Talk:Alexis Carrel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

This article has been rated as b-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

France Portal

Alexis Carrel is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments, explaining the ratings and/or suggest improvements.)

[edit] I didn't, and won't, vandalize. Neither shld you!

I really just want the truth aired, so I don't oppose contributions that recount Carrel's contributions to medicine, or any other aspect of the man, so long as they're accurate.

You say that I "turned him into Himmler", when all I did was recount facts. I don't believe that he WAS Himmler. However, although I did not express the opinion in the article, I DO think that the sort of forced euthenasia by gas chamber that he supported in his introduction to Man, The Unknown is indefensible. That's why I don't understand your ferver in support of him and this book, or in opposition to me.

I pretty much stuck to facts supported by scholarship. You are free to do the same. It's easy for you to throw baseless charges of bias without any supporting facts, but who does that convince? To reveal a bit of my POV, and to make my view of your arguments clearer: I am sad that someone in this day and age is still advocating for Carrel's views and doing so in such an arbitrary and hostile manner. I really don't think that your over the top rhetoric helps your case.

You still haven't answered why YOU care so much about this guy. I'm curious because he has been in disrepute in most mainstream circles as the result of his activities in support of Fascism and forced euthenasia of the mentally ill and retarded. That has pretty much limited his appeal to those who don't know about that side of him, and those who know about this side and either support or don't care about it. You really haven't stated which camp you're in.

I'm just wondering... Care to clarify your views on this subject?

Adam Holland 13:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I seem to be flying off the handle, but when I see someone with a political axe to grind adding undue weight to one side of an article, it's annoying. To implicate him in the gas chambers is making him a Himmler. Did he seem to support killing the insane? Yes. That's terrible, I agree. Encyclopedia articles are no place for words like "horrible" and (my word,) "terrible," though, so we should avoid that.

Further, NPOV (Neutral Point Of View) is a fundamental Wikipedia principle which states that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias. NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each. the NPOV page says: If we're going to characterize disputes fairly, we should present competing views with a consistently positive, sympathetic tone. I'll leave it for you to decide if you've adhered to these principles. But to fill up HALF of the article gives "undue weight" (a Wiki term re: Neutral Point of View) to one side of the issue, and drowns out the rest of the article.

It's very clear that this article should be labelled with a NPOV tag at this point, since its heavily weighted after your additions.

If the man was a Full-blown Nazi Party member, then obviously, that should weigh heaviliy in the article. But he never joined the Nazi party, is said to have only loosely collaborated with the German occupiers (like, oh, about 70% of the French under Vichy) and did not support Germany's military ambitions. No case has been made for anti-semitism, either, though that's cleary implied by your comments. You also only see his major book from one angle. The book was almost totally about "re-forming" civilization by recognizing that human differences need to be recognized, by ensuring that all people are treated the same, and that our environment needs to be more 'organic' and less mechancial. That part of his work seems brilliant to me, but when I add it, it will be dispassionate and without a hint of bias or emotion, as all these articles should be.

I do think you need to understand that a vast majority of people back then (early 1930s) thought some form of eugenics (either by forcing people who were genetically damaged to not procreate, or by "ending" lives of those severely disabled) was warranted. Thank God we don't believe that today, and to set your mind at rest, I surely don't. Your comments tying him to Bin Laden and al-Zaraquawi are simply ludicrous and are a clear attempt to smear Carrel. It represents a Point of View and is, in my view, an attempt to demonize the subject unnecessarily. If you can find news accounts of Bin Laden crediting Carrel with anything, please post that. But I not rely on obscure sources for this material if I were you, especially extremists who don't believe in medicine or psychiatry and who ARE far out of the mainstream of medical thought. They are simply not credible. Nhprman 19:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I found some good reading on the Wikipedia:NPOV dispute page. I think almost all fit in this article's case -

There are many ways that an article can fail to adhere to the NPOV policy. Some examples are:

The article can simply be biased, expressing viewpoints as facts (see Wikipedia:POV)
While each fact mentioned in the article might be presented fairly, the very selection (and omission) of facts can make an article biased.
Some viewpoints, although not presented as facts, can be given undue attention and space compared to others (see Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Space and balance).
The text and manner of writing can insinuate that one viewpoint is more correct than another.
~~The subject or title of the article can imply a particular point of view.~~
A type of analysis of facts that can lead to the article suggesting a particular point of view's accuracy over other equally valid analytic perspectives.
The author's own viewpoint is mentioned or obvious.
~~Alternate viewpoints are compared in persuasive terms.~~ (not the case here)

I hope we can work together to resove these issues. Nhprman 19:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please do not vandalize the article

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

(please note that the above responds to the comment BELOW. At one point, we began posting from the TOP, contrary to Wikipedia custom.)

