Talk:Rudolf Virchow/Archive 1

not a freemason
There's nothing what indicates, that he was a freemason.

I removed this:

Virchow is reported as a Mason by Masonic sources.

This does not proof that Virchow was a mason. Craig says nothing else than that Virchow was a sponsor and that these sponsors are called "patrons" in Masonry. Not all sponsors are automatically freemasons. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 11:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There's a lot that indicates (points to) Virchow being a Freemason - in English this is not the same as proves by the way. I've added more sources.  For those puzzled at what seems to be blanking please see Talk:Catholicism and Freemasonry. Anyway I've added some more text about Jose Rizal.JASpencer 18:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Indication is speculation. Virchow had to do with Freemasons, but nothing indicates that he was a freemason. Your sources are all ambiguous in the best case. Wikipedia is an encylopedia and no platform for conspiracy theorys. As Virchow worked in Germany, show me one German source. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 19:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Before adding this speculation again, proove it with primary sources or leave it. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * From WP:V:
 * One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers. The goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete and reliable encyclopedia, so editors should cite reliable sources so that their edits may be verified by readers and other editors.
 * "Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.
 * Looks like you're wrong on that. In fact just about all this article would be taken out if we applied you're unorthodox reading of the rules. JASpencer 20:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Your claims must be verifiable and your sources are ambiguous, so they are non-reliable. Imagination and speculation is not a verification. There's not one Masonic source in Germany that indicatates that he could have been a Mason. You will have to proove it and it is not by me to proove the opposite. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually you have to show that these sources are unreliable.
 * As to them being ambiguous it takes a monumental amount of double think to do so, and if this were accepted then virtually nothing in Wikipedia would be citable as someone could quite easily say black is white.
 * I'm sure your command of English is good for day-to-day conversation, etc. but when your talking about precise meaning you seem to be falling down. Otherwise it's rather tendentious blanking of sources, which I'm sure your not doing. JASpencer 20:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * For what it is worth, I think SGOvD webmaster is far more credible in the take on the Virchow material, in that it amounts to a conspiracy theory. Freemasonry is historically “attributed” by “sources” to Virchow, without citing original proof, for the "sources" political ends in Latin opposition to the Roman Catholic Hierarchy’s hold on South America. JASpencer is using those sources for the exact opposite position of "blaming" Freemasonry for "turning" Liberal Virchow "bad" on this single issue of the Kulturkampf. Actually Virchow’s Liberalism, defining of the Kulturkampf, and involvement, are consistent with his background in Science at that stage in history; without involving a Freemasonic conspiracy. JASpencer’s seeding of this conspiracy on Wiki is consistent with his anti-Masonic and pro-Catholic take within the corpus of JASpencer’s work. Imacomp 21:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * How is it a conspiracy theory? Neither of these articles are hostile to Virchow or Freemasonry, in fact they don't care about the first and they rather laud the second.  They are also both sourced, and they both mention Virchow.  You have made a number of these baseless allegations about people being sock puppets and holocaust deniers among many other things.  It is rather annoying when a new editor comes in and decides that just because a source is freely editable  then it should only report what he wants to say.  Excluding other posters for their views is not Wikipedia policy, and it is not allowed by constant blanking either.  JASpencer 20:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No historian accepts such wild speculations about ambiguous claims of sources without any proof. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 22:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur with SGOvD webmaster on this subject. Imacomp 00:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

virchow,rudolph
208.80.72.63 (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Allthough virchow made many discoveries in life he made what he called the greatest by marrying Rose Mayer in 1842.

virchow,rudolph
Allthough Virchow did many great things in life he stated,th greatest thing i have done was marry Rose Mayer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.80.72.63 (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

irrelevant sentence
Removed the following sentence from the section on Virchow's political career, because it is irrelevent to Virchow and not necessary to understanding the previous paragraph:
 * The general ideological enthusiasm among the liberals for the Kulturkampf[4] was in contrast to Bismarck's pragmatic attitude towards the measures[5] and growing disquiet from the Conservatives.[6]

If people want to read more about the Kulturkampf, they can click on the hypertext link. Dwinetsk 11:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

"SUXworked as Froriep's assistant." What is this supposed to mean? Jtyroler (talk) 09:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)jtyroler
 * incomplete reversion of vandalism. Done Autodidactyl (talk) 12:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Rudolf Virchow as a Freemason
This is a summary of the argument that the following text should be included:
 *  Virchow was a patron of the Filipino patriot Jose Rizal. 


