Talk:Phrenology/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Phrenology. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Bias?

The last few paragraphs of this article seems very biased to me. It is my understanding (based for example on articles by Stephen Jay Gould) that phrenology has been disproved empirically: a variety of experiments showed no correlation between skull shape and mental faculties. It is also my understanding that very few respected scientists adhere to phrenology these days. However, the article seems to claim that phrenology came into disfavor for irrelevant reasons (its abuse by racists and the advent of psychology). I hope someone can paint a more objective picture than this; I don't feel that I know enough to do so myself. --Zvika 17:39, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you. I read the last paragraphs and it reads like phrenology has a bad name because of people misusing it. However, it should be noted that phrenology is no longer taken seriously because it has little to no factual basis. Anyone want to try a rewrite? --Quasipalm 18:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Well guys, seeing as nobody else seemed to mind, I did a bit of research myself, and ended up changing not only the last paragraph but also a few factual errors I found along the way. Also did some basic copyediting. I hope whoever is out there is satisfied with the result and particularly I hope this is not going to start another NPOV war. The main modifications are:

Tried to organize the beginning of the history section and removed the bit about physiognomy which appears in the physiognomy article and is unrelated.
Paragraph which began "In the 19th century" contained factual errors and has been corrected. Phrenology had ups and downs during the 19th century, with a peak interest around 1830 and another towards 1880; in any case, mainstream academia rejected it by around 1840, as demonstrated by the fact that the prestigious British Association for the Advancement of Science wouldn't hear of them.
I do not agree with the description of the "renewed interest" in phrenology in the 20th century, but do not know enough to correct it, so I only expressed more accurately the reasons for its later fall into disfavor.
The description as though a phrenological device is presented in a "science museum" in Minnesota is a deliberate half-truth IMO. In fact, the device is presented in a permanent collection entitled "Questionable Medical Devices". This has been noted.
Most importantly, I changed the very POV ending to cite both the legacy of phrenology and its mistakes. As it turns out, some very important ideas in neuroscience were originally proposed by phrenologists (particularly the localized functionality of the brain). However there were also many ideas that are IMO disproved by modern methods like fMRI.

I have attempted to describe everything reservedly in the hope that I do not hurt any present-day phrenologist's feelings. I hope I succeeded. --Zvika 21:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect

It is meantioned that phrenology was a protoscience, this is incorrect. IMHO a protoscience can only be something of current scientific research that applies to the scientific dogma and is based on science that hasn`t been disproven due to lack of empiric data.

All of history was a major contributor to all modern sciences including astrology - which got people interested in stars and to ponder about star constellations and intensity etc. I think claiming that phrenology was a protoscience is bull, especially since protoscience is a modern term that IMHO can not correctly be applied to sciences of the past. Foremost key todo protoscience was the emergence of raw computing power, powerful and deep mathematics as well as algorithms and theoretical models.Slicky 18:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

IIRC, and I read about it last in '86 or so, it was generally about the shape but more specifically about the locations of various lumps and crannies on the head and how each (supposedly) corresponded to various psychological and emotional traits. --Koyaanis Qatsi

the inventor of Phrenology, whose name escapes me right now, also believed very strongly that living in octagonal houses was best - he had a very Feng Shui style justification for it (MY favorite pseudo-science du jour, by the way). There are octagonal houses all over America built on phrenological principles about 1845-1865. --MichaelTinkler

You mean Orson Squire Fowler, a 19th century American phrenologist an prolific writer who was in fact the inventor of the octogonal house. He was not the inventor of phrenology though (this was done by a German doctor, Franz Joseph Gall, but he did a lot of work in popularizing the subject. His brother Lorenzo Niles Fowler, who spent most of his life in London, became famous as the designer of the china "Phrenology head". LHOON