[edit] Please do not vandalize this page

If you have a dispute, air it. Calling me names and deleting whole portions of the article accomplish nothing. Wouldn't you prefer to argue your position in a rational manner? You would convince more readers that way.

Don't be a book burner.

By the way, why do you care so much about Carrel? Your strong feelings on this subject naturally raise that question.

Adam Holland

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Alexis_Carrel article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Alexis_Carrel}} to this page. — LinkBot 00:56, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Lindbergh/Carrel collaboration defended

It is widely accepted that Carrel and Lindberg's perfusion pump was groundbreaking, and unsourced comments to the contrary were removed. Please provide proof that he was not a pioneer in this field. Below are just a few of the links obtained from googling "perfusion pump carrel."

Here's my point: where is the evidence that they actually INFLUENCED any subsequent artificial heart? They may or may not have had good ideas, I'm not an engineer or physician so I'm in no position to judge. However, to claim that they laid the groundwork for future innovations is not supported in any detail by the sources you cite. There are assertions by those who work for institutions associated with Lindbergh and Carrel; there's a quote from a PBS series. Where is a medical expert objectively evaluating the real impact of their work? If this is "widely accepted" (I assume you mean in the medical community, among those with expertise) then present evidence!

Adam Holland 20:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, check out the evidence easily available online. The PBS series called Carrel an "innovator and pioneer" for a reason. However, if you want to say it was a "precursor" to modern pumps, that would be fine and accurate. I don't think anyone's saying it WAS a modern artificial heart he and Lindbergh created, after all, though it clearly had simliar properties. The doctors involved in research who recieve the Lindbergh-Carrel prize annually are experts in their fields, and certainly recognize his influence on their groundbreaking work (if I'm allowed to use that word.) Maybe you would like to contact the winners - a broad cross-section of the medical community - and ask if Carrel's work is widely accepted within it:

Theodore Malinin (University of Miami) - bioreactor and organ preservation
Gail Naughton (Advanced Tissue Sciences) -industrial tissue engineering
Bernhard Palsson (University of California at San Diego) - whole fiber bioreactor and circuits systems
Judah Folkman (Harvard University) - angiodependence of tumor growth
Robert Nerem (Georgia Institute of Technical) - dynamic biomechanical conditioning
Joseph Vacanti (Harvard University) - tissue engineering
Robert Langer (MIT) -tissue engineering
Michael DeBackey (Baylor College of Medicine) - rolic pump
Wei-Shou Hu (University of Minnesota) - artificial liver
David Humes (University of Michigan) - artificial kidney

Nhprman 20:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

That's all great, but what was the influence of Carrel and Lindbergh's artificial heart on subsequent developments? You have a nice list of names, but that isn't evidence of any influence on ANY SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT. Give it your best shot!

Adam Holland 20:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eugenics, Fascism and Islamism

I've added a significant amount of material on the above-refenced subjects. It's all well sourced. I think the connections to reprehensible politics are pretty clear and not all overstated. Feedback?

Adam Holland 00:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you have delusions of being a Nazi hunter, but you're on the wrong case. Carrel wasn't one. Nhprman 03:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't call him a Nazi, but by his own word, affiliations and publications he was demonstrably a fascist. I have no delusions of the kind you describe.

How are you so certain about Carrel's politics?

Adam Holland 03:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Your hackery is going to be reverted. Your political viewpoints have no place on Wikipedia.

What on earth are you talking about? I didn't express a viewpoint, I cited sourced scholarship. Who the devil are you and why do you care so deeply about this Carrel fellow?

The page should be restored.

Adam Holland 04:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it should be restored - from before you started your jihad against its subject. By flooding this article with one side of this story, you've slanted it. Your edits are NOT unbiased, so please, withhold your shock at my comments. Nhprman 04:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bottom Line

I appreciate your somewhat more reasonable tone and the fact that you've stopped calling me names and imputing my political motives. (By the way, when you said my political views were unacceptable on this site, what political views were you referring to? Opposition to forced euthenasia?) Bottom line: do you support his views on gassing the mentally impaired, or do you think they're not important?

Adam Holland 22:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I found articles from the NYTIMES and HARPERS that further support the more scholarly citations I've already given with respect to his far right views and collaboration with Vishy. By the way, there's a wide range of scholarship on this, every permutation from left to right. Fact is, the guy worked for the Vichy regime on the issue of eugenics. How does that make you feel about him? All warm and fuzzy?

