Talk:Samson Wright

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Untitled

Hi Dr Satendra, Thanks a lot for immediately joining in and your contribution. While writing the opening sentence I was feeling a bit worried about the puffery used by the author of the centenary memoir (probably the author as his own student might have been biased and we cant objectively verify his statement). After a lot of deliberation I put the quotation and put the reference so that it can stay as an already published puffery. But I am myself not sure if I completely agree to the use of the words "undobtedly the greatest" etc. I would have written "probably" or "one of the". I will invite comments from the others to help decide whether to keep this quotation or to moderate/trim its language into a more encyclopedic objective statement written by any of us.

The next statement added by you (Dr Satendra) is in similar lines but this time coming from your (an wikipedia editor's) language and not a quotation. I would request you to kindly see WP:WTW and consider rewriting the same content in a slightly different and a bit more objective way (some examples are in WP:WTW) so that we dont get a {{Puffery}} tag here. As for example, can we get the number of languages into which it was translated? Is there a reference of any neutral/3rd party book/publication/magazine about the book being called a "bible"? Thanks --Dr.saptarshi (talk) 13:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have trimmed the clause "because besides being a gifted exponent in the lecture theatre, Wright possessed the power of writing." because the rest already carries the objective part of the information you wanted to convey. -Dr.saptarshi (talk) 09:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He might have been an extraordinary physiologist and a physiology teacher, and so might be some parts of the original book, but 12 edition's review here did not sound good!: http://ep.physoc.org/content/57/2/238.full.pdf+html

Even the 1965 ie 11th ed review is not so good: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2384741/pdf/ulstermedj00133-0050b.pdf . So we better be careful about the words used for the book. --Dr.saptarshi (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But at least this older review calls the original work by Samson Wright "his masterpiece" . So we can definitely note that. --Dr.saptarshi (talk) 21:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Though 11th and 12 ed received harsh criticisms in their reviews as above, the 9th ed (1953) has a good review in Arch Intern Med. 1953;91(4):575-575: http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=557899.

"The material is clearly and sequentially presented, with numerous diagrams and illustrations augmenting the text. Clinical examples have been profusely utilized in demonstrating physiological principles.

"Applied Physiology" is an unusually complete textbook and would be a valuable addition to any physician's library as a source of review material for either clinical or experimental physiology."

--Dr.saptarshi (talk) 21:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While some of the reviews above question the global balance of the content coverage of the later editions, but the informativeness of the content is definitely notable because the google book links to a google scholar feature where some citations from this book is listed at the bottom of the google books page: References to this book (From Google Scholar)

--Dr.saptarshi (talk) 08:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That this book was translated into multiple languages is definitely true since off hand we can see one spanish edition, then another spanish, one french, .. Probably we dont need to individual translation hits, a better statistics is given here http://www.worldcat.org/identities/lccn-nb2004-309555 --Dr.saptarshi (talk) 21:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]