Talk:Louis Pasteur/Archive 1

Archive 1

Unknown Error?

When clicking on the following image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lou_p.gif, the error

[[[[[Image:Failed to parse (unknown error): --Micro.pw 12:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)#REDIRECT [[Media:'Bold text'== Summary == Pasteur and his device for disproving spontaneous generation theory. Which he did.]] ]]]]]]

Appears. Any ideas on how to fix it? Should I contact an admin? Micro.pw 12:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Potoligest?

A quick google search reveals this site as the only reference to the word potoligest, used in reference to chemist. Anybody know if it's a typo or if it was accidently added? A quick search on the when the word was added shows that it was added by a known vandal, so I shall change it. Please tell me if you have a problem with this action. Magicmonster 22:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Quote

The French WP collection of Pasteur quotes says this: La chance ne sourit qu'aux esprits bien préparés. Is this the correct one or the one on this page? Awolf002 12:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Criticism Literature

Do those new references really fit in here? Are they giving details about Pasteur's life or are they criticising some part of his research (as they seem to indicate), and should they be in the related articles because of that? Awolf002 14:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Spontaneous generation "death blow" and Pasteur´s view on that

Doing my research for improvement of the article in portuguese about abiogenesis/spontaneous generation, I've found something that I simply found startling. Pasteur didn't disbelieved spontaneous generation, despite of being the major icon of the refutal of this hypothesis. In fact, he neither really refuted the hypothesis, or disbelieved it. He indeed did publish the results appointing to the refutation of spontaneous generation. But apparently, as was discovered later (1970's), only 10% of his experiments were according with what he published

Isn't that spontaneous generation did happened, though, but failures in proper sterilization and maybe the presence of heat-resistant endospores, as discovered by John Tyndall and/or Ferdinand Cohn, during the british debate about spontaneous generation. I'm my research I've read that outside France, the refutal of spontaneous generation wasn't immediatelly accepted. In fact, I've read that many thought that was just luck, as many repeated the experiments with different levels of success, but I haven't found many details, and I guess that they're referring to Henry Charlton Bastian's and Félix Archimède Pouchet's experiments. I admit that it's weird that he became such an icon of the rebutal of spontaneous generation if these really are the facts. But, I guess that it's nothing that inertial school textbook's writers couldn't manage to make happen acidentally during the course of history.

I was saving the best for last. Pasteur, as I've said before, believed in spontaneous generation, despite of publically refuting it. Secretly, he conducted experiments trying to spontaneously generate life, and also believed that parasitic worms were spontaneously generated. The reason of keeping this secretly, according to what I've read, is that disproving spontaneous generation was the better thing to do at that time in order to be agreeble with his scientific patrons. Also, during the course of his work with crystals, he developed a belief in a sort of "cosmic asymmetric force". He believed that since Pouchet, his opponent, was approaching the question of spontaneous unaware of this "cosmic asymetric force", he ought to be wrong.

I think that I've read the most or the most relevant of that in New Details Add to Our Understanding of Spontaneous Generation Controversies, ASM News 63, 1997. p.193. Where "ASM" doesn't stands for "Amazing Spider Man" but for "American Society of Microbiology". A text by James Strick.

Some points I think I should make: I'm not a creationist, a spontaneous generation believer, or a HIV denier or anything like that, and these things doesn't seem related with what I said anyway. Actually, despite of being somewhat shocking at first, something in the sense of "denying history", something you'd expect from crackpots, gradually I realize that actually mades sense that the history is more complicated than what is commonly known, iconized, high-contrasted "heroes versus losers" version. Anyway, I'm not "defending" it, I'm puting it in the table because I think it deserves attention. If someone knows more about that than I do, and can assure that these worries about the article and history are somehow invalid, I'd like to know (specially with references, although... "nah, the history is just what is commonly known" wouldn't convince me... still... I won't debate more about that, I'll just not be convinced) --Extremophile 01:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The new details... reference remarks that Pateur never accepted that the first organisms arose from non-living matter - I suspect he was religious. It also suggests, at least to me, that he was testing the assertions of others - whether by repeating their experiments or by going from scratch with his own is unclear, but either or both are quite sensible, even if you have a feeling that you will conclude one way. Interesting piece, and certainly the caricatures of scientists that are sometimes presented in order to further current preoccupations are best discarded. It takes a while for a paradigm to be accepted is what I see in that. Midgley 16:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The article satates that Pasteur never accepted that it was happened in the conditions that others were assuming it was happening, but clearly mentions that he believed in spontaneous generation of parasitic worms. I would prefer to read his private annotations rather than this second or third hand account, though. About his religiousness, in an article on Talk Origins is said that Pasteur´s religious views are a bit obscure, but that at least he was not an strongly religious person . And anyway, that does not really says much about what he thought about the origin of first organisms by non-living matter. In fact, Pouchet was religious, notably more religious than Pasteur, as we can find accounts of him making explicit that he thought that spontaneous generation was divinely guided. I guess that it was more or less a recapitulation of somewhat earlier ideas of sponaneous generation, when it served as a form opposition to evolution, in the form of special creations.

And I still think that the "final death blow" part puts too much importance on Pasteur´s experiments, as if everybody was fully convinced, while in reality the idea lasted a bit longer and the work of Tyndall and Cohn was also important. And would be fair to mention that about selecting only 10% of the results to publishing, and that he won a prize for that. --Extremophile 00:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I read The Spontaneous Generation Controversy From Descartes to Oparin by John Farley (1977). He gives a detailed account of Pasteur's motives and experiments, it is a thorough academic investigation. According to Farley, Pasteur opposed spontaneous generation on religious grounds. To disprove spontaneous generation (a Godless theory) and prove germ theory (that God created all life, including invisible germs) Pasteur sterilized "Fertile Broths" in hermetically sealed flasks etc.