With respect to anti-semitism, I don't know his views and don't claim to. Where are you getting that from? I wouldn't be surprised to find he was an anti-semite, but I don't think that he made this a central theme, the way he did restoration of a (mythic) Nordic aristocracy. Of course, isn't that bad enough?

With respect to his medical acheivements: his contributions to transplantation techniques, made earlier in the century, seem to be considerable. He deserves admiration for that. His "artificial heart" was used, not as a heart, but to keep organs alive while out of the body. I think that the "artificial heart" name was chosen more for publicity reasons than strict accuracy. It was, more accurately, a perfusion pump. This, and his other innovations, DID play a role in subsequent transplantation surgery tehniques. (The chicken heart thing seems less impressive. More of a publicity stunt.) But, all this should be explored and proper credit given the man.

Why do you admire his Man, The Unknown so much. I've been reading it and it seems like so much obscurantist eyewash -- really crackpot stuff. What do you see in it?

Adam Holland 22:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Your back-door insiuations that I must LOVE gassing people because I am sticking up for a guy with aberrant views on the subject are really pathetic, frankly, and you've personally questioned my motives from the beginning, all the while playing the victim when I ask you in return why you are on a jihad against this long-dead guy in a supposedly unbiased encyclopedia. Please stop that.

The "bottom Line" is that Wikipedia doesn't care if you or I have "warm and fuzzy" feelings for any of the subjects here, or whether we utterly depsise them, it expects you and all other editors to dispassionately and in a non-emotional way to edit these articles to provide INFORMATION, not to heap undue praise on the subjects or to utterly villify them. You hate this man. So what? You still should not conduct a three-day campaign with dozens of edits to one article to slant it in a way you want to see it slanted REGARDLESS of whether the subject is Carrel, Martin Luther King, Jr. or Adolf Hitler. (Especially if it's someone like Hitler, Wikipedia urges you to be even more careful about bias an undue weight slipping into the article your editing.)

You don't get to decide something he did was a "publicity stunt," espeically when the medical community you dismiss so quickly - while embracing an anti-psychology quack as a source for anti-Carrel remarks - has never described it that way. You are willingly ignoring positive or neutral facts, and that again is contrary to Wikipedia's philosophy.

I am glad to see grudging respect for his early work on the perfusion pump, which "only" kept organs alive outside the body, which by the way made liver transplants possible. Great progress for you, I guess. As for Man, the Unknown, it's not something that would sell today, and you have to read it as an historical artifact, not as a Guide to Life (though he did write a guide to life book that is quite fascinating.) He makes some good points about the danger of treating human beings "like a number" and the need to not see nature and technology as contrary to one another. Some of this is extremely valid, once you pull out the garbage that, again, 70-90% of people believed back then about eugenics. In short, on Carrel, don't be a bookburner - learn to see things on different levels.

I think you need to document your comment about a "mythic Nordic aristocracy." I have never seen the word "Nordic" in his writings, and I think you or his rabid opponents are making that up. For the record, he was, at best, a "GAUL." 24.62.206.114 07:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

(The above was from me. For some reason, I was logged out at the time. I'm sure you figured this out, anyway.) Nhprman 18:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

1) I don't endorse Szasz' views, merely cite him for a translation of the into to the German edition of Man the Unknown. Feel free to cite another translation if his is inaccurate.

2) I don't disparage the perfusion pump. On the contrary, I praise it and say it's worthwhile. Artificial heart would be a misnomer whatever the motivation of using it.

3) I don't "hate" Carrel. I just don't like to see his extremely problematic politics and endorsement of gas chambers for eugenics glossed over. If you like the other ideas in Man, the Unknown, elucidate them, promote them, do as you will. Why don't you address the issue of his advocacy of the gas chambers? Does it HELP your case not to address this? Your only comment is that it's "not a guide to life." What does that mean? Doesn't the fact that he endorsed this BOTHER YOU? IF NOT WHY NOT? (I'm not insinuating, I'm asking you a direct question that you're not answering. That's something very different, isn't it?)

4) He is not responsible for Islamists using him as a model for their views. I don't blame Carrel for Qutb's views. It is, however, very interesting that Carrel's work had such an influence on such an important historical development as Islamism, and served as a model for it's main intellectual founding father. Perhaps this reflects affinities between mystical authoritarian ideologies, but that is very far from making him responsible for bin Laden. The connection, that Qutb's footnotes cite him more than any other author except Mohammed, is very interesting. I think that it reveals something about both Carrel and Qutb, but, most importantly, says something about how these ideas developed.

