Talk:Richard Cytowic

What next?

I've gone over the article to clean up for neutral POV, and fixed some references. What more needs to be done? Further suggestions? Winchester55 (talk) 00:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested Edit

Baroness Greenfield, University of Oxford, writing in London Times Higher Education, May 17, 1966 (P 32), says of The Neurological Side of Neuropsychology: "Richard Cytowic’s book should be a rich source of information and inspiration for anyone working on, or thinking about, the brain…. This is a sophisticated book that requires an already informed reader to use established knowledge to challenge accepted concepts and think about new ones. It is eloquently written … an unconventional textbook requiring an unusual amount of reflection…. Once the more conventional primers had been assimilated, Cytowic’s contribution would be of enormous value to both neuroprofessional and general readerships."

James Joyce Hypermedia Studies: http://hjs.ff.cuni.cz/archives/v8/main/essays.php?essay=munisteri

I'm declining this request as it seems overly promotional. Wikipedia isn't the place to highlight glowing reviews of a book. ThemFromSpace 20:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Bibliography

Considering the conflict of interest problems with this article I think that it is inappropriate to have links to amazon etc. next to the list of books. If people want more information they can search for it themselves. At the moment it looks too much like advertising in my opinion. Any opinions either way? Smartse (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Independent of any COI on this particular article, the general rule on wikipedia is to avoid commercial links with books (see Links normally to be avoided Number 15). I removed the same links from the synesthesia page for exactly this reason. In this case, part of the rationale seems to be the searchable contents, but even so, this is a link to a commercial site. Edhubbard (talk) 18:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Definitely notable

This was just published: [1] (admittedly written by the subject) but I think it clearly shows that he is notable. Smartse (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, since it's an interview, it's not really by the subject, but more about the subject. Also, bear in mind that Scientific American must have decided themselves that he was noteworthy, and contacted him. They don't do interviews at the request of the people being interviewed. This should probably be added to the article. Edhubbard (talk) 18:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Issue with claim and references in lede

The lede currently reads "Richard E. Cytowic is an American neurologist and author [1] known for rediscovering synesthesia [1][2][3][4] in 1980 and returning it to the scientific mainstream". How did Dr Cytowic rediscover something that was never lost? Note that Lawrence Marks' book "The unity of the senses: interrelations among the modalities" was published in 1978, just 2 years before Cytowic "rediscovered" synesthesia. The four references are books by Cytowic himself, which probably aren't appropriate to support the assertion. Is there a better source for this claim? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The wording here is definitely too strong, but the main idea is pretty easy to justify. This should probably say something like, "known for being one of several researchers who rediscovered synesthesia in the late 1970s and 1980s..." Although Marks' book appeared in 1978, and Marks also had several articles on the topic in the mid-1970s (see History of synesthesia research), the phenomenon had been studied intensively from about 1880 - 1930, and then fell from scientific study until Marks, Cytowic and Baron-Cohen began to study it again (that is, it was for all intents and purposes, lost, from about 1930 until the mid-1970s). Given this history, Cytowic played a key role in bringing scientific (and mainstream) attention back to synesthesia. His books are certainly appropriate as citations for when he published. As for independent assertions, the quote by Sacks seems to be the sort of thing that you are looking for. Or, perhaps Sean Day's quote in his chapter in the edited book by Roberston and Sagiv Synesthesia: Perspectives from Cognitive Neuroscience where he reviews the history of synesthesia research and states "In 1989, Cytowic produced his volume on synesthesia, reintroducing the topic to the neuroscience and medical community. He followed through in 1993 with a "pop reader" book on synesthesia which went on to gain international attention, including best seller status, and was translated into additional languages" Go to page 29 Edhubbard (talk) 23:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps instead of "rediscovered synesthesia", something along the lines of "rekindled interest in studying synesthesia" or "renewed interest in synesthesia" would be more accurate? Regardless of the wording, his books are not references for the statement The reference you offer from Day seems like it would suffice. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

After seeing that no one had done this, I've gone ahead and done it myself. If someone wants to clean up the refs per the discussion above that would be great, otherwise I'll do it, but some may get lost in the process. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Infobox image

original

replacement

I removed the magenta-tinted phtograph uploaded by the subject of the article, replacing it with a cropped black and white version of the same image. I did this because this is an encyclopedia, and the images in it ought to be of a certain quality, and a tinted image is more appropriate for a magazine article or a blog than it is for an encyclopedia. It doesn't matter in the least that the subject uploaded it, the Wikipedia article, although started and developed by him, does not belong to him, and he does not control its content. Certainly, if Cytowic has a different non-tinted (black and white or color) image he prefers, there's absolutely no reason it cannot be used instead of the one I inserted, but there is no precedent at all for a subject's preference to override the basic values of the encyclopedia. The purpose of the image in the infobox is not to be fancy or stylish or colorful, it is to identify the subject of the article, and this version is, objectively, better at doing that than the original one. It would be best if a additional changes to the image were not made without a consensus being formed here first.

