Talk:Frederick T. van Beuren Jr.

Regarding the title

After a snafu during a change of and subsequent corrections to the title of this article from its original by the creator, Frederick T. van Beuren, Jr., M.D., the title of this article has been changed to Frederick T. van Beuren, Jr. (physician).

...You just completed a speedy deletion for a move on Frederick T. van Beuren, Jr. and I was just a moment too slow to stop it. (I was trying to read up on what the procedure would be.) The move had been made previously and the editor replaced the redirect with the text. I'm afraid that significant edit history was removed in the deletion. I hope it is still possible to reverse.Novangelis (talk) 14:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. This was a classic case where action on my part should have taken precedence over protocol. Rather than read up on the appropriate use, I should have just placed the {{hang on}} tag and apologized if I was out of order, later.Novangelis (talk) 15:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

There's a problem: I have restored it with its history, but we now have a messy situation because user 83d40m (talk · contribs) apparently objected to the move, and has done a cut-and-paste to Frederick T. van Beuren, Jr., M.D. which s/he is now developing. I can put them back together, but can we agree on which title to use? JohnCD (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that protocol would be either Frederick T. van Beuren, Jr. or Frederick T. van Beuren, Jr. (physician). I would suggest that the short form be used and if another article is to be written about a person with the same name, at that point the move should be made to the longer version, freeing up the name for the disambiguation page.Novangelis (talk) 15:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the cut and paste, could find no better solution -- and no path to ask such a question in the midst of my attempt to resolve the problem I saw created by the title change. Tried several changes to correct, but they did not work. (I also noticed that the change of title had even obliterated any record of the creator of the article and deleted it from my editing records. That seems a glitch that warrants mending. I left a note at one location.) Please merge all of the records. If it is unconventional to use the degree, as I created it, I would prefer the second title suggested, Frederick T. van Beuren, Jr. (physician), since, unfortunately, there are other members of the family using a Jr. (in different branches, all using the same traditional name -- such as the racecar driver, who is identified as a Jr. also). So, since all records become obliterated in a title change -- I would prefer to see the parenthetical identifier now as I do intend to create more articles about the members of this family with deep historical roots to Manhattan and its Dutch settlers. There will be three Fredericks and two bearing Jr. it seems ([the racecar driver's] father is another son of the subject of this article and is a F.T. also). Please advise if I may be of any further assistance on this. I will refrain from editing further until you notify me that all has been resolved. _ _ _ _83d40m (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, all fixed, the history-merged article is at Frederick T. van Beuren, Jr. (physician) and the others redirect to it. When you make any more, you will have to do some disambiguating. I suggest you put a note on the talk page to say why you want "physician" in the title, to discourage anyone from trying to take it out again in line with normal practice. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks -- will take a look at what you have fixed and follow your suggestion regarding a comment on the talk page regarding the title. I also will look for the "move" button and make note of the process. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 21:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Although this is not the conventional format, it was suggested because there are members of different branches of the family using the exact same name. The subject of this article is the only one who is a physician. Please consult the editors involved in this action, as resolved [above], before making any further change to the title. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 21:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

there are some standard for this, and the standard is WP:QUALIFIER normally we'd use Jr. if it is the name usually used for him in the sources and if there are no other people likely to be in WP for whom that exact formulation would be used . If not, we go by profession in parenthesis. Unless it's ambiguous, we do not let anyone own the article--we go by the MOS. If ambiguous, we go by the convention at the article talk page; again,m nobody, including the first author or a family member has the right to own the article and determine the form. . Myself, I'm not at all happy with the Wikipedia conventions for names--I think we should pre-disambiguate every name in WP by entering birth/death dates, as in normally done in large-scale professional biographical works which cover a wide range and a great many people who are likely to be confused. I'd really like the field of interest (or even field and country) as well, but this will lead to interminable squabbles. It's bad enough that we have them for infoboxes. What would really work best is if we made use of the structured metadata we do have for people to give users an option. (this would of course not help the great majority of general users, who really do need something pre-selected asthe most generally useful option). DGG ( talk ) 22:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks David, almost every reference to the subject of this article includes his degree when identifying him, which was relied upon for the original title, not a personal agenda. I also hope for a way to initiate the institution of such typical conventions as you suggest into Wikipedia -- aspiring to accepted status as an encyclopedia, it ought to adopt conventions already established in professional fields and libraries.

