Talk:Luigi Ferrarese

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


So one person wrote about him in the 1840's. This does in no way show he was notable enough for a biographical article in the encyclopedia. See WP:BIO. Wikipedia is not a directory of every person mentioned briefly in a book, nor every one who was punished for their writings. Edison (talk) 19:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[CG] Ehrenberg and Luigi Ferrarese were two other influential individuals in this field. The latter wrote Memorie Risguardanti La Dottrina Frenologica (1836-8), which was one of the fundamental 19th century works in the field.

— Yasgur's Homeopathic Dictionary, Jay Yasgur, 2003, p. 184.

More research. Theoph876 (talk) 22:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Also The enchanted loom: chapters in the history of neuroscience‎, Pietro Corsi, 1991, p. 191; also Biagio Miraglia and the Development of Psychiatry in Naples in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries, George Mora, Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences 1958; XIII: 504-523. So at least five people have written about him, in the 1840's, in the 1870's, in the 1950's, in the 1990's, and in the 2000's. There's your research right there. Theoph876 (talk) 22:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Are they online with links, or are you citing print works? It is not required, but a convenience link is very useful when you claim a reference shows something. Also what do they say in these references (Please summarize rather than reproducing the entire text like you did for the 1840 visit). Edison (talk) 23:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Not Wikisource[edit]

We generally do not take old digitized books and make them into articles by reprinting pages from them verbatim. Edison (talk) 19:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Well why not? Theoph876 (talk) 22:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
See the policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files which says "Wikipedia articles are not: "# Mere collections of public domain or other source material such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material that are only useful when presented with their original, unmodified wording. Complete copies of primary sources may go into Wikisource, but not on Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with using public domain resources such as 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica to add content to an article. See also Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources and Wikisource's inclusion policy." We cite the work, and sometimes in the inline citation there is a brief quotation so the footnote is more informative, or to prove a disputed point when someone denies the reference supports a dusputed fact. So far we know he was a phrenologist and that someone wrote they visited him and they said he said he had been persecuted. Now find some reliable sources that show he was a notable person. Edison (talk) 22:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Nonetheless, we might be able to make an article out of this. Phrenology does not have to be "true" for one of its practitioners to be notable. Significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources equals notability. Do the references accomplish that? Edison (talk) 04:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)