Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:55, 29 December 2013

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Science and Academia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. University of Oxford This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter. Psychology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Simon and Sasha

Are Simon Baron-Cohen and the apparently related Sasha Baron Cohen, (simply) brothers or (close - i.e in sehr enger Verbindung - cousins)  ? 'cause both theories are to be found in the piece. Sroulik 09:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Some people are consistently attempting to claim that Sasha Baron-Cohen (Ali G) is Simon Baron-Cohen's brother. He is not. He is is his cousin. Check here , here , and here . —Preceding unsigned comment added by edhubbard (talk • contribs)

They are cousins indeed, I'll add that--Exult 01:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

How is that significant at all? Just because of Sasha's recent popularity, all of a sudden this is trivia? WhatTheFace? 18:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

They are cousins according to Simon Baron-Cohen himself (The Science of Evil: On Empathy and the Origins of Cruelty by Simon Baron-Cohen, p. 166, "...My cousin Sacha (whose comic character Borat exposed contemporary anti-Semitism by posing as an anti-Semite himself)..."). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.101.12.125 (talk) 18:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Links

I wanted to draw attention to some of the references at the bottom of the page (footnotes numbered in the text) which seem to be bordering on advertising rather than biographical material. Two of those relate to products which are being promoted (one of which in the edit box shows "free delivery to the uk", and a third link relating to his "grandfather's brother", in which the supporting article makes no reference to either Sasha or Simon Baron-Cohen.

Can someone please advise whether these links (and text relating to these in the biography) should be there?

Applet 01:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Trivial?

I'm uneasy about stating that he is Jewish as an item of "trivia". Richard Pinch 20:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

What might the alternative be? Are we to accept that rather dreary old chestnut that, esp. Askenazy, Jews are superior thinkers and scholars because of the the tradition of Talmudic scholarship over a period of 100 generations? Sort of the Michael Levin theory of intelligence distribution and genetics? I think that route is pretty well closed since Israeli PISA scores were published. Or perhaps we are to assume that the Chosen People are particularly afflicted with such things as excessive masculinization, sort of an ongoing part of their collective passage through the Valley of Dry Bones? Or, — well, you get the idea, if it's not trivial, then you are into lots of nasty little problems, some of which are merely PC, but others are rather easily falsified theories. In short, pfui!--djenner (talk) 12:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Copyedit

I am too confused by the wording to attempt to clarify it myself. I am unsure if the section was translated or is simply in need of a rewrite. Single quotes are used throughout for a reason I am unable to determine.

Examples:

"According his proposals autistics implicate all new sensory perceptions by a ‘indirect (unconscious) recognition -system‘." 'Implicate' does not make sense here. Single quotes seem to indicate that Baron-Cohen created this term, which is then not explained.

"This system uses ‘one whole of understandings’, and has also likewise experiences within." Again, single quotes may be inappropriate here; I am unsure what this is supposed to mean.

"That includes ‘input, output and everything between‘, that is associated with ‘the outside -world’." Sentance fragment, unclear.

"It is not a linear way of interpretations, but more a multiple-fundamented -interpretation." What does 'multiple- fundamented -interpretation' mean?

etc. Mdbrownmsw 19:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It does read like one of those motherboard manuals translated from Chinese or Thai by a translator who doesn't actually know English very well, doesn't it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.176.105.36 (talk) 12:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

That's because it wasn't written by an Aspie. I would translate it for you, but I can't stand this man's work and would be unable to maintain NPOV. In my opinion,he only contributes to the continuing discrimination against females on the spectrum, who continue to be underdiagnosed.Berkeleysappho 09:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Date, place of birth, parents?

Anyone have these details? --ukexpat (talk) 19:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am also searching them. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Image

The images are going to be deleted unless someone knows how to follow through on this; I don't speak images. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Confused links

I don't understand what the following is trying to do:

] and on average males develop faster in systemizing.]]

KConWiki (talk) 02:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Quite a lot of this page has been deleted it was all referenced, dunno why the links were valid.

Why delete stuff about his media appearances, like on sex tv... anyone know who the person sb205 is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NigelPettersmithHugh (talk • contribs) 10:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Article issues

Do you know if Baron-cohen is editing this page, a lot of people do this, isn't there a bias or somethin?

