As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. '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. 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. 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. SGOvD webmaster (talk) 19:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC) Before adding this speculation again, proove it with primary sources or leave it. As Virchow worked in Germany, show me one German source. Wikipedia is an encylopedia and no platform for conspiracy theorys. Your sources are all ambiguous in the best case.

Virchow had to do with Freemasons, but nothing indicates that he was a freemason. Anyway I've added some more text about Jose Rizal.JASpencer 18:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC) Indication is speculation. For those puzzled at what seems to be blanking please see Talk:Catholicism and Freemasonry. 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. Not all sponsors are automatically freemasons. Craig says nothing else than that Virchow was a sponsor and that these sponsors are called 'patrons' in Masonry.

This does not proof that Virchow was a mason.

Dr feodor jagor and jose rizal