Talk:Wim Crusio - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bondiveres (talk | contribs) at 20:16, 23 December 2010 (Added the reply from Steve Quinn's comment and a reply to them and included his comment on the discussion regarding the size of Wim Crusio's wiki page.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:16, 23 December 2010 by Bondiveres (talk | contribs) (Added the reply from Steve Quinn's comment and a reply to them and included his comment on the discussion regarding the size of Wim Crusio's wiki page.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

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

	Biography portal 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 Mid-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Neuroscience High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience 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.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WikiProject Genetics

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Philosophy: Science Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophy of science

Some minor edits that are needed

As I am the subject of the article, I'll leave it up to somebody else to do this:

the link at the bottom to "Living People" should be deleted
in the phrase "animals from non-sessile non-predatory animal species" (under exploratory behavior), the second occurence of the word "animal" can be deleted
the dead link to the EBBS website (http://www.ebbs-science.org/cms/past%20committees.htm; current ref 53), can be replaced with http://www.ebbs-science.org/cms/general/committee-members.html

Thanks! --Crusio (talk) 14:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I will try to take care of these things within the next several hours. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 19:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
The above, requested corrections are completed. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Notability and copy edits

Whoever this guy is, he certainly appears to be notable.

I think I have seen him editing around here on Misplaced Pages once or twice. Maybe :>) Has anybody else seen this guy around here?

OK seriously - the wording of this article appears to be neutral wording throughout. In fact, I consider this to be a well written article.---- Steve Quinn (talk) 19:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Maude Bernardet and a few other issues

An editor has removed "Maude Bernardet" from the list of PhD students. A source for the fact that she did indeed do her PhD under my direction is the very first page of her PhD thesis, posted on the website of the University of Bordeaux 1 (admissible to source non-controversial statements, I think): "Etude des Traits Autistiques chez un Modèle Souris du X Fragile" (PDF). Ph.D. Thesis. Université de Bordeaux 1. Retrieved 2010-11-23. {{cite web}}: line feed character in |title= at position 29 (help) (For some reason that I don't understand, this is not formatted well, sorry about that).

As an aside, I don't think this BLP should rate "high" in importance for the Neuroscience and Genetics projects. I suggest "low" instead.

During a recent cleanup of the article, several references were removed with the remark "ref spam". Those refs were originally placed more closely to the statements they were supposed to support (Steve Quinn moved them to the end of the paragraph to improve readability). Some of these were secondary sources and might help address the issues addressed by the tag at the top of the page. Others were written by me, but vetted and published by a reputable source (such as the history of IBANGS).

Concerning the OR tag, I am not sure how to interpret that, as far as I can see all that is in that section has been published and all statements are supported by references (which, indeed, are primary sources, of necessity, I think; according to WP:BLPSPS such sources are admissible in a BLP if written by the subject; but I may be too close to the subject to appreciate the problem). If the concern would be explained in more detail, I could perhaps suggest solutions here. --Crusio (talk) 09:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Lack of third-party sources

This article is, almost exclusively, sourced to Crusio's own papers. This is problematical particularly in the 'Research' section, where it attempts to WP:SYNTH Crusio's overarching thoughts and aims based upon them. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 09:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY:

Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Misplaced Pages editors.

I don't think this article currently comes even close to meeting this standard. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 09:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

As I (fortunately :-) am not dead yet, nor (unfortunately :-) have won a Nobel Prize, nobody has written an article about "Crusio's thoughts". (Nor will this happen very often except for the most notable of researchers, such as Nobel Prize winners). The closest to this are review articles that I have written myself about my own work, which of course even though reviews are still primary sources for the purpose of this article. So how do you propose to solve this? Delete the research section? Some reviews by others have mentioned my work, of course, but digging that stuff up would be a major undertaking and each separate mention would only be a detail in that particular article. (It would seem to me that this is a problem particular to all scientist bios, not just this one, so this discussion should perhaps take place somewhere else (like the wikiproject on scientist bios). --Crusio (talk) 09:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest having the base itself on review articles that place your article within the context of the wider research. This would also have the advantage of putting some editorial distance & perspective between the article and yourself (which its creator, UB1Talence, clearly failed to do). Basing an article solely on the basis of your published work cannot help but result in an article that is either a laundry-list of your articles and their findings, or one that crosses over the line into WP:SYNTH in order to create some form of narrative from them -- and I think the current article suffers from both problems. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 10:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