More frustrating to me is when some people begin to label a third person bearing a traditional family name (as the racecar driver in this instance) as "Jr." to differentiate from his parent, originally a "junior," who then becomes referred to as "Sr." once the oldest in the recent line has died. The use of "III," "IV," and such, seeming to be shunned of late. Looking at the genealogy of this van Beuren family, with its recurring personal names, is sufficient grounds for consideration of a change to something more manageable for those who follow us.

Another convention I would appreciate here is an alphanumeric index of all articles and topics that could be browsed -- as in the back of conventional scholarly publications and encyclopedias that could be plumed for pursuits of interesting reading during idle times as well as narrowing focus while researching single topics. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Continuing problems

Substantial inferences are made that do not jibe with sources and primary sources are described with editorial commentary. It is apparent that sources have been used based on their existence rather than any contained content, probably based on search engine hits on restricted content that was not read prior to inclusion as sources.Novangelis (talk) 06:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I find it difficult to address such an ambiguous assertion and its hypothetical judgments -- could you please be more specific? Sorry, but I presumed that with all of your edits, you had eliminated the issues that precipitated your placing the tag. Please identify and discuss the "peacock terms" and "inappropriate or misinterpreted citations" that concern you and I will attempt to address each of them. Regarding the list, please identify and discuss what does not seem appropriate to you there as well. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It is very simple. Every statement should be evaluated by other editors, as there is a history of statements not matching sources. Since such statements have been replaced with other statements not matching sources, a thorough review is needed before the tag is removed. For example, an archive catalog mentioning a letter of condolence written by the author was first described as an obituary by a prestigious institution, then described as the institution where the letter is stored having appointed the author as a representative. Stating, first, the subject had published in Science, then when the statement was challenged, commenting that special access is required rather than providing the citation, indicates that claims were made independent of actually reading sources. Such fanciful speculations have no place in Wikipedia. This article bears the tag because there are clear and repeated examples of sources not matching the claims in the article and will bear it until other editors have a chance to check the statements against sources.

A primary source is indicative of nothing but itself, and descriptions using adjectives such as "pioneering" is peacocking. Describing something as "frequent" or "often" based on as little as a single documented instance is peacocking. Attempts to infer reasons for sources not contained in the sources themselves (or other reliable sources) is inappropriate. Lastly, facts only indirectly linked to the subject (off-topic trivia) are given undue weight.

These faults pervade the article. I've cleaned up a few of the more egregious and more easily reviewed examples, but I've only scratched the surface. If there were a few minor errors which I could have fixed, I never would have placed the tag. If I had plumbed the depths of the article to my satisfaction and fixed every problem, I would have removed the tag. This is a severely subpar article (the adjective "disaster" was used in the deletion discussion). The tag is there to alert other editors to the problems of improper use sources, the inflation of isolated facts into generalizations, and the appending of barely related matters. Until other editors concur that this is no longer a disaster, the tags should remain.Novangelis (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Pardon the lengthy reply, but I believe the following is important in this discussion.

edit by DGG: Maybe I have it right this time.:The correct JSOTR link is [6]. The full contents of the material is "THE death at the age of sixty-seven years is announced of Dr. Frederick T. Van Beuren, Jr., president of the Morristown, N. J., Memorial Hospital since 1933. From 1921 to 1934 he served as associate dean of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Columbia University." Obviously not a full obit, but that Nature should cover it at all is significant. That weekly issue has 5 such notices, along with 2 full obits. DGG ( talk ) 20:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC) Recent Deaths Science New Series, Vol. 97, No. 2516 (Mar. 19, 1943), p. 256 (article consists of 1 page) Published by: American Association for the Advancement of Science Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1670986

my edit: Revision as of 00:49, 18 February 2011 (edit) 83d40m (talk | contribs) (fixing another gap and incongruity left by a deletion with some rewriting) After His death was noted in many professional journals I posted:

. Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, the most highly rated medical institution in the country at that time (and still a leader in research about surgical procedures), which categorized van Beuren as the representative for the Columbia University medical school in 1934, published an obituary…

the bold' above is mine for these purposes

This was followed by what I believe you posted after a misreading: Revision as of 00:54, 18 February 2011 (edit) (undo) Novangelis (talk | contribs) (→Career: having a letter in a folder does not make a person a representative, nor is it an obituary)

and you deleted my entry

the lengthy original copy from Johns Hopkins reads:

Sub-series XIV/A: Condolences, obituaries after William Henry Welch's death, Apr 30 1934 File 163/1-3 Death notices, condolences, obituaries Folder 163/1 Funeral notice - St. Paul's Church, Baltimore. — May 2 1934 Folder 163/2 Minute - on death of Welch adopted by Johns Hopkins Trustees at meeting. — May 8 1934 Folder 163/3 Bound program - Memorial meeting University Club, Baltimore: copy Corner 1920 portrait; addresses by Shriver, Ritchie, Finley, Flexner, Kingsbury, Garrison, Jackson, private printing by University Club 1935, meeting May 22 1934

File 163/4-22 Condolences: letters and telegrams. — May 1934

Folder 163/4 Berliner Medizinischen Gesellschaft, Prof. D. Adam

Folder 163/5-9 Chesney, Allan Mason to: Kellogg, Mrs. F. S.; Kleine, F. K. of Robert Koch Institute Berlin; Neufeld, F.

Folder 163/10 Columbia University, Dr. Frederick T. van Beuren -- (our subject)

