Talk:Heinrich Wilhelm Gottfried von Waldeyer-Hartz

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Untitled

Rsabbatini,

I was actually quite surprised to learn that H.W.G. von Waldeyer-Harz actually was the first to coin the term neuron and propose the neuron doctrine. Is this true? I thought that Cajal in his writings also postulated that the nervous system was composed of individual cell rather than a reticulum, and that the idea was essentially his. I also thought Cajal used the term neuron extensively in his writings. It seems from most of what I have looked up, it keeps on refering to Cajal as the person behind the neuron doctrine. Nrets 19:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked out his biography at the Nobel website [1], and yes it says that Waldeyer did first write down the neuron doctrine in 1891, after Cajal gave a series of seminars in Germany purporting his ideas about the nervous system. Cajal's main work was not published until 1894. Nrets 19:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you got it right. I have added the link to neuron doctrine to the article. --R.Sabbatini 12:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cajal was a very late joiner to the brain party. He had only been working in neural tissue for three years when Waldeyer published the neuron theory papers. It was a series of 7 review papers, so Waldeyer had probably started work on the project before he ever heard of Cajal. Rambrown (talk) 14:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV

I'm pretty skeptical of these two edits (by the same user).

They're pretty POVish, insufficiently cited, and they butcher up that one big paragraph pretty bad. The "Ethics" paragraph in particular may be libellous, especially if left uncited. This may need a good rewrite – if someone wants to take that upon themselves. 31.16.106.43 (talk) 23:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, no citation == deleting. El Mariachi (talk) 01:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doubts about the coining of the name 'chromosome'

According to Encyclopedia Britannica, it seems that Heinrich Boveri is the one who chose the term 'chromosome'. On the Mandarin page of chromosomes, it is Flemming who has found it. Who is right?

Appleuseryu — Preceding undated comment added 15:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The neuron theory -- issues

This section clearly has some bias, and I don't this is neutral. I will begin slowly working on this as I can. Waughd (talk) 22:55, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I made much of that section more neutral. I did so in small edits so that people can reverse them if they think I went too far. Waughd (talk) 23:27, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]