Dr Feodor Jagor And Jose Rizal
2021年9月7日Download here: http://gg.gg/vx6nv
Dr Feodor Jagor And Jose Rizal He is not a ghost, but a real man of flesh and blood although now very old, with wrinkled skin and grey hair, beard and moustache, but still wearing the same double-breasted coat he always wore, and carrying the Noli and Fili books in his right hand.
*Dr Feodor Jagor And Jose Rizal Facts
*Dr Feodor Jagor And Jose Rizal Summary
*Dr Feodor Jagor And Jose Rizal Island
*Dr Feodor Jagor And Jose Rizal Images
*Dr Feodor Jagor And Jose Rizal Biography
*Dr Feodor Jagor And Jose Rizal Talambuhayblogscelestial.netlify.com › ▀ Dr Feodor Jagor And Jose Rizal ▀
MAY 3, 1882 Rizal’s Secret Mission Dr. Jose Rizal: First Travel Abroad The purpose of his secret departure for Spain is to avoid detection by the Spanish authorities and friars. Historic Heidelberg: Rizal Welcomed in Berlin’s Scientific Circles • He met for the 1st time Dr. Feodor Jagor; a German.< Talk:Rudolf VirchowJump to navigationJump to searchThis is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.Archive 1
*5Rudolf Virchow as a Freemason
*Dr Feodor Jagor And Jose Rizal. 7/16/2019 Business communication notes in hindi pdf. Sep 15, 2017 - B.com 1st Year What is The Business Communication In hindi. Business communication is a process of messages and persons which are. Tagged with: B com business communication Notes in hindi, B Com Business. Year Notes and Question Paper Bcom 1st.
*Later, Rizal read Travels in the Philippines by Dr. Feodor Jagor, a German scientist-traveler who visited the Philippines. Rizal was impressed by the observations of Jagor like the defects of the Spanish colonization and someday Spain would lose the Philippines.
*In Berlin, Jose met and befriended several top German scientists, Dr. Feodor Jagor, Dr. Rudolf Virchow In Gay Paris (1885-86) After his studies in Central University of Madrid, Rizal, who was 24 years old and already a physician, went to Paris in order to acquire more knowledge in ophthalmology.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<ref>Austin Craig, who served as the Master of the Scottish Rite’s Lodge of Perfection in the Philippines, wrote (without citing sources): “Rizal’s Berlin.. ’patrons’.. were men as esteemed in Masonry as they were eminent in the scientific world – Virchow, for example.” “Rizal was in the Lodge Acacia of the Gran Oriente de Espana.” “He is honoured for having prepared the way for the new Philippines dedicated to the principles of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity.’ Reported by Charles S. Lobinger “JOSE RIZAL AS A MASON” The Builder August, 1916 </ref>.
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)Dr Feodor Jagor And Jose Rizal FactsBefore 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,rudolphDr Feodor Jagor And Jose Rizal Summary
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)jtyrolerincomplete 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]].<ref name=’VirchowMason’>’It was a heady atmosphere for the young Brother, and Masons in Germany, Dr. Rudolf Virchow and Dr. Feodor Jagor, were instrumental in his becoming a member of the Berlin Ethnological and Anthropological Societies.’ From [http://srjarchives.tripod.com/1998-10/PEARSON.HTM Dimasalang: The Masonic Life Of Dr. Jose P. Rizal By Reynold S. Fajardo, 33°] by Fred Lamar Pearson, Scottish Rite Journal, October 1998 and ’Rizal’s Berlin associates, or perhaps the word ’patrons’ would give their relation better, were men as esteemed in Masonry as they were eminent in the scientific world--Virchow, for example.’ in JOSE RIZAL AS A MASON by AUSTIN CRAIG, The Builder Magazine, [http://www.phoenixmasonry.org/the_builder_1916_august.htm August 1916 - Volume II - Number 8]</ref>
*
*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.
*10 The article does not have any agenda on Rudolf Virchow or his actions.
*11 In conclusion the article from ’The Builder Magazine’ says that Virchow was esteemed in Masonry and is a reliable source.