5) You defaced MY User Page, and I responded on yours. In the future, I will restict my talk to the talk pages and request that you do likewise.

Adam Holland 04:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

1) I would say that the fact that you have the German edition handy says something, but I have the US edition, so I suppose it works both ways.

2) Fair enough on the artificial heart. Perfusion pump is fine, since it was used, and has been used, to keep organs alive.

3) Trust me when I say I also think gas chambers are MORE than "problematic." However, as encyclopedists, I think we have an obligation to be fair-minded about these statements of his. They are NOT the only utterance in his life, and unlike the butchers of the Nazi regime, his life's work was far more than defined by his misguided views (say, the Carrel-Dakin method, which saved thousands of lives) and the perfusion pump, which many believe DID lay the groundwork for future innovations.

4) I don't think it's fair for anyone to be blamed for what future generations make of their words, especially when he's not around to defend himself. The book speaks once of Islam - of the cost of "thrusting back the sleep of Islamism." He was a Christian mystic of sorts, and did not speak well of Islam, though had the chance. I am glad to read what you wrote here, but I guess I would say that speculation doesn't really have a place in the article, either. And it's a rather obscure reference, and quite a distance to go to show the connections you now say are pretty weak. Can we work on that section?

5) I didn't mean to deface anyone's page. I created it and thought I was typing a message in your Talk page. My mistake, which was corrected. Nhprman 05:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lindbergh's contributions not exaggerated by Carrel

Can we talk about this line?:"According to Wallace in American Axis, Carrel deliberately overstated Lindbergh's role to gain media attention (Wallace, p. 101)"

The section below, written by a Navy doctor (and well-footnoted, incidental bolding about Carrel is mine) tells a different story, noting that the concept is entirely Lindbergh's:

As was the case with most of his pursuits, the genesis of Lindbergh's interest in biomedical research can be found in personal challenge. In 1929 his sister-in-law was diagnosed with rheumatic heart disease, a disease that carried with it a poor prognosis due primarily to an inability to perform surgical procedures on a beating heart. Once Lindbergh learned that the lack of the surgeon's ability to provide artificial mechanical means of circulating oxygenated blood prevented a cure, he Amade up his mind to design a pump capable of circulating blood through the body while the heart was being repaired. ... Armed with his ideas, an innovative mind, and spirit of adventure, Lindbergh pursued his goal of designing and building a mechanical heart/lung machine. For more than 100 years, physiologists had tried to maintain organs alive outside the body with no real success. ...Lindbergh presented his concept to a number of physician acquaintances, one of whom arranged a meeting with Dr. Alexis Carrel of the Rockefeller Institute. Lindbergh knew of and respected Carrel whose research emphasized blood vessel suture techniques (for which he was awarded the 1912 Nobel Prize in Medicine), and the culture of cells. Carrel was a pioneer in tissue culture research and wrote prolifically on the subject from the early 1920s. While Carrel's work in the culturing of cells had been ground breaking, he was unable to proceed into the areas of tissue and whole organ culture. He was keenly aware of the technical problems associated with organ perfusion in general, and with cardiopulmonary bypass in particular, most notably the need to add oxygen into the perfusate, a problem finally solved in 1953 by Dr. John Gibbons, the first to use such a bypass system successfully on a patient....

While yes, it is a glowing piece, and reprinted on a "fan" site of Lindbergh's, I cannot disprove it, and I certainly don't think many facts here on Wikipedia have more proof than this that yes, Lindbergh was a medical pioneer, and deserve the credit he got. Just like Carrel.

Interestingly the same story about his sister-in-law can be found on the Loyola University Healthcare System site[1]: "On finding that there was no way to keep organs alive outside the body in order to do this, he worked with Nobel Laureate and surgeon Dr. Alexis Carrel on a solution to that problem, Lindbergh invented a glass perfusion pump that would make future operations possible. He also found a method for washing blood corpuscles and invented a way to rapidly separate plasma from whole blood by using a centrifuge. Science carried the first news of Lindbergh's perfusion pump in June 1935. In September, the Journal of Experimental Science carried his highly technical description of the pump. Lindbergh's results were validated as a major breakthrough." (NOTE that last word, which someone told me was NOT the case with this medical device's creation on the Lindbergh page.)

