Talk:Simon Baron-Cohen/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Simon and Sasha[edit]

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)[reply]

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 [1], here [2], and here [3]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by edhubbard (talk • contribs)

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Links[edit]

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)[reply]

Trivial?[edit]

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

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? [And would that also be mirrored by excessive feminization?...] 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)[reply]

Copyedit[edit]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

Date, place of birth, parents?[edit]

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

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

Image[edit]

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)[reply]

Confused links[edit]

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

[[EQ SQ Theory|females develop faster in [[empathy]] and on average males develop faster in systemizing.]]

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

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)[reply]

Article issues[edit]

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

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

Holocaust[edit]

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)[reply]

Selected publications[edit]

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)[reply]

Agree! This is a rather exhaustive list of 'selected' publications. --LT910001 (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.[4] JFW | T@lk 12:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

SPA/COI[edit]

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:

(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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

Critical review section[edit]

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)[reply]

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 talk|contribs|COI 14:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 talk|contribs|COI 15:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Text blanking[edit]

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)[reply]

Critical review[edit]

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".[1]

Additional[edit]

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)[reply]

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 [such as repetitive movements and clumsiness], 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yes, I read the section above. Specifically, I was focused on the ambiguity of "Here are at least two more samples" under the section heading of ==Text blanking==. "Text blanking" usually means "This text was in the article previously and was removed". "Here are two more samples" could mean "Here are two examples of text that has been blanked" or it could mean "Here are two quotations from reliable sources that I believe should be included". That's why I was asking you to clarify your meaning.
And, yes, I am seriously suggesting that Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Popular press does not approve of using anything out of the Los Angeles Times or The Wall Street Journal for claims about whether this scientific idea is any good. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your views on reliable sources are quite surprising: I've queried WT:MED about why recognized autism experts commenting in widely recognized news sources on book reviews in their field of expertise would not be considered reliable. If Rapin is not a reliable expert on autism, I'm concerned about the number of times we cite her secondary reviews in numerous different articles.

On the rest, I've already explained elsewhere that I'm not a pedant, don't think like one, can't act like one, but I'll try to adjust my manner of thinking and make sure not to put a sub-head under another topic that might confuse. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since Isabelle Rapin is an acknowledged autism expert, while Helen Tager-Flusberg co-edited an important book with SBC (although her article here hasn't yet been written),

  • Baron-Cohen S, Tager-Flusberg H, Lombardo MV, ed. (2013). Understanding other minds: perspectives from social cognitive neuroscience (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)
  • Baron-Cohen S, Tager-Flusberg H, Cohen DJ, ed. (2000). Understanding other minds: perspectives from developmental cognitive neuroscience (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0198524458.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)

and considering no support expressed at WT:MED for WAID's reservations, I have added their critical views and removed the unbalanced tag. The article is now tag-free, ready for clean expansion giving due weight to reliable secondary sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unbalanced[edit]

I have now obtained a copy of:

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)[reply]

Alexbrn The plot thickens: there are two reviews in Nature? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the substantial one by Buchen and a more general short book review of two of SBC's books. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 14:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although I have removed the POV and unbalanced tags as a gesture of good faith and to have a clean version (finally) of this article, the criticism of SBC's theories in all of these articles has not yet been fully presented in the article in a balanced way. I suggest someone do that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed for discussion[edit]

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)[reply]

Synaesthesia[edit]

Baron-Cohen published the first Test of Genuineness to validate self-reported synaesthesia (where an individual experiences a mixing of the senses) [2][3], and his group published the first genetic [4] and neuroimaging studies[5] [6] of synaesthesia.[7][8] In 2013 he discovered that the rate of synaesthesia in autism is much higher than in the general population, [9] which may reflect atypical neural connectivity in both conditions.[10] of synaesthesia.

