Talk:Ferdinand Cohn

About the 'dubious report'

According to Seanwal111111 he "deleted the dubious report about the doctoral program at University Breslau," however all of the sources I've found agree that Ferdinand Cohn was rejected from the equivalent of a doctoral program from that university due to his Jewish heritage. If anyone can recommend some prime source that disagrees with me on this that isn't 30 years or older I would be appreciative, but as it is, all of the sources I've found so far agree over why he was rejected. After I'm done here I'll be re-adding that and getting the correct citation going.

I also noted that someone had deleted the part about Cohn growing up in a ghetto. This, again, is another thing that all of the sources seem to agree on. Until his father struck rich, they grew up in a Jewish ghetto. Unless someone can trump it with a recent prime source (which I would be indebted to you for), it stays.

However, I will concede that the references do need to be cleaned up a bit and linked to entries, which might be part of the confusion. Currently the external links are acting as references. Please see those if you think something is "dubious." I do not doubt, since I lack a prime source to refer to, that some of my entries might contain misinformation, but it won't do any good if we end up in a wiki-war if we aren't adding to our references and showing that there is a reason for the debate.

Edit: I went to one of the sources that someone else had added and it (the source I did not add) even states that, "Because [Ferdinand Cohn] was Jewish, he was barred from taking the degree examinations at Breslau" http://biography.yourdictionary.com/ferdinand-cohn. Again, unless someone can add a source that gives reason for this being 'dubious' information we're just going to go in circles.

16:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)16:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)~~AnthroDMMatter — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnthroDMMatter (talk • contribs)

What you want to say (and what the article is saying right now) is that Ferdinand Cohn (a) was accepted at the university of Breslau in his teens and studied there for about a year and a half or two years, then (b) was accepted at the university of Berlin (a bigger and better university) and studied there for a few years, then (c) was immediately accepted as a teacher at the university of Breslau and taught at Breslau for many decades and headed a department there, and yet (d) the university of Breslau is said to have rejected him for further study after the first year and a half during his teens because his religion was Jewish. I have two responses to the poorly-authenicated claim in (d). Firstly, it makes poor sense on the face of it: (d) is in defiance of (a), (b) and (c). Secondly, the claim (d) is beside the point and not worth mentioning even if it were true. It could be of interest to people studying ethnicity but Cohn's notability is in biology. The claim should be deleted because it had no significant effect on his career if it were true, it would be irrelevant if it were true, and its truth is dubious on the face of it. By the way, Leopold Auerbach was born in a Jewish family in Breslau in the same year as Cohn (1828), and studied the same subjects at the university of Breslau at the same time as Cohn, and later became a professor at the university of Breslau too. Ludwig Traube (physician) and Wilhelm Ebstein are a couple of other Jews who studied the same subjects at the same university around the same era. There are others.

Another point. You want to say "he was born in a Jewish ghetto". It is better to say "Jewish neighborhood". Or say "Jewish family". This is because the word "ghetto" in English today does not mean what it meant centuries ago. Seanwal111111 (talk) 21:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

a), b), and c) all seem to be true, with slight details I did not write in. I cannot assume that he was immediately accepted at Breslau for a professorship because all we know is that he was accepted there. They might have fought over it fiercely or had a ticker-tape parade in his honor for all I know. So, I'd like to point out that you are putting words into my mouth. Also, I did not add the details on him remaining at Berlin to study. This may have been because he was not immediately accepted for a professorship, but that's conjecture.

Secondly, with 'my point' d, I may have claimed this before and it is good that you pulled the original down in that case, but if you review the current version you'll find that I corrected it. He was barred from final examinations. All but one source agrees on this, and the one source that doesn't agree is silent on the subject. I cannot comment on your other items because I'm not knowledgeable on those individuals. However, I can point to my sources and say, "They all agree," so unless you can pull a source that disagrees, I'm afraid it isn't all that dubious.

And yes, this sort of thing is important. It's important to note that (brilliant) individuals were being barred from final examinations and forced to go to other universities to finish out their education over such things. There's a lot of minor details I could note but choose not to simply because they are just that, minor.

To establish my case I'd like to point out that Robert Remak's work was plagiarized because he was Jewish, and the man who did it was applauded as a hero and a co-founder of cell theory for hundreds of years. In fact, in some textbooks, Virchow is still listed as the man behind the third rule.

This isn't an issue of 'ethnicity.' Its an issue of the history of the field of academia. It is also of interest that Cohn ended up working for a university that prevented him from taking his final examinations. Did someone else give him marching orders or was this his choice?

Back then, he very well could've been stuck at the University of Breslau simply because they didn't want a Jew working at one of the bigger universities. How many Jews ended up 'stuck' at Breslau? Almost all of the articles I've read so far state that it was Cohn that made that university's botany department worthwhile, obviously with some assistance from his rich father. The university didn't have the latest and greatest equipment from what I've read and some of the more recent items had to be purchased via resources outside of the university.

This is likely a backwoods university. More than likely professors were hired by a central university and then they were assigned to their work universities from there. The French model, so to speak, which would've been spread by the Napoleonic wars. Of course, at this point I'm digging at a hypothesis and one that I'm not going to fly off and try and prove. However, to try and state that his ethnicity had nothing to do with his career during that time period is silly.

