Jump to content

Talk:Apothecary

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

Etymology

[edit]

I temporarily removed this paragraph from the article:

The word is from the Latin apothecarius, a keeper of an otheca, a store; see also apotheca - a storehouse or magazine, Thuc.vi. 97, for books, Indoct. 5; a burial place, id. Contempl. 22; but especially a place in the upper part of the house in which the Romans kept their wine in amphorae.

What the heck does this all mean? If this etymology has to be so technical, then it should come later in the article. The opening of the article needs to be more accessable to the lay reader who just wants to know the basic facts of what an apothecary is. ike9898 21:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Looks an evaluation of Latin poetry or something. Greatgavini 12:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than removing it, why not just move it later? I appreciate knowing the derivation of the word, and I think it is suitable content. WLD 08:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, add it to the end or give it a section for etymology, since that would quickly be skipped if uninteresting to the reader. Wiki wiki1 03:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll not comment on the sorry state of three different editors not able to parse an etymological passage. I will, however, suggest that the passage was probably a verbatim copy-and-paste from the OED website (I'm not a member, but the phrasing and thoroughness look like OED to me). The passage is not "so technical", it's just thorough, much more thorough than is needed here. The editor who pasted it in could have stopped at the first semi-colon. I see no reason why it couldn't be included at the end of the first paragraph; the original meaning of "apothecary" as merely a shop keeper is historically important. 12.22.250.4 18:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even see any semi-colons when I read it. Oh well, time to change my glasses again. 58.6.247.131 (talk) 12:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The etymology, moreover, appears incorrect. The word comes from the Greek, apotheke "barn, storehouse," lit. "a place where things are put away," from apo- "away" + tithenai "to put". Drugs and herbs being among the chief items of non-perishable goods, the meaning narrowed by the 17c. to "druggist". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tachypaidia (talk • contribs) 12:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Incorrect reference

[edit]

The reference cited:

  • Sharif Kaf al-Ghazal, Journal of the International Society for the History of Islamic Medicine, 2004 (3), pp. 3-9 [8].

Appears to be incorrect. The journal is freely available on the Internet, here: http://www.ishim.net/newsletter.htm. Sharif Kaf al-Ghazal does have an article in the cited journal, but it does not cover apothecary shops in Baghdad, the title being "Medical Ethics in Islamic History at a Glance". Reading the article does not support the claim made in the article text. I propose that the assertion made in the article is removed, as it is not supported by the cited reference. I should, perhaps, note in passing, that the same assertion and reference are used in at least one other article in Wikipedia. 85.158.139.99 (talk) 08:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, this incorrect reference is used in the following articles:
...there may be others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.158.139.99 (talk) 10:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reference lacked a title and was incomplete. The author is an editor of the journal and seems to publish an article in every single issue. I think I found the correct article, and have edited accordingly. (The statement is supported by the first paragraph of the article.) I know that the Arabic influence on European medicine was enormous (see Schola Medica Salernitana), so the statement doesn't seem particularly remarkable to me. Nevertheless, it would be nice to have it backed by a high quality Western source as well, as it's not obvious that the article was peer reviewed and a certain amount of patriotic bias wouldn't be surprising. I would like to get rid of the odd sourcing of the statement to one particular scholar, as if it was a value statement or something controversial. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you edited all the other articles too? If so, I'm impressed by very quick work. I've stated elsewhere that the contention that Baghdad was the _first_ location of apothecary shops is contentious, and needs qualification.85.158.139.99 (talk) 10:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Darn. The SineBot edit-clashed with additional text I was adding.
There is another reference used in many of the above articles, viz :"S. Hadzovic (1997). "Pharmacy and the great contribution of Arab-Islamic science to its development", Medicinski Arhiv 51 (1-2), p. 47-50". Medicinski Arhiv is not available online, and given the other reference provided by the author has turned out to be incorrect, it would be great if someone would check that, too. 85.158.139.99 (talk) 10:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh - found it: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9324574. The original journal article is apparently in Croatian, but PubMed gives an English abstract in which the claim is made "The first drug stores in the world were established in Arabic world (Baghdad 754)". I don't have access to the full article text, and even if I did, I don't read Croatian. Is this the kind of reference Wikipedia should be using? 85.158.139.99 (talk) 10:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. So your point is that the Arabs probably weren't the first? Of course that makes sense. Unfortunately I don't have the time to deal with this further, or to correct all those other articles that I am only marginally interested in. Sorry. Perhaps the current formulation in this article isn't so bad, after all. Or we could just say (as a fact, not an attributed statement) that Europe got the idea from the Arabs, and when. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, absolutely. I'm more than happy to give credit where credit is due, and 'Western European' culture owes a huge debt to the Middle Eastern intellectuals who preserved and built upon the Classical Greek knowledge, as well as making their own discoveries. They made marvellous additions to the body of knowledge. However, their achievements do need setting in a proper historical context, and their religion is (almost) irrelevant. There are arguments that the Muslim tradition of testing and inquiry, and requiring reliable sources for the hadith led to the development of the scientific method, but that properly lies in an article on the history and philosophy of science. We do not refer to the Christian scientist Newton, for example, so referring to Muslim scientists or intellectuals is bringing religion in where it does not fit. Overall, I'd be happy with saying that the first apothecary shops in Baghdad appeared in 754, supported by the appropriate references, but saying the first apothecary shops (or drugstores) (by implication anywhere in the world) appeared in Baghdad is simply being misleading. One could argue that they were the first to come under state control - but that is an important qualification that would need adding, and I'm not even completely sure that is true - both the Chines and Japanese may well have prior claims. As for apothecary or pharmacy shops in general, the late Roman Empire had those in the form of unguentaria who produced perfumes, ointments, salves and pills.85.158.139.99 (talk) 12:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me then that both the Roman pharmacy shops and the Arabic ones are quite significant and should be mentioned, along with any other early mentions. There is no need to include a statement that we know to be wrong or misleading, just because we have reliable sources for it. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Someone should limit that SineBot or something, it's really ticking me off. 58.6.247.131 (talk) 12:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bible Chronology