But if you do that (and I am talking now more in general than just about this article), then the article becomes about the research and it is not a bio any more. If I write a bio on somebody (whether for WP or an obituary for a scientific journal), I describe the things the person did and (if available) mention something others have said about this work (but if it is non-controversial stuff, that is often not very easy to do). In an obit, I would probably add my personal value judgment (obviously not appropriate in WP). A bio should be primarily about the person, not about the wider research. It's generally easier to write about dead scientists, because if they are notable, there are obits available (which are secondary sources). It's usually also easy to write about controversial figures (varying from fringers to people working on subjects that are controversial, pedophilia or something to do with politics, for example). But how about all those other notable scientists? --Crusio (talk) 10:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Whereas if I write a bio for Misplaced Pages, what I do is first start with what third party sources state about the topic, then fill in any narrative gaps or details from primary/affiliated sources, where absolutely necessary. If you're writing an obit you're meant to know the person & use personal knowledge/do original research -- Misplaced Pages doesn't (and realistically can't, given its current structure) work that way. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 11:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, but my whole point is that third party sources are exceedingly rare for the vast majority of scientists. Primary sources will be plentiful, though (inherent to being a notable academic) and are admissible for uncontroversial facts. I agree that you're going to skate on the borders of OR... --Crusio (talk) 11:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

This is most probably why WP:PROF has the following caveat: "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Misplaced Pages because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject." The unfortunate fact is that a worthless (from a scholarly point of view) crank is more likely to generate secondary coverage than a solid-but-less-than-stellar legitimate scholar (for which we can blame the news media's love of novelty). This means that, excepting those in the top tier, having a Misplaced Pages article about you in your lifetime is more likely to be a mark of shame than of respectability. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 11:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

:-) --Crusio (talk) 11:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that sections of this article are WP:SYN. To me it appears to be reporting the facts, whether biographical or research edeavors. For example, I am sure that Crusio's hypothesis is part of the reference - hence I don't see the problem. I think WP:SYN is being misunderstood here. Crusio's research is part of his biography, and is therefore relevant and appropriate. I have reviewed this article myself and have found no bias, or synthesis. I am inclined to remove the tags. If Crusio wrote this article, then there would be a problem. But since another editor wrote the article, and still at least one other reviewed it with the intent of copy editing, this article appears to pass muster. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The abstract of the reference itself says there is a "hypothesis". Also a conclusion was reached, "Such genetic architectures were actually found for those exploratory behaviours..." I don't see any synthesis here. I see reporting of the facts, supported by acceptable, and reliable sources. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The section makes numerous claims appearing to evaluate Crusio's research and intentions, and placing it in the wider research context. Does Crusio for example mention parrot fish in his own work? If not, then their inclusion is synthesis. Is the prefactory remark that "When confronted with a novel environment, animals from non-sessile non-predatory species will often engage in exploratory behavior" contained in the cited article, or OR? "During his postdoc, Crusio became interested in..." makes a conclusion. "Taken together, Crusio and collaborators think ..." clearly articulates synthesis. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 04:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually: in my 2001 review (in BBR) on the genetics of exploratory behavior, I do mention that this kind of genetic architecture is also found in other species, such as paradise (not parrot) fish. While "became interested in" certainly is true, I agree that there is no source for this and it could be reformulated. "Taken together...", as far as I recall (no time right now to check), this seems to paraphrase something I wrote in another review where it must have said something like "we think that taken together". So by and large I agree with Steve that the OR here, if any, is very minimal. The 2005 review is freely online, I can send a PDF of the 2001 review to any interested party. --Crusio (talk) 08:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, removing tag then. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 08:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The size of Wim Crusio's Wiki page