You are right LHOON and perhapts more importantly Fowler was the reinventor of using concrete to build his octogonal houses. His goal was alway to help humanity and he thought using concrete would improve peoples living syle. Thomas Edison who was converted to being an inventor by a phrenologist took up the idea and most of Edison's patents that were in the field on concrete use. The humanity of many of the phrenologists is pretty well missing from the article. In general I find the articles try to take "skeptic" a cutting down phrenology as a pseudo science attitude instead of trying to show what phrenology accomplished in terms of being a steeping stone to improved social science. Look at medical science at that time and compare it to now or a hundred years from now and it makes phrenology take on a special importance. Prof Gall 06:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfGall (talk • contribs)

Hello I am new to Wikipedia. I think the article on Phrenology is great. Could you please confirm if I am allowed to translate "the article on Phrenology" in Dutch and edit it to www.wikipedia.nl (the Dutch wikipedia). Thanks, zo_vrolijk@hotmail.com

Of course! This is encouraged! Everyking 14:20, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Inventor of the gall bladder

I don't think Gall invented the gall bladder, as stated in this article, but he may have discovered it.

T Stewart

I think perhaps someone is confusing him with Dr Samuel Gall, who actually invented the gall bladder, see ~~[1]~~... 129.67.126.135 02:04, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

FYI: that was prob a joke. The link says nothing of that kind. Don't follow it (I'm protected behind Debian/GNU/Linux). Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 10:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Removed "inventor of the gall bladder" comment added by 143.48.119.27 20:41, 3 Apr 2005, tongue-in-cheek response of 129.67.126.135 above notwithstanding... Jokestress 02:46, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

to invent can mean to discover (well, wiktionary says it's obsolete). You can say that Galileo invented Jupiter's moons. Aesma (talk) 22:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, well, someone is pulling all your legs, because in an intro to one of his satyrical songs, Tom Lehrer discusses "Dr. Samuel T. Gall, inventor of the gall bladder." So, comic references aside, this is definietly a blind alley! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.213.3 (talk) 12:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Phrenology as Protoscience

This section is silly. Phrenology only bears the most superficial resemblance to modern neurology, and even that is a stretch. Yes, its been quite well established that personality is a function of the brain; but thats quite different from saying skull shape offers any glimpse into personality--and the nearness of the skull and brain offers absolutely no basis for saying that the ideas of phrenology were incorporated into neurology, as seems to be the unstated premise of the section. This section was not worth its page space--I think most people would agree aside from the person who wrote the section. Atleast be more specific as to what ideas were incorporated. (the gall area thing doesn't count, a chance nearness to broca's area means nothing.) I'm confident if pressed to be mores specific little can be said for the idea. --Brentt 21:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I also think that phrenology is a silly, outdated idea. However, I don't think that means this section needs to be deleted. I think the section is fairly NPOV, and if you disagree, why not edit it instead of delete it?

Many totally wrong ideas have contributed to science, and this deserves mention: I believe one of the first people to seriously research EEG was in fact looking for evidence for telepathy. If it is factually correct that phrenology was the first to claim localized brain activity, and the fact that emotion takes place in the brain, then why not mention it? As to the language faculty, that seems like a fairly minor issue to me, but I believe that this sentence just serves to point out how wrong the theory was: out of all the faculties suggested, only one was even close to being correct. The way I see it, this sentence reduces the credibility of phrenology, rather than increasing it.

Anyway, not wanting to start an edit war, I did not revert your deletion yet -- but I hope you revert it or at least replace it with something more to your liking. --Zvika 13:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Has phrenology been debunked or not?