Farley claims Pasteur's contribution to science is as substantial as Boyle's, that he represents a maturation of science into its modern form. While he did not deal the death blow to spontaneous generation (it lingered on until 1911 with Stephane Leduc's Mechanism of Life), Pasteur improved the scientific method and encompassed the invisible. --Diamonddavej (talk) 23:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Pasteurisation

By definition that has to be what he is most famous for, no? Midgley 17:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd say he is even more famous for the germ theory of disease, ranking as the 6th most important event of the millennium in:

• LIFE top 100 events of the millennium: Germ theory of disease and Pasteur

He even has been called the greatest benefactor of mankind:

• Louis Pasteur @ About Biotech

Science History 13:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Similar images

Lou_p.gif looks like a drawing of Pasteur.jpg. The photograph is nice. The drawing is not as nice and perhaps should be replaced. [unsigned]

While is very honourable that someone produced the image to be used here, I think that it´s a bit redundant as it´s a copy of one photo and also there´s a photo of another version of the swan neck flask. (I ´ve put that "unsigned" there just to make clear that was not me that wrote that) --Extremophile 00:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Louis Pasteur and creationism

From Answers in Genesis on Louis Pasteur. In 1857, Pasteur returned to the Ecole Normale. This time he was not a student, but was the Director of Scientific Studies. Here he continued his work on microbes.

The ancient Greeks had believed that small animals such as worms, mice, and maggots sprang to life automatically from the non-living matter around (such as rotting flour, a sweaty shirt, or decaying meat). This belief that living matter arose from non-living material is called spontaneous generation. The idea of maggots’ coming spontaneously to life out of decaying meat was successfully challenged in 1668 by Italian biologist Francesco Redi. When he covered the meat with gauze to prevent flies from laying their eggs on it, no maggots appeared in the meat. (The maggots are actually the larvae which hatch from flies’ eggs).

Long after the idea of spontaneous generation of maggots, mice and worms had been generally discarded, scientists still clung to the idea of spontaneous generation of microscopic animals. To disprove this idea also, Pasteur boiled some broth to kill any microbes present. With special glassware, he allowed air to circulate over the broth, but prevented microbes in the air from reaching the broth. As Pasteur expected, no microbes appeared in the broth. Pasteur’s findings showed that microbes were not spontaneously generated from the broth itself. Microbes would only appear in the broth if they were allowed in with the air. He clearly showed that even for microbes, life came only from life—‘Microscopic beings must come into the world from parents similar to themselves.

Pasteur’s work should have dealt the death blow to the idea of spontaneous generation. But spontaneous generation is an essential part of the theory of evolution. Despite all the efforts of evolutionary scientists, not one observable case of spontaneous generation has ever been found. Pasteur’s findings conflicted with the idea of spontaneous generation (as do all scientific results since). Consequently, Louis Pasteur was a strong opponent of Darwin’s theory.

It clearly states that Pasteur was NOT an evolutionist.. perhaps the only opponents to evolution are young-earth creationists...... ¬¬ Arturo #7 22:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Arturo, there are many problems with the above. In fact, more problems than I have the time or desire to enumerate (and many of the problems are not sufficiently germane to this page to bear mention anyways). First, I already pointed out to you [1] regarding Pasteur's attitude (and I find it puzzling that you attack me for using what you branded as an "evolutionist site" (all caps removed) while you use a creationist ministry website for your evidence. Second, you need to get away from these false dichotomies of everyone falling into "evolutionist" "creationist" categories. If you read the above reference or read Pasteur's writings you might be aware that he was most likely ok with evolution but skeptical of natural selection. Third as I have already tried to explain to you abiogenesis and spontaneous generation are not the same thing and in any event evolution does not rely on abiogenesis. JoshuaZ 23:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

AiG dos not meet WP:RS. Anyway, AFAIK, Pasteur was a Lamarckian not a Darwinian, which is not surprising considering he was French and so was of the French school which followed Lamarck. — Dunc|☺ 12:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

OMG.... why ur ignorance doesn't surprise me? u quote something written by someone else, not Pasteur. It could have been true or false, ur quote makes no sense. Anyway, u clearly will defend ur POV instead of respecting Wikipedia's NPOV policy, that's why I dropped down this shit. cyaArturo #7 23:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Arturo #7, just because somebody doesn't support your creationist POV doesn't mean that they aren't respecting Wikipedia's NPOV policy. You can be a creationist all your want, but it doesn't make Pasteur one regardless of various quotes in AiG. Also as JoshuaZ states, abiogenesis and spontaneous generation are not the same thing. It is creationism fantasy that tries (badly) to make them the same. Shot info 05:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Apparently Pasteur had some issues with "darwinism", as natural selection for the main mechanism for development of adaptations. But he was an evolutionist and also believed in spontaneous generation. He just did not believed that Félix Archimède Pouchet's (and other common) views on the process of spontaneous generation were correct. He believed both in the spontaneous generation of microbial life at some point, and in spontaneous generation (heterogenesis) of parasitic worms, rather than infection or "xenogenesis". I suppose that since there was a prize offered for settling the debate over spontaneous generation, and it would be easier to disprove Pouchet's views than to prove his owns, he did the former, and was needless and maybe a bit inconvenient to express too much his still unproven views on that matter. He probably thought that whenever he had enough to show, he would do that. Things on this sense can be read on ASM news article, "New Details Add to Our Understanding of Spontaneous Generation Controversies". Besides that, Talk Origins, contrarily to what Arturo is saying, quotes Pasteur himself, whereas the quote of AIG site is another person attempting to guess (if not to deceive) about Pasteur's opinions. --Extremophile 03:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?

"In 1854, he was named Pot Smoker of the new College of Science in Lille. In 1856, he was made administrator and director of scientific studies of the École Normale Supérieure." ... somehow this doesn't sound right. Professor maybe? ;) 164.54.53.165 18:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Louis Pasteur

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 18:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I changed 'kill all bacteria' to 'most bacteria' in main pasteur page because 'all' is factually incorrect (eg see pasteurization page) matt

Recantation myth?

Should the article mention the myth that he recanted his theories on his death bed? --Havermayer 19:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Could probably mention it, with the caveat that it is a myth with no evidence of him actually having said it?? Shot info 04:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Only, if there is a reliable source that assert this. If there is no attribution it should not be in this article. Awolf002 21:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Asymmetric crystals in wine and deducing and proving fermentation is a biological process

I have heard multiple and interesting accounts on how Pastuer deduced and proved that wine was created by fermentation as opposed to a simple inorganic chemical reaction. If I have the facts correct (I will do a better job before adding this to the article), Pastuer noted that a sample tartaric acid became moldy, and rather than throwing it out, he cleaned it up, and noted that they were now asymmetric, even though originally they contained the left hand and right hand crystals. He also noted that in wine, only one or the other (I can't remember which) were present, and from this, deduced, and later proved, that a biological process and not a chemical process was involved. While this may or may not be historically important, I think it is interesting none the less

