Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:31, 22 January 2014

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. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Help convert this to a legitimate article

Raymond Moody provides an example.--Pawyilee (talk) 07:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Résumé

So far this article is nothing but a résumé of the "I Love Me" variety. As it stands now, it is highly deletable. Please, someone, put something substantial in it! Oh, I know! How about something about the controversy engendered by his current bizarre best-seller?? 69.255.153.126 (talk) 17:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes! I'm waiting for your edit wit bated fingers.--Pawyilee (talk) 04:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't wait too long, or you might not like what you get... 69.255.153.126 (talk) 14:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Article title

The Misplaced Pages style guide discourages using titles and degrees in article titles, but allows Sr/Jr/III as disambiguators. I believe this article's title should be Eben Alexander, III, especially since his father was also a neurosurgeon (so "(neurosurgeon)" would not disambiguate effectively). --Macrakis (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Consider Eben Alexander (author), since he doesn't use the III in his byline, and it is as author rather than as M.D., neurosurgeon or great-great-grandson of the original Eben Alexander that he became notable. I initially started this article as "III" but Eben Alexander III (without a comma) redirects to Eben Alexander. I failed to note until now it's a circular redirect from the tagend of that article. Since I didn't find who the "III" related to, I went with M.D. The start-class French article fr:Eben_Alexander_III uses III without a comma, but has even less info than this one. Since the "III" relationship is given in the original article (even though our guy is really the IV,) then this could be moved as Macrakis proposes and disambiguated appropriately. If committed Wkipedians can transform this into a decent article, I'd like to read it; but if there's insufficient interest, I won't cry if this one is is deleted. In any case, remember to change Eben Alexander's hatnote and the III's redirect. --Pawyilee (talk) 05:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

From what I can see, Eben Alexander (author) is probably the best option. He's likely to be best remembered for that book regardless of whatever else he does or has done... 69.255.153.126 (talk) 13:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. --EPadmirateur (talk) 02:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Now that's settled, what about the niggling little comma: should not one follow his family name? (I redirected the comma'd link.) --Pawyilee (talk) 04:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

You mean Eben Alexander III versus Eben Alexander, III? I've never seen a comma there before, on anyone... I vote no comma. 69.255.153.126 (talk) 00:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The New York Times agrees. Eben Alexander, M.D. redirects here, so the article needs a dab. Consider adding See also Simulation hypothesis. --Pawyilee (talk) 03:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Suffix (name) says use of the comma is an older form (like me) that is now optional (and mine's running out.)--Pawyilee (talk) 15:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Info box person

Started. --Pawyilee (talk) 14:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Dab who's who

Eben Alexander

was the father, grandfather, great-grandfather and great-great-grandfather of four Eben Alexanders, although his son, a Knoxville physician, is regarded as Eben Alexander, Sr. His grandson, called Eben Alexander, Jr., was a prominent neurosurgeon who served as Chief of Neurosurgery at Wake Forest University from 1948 to 1978. Eben Alexander III is also a neurosurgeon, at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, and author of Proof of Heaven.

As this is confusing, ‎EPadmirateur changed the dab to read For his great-grandfather, see Eben Alexander. which directs to the author's great-great-grandfather. Since junior or senior are not yet notable enough for articles of their own, we could leave it at that; or take pity on the befuddled and create Eben Alexander (disambiguation).--Pawyilee (talk) 05:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

EA III (this article) likes to say he is really Eben Alexander IV. What happened was the "initial" Eben Alexander was not considered EA I. So the lineage is:

• Eben Alexander (1851-1910), ambassador -- progenitor
• Eben Alexander, Sr., Knoxville physician -- son
• Eben Alexander, Jr. (or II), neurosurgeon at Wake Forest University -- grandson
• Eben Alexander III, neurosurgeon and author, born December 1953 -- great-grandson
• Eben Alexander IV, studying neuroscience, born 1987 -- great-great-grandson

--EPadmirateur (talk) 06:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

You not only got ahead of me, you obviously know more than I do. While you were posting here, I was creating new section Eben_Alexander#Prominent descendents of the same name. The new section lacks references; do you have them? Or a better ides how do it while integratimg the link to Suffix_(name)#Generational_titles? --Pawyilee (talk) 06:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