Folder 163/11 George Washington University, President Cloyd H. Marvin

Folder 163/12 London School Hygiene Tropical Medicine

Folder 163/13 McGill University School Medicine, Dean C. S. Martin

Folder 163/14 Medizingeschichtliches Institut Berlin

Folder 163/15 New York Academy Medicine, President B. Sachs

Folder 163/16 NY State Assoc Public Health Laboratories

Folder 163/17 Physiological Society London, Prof. A. V. Hill

Folder 163/18 Stengel, Alfred, University of Pennsylvania

Folder 163/19 Sudhoff K. to F. H. Garrison

Folder 163/20 TMs copies telegrams of condolence

Folder 163/21 University California San Francisco, Dean L. Porter

Folder 163/22 University of Philippines School Hygiene Public Health

File 163/23-56 Obituary reprints Folder 163/23 Barker LF, William Henry Welch, Hygeia ? vol: 338-357. — Apr 1935 Folder 163/24 Bayne Jones, S, William Henry Welch 1850-1934, J Bact 28:432-446. — Nov 1934 Folder 163/25 Beers CW, William Henry Welch, Mental Hygiene 18:529-530. — Oct 1934 Folder 163/26-27 Bernard L, Notice nécrologique sur M. W. H. Welch, associé étranger (Fr), Bull de l'Acad de Med 140:629- 632, May 1934; Le Dr. W. H. Welch, Bull Union Internat contre la Tuberculose (Fr), 11:220-225. — ? 1934 Folder 163/28 Cushing, Harvey, The Doctors Welch of Norfolk, New Eng J Med 219:1132-1134. — May 1934 Folder 163/29-32 Flexner S, Doctor William Henry Welch 1850-1934, Bull NY Acad Med 10:384-388, Jun 1934; William Henry Welch, Proc Am Philosoph Soc 75:325-331, 1935; William Henry Welch (1850-1934) Fellow in Class II, Section 4, 1897, Proc Am Acad Arts Sci 70:597-600, 1936; Dr. William H. Welch 1850-1934, Science 79: 529-533. — Jun 1934 Folder 163/33 Ford WW, The public health work of Dr. William H. Welch in Maryland, JH Alumni Mag 25:97-115. — Jan 1937 Folder 163/34 Francis WW, Dr. Welch, Canad Med Assoc J 31:81-83. — 1934 Folder 163/35 Garrison FH, In memoriam William Henry Welch (1850-1934), Scient Monthly 38:579-582. — Jun 1934 Folder 163/36 Kagan SR, Historical medicine. Dr. William Henry Welch (1850-1934), Med Record 147:267-270, 317-319. — 1938 Folder 163/37 Kellogg, Charlotte, The beloved doctor. In memoriam: Dr. William H. Welch, poem (TMs), Atlantic Monthly. — Apr 1935 Folder 163/38 Knopf SA, In memoriam: William H. Welch, Med Record. — 1934 Folder 163/39 Loghem JJ van, In memoriam William Henry Welch (8 April 1850-30 April 1934), Ned T v G 78: 2524-2526 (Du). — Jun 1934 Folder 163/40-43 MacCallum WG, William Henry Welch 1850-1934, Arch Path 17: 829-832, Jun 1934: In memoriam William Henry Welch 1850-1934, J Path Bact 39:536-540, 1934; Dr. Welch's history in a word: wisdom, Washington Post May 6 1934; Dr. Welch April 8 1850-April 30 1934, Bull JH Hosp 54:383-385. — Jun 1934 Folder 163/44 MacCarty WC, Remarks in commemoration of Dr. William Henry Welch, Staff Meet Mayo Clin ?vol:577-581. — Sep 1934 Folder 163/45 Milbank AG, William Henry Welch, Milbank Rev. — Jun 1935 Folder 163/46 Muller F, Dr. William Henry Welch (Ger), Munch Med Woch 503: no. 25. — 1934 Folder 163/47 Newsholme A, Personal reminiscences of William Henry Welch, J Royal San Inst 54:#12. — 1934 Folder 163/48 Oliver JR, William Henry Welch: humanist, JH Alum Mag 23:107-121. — Jan 1935 Folder 163/49 Opie EL, William Henry Welch, J Tech Meth Bull Internat Assoc Med Museums 14:5-8. — 1935 Folder 163/50 Pratt JH, A tribute to Dr. William Henry Welch, New Eng J Med 210:1038-1040. — May 1934 Folder 163/51 Riesman D, William Henry Welch, scientist and humanist, Scient Monthly 41:251-257. — Sep 1935 Folder 163/52 Rolleston H, Obituary William Henry Welch, M.D., LL.D., Brit Med J p. 874 (also journal issue). — May 12 1934 Folder 163/53 Ruggles AH, In memoriam. William Henry Welch 1850-1934, Am J Psych 91:480-482. — Sep 1934 Folder 163/54 Shriver AJ, Opening address at memorial meeting University Club Baltimore (TMs, printed copy in f5). — May 22 1934 Folder 163/55 Sigerist Henry E., William H. Welch, Bull Inst Hist Med 2:345- 346. — Aug 1934 Folder 163/56 Viets HR, William Henry Welch 1850-1934, New Eng J Med 210: 1033-1034. — May 1934

File 163/57-70 Editorials, unsigned tributes, alphabetically by journal Folder 163/57 Baltimore Health News, William Henry Welch. — Apr 1934 Folder 163/58 Gardens Houses and People, A great soul passes. — May 1934 Folder 163/59 JH Nurses Alumnae Mag, Dr. William Henry Welch. — Jul 1934 Folder 163/60 JAMA, Deaths: William Henry Welch, 102: 1513. — May 1934 Folder 163/61 Lancet, William Henry Welch..., p.978-9. — May 5 1934 Folder 163/62 Magazine The Lure of the Litchfield Hills - The great Welch family of doctors (2 issues+copy) pp. 4-5, 16-25. — Aug 1934 Folder 163/63 National Board Medical Examiners, William Henry Welch. — May 1934 Folder 163/64 New Eng J Med, William Henry Welch (1850-1934), annotated by Flexner "Cushing of course". — May 1934 Folder 163/65 NY State Dept Health Health News, Dean of American Medicine dies, 11:73. — May 1934 Folder 163/66 NY State J Med, Lessons of a great career, 34:510-511. — Jun 1934 Folder 163/67 Science News Letter, Dean of American medicine defined "New public health", 25:293. — May 1934 Folder 163/68 Woman's Home Companion, Ten years of Dr Welch. — Aug 1934 Folder 163/69 Yale Obit Rec, William Henry Welch B.A. 1870, also TMs and questionnaire completed Senator F. C. Walcott. — ?1934 Folder 163/70 Unidentified TMs obituary (?? Flexner). — n.d.