This is touched upon here: http://www.vigyanprasar.gov.in/scientists/PLouis.htm

I have also heard it in a history lecture, and remember seeing something about this in a documentary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by StudyAndBeWise (talk • contribs) 05:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

Effect pasteur

The "effect Pasteur" (reduction of the glycolisis flow when a cell switches from anaerobic to aerobic metabolism) deserves an article —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.0.153.139 (talk) 04:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

Etudes sur la Biere

While understanding that "pasteurization" is most often thought of in relationship to milk, it seems very odd to me that there is NO mention of the fact that Pasteur's major work on the subject is "Etudes sur la Biere," translated into English in 1879 as "Studies on Fermentation; the Diseases of Beer, their causes, and the means of preventing them." The studies were commissioned and supported by the French government and the French brewing industry. Yet the word "beer" appears nowhere in this article. It would seem only fair to add this. 72.78.2.206 16:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It's up to you ! It's a wikipedia !! --Symposiarch 21:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

dear author(s) of this page

You are a puswank of the first order. I have just wasted hour upon hour of work, including missing lunch and staying behind after school, on my chemistry prodject - repeating Pasteur's optical isomer experiment, under the immpression created by your limp wristed page that the crystals used were tartaric acid. after several fruitless attempts I decided to reserch the experiment further, whereupon i discorvered that the crystals used were sodium ammonium tartrate,a practically unique chemical in that it displays the required property for a sucessful experiment, and not, as your page suggests, tartric acid. I have corrected your Augustus Gloop of a page accordingly.

dude, please sign comments and remember, wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a primary source. -- Akb4 18:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

other Munthe personal descriptions

In The Story of San Michele (page 49-50 in the copy I have), physician Axel Munthe devotes a page or three to descriptions of Pasteur and his rabies vaccine research. It includes some interesting personal exposition, namely that Pasteur loved animals but was frequently attacked by anti-vivisectionists but continued his research because he knew it would save both human and animal lives. Some relevant bits: He himself went on his way undaunted by failure, but those who saw him in those days knew well how much he suffered from the tortures he had to inflict upon the dogs, for he himself was a great lover of dogs. and [...] even the keeper of the kennel at Villaneuve de l'Etang, an ex-gendarme called Pernier, had been chosen for his post by Pasteur himself because he was known as a great lover of dogs."

Munthe also described a case of euthanasia; six Russian peasants who had been mauled by rabid wolves were sent to Pasteur by the Tsar for treatment. The cases were hopeless, and the peasants went insane at the disease progressed. Their screams and howls could be heard all over the Hotel Dieu, people said even below in Place Notre Dame. The whole hospital was in emotion. Nobody wanted to go near the ward. Even the courageous sisters fled in terror. I can see now the white face of Pasteur as he passed in silence from bed to bed, looking at the doomed men with infinite compassion in his eyes. He sank down on a chair, his head between his hands. That night, Pasteur consulted with one of the hospital's surgeons, Tillaux. There are few who know the decision they arrived at, but it was the right one and an honour to them both. The next morning, all was silent in the ward. During the night the doomed men had been helped to a painless death.

I'm not quite sure how to work this material into the article; maybe someone else could take a shot at it. --Akb4 18:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

In the section where it says that Pasteur deceived others ("Allegations of Deception"), it would be useful to elaborate≈≈≈≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidortizboston (talk • contribs) 20:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Removed citations

I've pulled the following from the text as references which fail to meet the reliable sources criteria:

"R. B. Pearson and Nancy Appleton said--his theory was false. "

-- MarcoTolo 20:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Geison does not accuse Pasteur of plagiarism

The article says (in the section "Allegations of plagiarism of Bechamp") :
"In 1995, the centennial of the death of Louis Pasteur the New York Times ran an article titled "Pasteur's Deception". After having thouroughly read Pasteur's lab notes the science historian Gerald L. Geison declared that Pasteur had lied about his research on vaccines and furthermore had stolen a competitor's ideas."

In fact, Geison 1995 (p. 275) writes about a book of E. D. Hume :
"The book does reveal that Pasteur treated his sometime assistant Antoine Béchamp (1816-1908) very shabbily, but it does not persuade me that Pasteur "plagiarized" Béchamp's work and ideas in any meaningful sense of the term."

But Geison accuses indeed Pasteur of deception, about the experiment of Pouilly-le-Fort. You can find details in the article "Louis Pasteur" of the French Wikipedia, where we are fond of Geison's book. Marvoir (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

by 1957 pasteur had become world famous and took up an Bold text —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.80.150.129 (talk) 21:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see the point. If there was no controversy at the time, there's no need to create a controversy now that Pasteur is dead and can't refute accusation. No disrespect for Gerald Geison's work, but it seems rather pointless for me. Pasteur became famous for creating a vaccine for rabbies, for his experiments in microbiology. Geison didn't achieve anything but tried to become famous by writing a book accusing Pasteur of deception. Whether it's true or not, does it matter ? No. But Geison choose to attack such a public figure because he knew he could make money with it. This is what a lot of "historians" are doing nowadays. Talaolz (talk) 21:11, 16 july 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.250.199.222 (talk)

Though the New York Times reported Geison's findings on 16 May 1995, NRC Handelsblad reported on 15 February 1993 that these findings were presented on 13 February 1993 at the congress of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Boston. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex1 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

British English or American English?

I've noticed that this page is written in American English, and was wondering what Wikipedia's policy is for pages about non-English speaking people?

As France is part of the EU, I feel that it should be written in British English, but would like to know what's considered the correct format before I alter the text. 80.7.186.169 (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Neither variety is considered more correct. An article should be consistent, and not switch back and forth. The guideline WP:ENGVAR calls for sticking with the initial variety of English in an article which is not closely linked to the U.S. or British variety, and not having a random mixture of spelling variants. I would use British English for an article about the European Union, but not necessarily in an article about someone who lived in a country which in the next century joined the EU. This article seems to mostly have U.S. spellings, so it should be made uniformly so, with the odd "honour" changed to "honor." Edison (talk) 21:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Louis pasteur was the creater of clean milk, water and wine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.121.78 (talk) 23:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Wrong ;-) He was not the creator, but the protector. Furthermore, this is an off-the-wall comment (it has no reason for being there). Arlen22 (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Puillet or Biot ?

