Talk:Friedrich Hoffmann

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

Copyright[edit]

this is copyright violation i think

The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia Copyright © 2003, Columbia University Press.

see [1]

Yes. I wondered where that paragraph came from. I will remove and add your link to bottom of the article. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 23:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surname spelling[edit]

Isn't the proper name Friedrich Hoffman with only one N? -René van Buuren, 1-6-04

Both current refs and the external link use two Ns. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 23:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Witchcraft[edit]

This line "He wrote a witchcraft book, De Potentia Diaboli in Corpore, for his student Gottfried Büching." is incorrect, it's probably a bad translation of , see link. The mentioned book is Büching's 1703 dissertation which took place in Halle with Hoffmann as the overseeing professor. As I understand it Hoffmann later published parts or all of it in a compilation but he certainly didn't author it, Büching did. Long story short it's at least "unsourced".Holger.Walden (talk) 02:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for future article expansion[edit]

Currently there's nothing here but the major academic feud between Alexander Monro Secundus/Junior and William Hunter over priority in understanding the nature of the lymphatic system ended in discovering that Francis Glisson had already figured it out and published a century earlier.

  • Ambrose, Charles T. (January 2007), "The Priority Dispute over the Function of the Lymphatic System and Glisson's Ghost (The 18th-Century Hunter–Monro Feud)", Cellular Immunology, vol. 245, pp. 7–15, doi:10.1016/j.cellimm.2007.02.015.
  • Hendriksen, Marieke M.A. (October 2015), "Anatomical Mercury: Changing Understandings of Quicksilver, Blood, and the Lymphatic System, 1650–1800" (PDF), Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, vol. 70, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 516–548.

Presently, others argue that Hoffmann published before all three. If that's accurate, the controversy and rediscovery of Hoffmann's primacy should be mentioned here. Also, there's plenty here to add as well:

It's unclear though if Naragon wrote that draft entry or is quoting and not attributing someone else's draft. Obviously the published version would be preferrable. — LlywelynII 21:01, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]