Not to get too far off the topic (Carrel, after all!). But perhaps we can go back and correct that article on Lindbergh, who also did not get his medical due because of his unpopular political views? Nhprman 05:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Careful, factual edits made

I added factual, provable data about the perfusion pump, careful to qualify it and not exaggerate its importance (after all, it ONLY paved the way for open-heart surgery. But God knows, we wouldn't want to exaggerate THAT and risk edits!) I also left large chunks of the defamatory Islamism section, since we definitely (apparently) want this devoted Catholic to be viewed as an Islamist sympathizer, though I had to mention that he was a Catholic mystic who hated Islam and really had no use for other religions. I say again, a newspaper article the mentions "The superficial commonalities between Carrel and Qutb" is NOT sufficient proof of anything.

And Adam, can I ask who is the Rudolf Walther you quote? I did a Google search and the only thing I came up with is a German furniture salesman who is now a philanthropist. What are his credentials to be questioning Carrel and making accusations and connections to Bin Laden? With someone with NO body of work or references online, I don't think this is a proper source, but I leftit for now while we have a polite conversation about it. Nhprman 01:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I also added a "Science" heading. If a couple of newspaper articles merit ~~HALF~~ TWO-THIRDS of this article, and TWO headings, so does his VAST contributions, which nonetheless I left hopelessly downplayed, out of fear that someone might be upset by it. Those two headings, however, got proper and in-perspective wording changes.Nhprman 01:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Here are the citations for the link to Islamism:

Ali, Tariq. Clash of Fundamentalisms Verso, London, 2002 Choueiri, Youssef. Islamic Fundamentalism Continuum International Publishing Group, London, 2002. Abu-Rabi. Intellectual Origins of Islamic Resurgence Azmeh, Aziz (Aziz Al-Azmeh). Islams and Modernities Verso, London, 1993.

Walther article: http://www.zeit.de/2003/32/A-Carrel

Would you be so kind as to allow that these scholars may have actually researched this subject. You've googled the name of the author of one magazine article that you haven't read.

Check these sources before you dismiss them!

Adam Holland 16:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stop deleting sources in the notes section

Deleting my sources from the notes is clearly inapporpriate. Feel free to add your own sources that support your views, or question the reliability of mine in the discussion page.

Adam Holland 18:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stop imputing motives, deal with facts

Carrel influenced Qutb. Check Qutb's footnotes.

What is the basis for your disagreement? Qutb cited Carrel more than any author except Mohammed.

Adam Holland 18:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop giving undue weight to obscure sources

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

[edit] Slanderous, biased article

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

[edit] POV-checkers: Look here first

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

Oh, how I can sympathize with you. I, too, tried to fight POV in dispute-prone articles but gave up. Wikipedia is too big, with too few policing POV. The POVers will always have the upper hand. By the way, I noticed that the article as it stands now does not even mention Carrel's Nobel Prize?! Or is that disputed as well? --Smithfarm 08:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Qutb section should be moved

The "Alleged influence on the rise of Islam" section appears to be more about Qutb than Carrel. In general, if A influenced B, in-depth discussion of this influence belongs in the article on B, not A. Therefore, I suggest that the entire section (to the extent that it isn't original research) be moved to the Qutb article and included here only by reference. --Smithfarm 21:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't think that your rule is true. I checked, for example, the Karl Marx article and the section on who he influenced is 14 paragraphs long. On what to you base your assertion that this sort of section is inapproprate? Adam Holland 17:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to chime in here, because SURELY, you're not saying 14 paragraphs in a HUGE article like Marx' (which represents less than 1/6th of the entire article) is equal to flooding an article with negative speculation about the subject that now account for more than two-thirds of the text? Also, even the sources you cite say Carrel had only "superficial commonalities" with latter-day radical Islamic thought, and see him as an "unwitting" influence on it. Clearly, those influenced by Marx were ADMITTEDLY influenced by him, and not just "superficially" and "unwittingly." I don't see a part of the Marx article listing those who were "unwittingly" influenced by his philosophy, since that would be unfair, as it is here. So the analogy simply is not obvious to me. Nhprman ^UserLists 01:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Qutb was the intellectual father of Islamism. He cites Carrel more than any other author. I don't claim to understand your argument about this being an unwitting influence. He knew Carrel's work, and was influenced by it. He changed Carrel's racial elite to a theological elite, but otherwise advocated a similar view of society being remade by giving power to an elite class and by eliminating undesirable elements. HE CITED CARREL IN HIS FOOTNOTES FOR THIS! That's the evidence that the influence was conscious, deliberate, intended, not at all secret or occult. Where's your argument to the contrary?

If you're arguing that the influence wasn't intended by Carrel, you could say the same about Marx's influence on Lenin. Was Lenin even born when Marx was writing? Who knows what Marx's opinion of Lenin or Stalin would have been? I don't blame Marx for the Soviet Union, I don't blame Carrel for Qutb, BUT THEIR INFLUENCE IS UNDENIABLE AND VERY INTERESTING, CLEARLY RELEVENT TO THE ARTICLE.

