenics history, likely because Holland has an interest in this area--and that's great.  But I had to look elsewhere for details about other aspects of his life, and didn't even know about the Readers Digest link (if there is one) except through the discussion.  I am asking not that what is there be removed, but rather that other aspects of this fascinating man's life be expanded as much as the sources allow.  Thanks!  Kris (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 12:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section expansions to improve article 

message: This article still contains sources that do not reference anything in this article.  I have labeled them, and no one has commented.  I have removed them, listed below.
Sources listed but not referenced (unsure of relevance to this article):
* Azmeh, Aziz (Aziz Al-Azmeh). Islams and Modernities Verso, London, 1993.
* Pioneers of Islamic Revival (edited by Ali Rahnema), Zed Books, London 1994
* Abu-Rabi, Ibrahim M. Intellectual Origins of Islamic Resurgence, SUNY Press, Albany, 1996
* Ali, Tariq.  Clash of Fundamentalisms Verso, London, 2002
* Choueiri, Youssef. Islamic Fundamentalism Continuum International Publishing Group, London, 2002.
--Kris (talk) 12:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources not referenced in the article 

message: I found this article poorly organized.  I used a Google Translation of https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexis_Carrel to make sense of it.  For example, from this article I was unable to parse out that Carrel returned to France in 1939 (but found it in the French article).  I'd suggest using the French article as an example to rewrite this one.  Hope this helps! Darci (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article organization 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Alexis Carrel. 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:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120207000237/http://research.musc.edu/lindbergh/laureates.htm to http://research.musc.edu/lindbergh/laureates.htm
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060218180717/http://ong-comite-liaison.unesco.org/ongpho/acti/3/2/document/8/pdfen.pdf to http://ong-comite-liaison.unesco.org/ongpho/acti/3/2/document/8/pdfen.pdf
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060218180717/http://ong-comite-liaison.unesco.org/ongpho/acti/3/2/document/8/pdfen.pdf to http://ong-comite-liaison.unesco.org/ongpho/acti/3/2/document/8/pdfen.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Alexis Carrel. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060205201406/https://nobelprize.org:80/nobel/stamps/1972.html to http://nobelprize.org/nobel/stamps/1972.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927004947/http://research.musc.edu/lindbergh/prize.htm to http://research.musc.edu/lindbergh/prize.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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: :The Latvian translation of the book has been included in the 1951 list of books banned in the Soviet Union.https://gramatas.lndb.lv/periodika2-viewer/view/index-dev.html?lang=fr#issue:/0309060810|issueType:B
I just spent 30 minutes trying to verify this claim, but could not.  I will leave it here if anyone wants to try to duplicate my efforts.  Viriditas (talk) 23:17, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of banned books