Jump to content

Talk:Cordelia Fine

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

A number of edits on 27 February 2018

[edit]

Dear fellow Wikipedians. A number of edits to the Cordelia Fine Wikipedia page have been made. In the introduction I added a more accurate description of the book genre i.e., popular science books and a more specific and accurate description of the content eg., social cognition for 'A Mind of its Own' and popular myths of sex differences for 'Testosterone Rex' and 'Delusions of Gender'. I also updated her editorial work that is relevant to her notability and provided references. I put career and education information into independent sections. This information merits independent sections given they are directly relevant to her notable profile as an academic and scientist. I removed the personal information as guidelines for biographies of living persons call for a personal dignity and privacy to be taken into account. This information is also irrelevant to her notability as an academic and author. The awards section has been updated, removing previous citations that did not have references i.e., "fine was named as one of the Top 100 influential people of the year by THE Age/Melbourne' did not have a working link and thus cannot be verified. Regarding the book descriptions, 'A mind of Its Own' and 'Testosterone Rex' have been given more detailed and accurate descriptions. The description of Delusions of Gender has been significantly altered, for several reasons. Seventy-five percent of the word count in the previous summary of Delusions consisted of critiques and counter-critiques to this book. This reflects 'undue weight' in the form of 'quantity of text', 'prominence' and 'juxtaposition of statements' that does not make clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. Critically, the reference supporting the claim that Fine's approach has been criticized as behaviourist does not reflect 'equal validity' as the reference has no expertise in the area of science, gender studies or academia. The criticism comes from an architect and journalist. This should not be considered as an equal viewpoint alongside academic scholarship that overwhelmingly accepts Fine's thesis e.g., Marlene Zuk: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/661120 Ben Barres: http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001005 British Neuoscience association bulletin: http://www.cordeliafine.com/uploads/9/5/1/2/95121544/na.pdf Times Higher Education: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/books/book-of-the-week-delusions-of-gender-the-real-science-behind-sex-differences/413634.article Carol Tavris: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/nov/23/sex-differences-science-cliches Prof Judi Roitman, University of Kansas: http://www.cordeliafine.com/uploads/9/5/1/2/95121544/awm.pdf Prof Debbie Cameron: http://www.troubleandstrife.org/new-articles/brain-wars/ Prof Gabrielle Ivinson: https://www.google.com.au/search?ei=PbNvWv7aAonQ0ASAt4KICQ&q=Dr+Gabrielle+Ivinson%2C+Cardiff+University+cordelia+fine&oq=Dr+Gabrielle+Ivinson%2C+Cardiff+University+cordelia+fine&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i160k1.3284.5358.0.5407.14.9.0.0.0.0.263.1157.2-5.5.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..9.4.897...0i22i30k1.0.QUngRhUYSI4 Laura Hoopes Dr (nature education), professor of biology at Pomona college. Review: https://www.nature.com/scitable/forums/women-in-science/cordelia-fine-and-delusions-of-gender-15018706 New Scientist Review: https://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2010/09/fighting-back-against-neurosexism.html ‘Science’ Professor Diane Halpern: http://www.uvm.edu/~tribeta/Articles/Sex%20stereotypes%20Halpern.pdf Professor Virginia Vilian, Nature: http://maxweber.hunter.cuny.edu/psych/faculty/valian/docs/morealike%20nature%20211.pdf Neuroskeptic: http://neuroskeptic.blogspot.com.au/2010/12/delusions-of-gender.html

This wide acceptance of her thesis also includes the being awarded the Royal Society Science Book Prize and the recent announcement that she will be awarded the Edinburgh Medal https://www.sciencefestival.co.uk/edinburgh-medal.

Using an unreliable, non-reputable, non-authoritative source to introduce the criticisms of the book Delusions of Gender is grossly misleading and inaccurate. Overall, the undue weight in the form of text quantity, prominence and juxtaposition of statements given to a minority of viewpoints justifies their non-inclusion.

I'm interested to hear other thoughts, comments, and look forward to discussing these changes.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaumontfr (talk • contribs) 05:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chaumontfr! Thank you for all your edits, that seems like a lot of work, and a large improvement. Laurier (talk) 12:32, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Laurier! Thank you for your comment. It has been a long time since the last major edit to this page, and consequently, Cordelia Fine's online profile and body of work has evolved a great deal. My goal was to update these developments and improve the overall accuracy of the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaumontfr (talk • contribs) 08:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

sales copy

[edit]

The paragraph that reads:

Her first book, A Mind of Its Own, deals with "how your brain runs your life - whether you like it or not". Book number two, Delusions of Gender, is "a passionately argued and much-needed corrective to the belief that men's and women's brains are intrinsically different."[2]

is not factual. Both of the quotations used come from Fine's advertising page on her publisher's website, and cannot be considered anything but sales copy. The book may be "passionately argued," but that is irrelevant to Wikipedia's purposes, when dealing with scientific opinion. The second sentence is mercenary and politically motivated, implying that there is no real evidence to the contrary for the author's theories, when in fact there is a great deal. That evidence need not be discussed here, but not mentioning it reduces this article to a positive review rather than a dispassionate introduction.

I suspect that this article was written by the publisher, and I have changed the inappropriate content to what I consider more neutral in tone.Richaraj (talk) 16:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the improvements. I agree that quoting a third party book review is more relevant and should have taken the time to look some up instead of using and linking to the publisher's information. I tried to further clarify the page. You seem to disagree with the discussed book ("in fact there is a great deal [of evidence]"), which, after analysing hundreds of scientific studies, comes to the conclusion that there is no evidence. You are entitled to your personal opinion on neuroscience, but this does not mean that quoting a positive view of the book's findings is "mercenary and politically motivated" or has to be "written by the publisher". I would appreciate more courtesy. Hypocryptickal (talk) 16:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reading Delusions of Gender at the moment and wouldn't edit the article until I've finished it, but it's pretty clear so far that she agrees that some differences between brains are correlated with sex but is arguing that mental differences aren't. It's not the same thing and as it stands she's misrepresented. Mbc3001 (talk) 03:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cordelia Fine. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 19:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cordelia Fine. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 02:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent cuts reverted

[edit]

Regarding this, this and this (followup note here), the version that I keep reverting to is well-sourced material that summarizes the matters at hand. Meanwhile, Chaumontfr's version cuts this well-sourced material, uses a PLOS blog source for one part (although it is an interview with Fines), and leaves the rest unsourced with "citation needed" tags. It cuts out valid information. Praise and criticism are both allowed in an article about a subject's work. As long there is no WP:Undue weight and the material is not written like a fan page, it's fine. I fail to see how Chaumontfr's version is the improved version. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Terf published in "JoCI"

[edit]

Fine recently published a GC article in an anti-trans and racist journal "journal of controversial ideas" alongside insincere fully racist articles on "transracialism". She was also one of the undersigned defending Kathleen Stock's documented calls for eliminating trans people (see github archive of deleted tweets) under the guise of "academic freedom". 89.12.120.200 (talk) 14:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cordelia_Fine&oldid=1207227548"