The last sentence of the intro says: "the basic premise that personality is determined by skull shape is largely considered to be false" (emphasis added). Why qualify the statement? Could we replace this with something like: "the basic premise that personality is determined by skull shape no longer has any support within the scientific community"? --Smithfarm 18:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The real problem with this article is that it's not consistent. How can you start the article saying that phrenology is wrong (with or without qualification) and then give a detailed description of 21st-century would-be scientists working on phrenology? --Zvika 13:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are many authors and experts who consider phrenology to be pseudoscience. Of course this can be more clarified using better attribution of quotes. I believe that phrenology has influenced the development of pseudosciences in general though. Especially regarding neuroscientific sounding pseudosciences (neuroscams). I will provide some research that shows this view in time. Bookmain 04:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but nobody supports it anymore. I keep deleting words such as 'largely', but they keep coming back.--Orthologist 21:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the part about parts of it being proven today and just put generally considered to be false in the last sentence, it sounded better than saying it was generally considered to be rubbish :) Fmehdi 06:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

To think phrenology could be debunked is impossible concept. It is like asking has medicine or psychology been debunked or been proven to be a pseudoscience. Phrenology was a important valid contributor to both fields. Perhaps the main things that could be debunked is people who are charlatans, but the great phrenologists were doctors and religious persons. Prof Gall 06:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfGall (talk • contribs)

Direct quote...?

I'm fairly certain that the section referencing phrenology in Terry Pratchet's works is a direct quote, and should probably be marked as such. I would, but I don't have the text. Inspector Baynes 17:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Phrenology Lives on and Evolves... (esp. re. HAIGWOOD MASTERS- Sydney Australia- Phrenologist...)

  "Science" is a mutable word, a mute point.
  Phrenology was used thousands of years ago in Eastern Cultures,
esp. China and is still practised widely today in some Asiatic regions.
[Why Such a bias to all things Western in all matters of the "Mind" and "Sciences"

in most Encyclopaedias? (Rhet)]

  "The Greeks" or "Roman Times", what about around the time of Tzu Wei or Confucious.

  Phrenology is inexoribaly linked with physiognomy, funntion follows form ,

as the face shows what the mind feels/thinks.

They can be studied "seperately" but this is only giving part of a bigger picture.
Phrenology is in no way a simple subject although it is certainly Subjective and Relative,

it is not an easy Science to learn and use with measurable degrees of accuracy, however it can be done with measureable degrees of accuracy approaching unity, well over 90%. 99%+ for the general outlines. However the practitioner must start from correct referents and not suppositions or assumptions.

   HAIGWOOD MASTERS,(c.1900-1977) whom has a mention on a web-site at University in Sydney/Australia.

Started "Reading" heads as it were, as a young man (still at school) getting it mostly incorrect, despite reading all the literature he could find on the subject...

(as an aside I believe his interest came about because Haig had
drawn a picture of his father as a cave-man and entitled it 'an

example of low-intelligence'. The father is alleged to have said to

Haig 'Ya should ave ya head resd.", Haig already having red hair
decided to take his father literally and learnt to "read"

heads) ...Taking what worked from countless resources and adding practical knowledge empirically HAIGWOOD developed a system that was uniquely his and earned him and his 2nd wife Josephine (c.1915-....)

renouned fame from a very successful Vocational-Guidance business
reading-heads in Sydney from the 40's to retirement.

   For those that could afford Haigwood's or Josephine's services

it was considered pounds well spent. They enjoyed the support of Ridgeways Business Journal and the support and respect of many of the big business personalities not just in Australia but further afield.

 Josephine was a lecturer at Sydney University in Psychology

(Freudian) after aquiring her doctorate (pre WWII). Meeting and having to work with/under/beside Haigwood during personell selection

for the war department in Australia during WWII at first Josephine

believed Haigwood to be a charlatan; however within a matter of weeks she had married Haig and the reast as they say is... PHRENOLOGY

  A Very successful match. Josephine claimed never to be as good as

Haigwood was at reading people, they were both very successful, respected professionals. Haig could sum up a person in a matter of minutes, any reporter that went along to "debunk" Haig went out the door a believer in "magic", the impossible or that Haigwood could actually "read" minds or had sold his soul to the devil.

  A brief overview of Haigwood Masters Phrenelogical-System

includes Body shape and posture/gestures, Phrenology and Physiognomy, add a pinch of how a question is answered or asked and the change of expression. Give it ten miutes to an hour and Haigwood

would know 90+% about 90+% of people, not just what they were like

and had done in the past but also what they were most likely to do in the future.

