Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:Joseph Jacobs

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Joseph Jacobs as eugenicist

[edit]

If you are determined to have this part of the Wiki article on the great folklorist - please get a better reference - a vague mention of a "Mr. Jacobs" (it is after all quite a common surname) at the end of an article on the subject is really neither specific nor reliable enough. If Joseph Jacobs really was interested in eugenics then there is very likely to be a published record of this - in fact unless he actually published something on the topic himself it is probably not sufficiently notable anyway. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article says Joseph Jacobs, not just Jacobs. Are we reading the same article? It is also clear that it is the fairy tale writer Joseph Jacobs, as the findings of the study on the Jewish children were published in the Jewish Encyclopedia which the fairy tale writer helped edit. I'll bring more sources though. (Unsigned comment: actually by --Comradesandalio (talk))
Oops! found the reference to "Joseph Jacobs" on the previous page! Missed that in my first reading. Yes, I do accept we are talking about the same person!! But finding a mention of his name in an article on a subject is not conclusive, what we would want would be a copy of the text of the paper J.J. read. He may even have concluded from the results of the experiment that there WAS no "Jewish type", or that his interest was purely in the facial features of the boys (not necessarily from an eugenic point of view). In any case this is very highly peripheral to a case linking eugenics and J.J. As for the second reference - it is a very fleeting and most inconclusive reference in a review - it might pay to get hold of a copy of the work reviewed? If it is in fact authoritative enough to serve as an encyclopediac source. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TYPO (or other mistake) at the end of the "Later life" section

[edit]

At the end of the last sentence of the "Later life" section (at least, in the "Latest revision as of 23:54, 8 September 2024" version of this article) it says [QUOTE]:

He died on 30 January 1916 at his home in Yonkers, New York, aged 62.{{sfn|Sulzberger|1917|p=68}}<ref name=ADB/>

The last 2 words ("aged 62") of that, disagree with:
not only

  • the "age at death" (61) shown in (the value of) the "death_date" field ... [where the field name is displayed as "died"], and the field value uses a {{death date and age}} template instance) as part of the "Infobox" (that is, the "{{Infobox writer}}" template instance) at the top of this article,

but also

  • the first sentence of this article, which gives the same "birth date" and "death date" values as the previously mentioned "Infobox".

Now, I have not tried to look in to that reliable source (shown above as the raw wikitext
"{{sfn|Sulzberger|1917|p=68}}"
in the "blockquote"d sentence above) ["yet"]; but even if I did, and even if that source did say that this person's "age at death" was 62,

  • It would still be at odds with the data shown in this article, both in the body of the article and in the "Infobox" ... so, (partly because the data shown in this article appears more than one place, so it seems to be correct),
  • I would suspect that the data shown in this article is correct, and that the (age) number "62",
    -- wherever it came from! -- is the mistake.

One (additional? perhaps) reason why I suspect that the (age) number "62" is wrong, is that it would be very easy for someone to "come up with" that number, by just subtracting the number "1854" from the number "1916", without remembering to pay attention to the "month and day" values, which might well (and it seems that they do) indicate that: while 1916 was the year during which Jacobs would have "turned 62" (that is, would have become 62 years old), *IF* he had still been alive on '29 August' of that year ... he died during January of 1916, which was well before his ['29 August'] birthday that year.

In addition to that (maybe this should have been mentioned first, but I just noticed it) the sentence (the one that is "blockquote"d above) has two footnotes -- "[5]" and "[3]" -- at the end, and ... when I clicked on the link from footnote "[3]" to the "source" -- [at the URL https://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/jacobs-joseph-6817] -- I found that it clearly says [QUOTE]:

Death
30 January, 1916 (aged 61)

Any comments? -- Mike Schwartz (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]