One of my friends who has an autistic son emailed him and got the same email address as the sb205 user login, coincidence? What are the wiki rules about editing your own page? Is it OK? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NigelPettersmithHugh (talk • contribs) 10:52, May 21, 2009 (UTC)

Strongly discouraged per WP:COI. – ukexpat (talk) 14:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't surprise me terribly if SBC were involved actively in managing his profile. I remember that my brother got one of the Oxford papers to print a clarification after SBC dropped the "Baron" from an unfortunate news story when they were both undergraduates. Unfortunately the online archives of the Oxford Mail and Oxford Times don't go back that far. I'm seeing my brother tomorrow. so I'll see if he has any clippings.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this is why some of the man's biases are not taken up? In Essential Difference, e. g., the line seems to suggest that women's empathic strength makes them kinder, more gentle. Among other things, I am a university teacher of management and marketing; I quite agree women tend to be more strongly empathic, and to act from that empathy, but that this is used as much as a tool for manipulating the world (the office, the firm, the household — whatever) and masculine systematizing. Nor should this be surprising: One must assume this is a positive adaptation in the species and all that follows from that. But Baron-Cohen — at least in this most popular book, confirmed in an e-mail exchange (brief, to be sure) — seems oblivious to this.--djenner (talk) 12:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Holocaust

Someone tacked on a trivial remark about Baron-Cohen's father telling him about the Holocaust. It's given no context and seems to have no purpose in the article; removed. 72.229.42.246 (talk) 22:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Selected publications

There now seems to be a list of about 370 (three hundred seventy!) peer-reviewed journal articles in this article. This is supposed to be a selected list of the publications that seem most important. Why are we spamming screenful after screenful here? This is not helpful or encyclopedic. Nobody is ever going to read that long list. If someone wants a complete list, then they need to go look up a complete list, not read an encyclopedia (=summary) article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree! This is a rather exhaustive list of 'selected' publications. --LT910001 (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I have just removed the entire list because I don't believe there is a precedent. Even "selected publications" would need some very clear parameters. Can't we mention the most influential articles (with a secondary source) and cite them as references? If there is no secondary source you could argue that "selection" is WP:NOR.

On the whole, I am concerned by the fact that Minsk101 undid all Sandy's edits without attempting to justify this. I will leave a note. JFW | T@lk 12:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

More significantly, the SPA has blanked critic reviews of SBC's books, added citations that don't verify text, and removed cn tags. The critic review has not been re-instated. In its current state, the article is an uncited POV BLP. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Please let me know if the behaviour persists SandyGeorgia. I have left a message suggestion collaboration or the other option. JFW | T@lk 12:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• This list is a clear fail here per WP:UNDUE. It might fly at List of works by Simon Baron-Cohen, but even there there's the issue of WP:NOTDIR.

Overall, I'm not aware of any papers or even books by B-C that are individually up to the level of significance that makes them crucial for inclusion here. Books belong as representing a substantial effort by someone we consider WP:Notable, but I'd be hard-pressed to name one of his papers from memory. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Nor am I. Is anyone going to look at the history of critical text deleted by the SPA? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Text blanking

In addition to re-adding the list of every journal publication five times, the SPA has removed cn tags, added citations that don't verify text, and blanked this section multiple times: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Critical review

A book review of Baron-Cohen's The Essential Difference, published in the journal Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, characterized the book as "very disappointing" with a "superficial notion of intelligence", concluding that Baron-Cohen's major claims about mind-blindness and systemizing–empathizing are "at best, dubious".

Additional

Here are at least two more samples (which have been alluded to by other editors here on article talk for at least four or five years) showing why the article in its current state is POV (that is, critical review has been deleted). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Baron-Cohen tells us that a major motivation for writing his book was a desire to counter the social stigma associated with autism. ... Yet in the service of rehabilitating one segment of the population, Baron-Cohen has developed a model of all humans that ends up -- despite his evident intention -- reinforcing a narrow-minded conception of the female gender. Although I have become convinced, along with many women of my generation, that there is probably some genetic component to male and female mental makeup, Baron-Cohen's grid suggests that the great majority of either sex should be pretty good at both systemizing and empathizing. By stressing the extreme ends of the spectrum, Baron-Cohen has allowed the tail to wag the dog. Source: Wertheim, Margaret (18 January 2004). "Extreme thinking; the essential difference: the truth about the male and female brain; Simon Baron-Cohen". Los Angeles Times. p. R7.

Some researchers think it is an audacious leap to go from maleness to autism. Isabelle Rapin, a professor of neurology and pediatric neurology at New York's Albert Einstein College of Medicine, finds Dr. Baron-Cohen's theory "provocative" but adds that "it does not account for some of the many neurological features of the disorder, like the motor symptoms , the sleep problems or the seizures." Others worry that the term "extreme male brain" could be misinterpreted. Males are commonly associated with "qualities such as aggression," says Helen Tager-Flusberg, professor of anatomy and neurobiology at Boston University School of Medicine. "What's dangerous is that's the inference people will make: Oh, these are extreme males." Source: McGough, Robert (16 July 2003). "Is the autistic brain too masculine?". Wall Street Journal. p. B1.