Physicians are creatures trained in scientific procedures wherein nomenclature follows a logical sequence. Scanning the Johns Hopkins listing above [1] of “condolences, letters and telegrams” in association with the death of William Henry Welch that contains ten items identifying each source, one finds,

Folder 163/10 Columbia University, Dr. Frederick T. van Beuren

My copy cites the reference after the phrase regarding reprsentative. An editor may safely make inferences based upon the logic of the categorization implemented in the listings. The clear association that the librarian compiling the data for the 1934 death of Welch identified the condolence filed in folder 163/10, is that van Beuren is categorized first as the representative of Columbia S&P – not that van Beuren had sent his personal condolences. There are multiple similar listings for other institutions – as well as listings categorized as personal condolences from individuals, listed – first – by their name and then by their current professional affiliation. van Beuren clearly is categorized as the representative of S&P by the librarian compiling this data for the Johns Hopkins medical school. Therefore, I request that my copy be reinstated as relevant.

Furthermore, since it was ten years before van Beuren's death and that my notation of the reference indicates that the source is for the Welch obituary, I believe that your leap, asserting that I was claiming that it was an obituary for van Beuren implies that you failed to read my notation before using it as a justification of my "presumed" intention to present the information as something other than what it was. Granted the sentence is compound, but the later portion has nothing to do with the citation (if that had been the case, the citation would have followed the period). Using the Wikipedia principle of assuming good faith, I am presuming that was your error, however, I note that regrettably, subtle interpretations you made repeatedly seem to follow a similar path that was generated by it. Often, none of us have enough time to follow the best practices.

There is a reason for erasers on pencils. The link I provided for the 1943 Johns Hopkins obituary for van Beuren fails, as noted _early_ in the afd discussion. I have requested assistance to obtain copies of that and other documents that neither our readers nor I may access. I do consider these "useless" for this article until a proper reference may be provided.

You cite two "peacock" terms (which you already have deleted, but note as the basis for a tag):

Frequently-published may be a factual term, significant competition exists regarding the publication of medical research into professional journals among those physicians who conduct research. Few are published. How many articles have been published in professional journals by the physician who removed your appendix, one might ask, in order to bring this into perspective. Compared to his peers, then and today, van Beuren was published frequently in professional journals. I posted references for several examples of articles by van Beuren being published in peer-reviewed professional journals that linked directly to copies available in the Internet, selecting several different journals in order to demonstrate range. Presence openly on the Internet for many professional journals, again, is not available to our readers, nor me, without memberships or fees. Those I cited range from early in his career through shortly before his death. I made no effort to seek references in foreign journals. I find the use here as reasonable.

Pioneer is defined on the web as: • open up an area or prepare a way; "She pioneered a graduate program for women students" • initiate: take the lead or initiative in; participate in the development of; "This South African surgeon pioneered heart transplants" • someone who helps to open up a new line of research or technology or art • open up and explore a new area; "pioneer space" • one the first colonists or settlers in a new territory; "they went west as pioneers with only the possessions they could carry with them" per wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Please note the second example, which is used in exactly the fashion I did regarding van Beuren. This is a surgeon who identified a shortcoming in current medical practice, researched it thoroughly over many years, assembled a body of data from which he made extrapolations, and then made recommendations for proper procedures to be followed by surgeons in order to prevent incidents that resulted in high rates of mortality among patients presenting with similar symptoms. He refined his recommendations as his data compiled and provided greater insight, but even his initial findings yielded recommendations that would save many lives, and they were published in peer-reviewed journals. That conforms to the third example. I find the use here as reasonable.

The appellation of "peacock term" in these two instances, seems an indication of the lack of understanding of the history of medicine at the turn of the twentieth century. I hope that you cautiously select editors with an understanding of that history to provide you with opinions you may develop regarding this article and the tags you have posted, so that your caution does not drive a decision based upon a superficial consensus among editors not qualified to render judgments based on that understanding.

Antibiotics did not exist and, even with the advent of antiseptic surgical procedures, few survived a ruptured gut that had been allowed to occur through delayed intervention. Their chances were much greater after an understanding provided by the research of van Beuren, which provoked early diagnosis and recommended procedures, albeit, in no way approaching the high survival rates seen with the advent of antibiotics. Pioneering, therefore, is an appropriate term for the work of van Beuren, and the basis for his notability, the recognition he received in his lifetime through publication in journals and presentations before medical groups, and the notes of his death.