One other note: the editor who has been reverting the new image out of the article has contributed to many articles on synathesia. Given the subject of Cytowic's book, I suspect that the magenta-tinted image is making some kind of point about synathesia -- but like other content in Wikipedia, images are not supposed to make a point, they are supposed to be informative in a straight-forward way. In that respect, if I am correct about the purpose of the magenta photo, the image is in violation of WP:NPOV, as odd as it seems to say that about a photograph. In any event, the current black & white image, cropped to a standrad headshot, is straightforward in identifying what Cytowic looks like. Any image that replaces it should be similarly functional without decorative elements that detract from its primary purpose. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

My feeling about this is rather simple. Cytowic knowingly uploaded this image of himself for use in the encyclopedia article about him. He knew that this was for an encyclopedia. He knew that this is for an image that represents him. He choose this image. If the image had been uploaded by another user, there might be a WP:BLP issue, in that the magenta tinge might be taken to represent the article subject is a less than flattering light. However, as the article subject himself contributed the image, there is no BLP issue. So, this essentially comes down to aesthetic sensibilities. Is the magenta image inappropriate for an encyclopedia because it's profane? No? Is it inappropriate because it's misleading or a poor representation of the subject? No. So, it comes down quite simply to the fact that [[user:Beyond My Ken]|Beyond My Ken] does not like the magenta. I've looked through Wikipedia:Images and WP:BLP and can find no policy reason that this image shouldn't stay. I've also looked to see if there are any guidelines on what is actually "encyclopedic" versus not, and the link for WP:Encyclopedic and variants thereof, point to "what wikipedia is not". So, again, it seems that this returns to a basic issue of aesthetics. Is the magenta image so disruptive to its intended informational purpose that it cannot adequately do so? I don't see that the color makes it inappropriate. As for a WP:POINT, there is no point about synesthesia that I know of here. It may simply have been Cytowic's aesthetic preference. But, I guess, given a conflict between the article subject's aestehtic preference, and a drive-by editor's your preference, I'll take the article subject's over someone else's. Edhubbard (talk) 12:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

My take is simple as well: the desires of the subject of the article do not override our standards. If he had uploaded an image of himself dressed as a Smurf, or nude, would you feel the same way? Magenta-tinting obviously isn't as inappropriate as that, but it's still not what we do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You repeatedly say things like "this is not what we do" as if this is a categorical thing. However, here on wikipedia, aside from bright-line rules, like WP:BLP or WP:COPYVIO what we do or don't do is set by WP:Consensus. There is no one thing that "we do" or that "we don't do". What we do is what the majority of people on wiki, at any one time, agree to. You do not make a consensus by yourself. Nor do I. As of right now, the two of us will not reach a consensus. You think the image is inappropriate because it is magenta. I do not. We need other opinions on this.

Unfortunately, as this article is not watched by lots of editors, it is unlikely that we will get lots of other opinions to help us reach a consensus. So, in a situation like this, what do we do? We can look to two things: the opinions of other editors, as expressed by their previous actions. I have invoked the point that the image was uploaded by the article subject himself to show argue that there aren't any WP:BLP issues here. But, it is also worth pointing out that, User:Cytowic as a wikipedian, uploaded the image and thought that it was appropriate for inclusion here. Similarly, other editors have worked on this page, and they have not indicated that they felt that the image was objectionable. Thus, until recently, the consensus has been that the image was not inappropriate for wikipedia. I realize that consensus can change and if it does indeed change, then I will gladly accept that change. But, your opinion (or mine) is not sufficient to say that this must be the way. For now, in order to not turn this into an edit war, I've left your preferred black and white version, but I am hopeful that other people will add their opinions on this. Cheers, Edhubbard (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You repeatedly return to the idea that Cytowic's uploading of the photo carries special weight, but that's just not the case when the image is not up to our standards. Certainly, if two images were roughly equivalent and both were usable, and one was Cytowic's, I think that courtesy would call for us to use the subject's photo; or even if the subject just expressed a preference for one or two roughly equivalent photos, again, we should accomodate that preference. But this is simply not the case here. We don't do fancy-shmancy glossy-magazine image stuff: we're not Wired magazine. We are an encyclopedia, we present straight-forward images that accurately represent their subjects and inform the reader what the subject looks like - such a contention doesn't require some kind of new consensus, it's absolutely basic to the project. We don't (deliberately) use distorted or inaccurate images, we don't "pretty" them up, we don't remove facial blemishes or make people look different than what they actually look like, and we don't use tinted or colorized images when normal color or black-and-white images are available, since they are inherently distorting and do not accurately represent the subject. Again, no local consensus is needed, nor can a local discussion override project-wide standards.