Adam Holland 18:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

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

Hi Adam & Nhprman: Let me apologize, for my original post may have been somewhat curt and open to varying interpretation. I think a proportionately-sized section on notable thinkers influenced by Carrel would be a good idea, with links to the other articles (or sections within those articles) for readers who are really interested. Our common goal is a balanced treatment of the subject matter designed to satisfy a reader who is expecting an encyclopedia (not a monograph!); all we need to do is stay focused on what we share as we come to an agreement on what this means, specifically in the context of this article. Let us be open to compromise, because the alternative is not pretty!

Also, Adam, I was confused about the "superficial commonalities" thing, too. Maybe you could take a look at it. I'm struggling to understand its relevance to the deliberate, conscious influence you are talking about. --Smithfarm 12:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carrel was a member of the PPF

I've found literature including supporting documentary evidence concering Carrel's membership in the Parti Populaire Francais, the French collaborationist party led by Jacques Doriot. The evidence includes two clippings from PPF newspapers listing Carrel as a member and discussing his activities. Any objection to including this information in the article? I can post images of the clippings as well. Adam Holland 18:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know this, but am not at all shocked by it. If he remained in Vichy, it's not a surprise he was supportive of the regime, as was that party. Millions of Frenchmen collaborated. While it certainly can be mentioned (and I'd go as far as saying "should be" mentioned) I would simply ask that we don't re-hash every word of the very detailed article on the party that already exists. That "Carrel joined, in 193x, the Parti Populaire Francais, a pro-business, authoritarian party that distrusted democracy and later collaborated actively with the German occupation," or some such other permutation of the same thought, is not at all an untrue or inflammatory statement in the least. Nhprman ^UserLists 20:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carrel's medical contributions

I've found some very good information concering Carrel's specific contributions to vascular and transplant surgeory. This is almost entirely positive and should both round out the article and make Nhprman happy. I have a gif image of Carrel's diagram of his first big innovation in vascular surgeory (which he did in Lyons in 1902), his technique for the vascular anastomosis. I'm looking into the copyright for this image. I'd like to put in something concerning his work with Charles Guthrie in Chicago, which is what led the way for transplantation surgeory to his Nobel Prize and his international reputation. My understanding is that they were very close to successfully transplanting organs from one dog to another, and that the invention of heparin to prevent clotting was the only missing piece of the puzzle. I'd also like to add some material on his work at the Rockefeller Institute, and his innovative work concering vascular surgery during World War I. Any objections to this specific, well-sourced material going into the article?

Adam Holland 18:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

By all means! It sounds like a good bit of research you've done and it would certainly be an asset to the article. Nhprman ^UserLists 20:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your revert

Hi Adam. What I was trying to do with my edit was to make the article more coherent and compliant with Wikipedia principles (most notably the ban on original research and inflammatory language), not to challenge your research in any way. Nhprman and I have discussed this and what we both want, and what we offer to you, is a cool-headed, mature, consensus-based editing process and that means no revert wars. The aim is to pool our efforts to make the best article possible. If you want to participate or not is up to you. Both of us think the "superficial commonalities" verbiage that I eliminated is confusing to readers. Apparently you don't agree? Keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia and not a monograph. Just because something is mentioned in the literature doesn't mean it needs to be hashed out in an encyclopedia. The value that an encyclopedia brings is in its brevity. The reader gets a quick overview of the subject and pointers to further reading. --Smithfarm 20:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

While I appreciate your level-headedness, and I respect your point about brevity, I prefer not to deal in any way with Nhprman. His behavior has been inordinately hostile and irrational. He has gone so far as to post misinformation about this dispute (and odd claims about the author of the Die Ziet article) on a blog which I cite in the article, which is tantamount to attempting to alter the document record. There is also something unsettling about his repeated mocking of "Nazi hunters". By the way, considering that he continues to doubt Carrel's affinities for Nazism, would it be appropriate to add the following to the article:

1) jpgs of clippings concerning Carrel's activities with the Parti Populaire Francais, the most pro-Nazi of the collaborationist parties;

2) excerpts from Carrel's letters where he blames the war on a "jewish-bolshevic conspiracy", and hopes for the speedy victory of the Nazis;

3) jpgs of Carrel's work entered as evidence from the Nuremberg Doctors' Trial to support Karl Brandt's claim that Carrel was a prime inflence on the "final solution". (The prosecutors actually found this evidence "compelling".):

4) documents from a Rockefeller Institute investigation where he claims to have been dismissed from that institution as the result of a "Jewish conspiracy":

I could go on with this list, but you get the point.