Among the citations I provided, van Beuren was published in 1920 in the field of gastroenterological surgery. Graduated in 1902 from S&P, he had the years of residency and internship ahead of him, yet by 1910 at age thirty-four he was appointed chief of his prestigious alma mater's surgical clinic. Only ten years out from that, in 1920, his research was being published in the Annals of Surgery. Follow the citations, as you intend, but read and understand them all please.

Again, I apologize for the lengthy reply, but request retention of it fully in this discussion because of the marginalization of positions when such detail is truncated (having experienced that at Wikipedia previously). _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 16:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Pasting the entire entry of a catalog which supports the trivial notion that the subject once sent either a letter or telegram and then trying to inflate it to representation because a librarian included an institutional affiliation is not reasonable use of a source. It is trivia, peacocking and wild speculation that is vastly beyond the nature of the source, all in one. Yes, an eraser is needed, and the article has been so flagged because it needs a nearly total rewrite.Novangelis (talk) 03:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I take 83d40m's efforts at clarification as a detailed response to heavy handed criticism of minor parts of the article. Most of it seems sound. Efforts made to improve or clarify misinterpreted portions ought to be met in kind and addressed to encourage collaboration rather than to continue hammering with a hyperbole that greatly exceeds the importance of the objects vilified, best to back off and cool down Novanglis. You may dislike the style, but should take the time to read for content, the motivation doesn't come accross to me like you are implying. Don't raise criticisms and then ignore an ernest attempt to reply. Gfbbloc (talk) 19:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you tell me how a letter of his being in a folder is notable? As written, this article is mostly original research, heavily composed of one editor's very liberal interpretation of primary sources. Almost any source is exaggerated. His illustrations in one book (a primary source) are described as "Many of his illustrations...were used in published works...". Tell me, what were the other works? Papers are described with adjectives not derived from secondary sources, but rather, by one editor's comments. Describing a paper as pioneering because it was innovative is one thing. Even the secondary sources are described with interpretations of motivation not found in the text. This pattern of unsupported extrapolation is found throughout.Novangelis (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not see an intention to assert that the letter itself is notable, as you do. I see it as an indication that the association of him as "representing" the college is clear, based on the categorization of it. Yes, I agree. I read that referencing it is not intended to be interpreted as an action by Johns Hopkins, but that rather, it proves the assumption of his relationship through professions relationships that already existed. It is a small world in some professions. Identification often follows known relationships. If he represented the college, it is much different from merely being some doctor sending condolances, or even of a doctor on their staff sending personal condolances. The file system does imply that it is a letter "from" Columbia -- penned by the subject. I read this response to your laundry list as maybe, derived from discussions in the afd about his lack of stature at the college (challanging the status of someone of his rank, without regard to the size of Columbia University). There were strong suggestions that he was a minor member of its staff whose stature was being inflated. (Personally, I don't think that is the case.) I think his notability is confirmed. Think you overreact to what already annoys you. Looks like further documentation on the illustrations confirms the numbers that are likely, 86 in one volume is -- many. That was published in 1915, he was a young physician still, unlikely to be featured writing a chapter in the textbook unless having the respect of others in the profession. I took the time to read some of the texbook and the compiler of the textbook indicated such respect for some collaborators that he stated that they deserved stand-alone publications. Personally, I find the details of his career in the article pretty compact and not containing much filler... obviously what is there as filler is not to your liking. Without some filler though it would be a bulleted list. Hope another view can help put some of this in perspective for you. I would like to see cooperation make this a good article and think your commets are biting. Can someone with access to some of the "useless" references confirm details or provide copy to 83d40m and others as requested? Gfbbloc (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

No number of illustrations in one volume makes it more than one published work. If there is nothing written (WP:PSTS|secondary sources) about his published papers (primary sources), then a list in a "Selected bibliography" section is the appropriate format. Preceding the entries with bullets is optional. If no one has published commentary, then Wikipedia is not the place to start. Engaging in speculation (original research) is inappropriate in Wikipedia. All claims must directly trace back to a WP:RS.Novangelis (talk) 14:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)