One reads in the article : "Pasteur's doctoral thesis on crystallography attracted the attention of M. Puillet". Shouldn't it be Biot instead of "Puillet" ? It is well known that Biot was the mentor of Pasteur. I must confess that I know no "M. Puillet".
Marvoir (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I have never heard of a M.Puillet either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.65.83.103 (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

North American or British English?

WP:ENGVAR calls for sticking with the initial variety of English in an article which is not closely linked to the U.S. or British variety, and not having a random mixture of spelling variants. This article is a hodgepodge, with "honor" and "honour" as well as "pasteurization." It seems to mostly have U.S. spellings in the forl of "ize" endings rather than "ise." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edison (talk • contribs) 21:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Swan Neck Duct Link

The link to the swan neck duct mentioned in the Germ Theory section goes to the swan neck duct used in jet engines. I don't think this is the right link. The search for swan neck in wiki's search box leads to the beer engine, which is more closely related. Perhaps a new page on the swan neck is required?

Emortio (talk) 01:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Has Lister's swan-neck flask seen usage beyond his experiment to disprove spontaneous generation? If it's solely connected with the latter, an extra article seems redundant, and delinking may be more appropriate. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean by a new swan-neck article? --Dominic Hardstaff (talk) 10:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Religious opinions

The following was deleted on 7 september (2009) :

Catholic observers often said that Louis Pasteur remained through out his whole life an ardent Christian. According to his grandson Pasteur Vallery-Radot, however, Pasteur had only kept from his Catholic background a spiritualism without religious practice. The well-known quotation attributed to Pasteur: "The more I know, the more nearly is my faith that of the Breton peasant. Could I but know all I would have the faith of a Breton peasant's wife." would be apocryphal. Maurice Vallery-Radot, grandson of the brother of the son-in-law of Pasteur and outspoken Catholic, holds that Pasteur fundamentally remained catholic, but does not claim that he went to mass.

I fear that if these informations remain removed, the faith of a Breton peasant's wife will soon or late come back.
Marvoir (talk) 15:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

And indeed, she is back !

Marvoir (talk) 08:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Given that Pasteur's religious convictions are a matter of dispute, I think it's especially inappropriate that one of the books listed under the "References" section is a children's book from a series explicitly created to portray great scientists in a Christian light. I am removing that reference. The book in question is "Louis Pasteur: Founder of Modern Medicine (Sowers.) " by John Hudson Tiner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.26.79.209 (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

This religious section currently holds an air of irrelevance and seems to be trying to fight off an editor keen on the rewriting of history so as to promote atheism. The section might as well just say "Louis Pasteur was Catholic" instead of all this "he was religious, but this guy said he went to mass and this other guy said he didn't go to mass and some other guy said that Louis didn't say this quote..." it just reads as nonsense at the moment.Owen214 (talk) 10:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Pasteur's real recantation

There is some short discussion about the "recantation" by Pasteur on the death-bed that may or may not have happened. However, what is real is the words of Rene Dubos in his seminal book, The Mirage of Health, Dubos confirms that Pasteur did not believe that germs directly “caused” disease. Dubos wrote,

“Disease, when it occurs, is due to a change in the conditions under which the ecological equilibrium had evolved. These changes may be of varied nature. In man the provocative cause of microbial disease may be a disturbance in any of the factors of his external or internal environment—be it weather conditions, availability of food, working habits, economic status, or emotional stress.”

Dubos continues, “Pasteur had clearly visualized these complexities and had pointed out explicitly in his writings that the response of the infected individual was determined by his hereditary endowment, his state of nutrition, his environment including the climate, and even his mental state. In the course of studies on the disease of silkworms, known as flacherie Pasteur came to the conclusion , startling for the time, that the microorganisms present in such large numbers in the intestinal tract of the sick worms were ‘more an effect than a cause of the disease.’ These words were echoes half a century later by G.B. Shaw’s facetious remark in the preface of The Doctor’s Dilemma: ‘The characteristic microbe of a disease might be a symptom instead of a cause.’” (p. 94)

It would seem that we should not over-simplify Pasteur's thinking about the germ theory. DanaUllman^Talk 00:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Not from that it wouldn’t. That’s hyperbole on the part of Dubos. As to the flacherie, Pasteur was correct, but not in the way you want him to be (follow the link). — NRen2k5^(TALK), 11:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

If Pasteur didn't think germs cause disease, why was he writing about "the response of the infected individual"? Brunton (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

NRen2k5, what evidence do you have that Dubos meant his statement as a hyperbole? I think that it is important that we show more complexity to Pasteur's thinking. It seems that his thinking was not simple or linear but that he had an appreciation of the terrain. As for Brunton's statement, I'm not at all clear how that changes anything. Infection can be considered at times a "cause" and at times an "effect" (or a "co-factor"), but clearly, Pasteur thought that there are many factors, not just infection, that lead to disease. DanaUllman^Talk 03:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

My evidence for now is Dubos’ lack of evidence that Pasteur really wrote/said/meant things as he states them. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 23:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

NRen2k5, "your" evidence is not the point here, especially since you provide none (did I miss something?). Dubos was a substantial (notable) physician/scientist. Let's avoid personal POV. DanaUllman^Talk 19:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, some wiki editors like to follow me around and write against whatever I write, even if they have to make up weak rationale to do so. Can any of the regular editors here comment on what I've written above? If not, because Dubos is notable, I can and will make accurate changes to the article. DanaUllman^Talk 01:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The question is not whether Dubos is notable, it is whether this isolated passage from one of his books is notable in the context of this article. The statement that Pasteur pointed out that "the response of the infected individual was determined by his hereditary endowment, his state of nutrition, his environment including the climate, and even his mental state" does not indicate that Pasteur "did not believe that germs directly caused disease": it is a statement that resistance and susceptibility to infection vary between individuals, according to other factors. This is hardly a groundbreaking observation, and doesn't support the interpretation you are giving it. As for the comment about silkworms, have you read the more extensive account of Pasteur's work with silkworms in chapter 8 of Dubos's biography of Pasteur, in particular the observations that Pasteur was in fact observing two diseases, flacherie and pébrine, only the latter of which was caused by an agent visible to Pasteur? Brunton (talk) 22:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed the concept on an infected individual responding in different ways only makes sense if you think germs caused the initial problem. If you don't think that why consider them infected?©Geni 01:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

"Famous Quotes"

I removed this once as I thought it was unencyclopedic. Any other opinions? --John (talk) 05:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

As no arguments for keeping this were presented here, I have removed it again. --John (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Louis, the limelight stealer? Before Pasteur

I seem to remember reading in Ben Goldacre's book Bad Science that there was someone before Pasteur who had already realized that students and staff coming from the morgue into the maternity wards were carrying something with them that was harming the girls in the ward. I think he then went on to suggest those people were banned from the ward or required to wash first. And he was subsequently submitted to a psychiatric hospital (declared insane) whilst Pasteur took the credit, later (declared a genius).