 * 1 The first source says "and Masons in Germany, Dr. Rudolf Virchow and Dr. Feodor Jagor" and the most obvious reading (in my opinion the only reading) is that Rudolf Virchow and Feodor Jagor were Freemasons who resided in Germany.
 * 2 The source for this quote is an overflow page for the Scottish Rite Journal, which is the official journal of the southern jurisdiction of the Scottish Rite. The Scottish Rite is an appendant body of Freemasons, of which only Freemasons can join.  The source should be regarded as authorative on issues such as who is a Freemason.
 * 3 The author of the work is Fred Lamar Pearson editor of the Masonic Messenger of Georgia and a Professor of History at Valdosta State University. He is an active Mason.  He has held a senior post in the Grand Lodge of Georgia.  The author should be regarded as a good source on Freemasonry and a competent historian.
 * 4 The article does not have any agenda on Rudolf Virchow or his actions.
 * 5 The article refers to a book published by the (Masonic) Supreme Council of the Philippines.
 * 6 In conclusion the Scottish Rite article clearly says that Virchow is a Freemason and it comes from a reliable source.
 * 7 The second source says "men as esteemed in Masonry as they were eminent in the scientific world--Virchow, for example". The most obvious reading of this quote is that Virchow was an example of a man esteemed as both a Freemason and as a scientist.  Another reading has been suggested that he was esteemed in Freemasonry because he was a scientist, and Freemasonry revers science.  This does not explain why Virchow was mentioned as being "as esteemed in Masonry".
 * 8 The source is "The Builder Magazine" which was a magazine published by the National Masonic Research Society published by the Grand Lodge of Iowa between 1915 and 1930. The magazine is a reputable source on the internal workings of Freemasonry.
 * 9 The article was by Austin Craig, a past master of a Masonic lodge in Oregon and he was the master at a lodge of perfection in the Philipines. He wrote other work about Rizal and can be regarded as an expert on Rizal as well as a Freemason.
 * 1) 10 The article does not have any agenda on Rudolf Virchow or his actions.
 * 2) 11 In conclusion the article from "The Builder Magazine" says that Virchow was esteemed in Masonry and is a reliable source.
 * 3) 12 Either of these citations on their own would justify naming Rudolf Virchow as a Freemason. Together they make the case more compelling as they are seperated by eighty two years.

A further point. Virchow is named as the "Patron" and it has been said that this could be implying that this could mean he was a sponsor of Rizal in a Berlin Lodge. ("Craig says nothing else than that Virchow was a sponsor and that these sponsors are called "patrons" in Masonry." above). I don't know enough about Freemasonry to know if this is the case but as it comes from an editor who is both a Freemason and who opposes this entry I give it some credance.

