 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Untitled
editThis article seems to borrow verbatim from other texts, especially in the outdated language used.
- I noticed that too. Or else it is imperfectly translated from another language, probably German. The sources seem to be old enough so that they are in the public domain so there is probably no problem. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
It was copied verbatim from this 1828 work: http://books.google.com/books?id=k1AYAQAAIAAJ 184.77.159.253 (talk) 04:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Savantism
editWe will never know if the subject was a savant. But, we could retrospectively determine (not diagnose) such a possible condition. Unfortunately, that hope would necessarily rely on today's criteria, wouldn't it? Therein lies the rub. Individuals in history are dead and, therefore, should reside in their own time. It is difficult to describe their conditions. This conundrum is exactly why I have hoped that WP policies would allow for retrospective articles based on best standards. If a subject is dead, we should rely on the evidence of the subject's life to inform us about such a determination. That WP provides only policies which stridently avoid retrospective considerations seems to me to be short-sighted and oddly selective. After all, many WP articles are revised as new information comes to light despite one's prior death; but, not when the information relates to a medical or psychological condition which comports with criteria? No, this a bothersome double standard. WP should have retrospective articles and categories if and when the information supports it.174.23.149.96 (talk) 12:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)