Were these sentences actually present in the article? They would both be straight-up copy-paste WP:COPYVIOs and therefore could not be accepted.

The first source is a newspaper book review. The second is written by a newspaper reporter, which is not usually the kind of MEDRS-type source that we prefer. Is there really no scholarly criticism of his ideas? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:13, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Did you read the section above? Have you looked at the history of editing on this article? Have you read the talk page? Do you know what a quotation template is? And are you seriously suggesting that the LA Times and the Wall Street Journal are not good sources for book reviews? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Unbalanced

I have now obtained a copy of:

• Buchen L (2011). "Scientists and autism: When geeks meet". Nature. 479 (7371): 25–7. doi:10.1038/479025a. PMID 22051657. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

I suggest that anyone has access to Nature might want to review this article to understand the unbalanced view of this review presented in this edit. The review presented here is subscription only, in case anyone has a copy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Alexbrn The plot thickens: there are two reviews in Nature? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the substantial one by Buchen and a more general short book review of two of SBC's books. Alexbrn 14:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

SPA/COI

I have been trying to get this article cited for almost six years. SPAs POVing and reverting or removing maintenance tags date to at least 2007, suggestive of WP:COI editing:

• Minsk101 (talk · contribs · logs)
• Minsk606 (talk · contribs · logs)
• NigelPettersmithHugh (talk · contribs · logs)
• Sb205 (talk · contribs · logs)

(and other minor contributors).

Further, possible COI editing was identified over four years ago.

It will take considerable work to bring this article in line with Misplaced Pages's sourcing standards, and since I've been doing this for six or seven years to no avail, it seems the only remedy left is to install multiple tags until something is done. Of particular concern (besides that Misplaced Pages has become an uncited webhost) is that critical review of SBC's work is missing or removed whenever added (there is plenty of it). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Ongoing sourcing issues

It seems that no matter how many times (over the years) I flag problems, the same keeps recurring. From this series of edits, the most (only?) useful addition is the wikilink to Molecular Autism and the (incorrectly cited) BPS link. The rest add primary sources, links to amazon.com, or other non-reliable or primary sources that do not verify text. It is time to start chopping this text back and then enforce new additions to correctly cited secondary sources; I have cleaned up this article and flagged back sourcing too many times to count. First, if sourcing something to a book, we need a full citation including a page number, not an amazon.com link. Second, if we are going to make claims about SBC's theories they should not be self-cited. Third, adding another primary source to what has already been flagged as primary-sourced doesnt' help. Fourth, PubMed searches are not sources.

I suggest reverting it all because cleaning up is too time-consuming.

As samples, a BLP on a prominent physician should look something like Donald J. Cohen; notice please that his accomplishments are not cited to self, rather to independent sources.

A book citation would look something like this:

• Kushner, HI (2000). A cursing brain? The histories of Tourette syndrome. Harvard University Press. p. 182. ISBN 0-674-00386-1.

Minsk101, you plow ahead with more of same; please stop and engage talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Since I posted to Minsk101's talk, the following continued:

• This site does not verify the text that SBC developed The Transporters.
• I cannot find where in this new citation that the text is verified
• This still does not verify the text; if Minsk101 believes it does, s/he should engage the talk page here and explain where-- I can't find it.
• This site does not say that SBC established the clinic, or that he established it in 1999. It's possible that it says that and I missed it; it would be helpful if Minsk101 would engage talk and answer queries.
• For this text, IMDB is not a reliable source.

Those are the edits made only while I had dinner; Minsk101 please engage on talk, as this kind of editing is very time consuming. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I have now left my fifth message at User talk:Minsk101 asking that s/he engage the talk page. There are similar messages there from three other editors. Since leaving my last message, Minsk101 did not respond to article talk (has never once posted to article talk), continued to add poorly sourced text, and cherry picked favorable quotes from reviews. Now that I've seen those reviews, it is abundantly clear that we have secondary sources for most of the text here, putting SBC's theories in perspective, and there is no reason for the continuing POV resulting from cherry picking of primary sources and selective quotes from reviews. I am suggesting that this is clear COI editing, and Minsk101 should be banned from page editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Removed for discussion

Again, poorly sourced after editor has not engaged on talk, not worth cleaning up, there is an abundance of secondary review material available. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Synaesthesia

Baron-Cohen published the first Test of Genuineness to validate self-reported synaesthesia (where an individual experiences a mixing of the senses) , and his group published the first genetic and neuroimaging studies of synaesthesia. In 2013 he discovered that the rate of synaesthesia in autism is much higher than in the general population, which may reflect atypical neural connectivity in both conditions. of synaesthesia.