I don't see that mentioned in the article.

The same is true of Isaac Newton, who may have used the apple falling from the tree as an attempt to prove he had the idea of gravity before the others around him who had the same idea.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.47.178 (talk • contribs)

The man you speak of is Ignaz Semmelweis.

Marvoir (talk) 18:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You're right! In a very strange twist of fate, there is a program on radio 4 about him right now, just after I asked that question!

Semmelweis's wife had him committed and, shortly thereafter, a scratch became infected and he joined perhaps millions of women in death by sepsis (puerperal fever +). All due to an inability to get his message across even with a preponderance of hospital evidence. Pasteur and Lister acknowledged his contribution, but this article does not. (Napolionchik (talk) 18:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC))

I have never heard of that. Who exactly is the person who discovered it first? Where was he from and how did he discover it first? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.65.83.103 (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Who is this W.T. Fuillet ?

The article mentions a W.T. Fuillet, with reference to [2]

In fact, there is no mention of a W.T. Fuillet on this site.

I think there was no Mr Fuillet in Pasteur's career. Google searches give nothing.
Marvoir (talk) 10:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

"Omne vivum ex ovo"

Everywhere else this is quoted es "omne vivum ex vivo". The phrase as it currently stands in the article seems to mean something else. Something hilarious, but probably not Pasteur's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.81.200.121 (talk) 05:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Some Recomendations

Rename the Remembrances section LEGACY and and merge it with the IN FICTION section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idxcue (talk • contribs) 11:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Ootakamund

Re Reference to Ootakamund, a hill station in India, the commonly accepted spelling is Ootacamund, and may be linked to its wikipedia page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ooty. tagMacher (talk) 15:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DivakarR (talk • contribs) 15:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Hi, I have linked it to the article. Graham Colm (talk) 15:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

French Translation

It seems strange that the french part of the page is longer than the English. Why cant people put more on the english page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.65.83.103 (talk) 22:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

If you mean on fr:Louis Pasteur, I'd imagine it helps that Pasteur was French. – Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

louis pasteur

In Pasteur's early work as a chemist, he resolved a problem concerning the nature of tartaric acid (1848).[4][5][6][7][8] A solution of this compound derived from living things (specifically, wine lees) rotated the plane of polarization of light passing through it. The mystery was that tartaric acid derived by chemical synthesis had no such effect, even though its chemical reactions were identical and its elemental composition was the same.[9] This was the first time anyone had demonstrated chiral molecules. Pasteur's doctoral thesis on crystallography attracted the attention of W. T. Fuillet, and he helped Pasteur garner a position of professor of chemistry at the Faculté (College) of Strasbourg.[2] In 1854, Pasteur was named Dean of the new Faculty of Sciences in Lille. (It was on this occasion that Pasteur uttered his oft-quoted remark: "...dans les champs de l'observation, le hasard ne favorise que les esprits préparés" (In the field of observation, chance favors only the prepared mind.)[10]) In 1856, he was made administrator and director of scientific studies of the École Normale Supérieure.[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.98.249.51 (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

What's your point, please? This page is for discussing improvements to the article. Rivertorch (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Quote attributed to Pasteur

When roaming the internet there is a quote attributed to Pasteur that says something along the lines of "The germ is nothing, the soil is everything" (or words to such effect). Is anybody aware if this is actually attributed to a biographer (or the like) as I have not been able to find anything. Likewise it is an urban myth? Shot info 04:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Its my understanding that Pasteur, to the surprise of his attendants, rejected germ theory on his deathbed. The quote I heard was similar "The germ is nothing, the terrain is everything." 97.84.174.65 (talk) 13:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)Josh M

Yes, this is an urban legend. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

True Blood

In the episode You Smell Like Dinner, Episode 4.02, it was revealed that Pasteur was a vampire and that he invented/perfected the Tru-Blood blood substitute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.64.231 (talk) 00:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Not relevant. Trivia. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Honors and final days...

In Vitacura, Santiago, Chile, one important avenue is called after him, "Avenida Luis Pasteur".186.104.74.93 (talk) 04:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Founders of Microbiology

Cohn is one of the three and Fleming is not! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.57.1.81 (talk) 04:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeast and Beer

Didn't Pasteur discover the role yeast plays in making beer? If I remember correctly, some kind of German beer law had to be changed because of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.224.49.18 (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 July 2013

Please change where the article says "as his interests were fishing and sketching" to "as his interests were painting and sketching",because I've done various research on Louis Pasteur and I have never read or heard that he enjoyed fishing so the only logical thing I can think of that is supposed to be there and is true is painting. thank you for your help 2600:100C:B210:9F0B:3D46:7C6E:BFE6:C45C (talk) 21:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Not done: He did apparently like to fish. See [3] and [4]. I'll add one or both refs presently. Rivertorch (talk) 23:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

the life saved

if the boy did not have rabbies and was given the vaccine he would have died. so he must have had rabbies therefore Pastuer did save the boys life the article should refelect that fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.188.15 (talk) 05:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Your logic is peccable. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 20:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow - you do know how vaccines work, right? Because if they worked as you'd suggest, millions of people should be dying every day, from getting vaccinated for conditions they do not have, like Small Pox or Influenza. And incidentally, a quick overview of how dog bites work - just because an animal that has rabies bites you, doesn't guarantee you'll acquire rabies.

Also, it's not Ebola - if the saliva doesn't get into your blood stream, or there's no virus in the saliva (only occurs in the later stages), you won't get it. "Every year, more than 15 million people worldwide receive a post-exposure vaccination to prevent the disease– this is estimated to prevent hundreds of thousands of rabies deaths annually." Which means, for every person who's exposed, most wouldn't acquire rabies anyway. It's also a really easy virus to kill on skin or surfaces - a few minutes with soap and water will destroy any traces of it. The only reason people are so dogmatic, about immunizing people the second they are bitten or otherwise exposed, is because if it's not immunized against, and you do acquire it, you ARE going to die. Well, unless you're one of the half dozen who've been saved, in the last 10 years, by putting you in a Ketamine-induced coma until your body can fight it off. 173.23.238.6 (talk) 05:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeast and Beer

Didn't Pasteur discover the role yeast plays in making beer? If I remember correctly, some kind of German beer law had to be changed because of it. 108.224.49.18 (talk) 00:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The law you're referring to is the Reinheitsgebot. Pasteur's role in discovering the microbial origin of fermentation is discussed here (albeit not in relation to brewing). Vilĉjo (talk) 22:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Did Pasteur receive a medical license?