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)[reply]
You could try adding it at the Synesthesia article, if it's not already covered there? Might be a better place, perhaps. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to a mention here, but the problem with Minsk's edits has been that a) they use primary sources, and b) they often provide citations which don't verify text. If we can find a mention of synesthesia in any of the numerous secondary sources that have come forward, we can include it. I will get around to expanding this article based on the newly identified secondary sources after I've written Helen Tager-Flusberg (the unproductive time I've spent in this article trying to clean up poorly cited text has been frustrating, when in a couple of hours, I can research and write an entire bio). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining the situation, Sandy. Perhaps Minsk101 could kindly take a back seat while the article is reconstructed? By the way, I had a quick check and Baron-Cohen currently gets only a single mention in the text at Synesthesia. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing issues[edit]

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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

PS I've now figured out that the 4 tildas only have to go AFTER the post, not before and after. Apologies!Minsk101 (talk) 15:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Minsk101,
Welcome to Wikipedia. I know that talk pages are a bit confusing. You can post your questions right here, if you want.
"POV" is our shorthand way of saying that our encyclopedia articles (not WP:Reliable sources) must ultimately have an overall WP:Neutral point of view. One thing that this means that if the reliable sources are 99% in favor of something, then the article should also be 99% in favor of it—or the other way around. For example, you wouldn't want to write an article on Earth that says things like "Some modern scientists believe that the Earth is round", because the fact is that all of them believe this, and readers would be left with the wrong impression. Similarly, if an idea is controversial, or if half the sources love it and half hate it, then we want readers to know that, too. We're not worried about which half of the sources has WP:The Truth; we're just worrying about making sure that all the sides have a fair say, without over-representing any side's prominence.
Wikipedia is a complicated place, but I think you'll get the hang of it if you keep trying. Posting here is a step in the right direction. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi WhatamIdoing,
Thank you for making me feel welcome in the very different world of Wikipedia! I must say it has felt like I wandered into Lilliput where all your assumptions about the world are turned upside down, people communicate in strange codes, and more experienced editors threaten to report you when, as a new editor and you think you're trying to be helpful, you inadvertently put a foot wrong! So it's nice to find a friendly voice on the talk page offering to guide you. Thanks again! I'll post questions hereMinsk101 (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You might like to read WP:10SIMPLERULES. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

COI[edit]

New editor? You've been editing this article (and only this article, see WP:SPA) since 2009, and consistently removing text that isn't favorable to SBC while adding primary sources and text not supported by sources. Minsk606 (talk · contribs · logs) and Sb205 (talk · contribs · logs)-- as well as a host of Cambridge and other UK IPS-- did the same before you,[5] and have resulted in a cherry-picked non-neutral article for at least the five years I've been trying to clean it up.

Further explanation of how to use secondary sources can be found at:

If you will agree to stop adding original research, POV, and primary sources, and allow other editors to clean up the article without edit warring as you did earlier, I will hold off on launching a request for comment on the COI editing that has predominated at this article for at least five years, through several SPAs and multiple IPs from Cambridge and the UK.

The chronology is that Sb205 (talk · contribs) edited until May 21, 2009 (and expanded Sam Baron), when NigelPettersmithHugh questioned whether SBC was editing his own article. At that point, Sb205 stopped editing, and one day later SPA Minsk606 (talk · contribs · logs) started editing (and created the unsourced Dan Baron Cohen, [6]) and edited until June 2009, with Minsk101 (talk · contribs · logs) beginning to edit in August 2009.

I believe there is a Minsk connection with the Baron-Cohen family; do you have a Conflict of Interest you would like to declare? If so, you should be suggesting sources and text for inclusion here on talk and letting others discuss whether to add proposed text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minsk101 has only made 150 edits. That's still relatively "new" in most people's books. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a pedant; Minsk has been editing for at least four years.
Minsk101, you have continued to edit without answering the question above: do you have a Conflict of interest to declare? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how to do the series of colons so hope I have done this right. SandyGeorgia, I don't have a COI to declare. It is puzzling that whatever I insert as new text or new citations you undo instantly, which wastes a time. It took me hours to find some of the material but it gets axed by you almost immediately. Your reasons for doing so are sometimes a bit opaque to me and maybe to others? What was wrong with documenting SBCs work in synaesthesia for example? It struck me this was a big omission in the article since he seems to have worked in two fields, not just one, since at least 1987 as far as I was able to find in PubMed. What was wrong about mentioning that the AQ was recommended by NICE? Perhaps you don't think these sources are reliable? I thought I had done quite well to unearth such new material. If other editors see any value in any of the material I inserted I'll leave it to them to reinstate it, perhaps in a more experienced way than you think I have managed to do, since it seems I'm still a novice when it comes to picking the right citations. Minsk101 (talk) 09:53, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good on colons! What you might do while you are coming up to speed on Wikipedia's sourcing practices is put here on this talk page secondary sources that you want incorporated, and observe how others incorporate them. I have found that I could have written this article myself in a fraction of the time I have spent cleaning up original research; I am happy to expand this article based on secondary sources if I know the problematic editing is going to cease. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Continued issues after multiple notices[edit]

Minsk101 please engage the talk page and answer the following concerns.

