Talk:Theodor Schwann

Talk
Do you know of any other sites that give information about Theodor Schwann? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.27.179.64 (talk) 00:48, 18 December 2002 (UTC)

Well, a quick search turns up these:


 * http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Schwann.html
 * http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13592b.htm

In return for the information, how about not creating any more joke articles? Wikipedia is much more fun when you actively contribute; see Welcome newcomers for more information. -- Stephen Gilbert 00:58 Dec 18, 2002 (UTC)

Any reason for this?
I've thought it prudent to revert this change by 68.76.100.162. It's been there since 20 Nov! - Samsara 18:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
Please somebody correct the silly 2082 date in the text. I abhor vandalism. I would correct it myself, but I am afraid of messing up the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.78.32.189 (talk) 21:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the page. Someone had vandalized it. ~Bionicle Bomb — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bionicle Bomb (talk • contribs) 18:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Source materials
Certain parts of this article appear to be from old editions of the Encyclopedia Britannica, such as at this site. Can the editors who added such information here also reference it? I would, but I'm not particularly familiar with Schwann. - Astrochemist (talk) 20:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Belated update: I think the sourcing of Britanica has now been addressed by this edit. Yaris678 (talk) 12:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Big edits
Anyone got any thoughts on these three fairly big edits by 72.89.40.206?
 * 2012-11-28 3:53 - Changed content of vitalism and germ theory
 * 2012-11-28 4:09 - Changed content of cell theory
 * 2012-11-28 4:18 - Renamed work to contributions and changed content. Split, moved and changed content of vitalism and germ theory.

Yaris678 (talk) 12:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * No sources provided. To my eye, the syntax and word choices suggest a direct translation of an unattributed source. I would suggest reverting.Novangelis (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The edit summaries imply the IP was reacting to the existing content of the article, rather than sticking in a direct translation of an unattributed source. I agree the syntax and word choices are sometimes odd.  Yaris678 (talk) 18:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

OK. So we agree that at least some aspects of the changes were deterioration. But some aspects may have been an improvement and some of the problems may have been cleared up since. This diff is a bit of a mess so below I have created a table comparing the latest version of the article to the version before the changes were made.

This table ignores the migration of interwikilinks and the adding of persondata, neither of which needs to be discussed.

Some pretty big changes, but perhaps not quite as big as it looks in the diff!

Yaris678 (talk) 13:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking about these differences. Here is what I think.
 * 1 - Not really bothered but I guess there is no point in piping so let's keep B1.
 * 2 - B2 is not technically correct since Neuss was part of the First French Empire at the time. I have considered explaining this and that it became part of Prussia and then Germany but I think this would be an unnecessary detour so I think it would be best to just revert to A2.
 * 3.1 - Not really bothered. I suppose it is mostly about how he contributed to the sum of human knowledge, rather than about what his work was (though obviously there is a massive overlap).  I'm happy to keep B3.1
 * 3.2 - I guess it's worth mentioning that Müller was a physiologist, but that should be done in in the early life section, when Müller is first mentioned. I think A3.2 is generally better although I prefer the phrase "found particular interest in nervous and muscular tissues." to the older equivalent.
 * 3.3 - I think the triple S of "esophagus's striated muscle" is hard to read and I think A3.3 is generally better but, inspired by B3.3, we should remove the words "many" and "also", which seem superfluous.
 * 3.4 - These versions are similar, but neither is perfect. I propose changing it to "In his later years, Schwann found growing interest in theological issues. Schwann died in Cologne on 11 January 1882.", which is similar to B3.4.
 * 4.1–4.4 - Version B reads like it is written by someone with an understanding of where Schwann's work fits in the bigger picture, although I have to question the statement "Schleiden's contribution extended cell doctrine to plants", given it was Schleiden who first came up with the word cell to describe what he was seeing in plants before anyone thought about applying it elsewhere. This is the sort of thing that is difficult to check against sources but if anyone is familiar with this area or can think of a good way to check it I would be very interested to hear. The story in A4.1 about him having dinner with Schleiden is mentioned in the 1911 Britannica Article so unless someone can prove Britannica wrong I would like to keep it in.  It's a nice human touch.
 * 5.1 and 5.4–5.6 - B5.5 and B5.6 don't mention Schwann at all. A5.5 is supported by the 1911 Britannica Article so I think we should revert to A5.1 and A5.4–5.6.
 * 5.2 and 5.3 - Version B replaces "disproof" with "disconfirmation", which obviously relates to the edit summary in this edit. It seems like a pedantic point to me but I'm not to bothered either way. Apart from that, there is a lot of extra information in B5.2 and B5.3. Perhaps the best answer for the moment is to keep B5.2 and 5.3 and add inline tags - a couple of citation neededs for the two paragraphs and a clarify on "journal of their own editorship". Who are they? The chemists? Müller's pupils? Müller and Schwann?
 * Unless someone objects quick, I will make all the changes I propose above. That will just leave 4.1–4.4 to be dealt with.
 * Yaris678 (talk) 23:13, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Changes made. So... has anyone got at opinion on 4.1–4.4? Yaris678 (talk) 00:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yaris678 (talk) 23:13, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Changes made. So... has anyone got at opinion on 4.1–4.4? Yaris678 (talk) 00:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

TLDR
In case people can't be bothered reading all of the above, the summary is:
 * An unregistered user made these edits.
 * I identified a number of issues and and have resolved most of them.
 * The remaining issues relate to the lines I have called 4.1 to 4.4. These are as follows.

Version B reads like it is written by someone with an understanding of where Schwann's work fits in the bigger picture, although I have to question the statement "Schleiden's contribution extended cell doctrine to plants", given it was Schleiden who first came up with the word cell to describe what he was seeing in plants before anyone thought about applying it elsewhere. This is the sort of thing that is difficult to check against sources but if anyone is familiar with this area or can think of a good way to check it I would be very interested to hear. The story in A4.1 about him having dinner with Schleiden is mentioned in the 1911 Britannica Article so unless someone can prove Britannica wrong I would like to keep it in. It's a nice human touch.

Anyone got any thoughts on this?

Yaris678 (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ I have just brought back some of words from A4.1-4.4. With that, I am basically happy that the big changes (from November 2012!) have been dealt with.  Of course, there is still two citation needed tags and a "clarify me".  But people can deal with those at their leisure without having to compare different 18-month-old versions of to each other.  Yaris678 (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2018
theodor schwan also discovers plant cells. Ddiggin2004 (talk) 16:05, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Danski454 (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)