I am referring to this line:

"he succeeded in 1844, and received his medical license the next year"

Multiple articles state that Pasteur was questioned for his qualification for executing the rabies vaccine on Joseph Meister, because Pasteur was not a licensed physician. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolients (talk • contribs) 05:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Indeed his qualification was on licencié ès sciences (Bachelor of Science), never in medicine. This in fact was the root of controversies in his clinical trials. I have added the correction and additional section on it. Chhandama (talk) 09:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2014

under experimental ethics, there is a typo on the sentence: "This *if* often alleged as serious threat to his profession and personal reputation. " 98.246.33.65 (talk) 03:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done - I had to reword a little more of it to make some sense, although it is still awkward. As it is also uncited I have added a citation needed template. - Arjayay (talk) 07:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Creationist?

Was Louis Pasteur a Creationist? --41.150.76.203 (talk) 18:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2014

Indrusiak (talk) 12:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 14:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Inconsistent number of dogs before first human rabies trial

Drd0013 (talk) 15:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC) I am unable to edit the article, so I request someone else look into this:

Immunology and vaccination ... The vaccine had been tested only on 11 dogs before its first human trial. Experimental ethics ... He also tested vaccination in 40 dogs before his use in human.[70][71][72]

One or both of these is wrong, and given the three citations on the second instance and lack of citation in the first, I'd lean towards the second. At any rate, there's internal inconsistency and it needs to be addressed. Also, the second is grammatically incorrect.

Thanks

 Done Thanks for pointing out the grand mistake. Both are wrong. Actually it is 50 dogs, as specifically reported by Pasteur himself. Chhandama (talk) 03:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Louis Pasteur/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

needs references plange 02:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 02:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 19:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Religion and spirituality

This entire section should be deleted, unless direct and verifiable quotes from Pasteur himself can be located -- perhaps from personal correspondence? The opinions of family members and admittedly apocryphal quotes, unsupported by Pasteur's own words, have no place in an article of this nature. If Pasteur himself left no writings on religion, and if well-documented events of his life provide no direct evidence related to it, it is gratuitous to introduce the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.52.1.201 (talk) 04:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2015

To settle the debate between the eminent scientists, the French Academy of Sciences offered Alhumbert Prize carrying 2,500 francs to who ever could experimentally demonstrate for or against the doctrine. Spelling error on demonstrate ("demostrate") Research conttributions/Spontaneous generation/First paragraph/Final sentence Mutantoe (talk) 13:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Done Thanks for catching that! Cannolis (talk) 16:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Ref (a peer reviewed research paper) quoted as being "proof" that Pasteur supposedly believed initially in spontaneous generation does not mention this at all, the quote comes from a conspiracy theory author Ethel D. Hume

From the present version of the wikipedia article, chapter Controversies, paragraph "fermentation": "Particularly on the spontaneous generation because Pasteur in his 1858 paper explicitly stated that the lactic acid bacteria (he named them "lactic yeasts"), which caused wine souring, "takes birth spontaneously, as easily as beer yeast every time that the conditions are favourable." This statement directly implied that Pasteur did believe in spontaneous generation. He condemned the ideas of Pasteur as "'the greatest scientific silliness of the age". The whole is attributed to the ref "Manchester, K.L. (2007). "Louis Pasteur, fermentation, and a rival". South African Journal of Science 103 (9-10): 377–380." This is not the case and the paper does not mention AT ALL Pasteur supposedly claiming that milk would generate germs out of nothing.Quite the contrary. The part about the 1858 paper and Pasteur's supposedly initial belief in spontaneous generation is in fact an almost VERBATIM QUOTE from a book entitled "Béchamp or Pasteur? a lost chapter in the history of biology" by Ethel D. Hume, 2011 (reedition, first one is from 1923), ISBN-10: 1467900125. The excerpt and "analysis" as per Hume's distorted views can be seen on googlebooks: https://books.google.fr/books?id=6y3oS--cqL4C&pg=PA129&lpg=PA129&dq=takes+birth+spontaneously,+as+easily+as+beer+yeast+every+time+that+the+conditions+are+favourable.&source=bl&ots=d9isy1ysed&sig=sdnlesU6sAy7mHLoPBrMMKfoamI&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=e1kEVYvnD4TXao7tgYAP&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=takes%20birth%20spontaneously%2C%20as%20easily%20as%20beer%20yeast%20every%20time%20that%20the%20conditions%20are%20favourable.&f=false Hume denies the existence of germs and misquotes Pasteur by interpreting his writings his own way, or rather the opinion of a certain obscure apologist of Béchamp under the name of Dr Montague Leverson . Truth is Pasteur thought that milk (untreated) did not need inoculation by ferments since they were already present naturally in the medium , but Ethel D Hume claims the alleged use of the word spontaneous by Pasteur would be proof that Pasteur believed in spontaneous generation . Hume is not a scientist, is not peer reviewed and as such the quote and the "conclusions" in the wikipedia article should be removed at once.The South African Who is Ethel D. Hume ? Her complete name is Ethel Douglas Hume and she is a conspiracy theory author who has also written "Pasteur exposed,germs,genes,vaccines: The false foundations of modern medecine." , published in 1989 by C.W.Daniel (reedition) ,ISBN-10: 0852074999. The back cover presentation of the book "Pasteur exposed" states "This extraordinary history of the germ theory, among other things, shows that vaccination far from saving millions of lives has cost millions. In destroying Pasteur's ideas, the author has introduced us to Bechamp, whose experiments produced the first scientific evidence of how homoeopathy, acupuncture and all holistic therapies can cure disease while conventional medicine can only treat it. The implications of Bechamp's discoveries are far reaching and have yet to be realized, and it is hoped that this book will be an inspiration to scientists, therapists and the general public who are beginning to sense the futility of the conventional approach." Says it all! Hume is just another crappy author who besides from not being a researcher has zero credibility and denies the very existence of viruses and bacteriae, just that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.240.163.245 (talk) 16:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The sentence in the wikipedia article "Particularly on the spontaneous generation because Pasteur in his 1858 paper explicitly stated that the lactic acid bacteria (he named them "lactic yeasts"), which caused wine souring, "takes birth spontaneously, as easily as beer yeast every time that the conditions are favourable." This statement directly implied that Pasteur did believe in spontaneous generation." must be removed at once and the sentence that follows, " He condemned the ideas of Pasteur as "'the greatest scientific silliness of the age" should be modified by changing "he " to "Bechamp". Also the initial ref I mentioned from the South African journal of Science should remain,please read thoroughly this paper in question, paragraphs "Microzymes" and "Promotion of Béchamp vs Pasteur" : the south african researchers state clearly that (quote) "Béchamp's views would by now have been long since forgotten had they not been espoused by anti-vivisectionists and protagonists of alternative medicine. Pasteur 's use of experimental animals aroused the wrath of the former, and the desire of the latter to believe that disease originating from microorganisms is a fiction, set them firmly against Pasteur in favour of Béchamp's ideas.Following the death of Béchamp in 1908, an event ignored in France, a Dr Montague Leverson from Baltimore persuaded a writer and sympathizer, Ethel Douglas Hume, to put together some notes he had collected as a book that was published first in 1923 under the title "Béchamp or Pasteur? A Lost Chapter in the History of Biology" and pours scorn on Pasteur 's efforts and accuses him of plagiarism and fabrication. The book was republished in 1932 and has gone through numerous subsequent editions and modifications of title (more recently being attributed to Douglas Hume!). It is of course increasingly true that much human disease and suffering cannot be attributed to infection but stems from changes within us, but in this the microzymes do not have a place" (taken from ref South African journal of science vol.103 n.9-10 Pretoria Sep./Oct. 2007 ISSN 0038-2353) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.240.163.245 (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Louis Pasteur, foto av Paul Nadar, Crisco edit.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Louis Pasteur, foto av Paul Nadar, Crisco edit.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on September 28, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2015-09-28. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:20, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Louis Pasteur (1822–1895) was a French chemist and microbiologist renowned for his discoveries of the principles of vaccination, microbial fermentation and pasteurization. He reduced mortality from puerperal fever, and created the first vaccines for rabies and anthrax. His medical discoveries provided direct support for the germ theory of disease and its application in clinical medicine. Together with Ferdinand Cohn and Robert Koch, he is regarded as one of the three main founders of bacteriology.Photograph: Nadar; restoration: Chris Woodrich