JASpencer 21:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No original research. You speculate, interpret and you conclude from your own rumors. But there is no proof that Virchow was a Freemason. When was his initiation? When was he raised? Being esteemed or a sponsor doesn't mean you are automatically a Freemason. Virchow is not listed in Rober A. Minder's "Freimaurer Politiker Lexikon" nor in any other list of Freemasons. Why if your speculations were correct? --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 22:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * WP:NOR says "the only way to verifiably demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say."
 * I believe that in both of these cases I've demonstrated that (1) they are reliable sources, (2) they provide information directly related to Virchow's Masonry and (3) that saying that Virchow was a Freemason is adhering to what the sources say. JASpencer 22:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Go to the Deutsches Freimaurermuseum Beyreuth http://freimaurer.org/english/museum/archiv.htm, pay 20 Euros and they will tell you if he was Freemason since they have a complete index of all available member lists of German lodges. But you can save your money, if Virchow was a Freemason this would be well-known here in Germany. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 23:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The issue is do these citation meet the standards of WP:V. "Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible." If the information in these two articles contradicts your view and the available member list then find a contrary citation.
 * Your view also contradicts WP:NOR. JASpencer 07:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * A content RFC has been listed on WP:RFC/HIST. JASpencer 07:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I already explained why your conclusions are wrong. I don't like to repeat myself. You read what you wish to read. You have no source for his Lodge nor his initiation, no document about his membership and you are not even able to cite a text that mentions such a document. No masonic membership list includes Virchow. Why if your reading would be correct? --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 13:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see this from WP:V:
 * "Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.
 * This is directly applicable to the case above. JASpencer 14:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Response to RfC
Firstly, my bias - I care not either way about Freemasonry, and my comments here are from the perspective of finding resolution to two conflicting assessments from a purely academic perspective. From what I see, there appears to be only one statement in favour of Virchow's having been a Freemason. Craig's statement implies Virchow was *respected* in masonic circles - not that he was a Freemason. The 'Liberty-Fraternity' statement is irrelevant - I believe in these things, yet have nought to do with Freemasonry. That leaves an indirect (from evidentiary perspective) quote in a Scottish Rite Journal. So one piece or reasonably weak evidence in favour. Negative proof is a bit of a bugbear - prove to me that fairies do *not* exist - you can't. So you can't prove that Virchow was *not* a freemason, and there is some tentative association - but that is not enough to say unequivocally that he was. And SGOvD's argument is very valid - if he was, he would be listed in the requisite references - just like if you have a birth certificate you are in the appropriate register of births - if *not* then either there was an error, or there is deception/fraud. And what reason is there for 'hiding' Virchow's affiliation? So without going into OR, we have one weak evidence for and one circumstantial but very strong evidence against. I would suggest that in this case, in the interest of reasonable compromise and keeping the public informed, some phrase be crafted along the lines of 'Virchow was respected in masonic circles, and according to one source (cite) may have been a freemason, though no official record of this has been found'. 216.168.116.80 15:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC) sorry, didn't realize my login was expired Bridesmill 15:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Its alot easier just not to say that he was, or was not a Freemason. It has no reason to be in the article, except to seed a bogus theory in other places. Imacomp 18:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm very curious; why all this effort to not say that this assertion has been made, even if in only one place? Bridesmill 19:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The effort is on the bogus theorist’s side, in a "crusade", to link Kulturkampf directly to some international war - of "evil" Masons against the "nice 'n' cuddly" 19th Century RC Church. If Wiki becomes the repository of the wackiest, then it will not be much of a credible encyclopaedia. Jesus likes truth, not “telling a little lie in the cause”. The effort here is to keep out the bogus, not to suppress anything. Imacomp 19:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "The effort here is to keep out the bogus, not to suppress anything." First the sentence contradicts itself.  Not that important.  Imacomp thinks that the connection of Virchow's asserted freemasonry with Kulturkampf should fall under WP:NOR (which is at least arguable) and decides that it makes any mention of Virchow's asserted freemasonry forbidden, even if it were to satisfy WP:V.


 * On the RFC comment itself I think that this is a reasonable compromise that keeps to the facts and satisfies both parties' arguments (that is not to say that it will satisfy the other party). I do think that both quotes were valid, but that's life.  I also think that the stuff about the Masonic records is overblown because (1) German Freemasonry was fractured into at least nine Grand Lodges and Orients and (2) Freemasonry was suppressed under the Nazis which meant that records are likely to have been hidden and destroyed.  The Masonic habit of keeping membership secret is also at least a complicating factor.