  • Please see WP:EL- we should not link to known copvios. You continue to add bare URLs, requiring others to clean them up. At this point, you should know how to present a citation. Please explain why you are linking to http://www.maryellenmark.com/text/magazines/newsweek_new/906F-000-029.html , on what basis we can determine that copyright was released from Time magazine, and why you aren't directly citing Time magazine? (A separate issue is that WhatamIdoing is claiming we can't use the laypress like Time magazine to source text here, but her novel interpretation of WP:MEDRS will have to be sorted at WT:MED).
    I have not actually said this. I have said that MEDRS strongly opposes using the popular press to make scientific and medical claims. According to MEDRS, you may freely use the popular press for pretty much anything else, and furthermore you may even use non-popular-press lay sources for some (non-controversial/non-complicated) scientific and medical claims. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notwithstanding WAID's concern that you not use the laypress here to source content, you added http://www.theguardian.com/life/news/page/0,,937443,00.html as a source to the statement, "This led to him situating ToM within the broader domain of empathy, and to the development of a new construct (systemizing)." Nothing in that source verifies that text. You have continued to add sources that don't verify text, in spite of numerous attempts on your talk page and here to get you to understand Wikipedia policy and guideline, and to stop creating work for other editors.

    The way we write articles on Wikipedia, is we get good sources, and write from them. What you have been doing is writing original research, saying what you want to say, and then trying to shoe horn citations to fit them. I'm of a good mind to delete ALL of your original research in this article, as the work you are creating for others to clean up this mess is disproportionate to the amount of time it would take someone to just write the article from scratch. (Please view as an example Isabelle Rapin which took me two hours to research and write.)

  • You continue to remove primary source tags.
  • You added http://www.autismresearchcentre.com/clinics to support the text that National Health Service (NHS) Consultant Clinical Psychologist; the source does not verify that text, unless there is something about NHS CCPs that are not understood to those of us on the other side of the pond.
  • You added http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/23/arts/television/23heff.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1388422817-XyY31r0MozyEq5f4QakqdA to source the statement that "Baron-Cohen appeared in the television documentary Brainman in which he diagnosed Daniel Tammet (who has extreme memory) with both synaesthesia and Asperger syndrome." and the source says nothing of the kind.

Please respond to queries here; your editing has created a POV article, a good deal of unnecessary for work for others, and a large cleanup chore. I agreed to hold off on an RFC, and you continued same. I shall next propose that you be topic banned from this article; I am waiting to hear from you, and suggest that all of your recent edits should be reverted, and it is time to entirely remove all original research from this article and start from scratch.

Separately, WAID's concern that no laypress should be cited here needs to be sorted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Enough[edit]

The antics at this article have gone on for at least five years, it has never been an adequately cited BLP, and leaving it in a tagged state while the main editors fail to collaborate is not a good situation. We are WP:NOT a CV webhost. Main editors of this article have written SBC's CV as they know it, and then attempted to retroactively cite the content they want reflected, rather than locate good secondary sources and write from them. Attempts to get this article edited according to guideline and policy have not been successful, and the issues have recurred throughout the entire history of this article. This has gone on long enough; I am removing the long poorly cited content, and suggest that the article be built from this point correctly based on due weight given to secondary sources.

My reductions leave the article correctly cited and in a cleaner state as a better starting point for building it correctly. The only tags remaining are:

  • The Publications section needs to be cleaned up. The formatting is inconsistent, book titles should be italized, ISBNs are missing, and per WP:NOT, the list should be pruned to the most notable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The book reviews are unbalanced.