== clarification re https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcellin_Berthelot

Is this the Marcelin Berthelot referred to, i.e. a typo has occurred?

Fermentation an enzymatic reaction?

"Pasteur and Béchamp believed that fermentation was exclusively cellular activity, that is, it was only due to living cells. But later extraction of enzymes such as invertase by Marcelin Barthelot in 1860 showed that it was simply an enzymatic reaction." If by "fermentation" we mean conversion of sugar to alcohol, as is the usual meaning, invertase does not do this. I would change this now, but I suspect someone has more chemistry than I do. Please make it correct if it is indeed incorrect. Mydogtrouble (talk) 13:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit request for protected article Louis Pasteur

The grammar in the last sentence of the introduction is atrocious:

He was the director of the Pasteur Institute, established in 1887, till his death

"till". Please revise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.205.44.206 (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Unnecessary and awkward parentheses should be removed from this sentence...

"Today, he is often regarded as (one of the) fathers of germ theory." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.119.204.117 (talk) 04:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Principal / Principle

Could someone please correct "principal" to "principle" in the opening section? It's a small detail, but it's irritating and gives a bad impression of Wikipedia's standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.197.170.130 (talk) 23:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Typo correction request: immnunologist

Under: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Pasteur#Controversies

French immnunologist Patrice Debré => immunologist

AnassapiV (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC) AnassapiV

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2016

Please add this animated gif that I made. [[File:Pasteur's experiment testing spontaneous generation and biogenesis.gif|Pasteur's experiment testing spontaneous generation and biogenesis]]

Thebiologyprimer (talk) 19:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts, but Not done for now per WP:IUP#ANIM: Inline animations should be used sparingly; a static image with a link to the animation is preferred unless the animation has a very small file size. Keep in mind the problems with print compatibility mentioned elsewhere on this page. and WP:IG: Using animated GIFs to display multiple photos is discouraged. The method is not suitable for printing and also is not user-friendly (users cannot save individual images and have to wait before being able to view images while other images cycle round). — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 06:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2016

fuck u ass holes [yu7gygbub]]

Real mature. On a serious note, what are you referring to? What are you offended by? Fasnoosh (talk) 01:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2017

Reference # 83, the quote "Louis Pasteur did not deny religion..." directs to [a blog post on Pasteur Brewing's website, which as of 1/30/17 returns a 404 error.] I found the correct link on their site (shown below to prevent confusion), but I do not believe this to be a reputable source. This is a brewing company, and does not cite their sources on this article. Possible conflict of interest (possible attempt at a free ad for their business)

The quote is from the "Louis Pasteur" book by Forster & Debre, which is already extensively referenced on the page, # 15,47,60,81,84. Page # 368 specifically, and [Here is the link on Google Books]

Correct link on pasteurbrewing.com: http://www.pasteurbrewing.com/louis-pasteur-a-religious-man

Thanks! Fasnoosh (talk) 01:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Done I cited page 368 of Louis Pasteur. I am not sure if this is a conflict of interest, but I removed references # 82 and 83 because Pasteur Brewing's website does not seem very reliable and the content is already verified by more reliable sources. Thank you for helping to improve the article. Gulumeemee (talk) 04:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Undue weight given to Béchamp