 * All that being said I am satisfied with Bridesmill's proposed solution. The sign of a good compromise is that both sides feel that they have given up something. JASpencer 19:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Why should there be a compromise in the best traditions of Wiki, just to plug your bogus rantings without facts? Dream on. Imacomp 19:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Could I please point you to WP:NPA? JASpencer 20:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Why? (And its rude to point). Imacomp 20:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * "bogus rantings without facts" does get quite close to making "accusatory comments" JASpencer 20:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Is that a fact? Imacomp 20:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * OK; time for counting to 10 & deep breaths here. Why should it be improper to state that Virchow is alleged to have been a Freemason? To say something is bogus because you don't agree is somewhat questionable at least. And stating an allegation is very different from alleging a fact. On the other hand, suppressing an alleged fact is dishonest. Bridesmill 20:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, if I wrote, "Bridesmill is a Freemason", would that be WP:NPA? I have no reason to say that is true, but could this be re-quoted in Wiki? If not, why not. I could do the same on some other web page, but it would not make it a fact, or important enough to be actually quotable, would it? I say its all those little Grey "Men" anyway, right? (They inter-bread with the French royalty, in a "novel" way, and run Opus Dei). Imacomp 20:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I think "Virchow did not come from the planet Bloop" should be added, just in case? Imacomp 20:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what I can add here; it seems pretty obvious that you will only accept facts you like; what exactly do you need for provenance, besides it being something which supports you POV? Do you consider as bogus every published item which contradicts your view? It seems to me that Spencer is willing to compromise & tone done his assertions to cited allegations, I am still curious why you are so very averse to Virchow is alleged to have been a Freemason (cite) Let the reader decide whether or not the cite matches their criteria. If this is a case of 'my way or the highway', I am afraid RfC is not going to be sufficient to resolve this issue.Bridesmill 21:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Perchance you may or may not Bring some Light on the issue. But that could make you a Lightbringer? If that is cryptic for you, ask at Freemasonry ;) Imacomp 21:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't find that in the slightest way humorous. I came here as a result of RfC; I stated my bias from the start and addressed the issue from a question of debate & academics rather than politics. I have nothing to do with the individual you allege me to be related to - a cursory review of my contributions/user page/IP should make that fairly obvious. If I did, my suggestion would certainly not be to tell JASpencer to tone down the proposed material. Bridesmill 22:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well yes, see were whacked stuff gets us. So why put them in articles? I do not see the imperative to bring Freemasonry into the guy's biog here, except to support a whacked theory. Imacomp 22:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If a theory is 'whacked' (I am assuming here you are referring to tin-foil hat conspiracies etc) suppression of an allegation is not going to help prove that the theory is wacko - if anything, suppression of allegations helps those who argue 'conspiracy'. So Virchow is alleged to have been a Freemason - where does that leave you or anyone else? It is a point of interest and may lead the researcher down some interesting avenues for further research, but it does nothing in terms of establishing evidentiary credentials. Bridesmill 22:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The whacked theory leads to an alleged dead-end and is not noteworthy. Imacomp 22:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * ? So if Virchow's alleged Masonic ties tie into a dead-end wacko theory, so what? That's like tying the allegation that I looked at the stars last night to a theory that I communicate to extra-terrestrials (I don't BTW ;-)). It's a non-sequitur and would not stand up to any examination.  You are certainly leaving the perception that this is way beyond POV. Just what are you afraid of here? Bridesmill 23:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You are certainly leaving the perception that this is way beyond POV. Just what are you afraid of here? The truth? And around we go. This is were I get off. Imacomp 23:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * ? If you are not going to discuss the issue, perhaps this needs more than RfC. At least one party here seems to be willing to be reasonable & compromise in making it academically sound - why not just leave it at that. Bridesmill 23:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, Jagor's first name was "Fedor", not "Feodor". Both Fedor Jagor and Rudolf Virchow are not listed as a Freemason, but Rizal is. So this text, without giving primary sources for that, adds two people who were instrumental besides Freemasons. If Virchow would have been a Freemason, this would not only appear in a subordinate clause in only one text of the world. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 10:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Bridesmill, to be fair I don't think that they are really afraid of any dirty secrets about Virchow, but they just don't like giving ground in any way to non-masonic editors. There's been a considerable history of butting heads on other articles, for which I was certainly not immune.  JASpencer 15:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I would be glad if Virchow was a Mason, there's nothing dirty about it. Now JASpencer has no proof but insists in his puzzle piece of his own original research conspiracy theory. So instead of having reliable sources, he has nothing but an interpretation of a subordinate clause of a tertiary source. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Second citation
Bridesmill as I said I think that your text is a good compromise. I would like to add a citation to "respected in masonic circles" so it would look like this:


 * Virchow was respected in masonic circles, and according to one source may have been a freemason, though no official record of this has been found.

Any objections?

