Talk:Theodor Billroth

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ccoope52.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Article quality
Something has to be done about the layout of this article. It is poorly divided, it needs copyediting, and the images are poorly placed. --evrik (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I don't see much point in adding section headers to an article which is less than 600 words and has been rated as a stub.  When the article grows to 1000 words it might be worth dividing it up into sections.


 * I also don't see any pressing need for copyediting. Do you see errors of grammar or syntax? Structure? I don't.


 * The whole article is half a page long and there are two graphics. How else would you place them?--Ravpapa (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The page looks much better than it did last week. --evrik (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You are right. I was wrong.

But why do you insist on wikilinking avocation? There is no article on avocation. Are you planning to write one? --Ravpapa (talk) 06:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Billroth played an important role in 'legitimizing' antisemitism when he published a treatise on racial antisemitism in 1875. He later retracted his antisemitic theories, but because of his standing as a great scientist, he couldn't undo all the damage of his earlier remarks. It seems like this side of his historical significance should be mentioned in the article -- but in a tasteful way. Someone with delicacy should strike the right balance between celebrating his medical accomplishments and acknowledging this dark side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.192.114 (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Axt's edits
Miguel.mateo, don't you think you are being a bit draconian in deleting Axt's edits. It's not that you doubt their veracity or value, you just want them sourced.

If I don't see any response, I will restore Axt's edits and add a citation needed tag.

Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 12:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * We are having a conversation in his talk page, please feel to ship in. I think he added his comments with references now.  Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Copyrighted image
It looks like WP is in violation of the copyright laws by including the image of a coin from the Austrian mint. Quoting from their web site: "The content of these pages is subject to copyright. Any reproduction other than for private use (publication, duplication, distribution to third parties, printing in the media) is dependent on the written consent from the Austrian Mint."

So I would suggest that written permission ought to be obtained before restoring this coin image. Sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 16:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think a letter of permission would help. Doesn't the image have to be public domain or GNU free-use licensed? --Ravpapa (talk) 07:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pointing this out, Ravpapa. Concerning the use of this image in general, I feel there are two issues:  (1) What is the right interpretation of so-called "fair use" law in this case?  (2) How legit is it to use an image without permission when the owners tell you directly that they don't want you to?  Re. (1), I have no relevant knowledge.  Re. (2) I tend to feel we shouldn't do it.  Cheers, Opus33 (talk) 18:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I visited the Austrian mint website at http://austrian-mint.at and couldn't find any copyright statement. Where did you see it? --Ravpapa (talk) 06:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Here it is: http://austrian-mint.at/impressum?l=en  Opus33 (talk) 01:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks --Ravpapa (talk) 05:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Article Organization
The discussion above seems centered around the organization of the article when it was only a stub. Now that it it up over 1000 words, any suggestions as to how best to reorganize it? Ccoope52 (talk) 03:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Looks pretty good to me. Much improved from what it was when we started working on it years ago. Ravpapa (talk) 05:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

--
 * Overall very well done and thorough.
 * One suggestion I have would be to more clearly organize the article. The "Career in Surgery" section seems to include content that could be placed in entirely new sections. For example, you could consider moving the paragraph that mentions Billroth’s work beyond surgery (“wound fever”) into a new section on Billroth’s medical pursuits outside of surgery. You could also create a new section that includes Billroth’s legacy.
 * I would suggest also adding more citations to some of the claims made throughout. I’m not sure if the citation you add at the end of a sentence encompasses the entire paragraph preceding that sentence. If so, consider adding more of a variety of sources or citing more frequently.
 * The article is an interesting read and I think it's certainly been much improved. Emarti84 (talk) 05:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

“Austrian Chamber of Toers”
What, exactly, is the “Austrian Chamber of Toers”? It’s unlinked, and I can't find any information about such an entity in a web search. Grjako (talk) 08:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Grjako, you are well justified in your puzzlement:
 * (1) This was a "typo", incorrectly taken from a U.S. article that actually speaks of an Austrian "Chamber of Peers";
 * (2) In fact, it refers to something already on Wikipedia: i.e., House of Lords (Austria).
 * I have corrected the mistake in the article. Lindsay658 (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Afterthought: my best guess, Grjako, is that the origins of the erroneous "Toers" lies within (as is often the case with old documents that may be scrunched up, folded, and/or with unusual type-faces) a flawed optical character reading operation (i.e., mis-reading the "Peers" as "Toers"), and that the erroneous "Toers" was simply taken, without question, from the results of that operation. Lindsay658 (talk) 06:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)