From the Generational titles section, it looks like the Eben Alexanders are actually pretty regular in their suffixes. The only references I have are to EA III's father and his son (EA IV) from Proof of Heaven. EA IV was born in 1987 (p. 12) and EA Jr. or II was a prominent neurosurgeon who was "chief of staff" at Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center in Winston-Salem, NC (pp. 50-52). EA III has said in his talks and interviews that EA IV was studying neuroscience at the time of the illness (2008). EA IV has probably gone on to graduate school in that or a related field. --EPadmirateur (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I prefer your layout to my prose entry (modified from the original.) Suggest using yours as Descendents of the same name, introduced by "His descendents use these generational suffixes," change ambassador to diplomat and scholar; link progenitor; add your reference at the end. --Pawyilee (talk) 11:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

That sounds great! --EPadmirateur (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

You're the one with the reference, so why don't you do it? --Pawyilee

Like! --Pawyilee (talk) 13:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Information Self-Published?

Good evening. I recently added a new paragraph to this article in order to keep it up-to-date and I described a recent commentary that was published in IANDS. I put a reference at the end of the paragraph, but for some reason it was removed anyway because it "appeared self-published." I am not sure why this is the case given that I cited my source, and I am certainly not the person who published the original commentary. It's a little disappointing spending a considerable amount of time and effort contributing and then having it all removed without any warning. Is it possible to somehow resolve this issue and hopefully have the content restored since it is well cited?

--Nikolozik (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, by self-published I wasn't implying that you published it; I was referring to the term as it appears in the Misplaced Pages policy WP:RS, the link I gave in the edit comment. It looks like falls under the category of group blogs and thus would not be considered an appropriate source for Misplaced Pages to cite. Vzaak (talk) 00:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh hi! I see what you mean. But actually the article is found in the News section of the website and it is not a blog. If you open the article as a pdf at http://iands.org/images/stories/pdf_downloads/esquire%20article%20on%20eben%20alexander%20distorts%20the%20facts.pdf, it appears as a regular article and the format does not resemble that of a blog. And as far as I know, the IANDS is considered to be a pretty well-known and respectable organization. --Nikolozik (talk) 00:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

In fact the IANDS is the organization that regularly publishes the Journal Of Near Death Studies, which is the only peer-reviewed scholarly journal in the field. --Nikolozik (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Well a website that publishes blog-like entries under the title "News" is quite distinct from a news organization that publishes a blog that is held to journalistic standards. The biographies of living persons policy is pretty clear, "Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject" (WP:BLPSPS). You could solicit a second opinion at WP:RSN, but I expect they would tell you the same thing. Vzaak (talk) 01:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

When is it pushing a POV?

In the "Criticisms" section I made a slight change to the following text:

"Alexander’s book and publicity campaign have been criticized by scientists, including neuroscientist Sam Harris, who described ..."

The change I made was based on a quote from Misplaced Pages which describes Harris as "a contemporary critic of religion and proponent of scientific skepticism and the "New Atheism"." The changed version therefore reads as follows:

"Alexander’s book and publicity campaign have been criticized by others. This includes neuroscientist, critic of religion and proponent of scientific skepticism, Sam Harris, who described... "

Vzaak has removed my change, claiming that in giving this added information about Harris, I am pushing a POV. Harris' statements, he says, were made as a scientist.

As a first-attempt-at-editing contributor, I am puzzled. I thought that I was precisely removing a POV entry, namely the POV that when people make claims "as scientists" then it is not necessary to know anything more about their views of life, because, as scientists they are bound to be absolutely objective. In my view, Harris is not a dispassionate observer calmly reviewing Alexander's work. Rather, he is someone whose entire reputation rests on the falsity of Alexander's claims. That does not make Harris' statement false, but knowledge about who and what Harris stands for surely helps the reader to assess Harris' statements.

Please do not misunderstand me. I am "agnostic" about Alexander's claims. I think that Harris and Oliver Sacks raise perfectly relevant criticisms about his claims, and he needs to respond appropriately to them. Nevertheless, I fail to see how I push a POV if I expose Harris as someone with his own very strong and committed POV. CarlosChio (talk) 19:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages shouldn't embrace the genetic fallacy with open arms. Imagine reading the following line in an encyclopedia: "John Doe, who is black, argued that blacks scored lower on these IQ tests due to sociological factors unrelated to intelligence." If that sentence is as unseemly to you as it is to me, then you should also rule out less obvious manifestations of the genetic fallacy. Vzaak (talk) 20:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Consider the following statements:

1. "Jane Deer argued that it is unscientific to believe that sociological factors explain why blacks scored lower on these IQ tests."