Minsk101 (talk) 15:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)Please help me learn how to be a good editor by explaining why this section was cut? thanks.Minsk101 (talk) 15:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Critical review section

Alexbrn, I'm not sure I agree with this tag. For books, films, works of art, a critical review section is common. Perhaps the text there could be worked into the article, but sections for critical review of books, art, film is common. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd be happy with a response section (or "criticism" section in the true sense of the word); my concern is just that this isn't used as a parking-space at the bottom of the article for any "adverse" commentary on SBC's views: some recent edits by Minsk101 seemed to be using it like that. Alexbrn 14:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Minsk101 was parking "adverse" commentary? I saw only the opposite. At any rate, now that a number of reviews have come to light, there is ample information to completely restructure and rewrite the article without the use of primary sources. I don't have access to all of the reviews, but there are enough secondary sources now to be able to correctly rewrite the entire article. In the meantime, working around Minsk101's refusal to engage talk and continued insertion of POV and primary sources is time-consuming. It has been suggested that an RFC is needed to discuss whether Minsk101 should be allowed to edit the page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking of this edit which, granted, isn't that adverse. But yes, an integrated approach would be best (and maybe it might emerge that a reception section was necessary). As for a RfC - seems like a lot of bureaucratic hoopla for what looks like an obvious case. Any admins in the house? Alexbrn 15:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Minsk101 (talk) 15:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)Hi SandyGeorgia: Minsk101 here. Thanks for teaching me about the 4 tildas symbol. i haven't figured out how to use Talk fully yet, so apologies if you thought I was refusing to engage. Still learning how all this works. I have gathered that citations for scientific findings should not be primary sources (which seems very odd since at university they teach you to always use primary sources and not to rely on secondary sources) but because I am keen to follow the Wiki rules I will search for secondary sources. Also, it seems unfair to accuse me of cherry picking when I have simply inserted quotes from reviews that include both strengths and weaknesses. I'm also trying to understand what you mean "about insertion of POV" when I added a selection of examples from PubMed about the use of the AQ. I'm trying to be collaborative here.

Minsk101, as I already explained on your talk, please sign your edits by entering four tildes after them; we know it's you when you sign your edits. PubMed original studies are primary sources even if in peer-reviewed journals; we have ample secondary reviews now available and the article can be written from them. Please stop inserting primary sources and sources that don't verify the text; you are creating huge cleanup issues that make article progress difficult. There are a number of secondary review discussions of SBC work on this page now; please begin to use them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Alexbrn, there don't seem to be any admins in the house. Minsk has now finally responded on talk for the first time; should s/he continue to insert primary sources and POV, I will initiate the RFC. Since there is a multitude of secondary commentary that has now come to light on SBC's work, I suggest that all primary-sourced text can be removed, to be replaced by these secondary sources which discuss his work more neutrally. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Minsk101 (talk) 15:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)Hi SandyGeorgia. Thanks for explaining the rule about PubMed. I don't want to cause you unnecessary clean up and work. Still not 100% clear on POV. Is the idea that a secondary source is neutral and a primary source is POV? Again, it seems back to front but if this is the way Wiki defines POV I am happy to adhere to the conventions as I think Misplaced Pages is a very valuable resource and value how much hard work people like you are putting into ensuring it is as neutral and as accurate as possible. Rather than going down the RFC route, perhaps a more fruitful approach would be for me to send you questions before I do any editing, to check I'm in line with the rules? How do you send messages to another editor? Thanks.Minsk101 (talk) 15:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

1. Levy, Neil (2004). "Book review: Understanding blindness" (subscription required). Phenomenology and the cognitive sciences. 3 (3): 315–24.
2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3454433
3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16683486
4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=asher+monaco+synaesthesia
5. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7600084
6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=gray+nunn+synaesthesia+nature+neuroscience+fMRI
7. http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199603329.do
8. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Synaesthesia-Contemporary-Readings-John-Harrison/dp/0631197648
9. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=molecular+autism+synaesthesia+autism+baron-cohen
10. http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199603329.do

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class biography articles
• Start-Class biography (science and academia) articles
• Low-importance biography (science and academia) articles
• Science and academia work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class University of Oxford articles
• Unknown-importance University of Oxford articles
• Start-Class University of Oxford (colleges) articles
• Automatically assessed University of Oxford articles
• WikiProject University of Oxford articles
• Unassessed psychology articles
• Unknown-importance psychology articles
• WikiProject Psychology articles