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 Wikipedia: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! [1] - 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.

	A Text in version edited by GorillaWarfare at 21:56, 27 November 2012	B Text in version edited by Everyking at 00:53, 6 December 2013
1	Death location in infobox Cologne, Germany	Death location in infobox Cologne, German Empire
2	Schwann was born in Neuss.	Schwann was born in Neuss, Germany.
3.1	Work	Contributions
3.2	It was during the four years spent under the influence of Müller at Berlin that Schwann's most valuable work was done. Müller was at this time preparing his great book on physiology, and Schwann assisted him in the experimental work required. Schwann observed animal cells under the microscope, noting their different properties. Schwann's attention was directed to the nervous and muscular tissues. He discovered the cells which envelope the nerve fibers, now called Schwann cells in his honour.	Theodor Schwann's break through investigations occurred primarily in his four years working under the influence of physiologist Müller at Berlin. Assisting Müller, who was preparing his treatise on physiology, Schwann microscopically viewed animal tissues, and found particular interest in nervous and muscular tissues. Schwann observed cells associating with the sheath of nerve fibers, cells now called Schwann cells.
3.3	He discovered the striated muscle in the upper esophagus and initiated research into muscle contraction, since expanded upon greatly by Emil du Bois-Reymond and many others. Müller also directed Schwann's attention to the process of digestion, and in 1837 Schwann isolated an enzyme essential to digestion, which he called pepsin.	Schwann's identification of the upper esophagus's striated muscle initiated research into muscle contraction, research elaborated greatly by Emil du Bois-Reymond and others. Müller directed Schwann's attention to digestion, and in 1837 Schwann isolated an enzyme, apparently essential to digestion, that Schwann named pepsin.
3.4	Schwann's later years were marked by increasing concern with theological issues. He died in Cologne on January 11th, 1882.	Schwann's later years found growing interest in theological issues. Schwann died in Cologne on 11 January 1882.
4.1	Cell theory section, after section on Vitalism and germ theory In 1837, Matthias Jakob Schleiden viewed and stated that new plant cells formed from the nuclei of old plant cells. While dining that year with Schwann, the conversation turned on the nuclei of plant and animal cells. Schwann remembered seeing similar structures in the cells of the notochord (as had been shown by Müller) and instantly realized the importance of connecting the two phenomena. The resemblance was confirmed without delay by both observers, and the results soon appeared in Schwann's famous Microscopic Investigations on the Accordance in the Structure and Growth of Plants and Animals, in which he declared that "All living things are composed of cells and cell products". Thus cell theory was definitely constituted.	Cell theory section, before sections on Vitalism and Germ theory In 1837, Matthias Jakob Schleiden found that all plants are composed of cells, and communicated the finding to Schwann, who had found similar structures in the cells of the notochord, as shown earlier by Müller. Other researchers confirmed the similarity, as explained in Schwann's Microscopic Investigations on the Accordance in the Structure and Growth of Plants and Animals, where he concluded, "All living things are composed of cells and cell products".
4.2	In the course of his verification of cell theory, in which Schwann traversed the whole field of histology, he proved the cellular origin and development of the most highly differentiated tissues including nails, feathers, and tooth enamel.	This became cell theory or cell doctrine, compatible with Schwann's observations across all other tissues he investigated, concluding a cellular origin even of nails, feathers, and tooth enamel.
4.3	His generalization became the foundation of modern histology, and in the hands of Rudolf Virchow (whose cellular pathology was an inevitable deduction from Schwann) placed modern pathology on a truly scientific basis.{{sfn|Chisholm|1911}}	Schleiden's contribution extended cell doctrine to plants. In 1857, pathologist Rudolf Virchow posed the maxim Omnis cellula e cellula—that every cell arises from another cell—widely accepted. By the 1860s, cell doctrine became the conventional view of the elementary anatomical composition of plants and animals.
4.4	Schwann established a basic principle of embryology by observing that the ovum is a single cell that eventually develops into a complete organism.	no equivalent
5.1	Vitalism and germ theory	Vitalism
5.2	Schwann was the first of Johannes Peter Müller's pupils to break with vitalism and work towards a physico-chemical explanation of life. Schwann also examined the question of spontaneous generation, which led to its eventual disproof. In the course of his experiments, he discovered the organic nature of yeast.	Schwann was the first of Johannes Peter Müller's pupils to break with vitalism and work towards a physico-chemical explanation of life. Schwann also examined the question of spontaneous generation, which led to its eventual disconfirmation. In the early 1840s, Schwann went beyond others who had noted simply the multiplication of yeast during alcoholic fermentation, as Schwann assigned the yeast the role of primary causal factor, and then went further and claimed it was alive. Embattled controversy ensued as eminent chemists alleged that Schwann was undoing scientific progress by reverting to vitalism.
5.3	no equivalent	After publishing anonymous mockery in a journal of their own editorship, they published a purely physicochemical if also hypothetical explanation of the interaction resulting in fermentation. As both the rival perspectives were hypothetical, and there was not even an empirical definition of 'life' to hold as a reference frame, the controversy—as well as interest itself—fell into obscurity unresolved. Pasteur began fermentation researches in 1857 by approximately just repeating and confirming Schwann's, yet Pasteur accepted that yeast were alive, thus dissolving the controversy over their living status, and then Pasteur took fermentation researches further.
5.4	no equivalent	Germ theory
5.5	In retrospect, the germ theory of Pasteur, as well as its antiseptic applications by Lister, can be traced to Schwann's influence.	In the early 1860s, upon Pasteur's publication on fermentation to butyric acid, a putrefaction product, fellow Frenchman Casimir Davaine sought a microorganism as causal in anthrax, but Davaine's identified bacterides would vanish from the blood, a finding whereby rival explanations assigned to Davaine's bacterides the role merely of incidental byproduct.
5.6	no equivalent	In Germany, Robert Koch, influenced by Ferdinand Cohn's report of a nearly invisible spore stage of a particular bacterial species, isolated in pure culture a spore stage of Davaine's bacterides, inoculated it into animals, and reproduced anthrax, concluding fulfillment of his onetime teacher Jakob Henle's postulates to establish the causal and not merely incidental role of a microorganism in the process of a disease.