And, the Jewish ghetto is not my words. Almost every source states that he was born into a Jewish ghetto. Maybe it doesn't translate linguistically, but my guess is that the word choice is intentional. That the word ghetto was appropriate. If you want to make a case against it I suggest you start ripping the sources I have to pieces. I honestly wouldn't mind, even if it means we have to rewrite the whole article. If we can end up with some stronger sources it would be worth it.

Also, despite the fact that we are disagreeing, thank you for contributing to the discussion. You obviously have some expertise on the subject at hand and I'm glad we can collaborate like this.AnthroDMMatter (talk) 16:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

If you look at Category:University of Breslau faculty you'll see that Breslau was one of the most eminent universities in Europe in the era when Cohn was a student there (1840s) and in the early years of Cohn's teaching there (1850s). For instance, the chairman of the botany department at Breslau from 1831 to 1851 was Christian Gottfried Daniel Nees von Esenbeck, who was also concurrently the longtime president of the German Academy of Sciences Leopoldina, which was the equivalent in Germany of the UK's Royal Society or the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. A longtime chairman of the physiology department at Breslau was Jan Purkinje, who was one of the most celebrated biologists in Europe in that era. Purkinje cells, Purkinje fibres and Purkinje effect are called after him today. The Wikipedia article about Purkinje says Purkinje "created the world's first Department of Physiology at the University of Breslau in 1839 and the world's first official physiology laboratory in 1842 [at Breslau].... He was the first to use a microtome to make wafer thin slices of tissue for microscopic examination and was among the first to use an improved version of the compound microscope." Using his microscopes, Purkinje discovered Purkinje cells in 1837 and Purkinje fibers in 1839 at Breslau. Back in 1832 Purkinje acquired a "great, modern" achromatic microscope made by Simon Plössl, one of the best instruments at that time -- does that ring any bells? For more about Purkinje see http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-2830903541.html . In 1859, Rudolf Heidenhain, who was Jewish, became the chairman of the department of physiology at Breslau. In 1851-1852, Robert Bunsen was a teacher in physics at Breslau, and Robert Bunsen was already one of the most eminent experimental physicists in Germany in 1851-52. In the year that Ferdinand Cohn moved to study at the university of Berlin, 1847, the dean of the physics faculty at Berlin was Gustav Magnus, who was Jewish. In 1861 Gustav Magnus was the rector of the whole university of Berlin (source).

Those historical items go to show you had no clue about what you were talking about above, in terms of the institutional history.

But instead of investing your time in learning the institutional history, I would like to see you invest your time in learning about Cohn as a scientist. I'd like to see you add material to the article about his science, which is what's supposed to be interesting about Cohn. And drop the tangential concern that you're on about. I've said already that that concern is irrelevant if it were true, in my view. Another point in my view is that it could be misleading if it were true. It's looking to me to have mislead you. Seanwal111111 (talk) 06:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Seanwal, yes, the last part of my last comment was ignorant and lazy, but I'm a lazy person otherwise my contributions would be larger. I won't edit my last comment, since most of your case (in your reply) is built on that. However, until better sources are provided that establish that Ferdinand Cohn was not barred from his final exam for his Jewish practices/ancestory then it is not dubious. It is well established with the data we have (as I pointed out before). Your claim that it is dubiuos is unsubstantiated. If you wish to establish a counter-argument I recommend you publish it elsewhere than wikipedia (original research) and then you can raise the point here. Or find a biographical source that supports your claim. Otherwise it is irrelevant and definitely misleading, and we should discuss it no further (unless someone has something of actual relevance).

So, now the question is: Is this information actually trivial/misleading? I would say no. This information is important 1) In establishing the attitude (and political/racist clime) of the scientific community of the time and 2) In that it would have impacted Cohn's scientific career. I would have agreed with you on this if this particular topic had spanned the majority of the entry. As it is, it is a small sentence in three paragraphs, which is the appropriate weight for this information. With any luck, it will be a single sentence in pages worth of information if I ever start editting again.

If you are still watching this thread and still disagree, please provide relevant information. Not conjecture* and preferably not other wikipedia articles (unless they pertain to rules for editting). As well, while I appreciate(d) the discussion, I didn't appreciate the hostile attitude. If you are still watching this and want to flame or troll, please do it elsewhere. It discourages people from working on the article, something which we both want (since we're both apparently too lazy to do it ourselves).

*While your last response was informative, it did not prove anything in regards to our disbuted factoid and is potentially as misleading as my last few (ignorant) points from before.

AnthroDMMatter (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The primary sources cited must control in the absence of respected citations to the contrary. To do otherwise is to credit the logic of one person, with no backup from historical sources. And without even one of those, History itself must protest.

Further, the inclusion of the original claim in this article is important to the overall biography of the subject, indeed perhaps an integral part of his identity (a religio-ethnic status that was attacked in Europe for centuries, specifically.)

I say trust the record that exists and abandon the denial of the subject's available history. SeeBeeP (talk) 23:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ferdinand Cohn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170713150622/http://www.microbeworld.org/images/stories/history_pdfs/f3.pdf to http://www.microbeworld.org/images/stories/history_pdfs/f3.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)