On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 11:44 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 1/7/2009 2:46:30 PM Pacific Standard Time, dgoodmanny@gmail.com writes:

though most historical journals publish what amount to articles with major biographical content on individuals, some of t hem explicitly biographies. Similarly, journals in other fields often publish at least a few biographies of major figures in that field.>>

---

Names.

I intend to content them directly to find out exactly what sort of "checking" they do or don't.

No comment on the history journals, but if the articles are written by professional historians for publication in peer-reviewed history journals, they do get checked. But that is historians writing history. I think what was meant here was obituaries for scientists, written by leading people in the scientific field (sometime several years in advanced) and then updated and published when needed. The responsibility of writing such an obituary is usually taken very seriously, but can include a lot of personal anecdotes and hagiography as well, while also containing biographical material not found elsewhere.

For most scientists, that will be it. Of course, if the scientist is *really* famous, then proper historians and historians of science may arrive on the scene a bit later and write fuller biographies from scratch, doing proper historical research. Later still, for those whose names ring down the corridors of history, you get each generation attempting new biographies (this is people like Newton, Darwin and so on).

The standard of the secondary biographical material and "professionalism" of the authors does seem to be directly related to the degree of fame of the scientist (or person) in question. There *is* a grave danger in writing biographies from scattered materials for people for which no official biography was written. A good example here is George Washington, of April Fool fame a few years ago:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_(inventor)

That is a really good example of an article cobbled together from a variety of sources, many of which could be argued over long and hard. The first one, for instance, is "Index on Kortrijk marriage records". Another one is "Pendergrast, Mark (1999). Uncommon Grounds: The history of coffee and how it transformed our world". Contemporary newspaper reports are used: ""Brooklyn Club Buys", The New York Times, February 25, 1927". His son's obituary is used: "George Washington Jr. is Dead; Invented an Engraving Device", The New York Times, December 27, 1966". And a link with the present is made "The last remnant of the brand survives in G. Washington's Seasoning & Broth, a sideline developed in 1938": "History – G. Washington's Seasoning & Broth. Homestat Farm, Ltd. Retrieved on March 31, 2007".

Compare that with the current featured article on Alfred Russel Wallace:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Russel_Wallace

In particular:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Russel_Wallace#References

A major biography, as you would expect: "Raby, Peter (2002). Alfred Russel Wallace: A Life". Four primary sources published by Wallace himself are also used, including an autobiography: "Wallace, Alfred Russel (1905). "My Life"". Some general and specific science history sources: "Raby, Peter (1996). Bright Paradise: Victorian Scientific Travellers" and "Bowler, Peter J.; Iwan Rhys Morus (2005). Making Modern Science". Finally, a reference to a recent paper, ensuring that things are reasonably up-to-date: "Tuen, A. A.; Das, I. (2005). "Wallace in Sarawak—50 years later: Proceedings of an International Conference on Biogeography and Biodiversity. Institute of Biodiversity and Environmental Conservation"".

So as you can see, the sources available and the way they are used, varies depending on the person. People vary greatly in their notability and fame and the amount that others write about them, and that impacts what can be done with an article on them.

Carcharoth