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 needed}}s 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)

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.

	A Text in Cell theory section of version edited by GorillaWarfare at 21:56, 27 November 2012	B Text in Cell theory section of version edited by Everyking at 00:53, 6 December 2013
4.1	In 1837, Matthias Jakob Schleiden viewed and stated that new plant cells formed from the nuclei of old plant cells. While dining that year with Schwann, the conversation turned on the nuclei of plant and animal cells. Schwann remembered seeing similar structures in the cells of the notochord (as had been shown by Müller) and instantly realized the importance of connecting the two phenomena. The resemblance was confirmed without delay by both observers, and the results soon appeared in Schwann's famous Microscopic Investigations on the Accordance in the Structure and Growth of Plants and Animals, in which he declared that "All living things are composed of cells and cell products". Thus cell theory was definitely constituted.	In 1837, Matthias Jakob Schleiden found that all plants are composed of cells, and communicated the finding to Schwann, who had found similar structures in the cells of the notochord, as shown earlier by Müller. Other researchers confirmed the similarity, as explained in Schwann's Microscopic Investigations on the Accordance in the Structure and Growth of Plants and Animals, where he concluded, "All living things are composed of cells and cell products".
4.2	In the course of his verification of cell theory, in which Schwann traversed the whole field of histology, he proved the cellular origin and development of the most highly differentiated tissues including nails, feathers, and tooth enamel.	This became cell theory or cell doctrine, compatible with Schwann's observations across all other tissues he investigated, concluding a cellular origin even of nails, feathers, and tooth enamel.
4.3	His generalization became the foundation of modern histology, and in the hands of Rudolf Virchow (whose cellular pathology was an inevitable deduction from Schwann) placed modern pathology on a truly scientific basis.{{sfn|Chisholm|1911}}	Schleiden's contribution extended cell doctrine to plants. In 1857, pathologist Rudolf Virchow posed the maxim Omnis cellula e cellula—that every cell arises from another cell—widely accepted. By the 1860s, cell doctrine became the conventional view of the elementary anatomical composition of plants and animals.
4.4	Schwann established a basic principle of embryology by observing that the ovum is a single cell that eventually develops into a complete organism.	no equivalent

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)

Y 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)

 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)