We have ample secondary sources; re-build from them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned up the publications section, except the ISBN finder is down today, so ISBNs are still lacking. On the journal articles, I've left his three most widely cited articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See discussions above, I have now added some balance to the book reviews, and removed the tag; more could be done, but at least at this state, we have a tag-free article.[7] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More of same after article cleanup[edit]

Minsk101 it has been pointed out multiple times that you add text that is not verified by sources given. Even after multiple warnings and a lot of discussion here on talk, you continue:

  1. The source does not say he was Vice-President in 2009. It says "he has been", not when.
  2. This source does not say Baron-Cohen developed the test; it doesn't even mention his name.
  3. I have multiple times pointed out that citations go after punctuation (see WP:FN), except for dashes.[8]
  4. By now, you should be able to format sources and not expect others to do it for you. You have again added three bare URLs: one a primary source, one a blog, and one that doesn't verify the text added.
  5. This source does not mention 2002: [9]
  6. Here, you used an article written by SBC to make a claim about his work-- that is a primary source: "Baron-Cohen's work in systemising-empathising revealed significant sex differences on average between typical males and females, and led him to investigate whether higher levels of foetal testosterone explain the increased prevalence of autism spectrum disorders among males;[11]" To make claims about his findings, that should be independently sourced.

I've removed the problematic edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Essential Difference[edit]

I have removed the section titled The Essential Difference; it's a collection of book reviews that would be better suited to an article about the book, and would be unlikely to be included even there. Feedback welcome -- Diannaa (talk) 05:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Buchen surfaced recently, and it has so much newer and more general information
that the older book reviews don't add much more. But because I came to it last, and it has so much material, Buchen hasn't been worked in yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  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
  11. ^ Cite error: The named reference Geeky was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Buchen[edit]

I've been working through the different sources presented here, adding in text as I can, but I just hit:

This article is so full of criticism of SBC's numerous theories and research methods, that it is hard to work in anything that isn't wholly negative. Would someone else who has access to that article like to give it a try? I'm going to stop now for a bit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say - although I thought this article was behind a paywall, if you click the DOI link there's a free-to-view rendition there ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 18:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have been unable so far (using Google search) to find any positive comments about Baron-Cohen's work from fellow researchers and scientists. Such comments in the Buchen article are negative, and not all of them are presently used in the article (Irva Hertz-Picciotto, Jarrold and David Routh, John Constantino, and Catherine Lord are not included). Liz Pellicano's study on whether autistic children were systematic got a result the opposite of what Baron-Cohen's theory predicts.
There appears to be some supporting research to the notion that autism traits may be inherited, see
You could keep looking, but to my knowledge, you won't find any :) And thus, you see the problems with this article. The Minsk's et al want to use Baron-Cohen's own primary studies to make claims about Baron-Cohen in his BLP, which end up amounting to POV, for reasons explained pretty well by Buchen. That is why I held off on adding text from the Buchen article-- wanted others to have a look, but Buchen has done a good job of explaining what is pretty well understood by those who know autism research. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think right now we've got a pretty good mix of positive and critical elements and a version we can try to keep stable until new material needs to be added as new events occur. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sample[edit]

I just found an article where Baron-Cohen has published a paper showing a link between a variation in the GABRB3 gene and autism. Here is an independent source covering the story and here is a link to the abstract. I am not sure what's the best way to add the content, as I don't usually edit medical articles. Could you check it out please Sandy? -- Diannaa (talk) 17:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Diannaa Yes, this example highlights the problems nicely. Baron-Cohen happens to be co-editor[10] of that particular journal (according to a source called Wikipedia :), and so what we have is a potential COI, primary study and a laypress report of it. Not good on any front, and not the kind of thing we should be adding to any article. SBC gets good laypress coverage; I believe Buchen discusses that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Baron-Cohen happens to be co-editor of that particular journal is not something I would have known without your help. Thanks so much for your input. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome :) Also, biosciencetechnology is part of advantagemedia and are likely (not sure) one of those media sources that relies on press releases from the original researchers (the New York Times may be a bad press source, but these kinds may be even worse in terms of lack of investigative reporting). After 20 years of following research on neuropsychiatric conditions in children, one learns their way around, as well as who's who in autism research. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015 edits[edit]

Regarding the following edits:

  1. The text is in the article; perhaps the editor who removed did not access the full article, which requires a subscription.
  2. Removal of text cited to Time magazine.
  3. Primary source used to refute secondary reviews, and removal of more cited text.
  4. Removal of more cited text, which (along with other removals) introduces POV.
  5. A deletion of more cited text, introduction of another primary source with the claim that Baron-Cohen does not use this term (familiarity with the subject of the bio, COI?).