I saw this section in the archive. It appears that the supporters of Béchamp are pseudoscientific germ theory denialists. The subsection fermentation of the controversy section may give undue weight to Béchamp because it gives approximately equal validity to Pasteur and Béchamp, even though almost all reliable sources agree that Pasteur and the germ theory are correct. Gulumeemee (talk) 10:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I tried to give due weight by reducing the amount of text about Béchamp. I found little coverage of this dispute in reliable sources, so Béchamp's view is probably a minority. Gulumeemee (talk) 10:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Louis Pasteur. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://192.129.24.144/licensed_materials/00897/papers/0003006/36kau897.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101014093352/http://www.pasteurfoundation.org/MAHarvardAvePasteur.shtml to http://www.pasteurfoundation.org/MAHarvardAvePasteur.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 10:01, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2017

i like what u guys have done and u should put links to a different page and make sections like Nikenames bla bla so people can find things easier 50.80.90.194 (talk) 02:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 03:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Albert Edelfelt - Louis Pasteur - 1885.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Albert Edelfelt - Louis Pasteur - 1885.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on December 27, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-12-27. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:29, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Louis Pasteur (1822–1895) was a French chemist and microbiologist renowned for his discoveries of the principles of vaccination, microbial fermentation, and pasteurization. He reduced mortality from puerperal fever, and created the first vaccines for rabies and anthrax. His medical discoveries provided direct support for the germ theory of disease and its application in clinical medicine. Together with Ferdinand Cohn and Robert Koch, he is regarded as one of the main founders of bacteriology.Painting: Albert Edelfelt

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2019

In the introductory paragraph, the section which alludes to Louis Pasteur's accomplishments should more strongly expound the applications of his works. The sentence could read more strongly eg. ...his discoveries have saved countless lives in the following decades, through to present times. I believe that more strongly wording this sentence adds to the weight of argument alluding to how thoroughly Pasteur's achievements have affected modern food and medicine production. ThoseWhoWander (talk) 09:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Renowned and remarkable are already in the lede. The wording is sufficiently strong. Orville^talk 17:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

HI @ThoseWhoWander: Please see above response. Orville^talk 17:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 29 October 2019

In the first paragraph of the Controversies section, the name of Pasteur's grandson is wrong, it says "Pasteur Valley-Radot" and it should say "Pasteur Vallery-Radot". Rllaque (talk) 14:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)User:Rllaque

 Done; verified through source already on the article. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2020

After serving briefly as professor of physics at the Dijon Lycée in 1848, he became professor of chemistry at the University of Strasbourg, where he met and courted Marie Laurent, daughter of the university's rector in 1849. They were married on May 29, 1849, and together had five children, only two of them survived to adulthood; the other three died of typhoid. Smyril42 (talk) 10:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make; all you've done is apparently copied a paragraph from the article here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2020

Proof that Institut Pasteur is spelled without an e (‘Institut’ rather than ‘Institute’) can be fou d on the Institut Pasteur’s website: https://www.pasteur.fr/fr

In the Legacy section, “Institute Pasteur” should be replaced with “Institut Pasteur” (the final e does not exist in the French word). 1899Vic (talk) 07:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 08:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Clarification

The article should expand on what is meant when it states "he was against mixing science with religion". Since it isn't in quotes in the article, the statement can't be attributed to him. Was this more along the lines of the time period in which he lived (shortly after the French Revolution). The statement is vague and should either be elaborated upon or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.69.198.123 (talk) 02:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2021

Under Louis Pasteur’s page, his wife’s name is incorrectly written as Louise Pasteur...her correct 1st name was Marie. Wikipedia is one source found under Marie Pasteur. TyMicheleAnnS (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC) MicheleAnnS (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2022

In Controversies section, sub-heading Anthrax vaccine:

Pasteur then gave a misleading account of the preparation of the anthrax vaccine used in the experiment. He claimed that he made "live vaccine", but used potassium dichromate[16] to kill the vaccine, a method similar to Toussaint's.

"but used potassium dichromate[16] to kill the vaccine" should be changed to "but used potassium dichromate[16] to kill the virus".

Reasoning: From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Joseph_Henri_Toussaint vaccines can be attenuated but vaccines cannot be killed. Excerpt from linked material: "At Pouilly-le-Fort, Pasteur used a vaccine attenuated by potassium dichromate, employing a process similar to Toussaint's, who had published a means of attenuation by another antiseptic, carbolic acid." 108.170.154.240 (talk) 01:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done with edits. After further review, I found and added this source to the page to support the fact that Pasteur used Toussaint's inactivation method to kill the anthrax spores. Thanks, Heartmusic678 (talk) 13:19, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2022

I suggest making changes to the following lines in the first section summarizing Pasteur's life:

Old sentence:

Although Pasteur made groundbreaking experiments, his reputation became associated with various controversies. Historical reassessment of his notebook revealed that he practiced deception to overcome his rivals.[16][17]

New Suggested sentence:

Criticisms of questionable ethics accompany Pasteur's tests of rabies vaccine, and historical reassessment of his notebook suggests that Pasteur used a method for anthrax vaccine preparation by Jean Joseph Henri Toussaint without giving proper credit.[16][17]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Joseph_Henri_Toussaint

Also I suggest updating doi link for REF [17]. Working doi link is provided below: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.259.5098.1117.b

I also suggest another link with a publicly available abstract: https://read.qxmd.com/read/20527335/-henry-toussaint-and-louis-pasteur-rivalry-over-a-vaccine

Another possibility is simply drop the two sentences - the long section on controversies could be sufficient. 173.73.123.209 (talk) 00:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Cool guy (talk • contribs) • he/they 02:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Suggested edit to the first line

The first line of the article is misleading. It says that Pasteur is "renowned for his discoveries of the principles of vaccination, microbial fermentation and pasteurization". This makes it sound as though he was the inventor of vaccination, which he is not. He made important contributions and introduced important innovations in connection with vaccines, but the basic principles of vaccination were established by Edward Jenner, who coined the term "vaccine." Hypoplectrus (talk) 21:37, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2023

My note: It's misleading to say that Louis Pasteur is known for "cholera vaccine" when his role was failing to create a cholera vaccine for chickens. Someone else later developed the cholera vaccine for humans. Pasteur was also involved with rabies vaccine development. I think it would be better to just keep it simple and say he's known for vaccine development.

Suggested "known for" section: Metasci (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lemonaka (talk) 22:39, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Replace "cholera vaccine" in the "known for" section with "rabies vaccine" --> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabies_vaccine

Also there is a link to a corporate content marketing piece from PassportHealth (footnote 3) that doesn't seem super relevant or authoritative and should be removed.

Justification: Pasteur only developed a cholera vaccine for chickens and it was not effective. On the other hand, he had a much more direct role in development of the rabies vaccine. Consider this source:

"Although Pasteur ( 19 ) in 1880 demonstrated immunity in fowls inoculated with attenuated cultures of P. multocida, workers since that time have had irregular results with various vaccines and bacterins. Generally, no protection was provided in the vaccinated fowls"-Dorsey and Harshfield (1959) Metasci (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)