JASpencer 17:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Although this is IMHO a false conclusion, I have no problem with it. He was also a friend of Heinrich Schliemann, also a Mason, but I found no German source or even a clue that Virchow was a mason. In my Masonic Encyclopedia, Virchow is mentioned as the creator of the word "Kulturkampf", but there's also no record that he was a mason. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 19:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * wm@sgovd - Is that encyclopedia Lenning? This has nothing to do with the question, but just wondering if you have access to it.  Thanks. JASpencer 19:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I have access to Lenning, but also to my "Internationales Freimaurerlexikon". --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 02:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Is Internationales Freimaurerlexikon a Masonic dictionary? JASpencer 22:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * On Lenning, is it available on the internet? JASpencer 22:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Now that it 'seemed everyone had agreed, why the rv of sourced & cited material? I sense a bit of lack of good faith here - if in fact it turns out that JASpencer is up to some quote whacked unquote theory, please feel free to send me an 'I told you so'.Bridesmill 00:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I told you so. Imacomp 00:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

As I stated before, the mysterious stuff is not helpful to anybody. If you see an issue, please advise; otherwise rv to the status quo agreed upon by SGOvD & JAS. Bridesmill 00:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well Bridesmill Imacomp's reverted again. JASpencer 16:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Can we just put in the text that was agreed upon, rather than saying 'ok' and then reverting anyways? That is definitely not good faith. Bridesmill 19:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If this gets reverted again would a vandalism warning be appropriate? JASpencer 07:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

No. Keep your waki stuff out of Wiki. Imacomp 13:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * So. What do we do now? JASpencer 13:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest taking it to an admin; definitely not showing good faith; and to date I still don't see why this little factoid is causing Imacomp such heartache. Bridesmill 15:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I will do that.  There seem to be a few blanket reversions of my edits by Imacomp so I'll see how many he's done and I'll go from there.
 * As a matter of interest is there any particular admin who specialises in non-cooperative users? I've been on Wikipedia for a long time but have avoided this sort of malarky.  JASpencer 16:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * As a matter of interest is there any particular admin who specialises in non-cooperative users? I would say that since they are reasonable people, they will have a good laugh at your wako edits. Imacomp 21:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Xian?
Was he also a Christian? I'd assume that most likely he was since he spoke out against Darwinism.---Shanoman (talk) 08:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment
The "scientific career" section is insufficiently referenced to qualify for B-class status. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone knows if he studied Medicine or Chemistry ? I think he gets his medical degree in 1843 from Berlin university. Can someone confirm this ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.123.119.233 (talk) 11:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Sec sic
"Virchow studied sec and chemistry in Berlin at the Prussian Military Academy on a scholarship of dinner." As 'sec' does not appear on any modern curriculum I would love to know more. What does a scholarship of 'dinner' entail? Are other meals excluded? Chrysippo (talk) 13:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Dark (and less known) side of Rudolph Virchow

Virchow did not create the concept of "cellular pathology". Robert Remak did it some years before in various successive studies. But Virchow coined "omnis cellula e cellula" in his Cellular Pathology (a book) and, in its first edition, he didn't mention Remak's studies. It is a violation of Medical Ethics (well, accuse me of writing POV). Another questionable points were displayed by Virchow towards Remak, but for now I only write this one. This does remind me about Geison's investigations about Pasteur's scientific integrity. References: Kampe N & Schmiedebach HP (1989). Robert Remak (1815-1865). A case study in Jewish emancipation in the mid.nineteenth century German scientific community. Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook 34: 95-129. Lagunoff D (2001). A Polish, Jewish Scientist in 19th-Century Prussia. Science 298: 2331. Lagunoff D (2004). Omnis cellula e cellula. Virchow and Remak on Cell Theory and Neoplasia. The ASIP Bulletin 7:3 pages not numbered. José Ferreira da Silva, Veterinary Pathologist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.136.99.101 (talk) 14:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Sausage as duel weapon
Despite the fact that the Myron Schultz (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2603088/) is perpetuating the tale of Virchows proposal of sausages as duel weapons, there is nothing true about it. It is just an "urban myth" resulting from the public debate about his refusal to duel with Bismarck. Please check more than one reliable source before posting something like this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.28.10 (talk) 05:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Dinner scholarship?
The article says that he studied "on a scholarship of dinner". This is meaningless in English. Norvo (talk) 23:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Photo
A better photo is available in. As he died in 1902, PD-old should pertain.LeadSongDog come howl!  22:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

pronunciation?
Could a knowledgeable person provide the correct pronunciation of the name? Fhayashi (talk) 20:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Correct pronunciation is "fear-chof." The V in German is of course an F sound (Vater). W in German is usually V, but I was told that where RV was from, OW is soft. Ie. the W becomes a V becomes an F. It's definitely "veer-cow"!