[edit]

Recently added material states: In the book of Exodus Chapter 30 verse 25, "And thou shalt make it an oil of holy ointment, an ointment compound after the art of the apothecary: it shall be an holy anointing oil.", suggest that the practice of apothecary could date back to the Pharaohs of Egypt dating 2000 BC. [1]

We have a similar problem with the Law of Æthelberht. Even though the text is thought to have been composed in the 7th century AD, the oldest surviving manuscript is from 300 years later. Furthermore, it is not clear how much of the text was composed in the 7th century, and how much was subsequent amendments and revisions. Thus, the OED (under "inch," as this law contains one of the earliest occurrences of the word in English) lists it as a 10th century document.

It seems likely that all great ancient and Bronze Age civilizations had apothecaries. However, reliable documentation should be contemporary documents (e.g. Egyptian hieroglyphics, Sumerian clay tablets) or direct archaeological evidence.

Note also that the user who posted this has a contribution history indicative of using Wikipedia to stifle criticism of New Testament Christian Churches of America (by deleting critical comments) and promoting a Bible-centered word-view. Zyxwv99 (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User Zyxwv99, according to most of the references in this article, I can conclude that your trying to promote an Islamic-centered world. History is referenced, by archeological findings, writings and passed down traditionally (orally). The articular incorrectly states, that the first apothecary shops where by Muslim pharmacists in 754 quoted from "Pharmacy and the great contribution of Arab-Islamic science to its development" and the rest of the information gathered from "Journal of the International Society for the History of Islamic Medicine".
The Title of the section in question is "History", which user: Zyxwv99, you agree would include "all great ancient and Bronze Age civilizations had apothecaries". The Bible is an historical artifact and its used by both sacred and secular historian. User:Zyxwv99 I didn't erase what you had placed within this article because of your questionable "sources" of world history, seems biases that you would delete a critical view which is backed by a historical source. --ER 05:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwinramos2 (talk • contribs)
The King James Version does indeed translate the Hebrew רֹקֵ֑חַ to "of an apothecary" in English. But most newer translations prefer the English phrase "of a perfumer" [1], including the NIV, UK NIV, Good News Translation, English Standard Version, the New King James Version, the 21st Century New King James Version and others. There is a minority of Christians who believe that the King James version is the only acceptable version in English, but an encyclopedia can't assert something based on a probably inaccurate 17th-century translation from Hebrew to English. I've undone the addition: please cite a source that's not the 1611 KJV, and not someone who uses the 1611 KJV as their primary source. Thanks, Scopecreep (talk) 09:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Such hatred towards the most accurate translation of the bible to English, which was a word to word translation of the original Hebrew manual script, by the most respected and reputable historian scholars of its time. The other version of the bible quoted above where translated by a popular vote of opinion. User:Scopecreep,User:Zyxwv99, I see that true scholarly research is not the objective here, which reports all the facts and allows the end-user to decide from a collection of different sources to make an informed decision.
"Please cite a source that's not the 1611 KJV, and not someone who uses the 1611 KJV as their primary source" let me decipher what this really means- don't use no christian sources to arrive at any historical facts. I will try User:Scopecreep,User:Zyxwv99, thank you for making me a better and sharper researcher. --ER 13:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwinramos2 (talk • contribs)
There's really no need to talk of "hatred" here. Yes, the KJV transation was made by the most respected and reputable historian scholars of its time. But its time was 500 years ago, and scholarship has moved on. By all means use Christian sources: I cited several above, and all of them translate רֹקֵ֑חַ as meaning "of a perfumer", not "of an apothecary". Why should the translation used in the King James Version be used in preference to these? Scopecreep (talk) 15:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would not the Jews be a better authority on what a Hebrew word in the Hebrew Bible actually means than would the Christians? I have no idea what the answer is, it just seems to me that that would be the proper way to find out the correct answer, rather than speculating on which English translation by Christians can be most trusted. (I am generally in the KJV camp, personally, but KJV is far from perfect). Firejuggler86 (talk) 09:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I used freshly new sources just like the community wanted, Allen: 1. Jr, Lloyd. A History of Pharmaceutical Compounding. Secundum Artem, Volume 11 Number 3. 2. American Botanical Council (1998). "A Pictorial History of Herbs in Medicine and Pharmacy". Herbalgram (Issue 42): pp 33-47. Which backs my point of view. There is nothing to debate about here. Phd Allend Jr is head Editor-in-Chief of the International Journal of Pharmaceutical Compounding. ??? Dont understand whats controversial about stating facts. Especially the Papyrus Ebers! which is well documented history all over the world. This is laughable... You're entertaining USER:Scopecreep. --ER 15:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwinramos2 (talk • contribs)