As the result of Nhprman 's attacks, I have contacted one of the scholars that I cited. He has expressed the opinion that the piece as it stands is balanced, and expressed interest in the Islamist connection, about which he was unaware. (This is a good thing...Wikipedia helping people who are informed about a piece of a topic to find interesting connections about which they would otherwise be unaware.) Chip Berlet has also expressed his interest in what I've written. I think that it passes one basic test of its length: it isn't boring.

With respect to your difficulty understanding "superficial commonalities", what don't you understand? It's not the greatest in literary style, but the meaning's clear enough.

Concerning the "original research" ban, my research has not extended to that point. Where I cite original documents, I was led to those documents by historians who've done the real work.

Please read the additional material that I referred to (Islamofascism and tell me what you think. Literature on the subject of Carrel's influence on Qutb is readily available via internet, library, etc.

Adam Holland 22:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's the link to the more thorough info on the Carrel - Qutb connection Fascism_and_religion#The_fascist_influence_on_Islamism

Hi Adam. I don't think either Nhprman nor I are doubting Carrel's fascist leanings or that he had influence on someone. The point here is that we need to have a balanced treatment of the subject matter, which is Alexis Carrel. If you hugely inflate the treatment of one aspect of this guy's life, the article becomes unbalanced and POV. Do we have agreement on this point?

As for the "superficial commonalities": basically, it reads like a meaningless paradox. That's what I don't understand and that's why I trimmed it down. So it makes more sense and the readers are not befuddled.

You say you respect my point about brevity, yet you propose adding large numbers of additional material (all focusing on one aspect of Carrel's life) to the article. Please explain these apparent contradictions. I mean, let's face it: what is your purpose here, to have a balanced treatment of the entire subject matter or to focus in on one aspect? --Smithfarm 11:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Adam, the fact that a fellow self-appointed and controversial leftist nazi-hunter agrees that the libel job you've done here is "balanced" really holds little water. As for not dealing with me, I have tried to explain Wikipedia's policies over and over again, and we even had a time when we had some kind words back and forth, but your edits here and elsewhere prove you are on a Jihad (ironically) against anyone who ever expressed a "bad" political viewpoint in the past, and we all know you can't reason with Jihadists. I'm convinced that no attempt to explain that swamping an article with one view (positive OR negative) does not result in a balanced encyclopedia article will ever get through to you. Your revert of yet ANOTHER user's attempt at fairness is very telling.

As for your new "evidence," again, it's quite interesting. You seem to have no trouble finding "dirt" on Dr. Carrel, but you cannot bear to see anything positive in the article, which (months ago) you reverted and/or reworded to minimize his VAST achievements in the field of science. That is POV, it's wrong and against policy here. Personally, as was said above by the other user, I also have no problem acknowedging Dr. Carrel's flaws, his extremist views or his associations with collaborationists, all of which were widely known 60 years ago by his contemporaries, many of whom sadly shared those views. So I challenge you one last time to edit AGAINST your biases, and find something NEUTRAL (not even positive) to add to balance the reams of negativity you've added here. Nhprman ^UserLists 00:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, you know, every single one of us has a POV. The challenge is a personal one: can we overcome our personal interests to work for the good of the whole? In any Wikipedia article, when all notable POVs receive commensurate coverage and all bases are covered, the overall product is balanced. On the other hand, when a single POV occupies an inordinately large amount of space in an article, and a single editor systematically reverts the work of other editors when it doesn't appeal to him, it casts a shadow on the encyclopedia as a whole. Unfortunately a lot of this kind of thing is going on here and Adam is not the only one with an ax to grind. --Smithfarm 10:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

So, Adam, please take a look at the Key policies page and tell us whether you are prepared to abide by these. --Smithfarm 15:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sayyid Qutb

Please see Talk:Sayyid Qutb#Connection to Carrel for the motive of removing the part alleging links with Qutb. Lapaz 20:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Question re: editing

I have a question, If I can edit this page so how can I trust these articles? anybody could edit pages! Kam

By moving your question here to the discussion page, where it belongs, I've demonstrated how. Instantaneous fact checking helps ensure that articles remain fair. On the other hand, this particular article has been the focus of an editor who was (and probably still is) intent on slandering him and making Dr. Carrel look like a Nazi, when in fact, the issue of his life and sympathies is much more complex than that, and he deserves a fair treatment of his life here. Unsupported assertions about his relation to Islamism was also included, but it was cut from the article, for the most part (though it is still there in small pieces.) So you are VERY wise to not trust everything you read, but for the most part, Wikipedia offers a good first place to look for almost any subject. Nhprman ^List 20:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC) (by the way, you can sign in and create a user name, then, on Discussion or "talk" pages, use four "tildes" (~~~~) to sign your name.)