That Cytowic uploaded the image is a red- (or rather, a magenta-tinted-) herring. If Cytowic were to edit the article in a way to introduce peacock words, or try to make it into a puff piece, or delete accurate and relevant referenced information because he didn't like it, the fact that he did it would not override project standards – just the opposite, in fact, considering that Cytowic's edits to the article would carry conflict of interest concerns – and the same thing is true for this image. It is simply not the case that Cytowic's "aesthetic preferences" are controlling in this matter; a Wikipedia article is not someone's Facebook or MySpace page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

One idea might be to get some input from people on WP:WikiProject_Biography, as all biographies fall under that wiki-project. Perhaps a discussion of this image will be useful in thinking about what is "appropriate" and what is not. Cheers, Edhubbard (talk) 22:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I'll post a pointer to this discussion there if you haven't done so already, but I'd be interested in knowing if you are aware of any other biographical article that has a tinted image of the subject? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I see you already posted a note on the WikiProject Biography talk page. I did the same on WikiProject Images and Media, [2]. Let's see what kind of input we get. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how much discussion this requires. The subject of the article, in his capacity as an editor, receives no more weight than an IP editor. Period. If the subject uploaded a b/w image and an IP editor (bear with me, I know they can't upload images) replaced it with a magenta tinted image, we wouldn't be having this discussion. We probably would have banned the IP editor for some BLP infraction by now. Apart from any questions of authorship or neutrality, the magenta image is garish and generally unsuitable for a general portrait. Given the COI/auto problem, we should be even more cautious about picking an image otherwise unsuitable for the project because the subject uploaded it. I can't see a good reason to keep the image in the magenta hue. Protonk (talk) 01:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The image has been altered for aesthetic reasons to include the Magenta hue. WP does not do things for Aesthetic reasons, but for information. The purpose of an image is to provide information, in this case a likeness of the person. Barring a natural color photo, which is not possible, B&W is the best alternative. SauliH (talk) 02:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments BMK, Protonk and SauliH. I think it's clear that there is a consensus on the magenta image, and will accept that consensus. A couple of minor points that don't really change the general weight of opinion here, but that I feel have to be added relative to the overall discussion. As Protonk notes, this is an unusual situation because under normal circumstances, BLP or other policies would have long since rendered the discussion of aesthetics moot. However, in this circumstance, the BLP issues were prevented because the uploader was the article subject (and got several COI templates for his troubles). But, as this unique situation eliminated that bright line policy reason, we did come to aesthetics, and people's reaction to it has been that he magenta image was inappropriate, or garish and so for those reasons, the black and white image should be preferred. Note that this is actually an aesthetic decision, contrary to what SauliH claims above. In some sense, of course, we do things for aesthetic reasons. What else is Wikipedia:Featured_pictures and MOS:IMAGES are. I assume that what SauliH means here is that we don't do things for purely aesthetic purposes, as wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a photo gallery. In that sense, the point being, adding the magenta in no way increases the information conveyed by the image. Taking these points together, I think we have reached a consensus that the current B & W image is preferred over the magenta one. However, in the course of turning it from B & W to magenta, User:Cytowic has degraded the quality of the image, and it has gotten worse going back to B & W. Perhaps there is an even better image that we could either find, or get User:Cytowic to upload that wouldn't be magenta (the original B & W image that he used to make the magenta one, for example), and might be better quality? Cheers, Edhubbard (talk) 03:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Ps: thanks, too for all your work on the article, BMK and for being an outside voice that it was indeed neutral and no longer needed the COI templates. Edhubbard (talk) 03:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. For my part, I read Cytowic's book years ago and enjoyed it, so I'm happy to have done a small part in shaping up the article about him.

As for the photo, because I had to do some work on the image to make it presentable after stripping out the magenta, I do recognize that it's not as high quality as it could be, so if Cytowic has a better version of the current image, and wants to upload it, I'd certainly have no objection to that. (I do think, though, that a headshot works much better as an infobox image than a 3/4's-body shot such as the image was previously.) Same goes for another image altogether, although in that case I'd ask that he upload it as a new image and not overwrite the current one, so that other editors can make a choice between the two

That Cytowic (or any subject of a Wikipedia article) would like to be presented in the best possible manner is understandable, we (the Wikipedia editing community) just need to be sure that that presentation is accurate and neutral, and that goes for the images in the article as well as its text. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)