###It is all done with scientific measurements but when you take 4

dozen odd characteristics all at 6 different degrees of influence and know which cancels out what other characteristic and which compliments another you have a staggeringly large data base then you have as well 4 basic structure types and a few more details... we already have in the close order of 7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 individual and distinct personalities or people! seriously. That is wherin comes the "ART" of the "SCIENCE" of "PHRENOLOGY"; as that number is preposterous to calculate all permutations so when one does a reading with Haigwood's unique system of Phrenelogical-guidance it is necessary to be selective and only refine if the "client/subject/student/teacher," wants more data

or accuracy. Sometimes you can not get the answers with Phrenology,
the lack is not that the answers are not there; the amount of

mental calculations needed for complete ahalysis is so staggering sometimes one can not find the trees for the wood...###

All the answers are there, as the ancient-greek fellow wrote "function follows form,"(?) axiomatic.

However "reading" the answers with Phrenology is certainly no easy task- being a Doctor, Psychiatrist, Counsellor, (Con-man), is easier by comparison,- It is a Science and an Art, a tool that works if used correctly.

Written By  18:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)David 
Olen 18:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)DAVID OLEN . AUSTRALIA. January

30th 2007 . 4am EST

References, my head and personal knowledge (first hand), 
Can be contacted by E-Mail   —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.148.101.45 (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC).David Olen 18:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

David Olen 08:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Categorisation

Levine2112 has repeatedly removed the categorisation of Category:Quack medicine from this article, apparently based on nothing more than his/her irrational dislike of the category, which he/she has already nominated for deletion. His/her last removal included an attempt to pass off the general guidelines on categorisation as absolute rules; specifically, the one involving applicability of the most specific categories. Unfortunately, this guideline only applies in case of transitive categorisation; phrenology, being both a former protoscience *and* current former and current pseudoscience in addition to plain old quackery, thus merits indivudual categorisation under Category:Quack medicine. Accordingly, I have reverted. Further reversal without adequate (!) explanation will be considered vandalism and appropriately reported. Digwuren 17:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, though I don't think edit-warring is a solution here. --Ronz 18:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I say, keep the cat. Mr.Guru talk 21:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss Wikipedia:Categorization_and_subcategories and how you feel this is an exception to that rule. Thanks. "apparently based on nothing more than his/her irrational dislike of the category", Please WP:AGF, nothing can be further from the truth. As you can see, I didn't touch "Quack Medicine", but rather removed "Pseudoscience" of which "Quack Medicine" is a subset. That's typically how things are done here at Wiki. If you feel that this is an exception, then please explain calmly and rationally (and please observe WP:NPA). Thanks again. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:POT. No need for edit-warring from you either. --Ronz 19:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Unhelpful and untrue. I am talking about "personal attacks" and "assuming good faith"; neither of which I have done here. Your baiting here, Ronz, doesn't help. Try and keep the peace and let's work together to work this out. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:POT "Baiting" is just your latest meaningless word of choice to attack editors who point out your rule violations. Meaningless and ignored. --Ronz 15:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I wish you would take it to heart and stop with your personal attacks, trying to get some reaction from me. Can't we all just get along? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 15:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for observing NPA this time. Now please observe WP:AGF and WP:TALK too. --Ronz 17:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh well. I guess I will just ignore your baiting here too from now on. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Amitav Ghosh repeated reference

Removed last reference in popular culture because it was already at the beginning. --Forloyo

Phrenology is Pseudoscience?