[edit] Murdered?

Which were details of his death in late 1944? Was he murdered by Bolsheviks?

[edit] I don't see any evidence that he knowingly "applauded" Nazi forced euthanasia

The added comment regarding the 1936 German publication of his book that Dr. Carrel "thus applauded the Nazi T-4 euthanasia program" is inaccurate. First of all, no one could have offered any such opinion of that infamous program in 1936 because it was not enacted until 1939 (it was canceled in 1941 due to strong Catholic protest). What Carrel was referring to was the draconian measures adopted early on by the Nazi against criminals, petty or heinous, similar to the ones he himself advocated. But the given quotes that supposedly support this claim do not prove that he supported the execution of those of "inferior stock" unless they had committed some type of crime or engaged in anti-social behaviour he considered harmful to society. From what I have read about him I personally doubt he did, which is speculation but so is the assumption that he supported the Nazis' crimes against the innocent. In A. Scott Berg's Pulizter Prize winner Lindbergh, Dr. Carrel is described as an eccentric far-right racial mystic, but also as a devout Catholic who despised the Nazis. From what I gather, his views seem to be more an attempt to reconcile Joseph de Maistre's "Pope, King, and Hangman" counterrevolutionary ideals with eugenics than the modernist and proudly amoral combination of social Darwinism and neo-paganism that fused Nazi ideology. If that assessment reeks of the "no true Scotsman" argument, then so does the unfounded allegation that he "applauded the Nazi T-4 euthanasia program" simply because of his "relation to eugenics and fascism." Neither of those two movements were necessarily synonymous with Nazism, and many of their proponents and sympathizers strongly opposed the Nazis. Of course Nazism couldn't have happened without eugenics and fascism, and one could argue that like many influencial ultra-rightists, Dr. Carrel perhaps bears some responsibility for Nazi barbarity on account of failing to openly condemn the Nazis for the way they appropriated the kind of ideals he promoted. That might raise the debate over whether Senator Joseph McCarthy was wrong to suggest the same thing regarding the equally (arguably even more) atrocious barbarities of Stalin and Mao. Who says we should give the far left the benefit of the doubt, but not the far right? This is not written as an endorsement of Dr. Carrel's views, but the unverified and subjective claim that he actually "applauded the Nazi T-4 euthanasia program" is not an accusation to be taken lightly and I'm deleting it unless someone can offer solid evidence to verify this otherwise defamatory claim.Shield2 03:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chicken heart experiment refuted

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

[edit] Restored deleted sources

I have restored the Arab and Iranian- authored source material to the Sources list. I intend to restore at least one sentence of reference to the article regarding Carrel's influence on Islamism.

Adam Holland (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

As was long ago established here, this "influence" is tenuous at best, a fantasy at worst. Its inclusion here is designed to defame this great scientist, who was indeed flawed (caught up, as many Frenh were, in the statist and fascist trends of the day) but was hardly a devotee of Islam or anything remotely like it. He was a devoted and spiritual Catholic, and would be appalled to see his name associated with Islamism. If others were influenced by his works or words, it belongs in THOSE articles, and only one line is needed here, at the most. But keep up your Crusade against him. I'm just glad someone else saw your folly this time and acted against you, and I hope he keeps fighting your misguided efforts. As for me, I've given up for the most part. Wikipedia is a biased piece of garbage and I visit here now just to see the ruins. - Nhprman 01:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

And see this discussion, which was referenced above, on this page (May 2006) [2]. These ridiculous notions were answered and refuted years ago. - Nhprman 02:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Please calm down. The problem is not of being for or against Carrel (keep your POV for yourself - by the way, one can be a great scientist and an absolut idiot, see James D. Watson's recent declarations). The problem is that one: Talk:Sayyid Qutb#Connection to Carrel, and I tend to give creedence to the one who left that message. Furthermore, to include such in materials in a section named "Sources," unrelated to the main text, is only confusing. I think they should be removed, unless justified, which has yet to be done. Lapaz (talk)

I'm very calm (at least NOW I am) but I won't let this vandalism of his start up again without commenting, at least. No one is suggesting Carrel was perfect, or even right. He was just not what Mr. Holland is making him out to be, and the material doesn't belong here solely on that basis. - Nhprman 01:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)