2. "Scientist, Jane Deer, argued that it is unscientific to believe that sociological factors explain why blacks scored lower on these IQ tests."

3. "Scientist and well-known Nazi, Jane Deer, argued that it is unscientific to believe that sociological factors explain why blacks scored lower on these IQ tests."

If we are to eschew the genetic fallacy as you suggest, then only statement 1 is admissible in an encyclopedia. The limited information about Jane in 2 already embraces the genetic fallacy, suggesting that she is a dispassionate observer.

The current text is not analogous to 1, but analogous to 2. Notwithstanding your genetic fallacy aversion, only statement 3 seems fully respectful of the reader's intelligence, allowing her to make up her own mind about the controversy. In suppressing relevant information, both statements 1 and 2 seem manipulative and indeed deceitful. Admittedly, the text partially redeems itself by providing a link to Harris's wikipedia page, but the casual reader is unlikely to follow the link. CarlosChio (talk) 05:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not the genetic fallacy to mention qualifications that bear on the argument being made. Your item 2 is fine and is the way encyclopedias are written. For example see IQ#Race, "Psychologists such as Alan S. Kaufman and Nathan Brody and statisticians such as Bernie Devlin argue that there are insufficient data to conclude that this is because of genetic influences."

Please keep in mind that your reasoning leads to statements like "John Doe, who is black, argued that blacks scored lower on these IQ tests due to sociological factors unrelated to intelligence." According to your reasoning, since John Doe is not a dispassionate observer calmly reviewing IQ testing, readers should be informed of this and be allowed to make up their own mind about the controversy. Therefore the sentence should start "John Doe, who is black,..." No, that is inappropriate because being black has nothing to do with the argument being made. On the other hand being a psychologist (for example) is relevant.

It may very well be true that John Doe is not a dispassionate observer, but the argument he makes stands on its own and should not be poisoned by its genetic origin. Vzaak (talk) 14:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It is one thing to speak of "John Doe, who is Black,..." (he cannot help but be Black) and quite another to speak of "John Doe, prominent figure in the black rights movement, ...." (he has made a positive choice to be engaged in that movement). It is interesting that the views of psychologists and statisticians in IQ#Race are contained in peer-reviewed sources. This is in contrast to the online references given for Harris and Sacks which do not seem to be peer-reviewed sources. And so the reader has to contend with neuroscientists denouncing a fellow neuroscientist for being anti-scientific even though none of the neuroscientists have not subjected their positions to the scrutiny of their peer group. Notwithstanding the difficulties I have with your reasoning, I shall nevertheless acquiesce in your ruling and take consolation in the fact that the text gives references to to Misplaced Pages pages for Harris and Sacks. CarlosChio (talk) 07:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

No, see WP:PARITY. Rebuttal of self-published work is not required to be peer-reviewed. This only makes sense. Alexander's book isn't peer-reviewed. Vzaak (talk) 07:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

"Certain anchors to earth time in memory"

Does anybody know what Alexander means by that (e. g. here) and may add the crucial information?--Der Spion (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Undue weight on Alexander's responses

The mainstream view should be clearly described in relation to the fringe view. The current he-said/she-said format lends itself to a false dichotomy that would seem to violate WP:FRINGE. Alexander's response to the Esquire article seems fine as is, but the second response -- especially the length of it -- seems like undue weight. As a compromise, perhaps the second response could be placed in a footnote. vzaak 21:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

You need to put both criticism and response in a context that allows the reader to receive a good and complete overview of the whole discussion. But, for sure, you won't achive that by amputating the line of argumentation on either side.--Der Spion (talk) 22:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Removing WP:COPYVIO and unreliable sources.

This is a copyright violation. As I explained in the edit comment, it is also unduly promotional, especially considering the length already afforded in Alexander's quoted response. Do not restore plagiarism on Misplaced Pages under any circumstances.

This is not a reliable source. It is also unduly promotional. vzaak 22:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class biography articles
• Start-Class biography (science and academia) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (science and academia) articles
• Science and academia work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• Start-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• Misplaced Pages requested images of people of North Carolina