Based on arbitration and clarification on same, the Pseudoscience category, which has been applied to this page, and to the Phrenology category in general, requires a reliable source indicating that it is in fact pseudoscience to sustain its application. Can you point out some reliable source that will settle the matter? If not, we'll need to remove the Pseudoscience category tag from this page and also from the Phrenology category. Thank you.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 23:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess per WP:PSCI, I always just considered Phrenology as one of those obvious pseudosciences. That said, I am willing to accept that my own opinion here could be biased and wrong. However, the Encyclopedia Britannica does categorize phrenology as a pseudoscientific practice and I think that a mainstream encyclopedia such as Britannica may be enough to show that phrenology is generally considered pseudoscience (thus satisfying WP:PSCI. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I have a difficult time getting anything out of that website, but if did find this

"Phrenology enjoyed great popular appeal well into the 20th century but was wholly discredited by scientific research."

Is this what you meant about Britannica 'generally considering phrenology pseudoscience'? Is your idea of pseudoscience that it includes theories discredited by scientific research? Thanks.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 01:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but also that it is categorized right underneath the page title as a "pseudoscientific practice". That's very telling in my opinion. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer something more direct than another encyclopedia, since

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; usually followed by university-level textbooks; then by magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; then by mainstream newspapers. Special cases may arise; and editors should be careful not to exclude a point of view merely because it lacks academic credentials. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.

per desirable sources standards, but understand the issue well enough to know it's easily found. I gather that this is an abandoned scientific field which has lapsed into divination now. Some scientists don't even seem to understand that it bears a relation to physiognomancy and palmistry for diviners.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 23:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I really have no idea about the relations of phrenology or much about the subject itself. And I agree with you in that I certainly do prefer higher quality sources such as peer-reviewed journals and university published books; however a good tertiary source such as the Encyclopedia Britannica may be one of the best ways to gauge general knowledge (though perhaps not the best basis for a detailed discussion). Thus if Britannica calls something a pseudoscience, I think it is safe to say that the subject is generally considered a pseudoscience. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Wonderfully argued, thank you for your time. :) -- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 00:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

This article uses the word "Pseudoscience" fairly often. I understand the rationale and see the credibility of sources attesting that phrenology is "pseudoscience", but couldn't this article just state that point once instead of several times? It is not that I think it is valid science, but the insistence on that somewhat denigrating word "pseudoscience" marks the concepts out in a strange way. Presumably, it was not considered "pseudoscience" before certain evidence about the genetic causes of the skull casing came to light. Until science could prove that the shapes of the skull were completely independent of the masses of brain underneath, there was something persuasive about this, as it turned out, "pseudoscience".

I don't understand how observations can be made in scientific publications on the shape of human faces and those humans personalities and phrenology being a pseudoscience. How is it impossible that an observation on the shape of a skull influencing personality. We can even do this with animals... note how domesticated dogs have a shorter snout compared with wild canines and the domesticated fox study demonstrating this--157.52.18.45 (talk) 02:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC).

Notice of copy

Anyone car to advise http://www.taiwandna.com/NewsletterGeneticTraits.html that their website needs an update to conform to the GFDL licence agreement. --CyclePat (talk) 23:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that this section should be deleated.Prof Gall 11:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfGall (talk • contribs)

Brodmann's Areas

I am removing the introduction's mention of Brodmann's areas because in the way it currently is phrased it implies that these were used by phrenologists, when in fact phrenology was practially dead as a credible field at the time of Brodmann's publication. I think I'm right in saying that most people who were subjected to phrenological examinations would have gone with Gall's completely baseless chart instead. Nach0king (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Candidate for Popular Culture: Orson Scott Card's Alvin Maker Series

A recurring character in the series of books, Reverend Philadelphia Thrower was a practitioner of Phrenology in interesting contrast to his contempt for the 'pseudoscience' of others with knacks, hexes and doodlebugs.

From the first book "Seventh Son"

He doubted she had tried very hard to hide her scorn. "Phrenology is an infant science," he said

coldly, "and there are many flaws, but I am seeking to discover--"

She laughed-- a girlish laugh, that made her seem much younger than a woman who had borne

fourteen children. "Sorry, Reverend Thrower, but I just remembered how Measure called it 'dowsing

for brains,' and he allowed as how you'd have slim luck in these parts."

He uses the practice in the second book as well but I don't recall if the topic is in the others. Only on book 2 in a reread.