I've restored the cited text, removing the primary source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • There was another edit about Gary McKinnon which I have reverted as the text seems quite accurate. There's plenty more information about this out there but the current content seems adequate. Andrew D. (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
let's discuss this:

In 2008, he confirmed the Asperger syndrome diagnosis of Gary McKinnon, the British computer hacker accused of breaking into United States military and NASA computer networks.[1]

References

  1. ^ "Profile: Gary McKinnon". BBC News. 14 December 2012. Retrieved 28 December 2013.
First, fwiw i went and looked at the Gary McKinnon article to see how the diagnosis was discussed there. I just removed that section from the article and opened a Talk discussion of this there. Seems to be a BLP issue to me, as a lot of this was popular media reporting on statements made in the context of litigation and efforts to avoid extradiction; i am not sure our discussion of that is appropriate and well sourced. This content has the same problems and on top of that, Baron-Cohen never met the guy - this seems pretty clear talking-head armchair diagnosis. I could see there maybe something like "Simon-Cohen participated in public discussions about Gary McKinnon's health" or something like that. Even that seems to be kind of trivial... interested in others' thoughts on this. Jytdog (talk) 12:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing sourcing issues[edit]

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)[reply]

I've added some secondary sources where I can find them.Minsk101 (talk) 09:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since I posted to Minsk101's talk,[11] the following continued:
You're right. I can't find anything that says he established the clinic in 1999 either. Still looking.Minsk101 (talk) 09:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I have now left my fifth message at User talk:Minsk101 asking that s/he engage the talk page.[12] 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)[reply]
Hi SandyGeorgia. I think you've done a great job rebuilding this article. I've tried to leave your version as untouched as possible but I hope you think I've added in some useful extra material. In particular, there was no mention of the Mindblindness book, or the Reading the Mind in the Eyes test, or the Prenatal Testosterone in Mind book. I confess I still haven't figured out how to make the citations not what you call Bare URLs so apologies for this! I'm going to try to learn how to do this, so please bear with me. If you or any other editor can tell me the trick or point me to where to find help on this that would be great. As you can see I've also added in a little more detail about the Eindhoven study.Minsk101 (talk) 01:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Mindblindness book is right here; the text you added about the questionnaires was original research (not supported by the sources), and I have explained all of the other issues with more original research I the edits you made in a new section below. Once again, because you continue to insert original research or sources that don't support the text you include, while you are still learning to edit and use sources correctly, it would be expedient if you would start a new section at the bottom of the page, propose the sources you want incorporated, propose text, and observe how other editors use secondary sources to add new text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a reply to SandyGeorgia, specifically this portion:

"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."

SandyGeorgia, you are correct. Keep in mind though, that the subject of this BLP is not a physician according to the article itself. His credentials are a BA in Human Sciences, an MPhil in Clinical Psychology and a PhD in Psychology. Simon Baron-Cohen is not a medical doctor, but rather a psychologist. This is borne out by his society fellowships, which the article describes as being in social science, not medical nor biological sciences. Regardless of the specifics of Baron-Cohen's advanced degrees, I agree with everything you mentioned, as legitimate points of concern regarding insertions of original research, self-citations, Amazon dot com links and popular culture (e.g. IMDB) in this BLP article. If I ever feel sufficiently motivated, I would recommend the addition of a controversies section, as there are plenty of challenges, or to be less contentious, let's call them updates by others, to Baron-Cohen's initial Theory of Mind paper published in 1985.--FeralOink (talk) 04:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Simon Baron-Cohen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of objections[edit]

1) First of all, PRIMARY clearly states when this type of source can or should be used: "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation". And I didn't interpret anything.

2) Age of Autism is not a scientific reliable source, but that twittering of Baron-Cohen is exactly directed against that kind of things, so I consider of encyclopedic relevance to provide a clear example of them. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 02:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by 2). Sources are held to the same minimum standard regardless of the topic at hand. Ruyter - talk 08:30, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The tweet itself adds no value. The Times of Isreal piece cites it and it is discussion in independent secondary sources like that, why we discuss it at all. Age of Autism is not an RS; you can perhaps use it for an opinion in it but you would need to gain consensus that doing so, would be WP:DUE. We can take this to an RfC if you like but the community will very likely reject both. In the meantime, please stop forcing them into the page. Jytdog (talk) 08:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Simon_Baron-Cohen/Archive_1&oldid=1137187132"