Tchussle (talk) 17:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't know what you mean by "correct pronunciation is 'fear-chof'"; what language?

The \OW\ at the end is pronounced as a long O, as in Buelow, Pankow, Treptow, Reventlow.

The initial \V\ is voiced, so the word sounds somewhat like "Veer-show" (rhymes with "beer blow"), albeit with the forward \ch\ instead of the \sh\, and the \i\ a little shorter than the long \ee\ sound.RogerLustig (talk) 19:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The latter edit is right, - except the initial V, it is voiceless (like F). Today in German both pronunciations are used, although the original and correct one is "F"...
 * Using IPA and IPA for German the correct transcription imho should be:
 * [ˡfɪʁçoː] or [ˡfɪɐ̯ çoː]
 * The [ɐ̯] means approximately a short [ə] after another vowel. -- TM 134.2.64.111 (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Its pronounced fēr'-CHō. Its German and you can see it in this 1918 Publication of Every-day Pronunciation by Robert Palfrey Utter.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knpart01 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Missing death date
For some reason, his date of death (5 September 1902) is missing from the bio in the upper right-hand corner of this article and I can't seem to edit it.63.143.225.18 (talk) 22:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Seems like you should be able to, that's odd. Biosthmors (talk) 23:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Back to Virchov
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11229684

Some mention should be made that many experts are advocating a return to Virchov's theory on the origins of cancer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.29.44 (talk) 00:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

✅ I have created a new subsection. Chhandama (talk) 11:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Date of first autopsy manual
"his fist booklet on autopsy, handwritten by himself, on 23 October 1827" this date must be wrong if he was born in 1821. Eaberry (talk) 03:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You are right. The story was mixed up. Correction done. Chhandama (talk) 03:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Missing date for first meat inspection adoption in Germany
The article states "He established that human infection occurs through contaminated pork. This directly led to the importance of meat inspection, which was first adopted in Berlin" - so far so good. I believe the specific date at hand should also be mentioned, whatever it is (I don't know myself yet, so this is why I ask.) 2A02:8388:1600:C80:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 (talk) 21:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

---

I don't know how to comment on this, so if this is done incorrectly please someone fix it. Anyways, according to the wiki article on trichinosis, "A series of experiments conducted between 1850 and 1870 by the German researchers Rudolf Virchow, Rudolf Leuckart and Friedrich Albert von Zenker, which involved feeding infected meat to a dog and performing the subsequent necropsy, led to the discovery of the life cycle of Trichinella. Through these experiments, Virchow was able to describe the development and infectivity of T. spiralis" Source: Blumer G. "Some remarks on the early history of Trichinosis (1822–1866)". Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine. 1 (6): 581–588.

However, in the same wikipedia-article one can read: "As early as 1835, trichinosis was known to have been caused by a parasite, but the mechanism of infection was unclear at the time. A decade later, American scientist Joseph Leidy pinpointed undercooked meat as the primary vector for the parasite, and it was not until two decades afterwards that this hypothesis was fully accepted by the scientific community".

Seems like some detective work is needed to settle that one.

Omnicell
Why does a Wikipedia search for the medical supply management company Omnicell jump to this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.225.17.141 (talk) 19:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * It ... doesn't? Omnicell is a red-link.  --JBL (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits (February 2019)
A series of edits were just made to the article, which I have reverted. They included one or two small improvements, but also created sentence fragments, involved inappropriate use of honorifics and titles, and (most seriously) attempted to deal with the over-long lead by adding a new section heading that carved it into a body paragraph. Since all that material is already contained in other sections of the article (like the very first section, “Life and scientific career”), I do not believe this was salvageable at all, and have reverted. —JBL (talk) 13:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)