--Thistledowne (talk) 19:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

List of Phrenological modules.

I've come across a few articles following the form Secretiveness (Phrenology). I made a list of the ones I could find and put it in a section ==Specific Modules==. Does anyone have a list of the actual modules? I know the "science" changed based on who was promoting their own theory, and the list would have to be "according to," but I think it would be interesting and useful to see how the early 19th Century thinker categorized human thought process, faculties, and personality. Listmeister (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

What's with the past tense?

Much of the article contains phrases such as

Phrenologists believed that the human mind has a set of different mental faculties, with each particular faculty represented in a different area of the brain.

But phrenologists are not extinct. Critically endangered maybe, but not extinct.

IMO, since there are still practicing phrenologists, the text should use present tense when referring to phrenologists.

--Dr Smith (talk) 02:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

As one of the endangered species I have gone though and changed many of the statements in the beginnings where people keep saying in the past phrenologist mistakenly believed something. The actual fact is they did believe it and it is not to our contemporary judgment to say it was wrong. I preform phrenology as close as I can to the way it was done in the 1850's and an not apologetic for what they believed. I can be more critical of it than any skeptic I know but also know most who are critical do not have an in depth understanding. Yes the page does not deserve a past tense discussion from people who do know how well it ties and lead to the modern world. Prof Gall 06:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfGall (talk • contribs)

Use of term 'Caucasians' instead of 'Whites'

Caucasians being the "most beautiful" while peoples like the New Hollander (Australian)[37] would never become civilized since they were ruled by the lesser organs of the mind.

Because the general aim of this article is, at least in part, to debunk what was once considered by many, and not just by a lunatic fringe as today, to be an explanation of human nature based on the shape of the lumps on humans' skulls, it is not appropriate to make use of another piece of popular but untrue folklore, viz that Europeans came or migrated from the Caucasus.

Unless one is referring to a resident or citizen, or someone descended from the former, of one of the countries of the geographical location known as the Caucasus, it is not appropriate to use this expression to describe a person who has a white, pale or light-coloured skin, or who claims European ancestry.

I am replacing accordingly the current term Caucasians with the term Persons with white skins.124.186.221.219 (talk) 04:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

You are right yet you cannot change the text. In Wikipedia, we cannot write what we know - we write what the sources say. I now changed the text a bit, so it is clear now that it is not us editors who call white people Caucasian, but it was Broussais. I hope that you can agree with this. With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 07:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

How has phrenology been discredited?

Nothing on this article discusses it. 199.117.69.64 (talk) 20:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The paragraph in the History section that starts "Phrenology has been mostly discredited . . ." does discuss it. Looie496 (talk) 21:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Limited access to some reference links

Some of the references used in this article -- Parssinen, T. M. (Autumn 1974). "Popular Science and Society: The Phrenology Movement in Early Victorian Britain" and McCandless, Peter (May). "Mesmerism and Phrenology in Antebellum Charleston: "Enough of the Marvellous" -- are linked to a site can only be accessed by "Red Deer College students, faculty & staff". The Parssinen text is available at Oxford Journal of Social History: http://jsh.oxfordjournals.org/content/8/1/1.full.pdf+html?sid=e8ad5a91-7fb4-458a-beb3-a5402a884164. I can't find a publicly available copy of the McCandless article. Any thoughts on how to go forward, if at all.

Xenxax (talk) 00:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The word "expansive" in the section "Method"

The first phrenological chart gave the names of the organs described by Gall; it was a single sheet, and sold for a cent. Later charts were more expansive.

If "expansive" is correct, it means that later versions were larger (e.g. more than one sheet); however,
if "expensive" is correct, it means that later versions costed more (i.e. more than one cent).

Seeing how there are a few more typos in that section, but also that the size of the product was mentioned, either option is likely. Unfortunately, I can't access the cited source, so I can't figure out which one it's supposed to be. --87.212.167.60 (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2016 (UTC)