As of December 22nd, 2010 the Wim Crusio Wiki page constituted 28,725 bytes of information, where as the Wiki page for Ernest Rutherford, "The father nuclear physics" and winner of the nobel prize, only has a Wiki page of 27,302 bytes as of December 22nd, 2010, and Maurice Wilkins who won the nobel prize for his co-discovery of the structure of DNA has a wiki page of only 23,014 bytes, while Elizabeth Blackburn who won the nobel prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2009 has only 11,065 bytes on her wiki page. I could add many more names of nobel prize winners, but if you wish to do so, please feel free to compare the amount of information in Wim Crusio's wki page to that of most nobel prize winners. I just thought I would point this fact out to the wiki community and ask for your comments on Win Crusio's Wiki page. Please comment on weather you think it is too large and perhaps should be reviewed or if you think the wiki pages of Ernest Rutherford and many of his fellow nobel prize winners are simply too small. Please feel free to leave your comments below this post. Bondiveres (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Listed are wiki page sizes of all the nobel prize winners for Physiology or Medicine for the last 14 years. Please compared these to Wim Crusio's wiki page of 28,725 bytes:

Robert G. Edwards 11,098 bytes
Jack W. Szostak 7,504 bytes
Carol W. Greide 9,605 bytes
Elizabeth Blackburn 11,065 bytes
Luc Montagnier 18,028 bytes
Françoise Barré-Sinoussi 6,950 bytes
Harald zur Hausen 9,985 bytes
Oliver Smithies 14,131 bytes
Martin Evans 24,109 bytes
Mario Capecch 13,940 bytes
Craig Mello 14,217 bytes
Andrew Fire 9,262 bytes
Robin Warren 5,187 bytes
Barry Marshall 13,074 bytes
Linda B. Buck 6,617 bytes
Richard Axel 19,924 bytes
Peter Mansfield 5,684 bytes
Paul Lauterbur 14,653 bytes
John E. Sulston 7,715 bytes
H. Robert Horvitz 4,080 bytes
Sydney Brenner 14,580 bytes
Paul Nurse 8,220 bytes
Tim Hunt 6,761 bytes
Leland H. Hartwell 5,656 bytes
Eric Kandel 22,959 bytes
Paul Greengard 9,512 bytes
Arvid Carlsson 6,776 bytes
Günter Blobel 7,431 bytes
Ferid Murad 5,174 bytes
Louis Ignarro 9,123 bytes
Robert F. Furchgott 8,138 bytes
Stanley B. Prusiner 7,193 bytes

Note: All amounts displayed are as of 22 December 2010, and the average page size of these Nobel Laureates is 10,573 bytes, which is less than half that of Wim Crusio's wiki page of 28,725 bytes.

Based upon the above data, it would appear that a certain amount of information on Wim Crusio's wiki page was added by a sock puppet that he created in order to promote him self. I can only suggest this based on what I see from the data. I can not imagine how else Wim Crusio can have a wiki page more than twice the size of the average Nobel Laureates in Physiology or Medicine for the last 14 years. I hope this is not the case, but I welcome your thoughts on this. I only ask one thing, and that is to explain how Wim Crusio's wiki should be more than twice the size of any of the Nobel Laureates in Physiology or Medicine for the last 14 years and twice the size of an average winner of that prize. I look forward to hearing your comments and from Wim Crusio him self. Bondiveres (talk) 22:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

For more background info, see User_talk:Gnowor/P.S._Timiras. --Crusio (talk) 22:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

@Bondiveres: Could you be a bit more specific about what text you are proposing to change to what, exactly? The problem you are describing seems to me to be a reason to add good material to the pages on your list.— James Cantor (talk) 23:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello James Cantor,