*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 t
https://diarynote.indered.space
Dr Feodor Jagor And Jose Rizal He is not a ghost, but a real man of flesh and blood although now very old, with wrinkled skin and grey hair, beard and moustache, but still wearing the same double-breasted coat he always wore, and carrying the Noli and Fili books in his right hand.
*Dr Feodor Jagor And Jose Rizal Facts
*Dr Feodor Jagor And Jose Rizal Summary
*Dr Feodor Jagor And Jose Rizal Island
*Dr Feodor Jagor And Jose Rizal Images
*Dr Feodor Jagor And Jose Rizal Biography
*Dr Feodor Jagor And Jose Rizal Talambuhayblogscelestial.netlify.com › ▀ Dr Feodor Jagor And Jose Rizal ▀
MAY 3, 1882 Rizal’s Secret Mission Dr. Jose Rizal: First Travel Abroad The purpose of his secret departure for Spain is to avoid detection by the Spanish authorities and friars. Historic Heidelberg: Rizal Welcomed in Berlin’s Scientific Circles • He met for the 1st time Dr. Feodor Jagor; a German.< Talk:Rudolf VirchowJump to navigationJump to searchThis is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.Archive 1
*5Rudolf Virchow as a Freemason
*Dr Feodor Jagor And Jose Rizal. 7/16/2019 Business communication notes in hindi pdf. Sep 15, 2017 - B.com 1st Year What is The Business Communication In hindi. Business communication is a process of messages and persons which are. Tagged with: B com business communication Notes in hindi, B Com Business. Year Notes and Question Paper Bcom 1st.
*Later, Rizal read Travels in the Philippines by Dr. Feodor Jagor, a German scientist-traveler who visited the Philippines. Rizal was impressed by the observations of Jagor like the defects of the Spanish colonization and someday Spain would lose the Philippines.
*In Berlin, Jose met and befriended several top German scientists, Dr. Feodor Jagor, Dr. Rudolf Virchow In Gay Paris (1885-86) After his studies in Central University of Madrid, Rizal, who was 24 years old and already a physician, went to Paris in order to acquire more knowledge in ophthalmology.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<ref>Austin Craig, who served as the Master of the Scottish Rite’s Lodge of Perfection in the Philippines, wrote (without citing sources): “Rizal’s Berlin.. ’patrons’.. were men as esteemed in Masonry as they were eminent in the scientific world – Virchow, for example.” “Rizal was in the Lodge Acacia of the Gran Oriente de Espana.” “He is honoured for having prepared the way for the new Philippines dedicated to the principles of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity.’ Reported by Charles S. Lobinger “JOSE RIZAL AS A MASON” The Builder August, 1916 </ref>.
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)Dr Feodor Jagor And Jose Rizal FactsBefore 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,rudolphDr Feodor Jagor And Jose Rizal Summary
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)jtyrolerincomplete 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]].<ref name=’VirchowMason’>’It was a heady atmosphere for the young Brother, and Masons in Germany, Dr. Rudolf Virchow and Dr. Feodor Jagor, were instrumental in his becoming a member of the Berlin Ethnological and Anthropological Societies.’ From [http://srjarchives.tripod.com/1998-10/PEARSON.HTM Dimasalang: The Masonic Life Of Dr. Jose P. Rizal By Reynold S. Fajardo, 33°] by Fred Lamar Pearson, Scottish Rite Journal, October 1998 and ’Rizal’s Berlin associates, or perhaps the word ’patrons’ would give their relation better, were men as esteemed in Masonry as they were eminent in the scientific world--Virchow, for example.’ in JOSE RIZAL AS A MASON by AUSTIN CRAIG, The Builder Magazine, [http://www.phoenixmasonry.org/the_builder_1916_august.htm August 1916 - Volume II - Number 8]</ref>
*
*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.
*10 The article does not have any agenda on Rudolf Virchow or his actions.
*11 In conclusion the article from ’The Builder Magazine’ says that Virchow was esteemed in Masonry and is a reliable source.
*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 t
https://diarynote.indered.space
コメント