Those new sources look good, thanks for finding them. But they don't support the assertion that "apothecary" is a correct translation from the Bible, so I've removed that sentence. Scopecreep (talk) 15:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will have to remove the assertion that "The first one was founded by Muslim pharmacists in 754" because the Papyrus Ebers discredits this statement. Nothing but the facts, nothing but the facts, right User:Scopecreep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwinramos2 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You were correct to remove the few words asserting that the Baghdad apothecary shops were the first, but you also removed altogether the referenced content mentioning them, for some reason. I've restored this. Scopecreep (talk) 16:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping the word Muslim is very important to you USER:Scopecreep, I believe it should be omitted. Muslim is not a race of people, like Egyptian, Babylonians, Sumerians, Arabians, etc... Muslim happens to reference an ideology. A Muslim, also spelled Moslem,vis an adherent of Islam, a monotheistic Abrahamic religion based on the Qur'an—which Muslims consider the uncreated and verbatim word of God as revealed to prophet Muhammad—and, with lesser authority than the Qur'an, the teachings and practices of Muhammad as recorded in traditional accounts, called hadith. "Muslim" is an Arabic word meaning "one who submits to God" I know that your beliefs are important to you USER:Scopecreep, just like you know mine are to me. But, you just made me edit all my Christian sources away, because I was promoting a bible-centered world view, and yet I smell a hint of Islamic-centered world history view all up in this section of the article in question.??--ER 16:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwinramos2 (talk • contribs)

I'm a Christian, actually, and my beliefs have got nothing to do with this. Please give the personal attacks a rest. "Arabic pharmacists" is just as accurate as "Muslim pharmacists" in the context of that paragraph, so your last edit is fine. Scopecreep (talk) 18:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I review the history section of this article, the following whole statement needs to be revised or removed: "According to Sharif Kaf al-Ghazal,[3] Jolyn Carter, and S. Hadzovic,[4] apothecary shops were founded during the Middle Ages in Baghdad[3] by Arabian pharmacists in 754 during the Abbasid Caliphate, or Islamic Golden Age[4] The Papyrus Ebers discredits this whole assertion. Apothecary shops were not founded during the Middle Ages, they were founded, at least back to 1500bc according to the Papyrus Ebers. Researchers of the Ebers, have reasonable assertion that Apothecary could date back as far as 3600BC!!

Therefore, to say that Apothecary shops were formed during the Middle Ages, would be an incorrect statement. Given the fact that actual archaeological findings prove other wise. --ER 17:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwinramos2 (talk • contribs)

The sentence is completely accurate: it notes that apothecary shops were founded in Baghdad in the Middle Ages, not that those were the first apothecaries. Can you suggest a better word than "founded", to remove any trace of doubt? Scopecreep (talk) 18:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed "founded" to "existed". That should do it. Scopecreep (talk) 19:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have come to a consensuses USER:Scopecreep, this article is looking much better and more "neutral" in view. Love the new word that you suggested, "Existed" , much better word.

Till next time USER:Scopecreep, till next time. --ER 21:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwinramos2 (talk • contribs)

Islamic not Arabian

[edit]

In the article it states: "by Arabian pharmacists in 754 during the Abbasid Caliphate, or Islamic Golden Age[4] . Apothecaries were also active in Islamic Spain by the 11th century.[5]"

"Arabian pharmacists" wiki link directs us to wiki link 'Medicine in the medieval Islamic world' where under the subtitle "Major contributions to medicine" the names RAZI and Ibn Sina appear. These men were Persian, not Arabs. In fact, 80% of the scientists during this time were Persian (see Ibn Khaldrun's famous quote). Change the word Arabian pharmacists to Islamic or Muslim pharmacists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 00:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Methods

[edit]

I am going to find more information on the methods use by Apothecaries. This would be good to combine with the section on remedies which currently only hit on ingredients.


[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Apothecary. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 13:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Show globe

[edit]

Kenixkil (talk) 23:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Apothecary&oldid=1198871644"