Thank you so much for your comments. The last 32 Nobel Laureates in Physiology or Medicine have had wiki pages for a number of years and the wiki community has added as much information as is fitting a Nobel Laureate. I just find is unusual that Crusio's page is so much larger than those who are far more notable. I think Crusio's page size should be about the size of an average Nobel Laureate. I can not but wonder how Wim Crusio's page is so much bigger than that last 32 of the most recent Nobel Laureates in Physiology or Medicine. As a scientist, one tends to plot data on a graph, and if you where to do so, Crusio's data point would be considered an out lier. As I stated, the wiki community has added as much information as is fitting a Nobel Laureate over many years. These pages have been edited by hundreds of users for many years, I think that gives us good yard stick, and says something about how much information a scientists site should have. While I agree with you that more "good material" is better, it appears that hundreds of wiki users disagree with this statement, based upon the data, a modest amount of "good material" is the norm. At this time I think Crusio should reduce the size of his wiki page as he would be the best judge of what should be on the page. I suggest he do this in order to spare others from having to do so. Bondiveres (talk) 06:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The size of Wim Crusio's Wiki page

Listed are wiki page sizes of all the nobel prize winners for Physiology or Medicine for the last 14 years. Please compared these to Wim Crusio's wiki page of 28,725 bytes:

Robert G. Edwards 11,098 bytes
Jack W. Szostak 7,504 bytes
Carol W. Greide 9,605 bytes
Elizabeth Blackburn 11,065 bytes
Luc Montagnier 18,028 bytes
Françoise Barré-Sinoussi 6,950 bytes
Harald zur Hausen 9,985 bytes
Oliver Smithies 14,131 bytes
Martin Evans 24,109 bytes
Mario Capecch 13,940 bytes
Craig Mello 14,217 bytes
Andrew Fire 9,262 bytes
Robin Warren 5,187 bytes
Barry Marshall 13,074 bytes
Linda B. Buck 6,617 bytes
Richard Axel 19,924 bytes
Peter Mansfield 5,684 bytes
Paul Lauterbur 14,653 bytes
John E. Sulston 7,715 bytes
H. Robert Horvitz 4,080 bytes
Sydney Brenner 14,580 bytes
Paul Nurse 8,220 bytes
Tim Hunt 6,761 bytes
Leland H. Hartwell 5,656 bytes
Eric Kandel 22,959 bytes
Paul Greengard 9,512 bytes
Arvid Carlsson 6,776 bytes
Günter Blobel 7,431 bytes
Ferid Murad 5,174 bytes
Louis Ignarro 9,123 bytes
Robert F. Furchgott 8,138 bytes
Stanley B. Prusiner 7,193 bytes

Note: All amounts displayed are as of 22 December 2010, and the average page size of these Nobel Laureates is 10,573 bytes, which is less than half that of Wim Crusio's wiki page of 28,725 bytes.

For more background info, see User_talk:Gnowor/P.S._Timiras. --Crusio (talk) 22:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello James Cantor,

Hello Steve Quinn

I am sorry that you will not allow this above topic to be talked about in an open forum. James Cantor was nice enough to make a good comment and I replied to it, this is how people can share these views. I would very much like you to post your thoughts so others can comment on them. Please try to use this method, and please allow others to do so. Bondiveres (talk) 20:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Pasted a comment by Steve Quinn

Remove off topic rants from ]. The issues presented were at the most WP:SYN, compling facts not relvant to this article. it appears to be an angry action for edits that occured in another article, not even this article.

Hello Steve Quinn

I would like to comment on what you have said. I am suggesting that in keeping with a standard of wiki page size of the last 32 Nobel Laureates in Physiology or Medicine, I am suggesting this Wim Crusio's wiki is too large and should be editing to something more in line with standards. I would very much like to hear from you as to your thought on this. Please comment on the data and the standards used. Wim Crusio him self removes information for other sites and I an more proposing anything that Wim Crusio has already partaken in, and agrees with as far as keeping wiki pages a reasonable size. All the best, and I very much await your thoughts. Bondiveres (talk) 20:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Categories: