Talk:Robert Coles (psychiatrist)

Controversy section

The “Controversy” section violates Wikipedia policy with respect to biographies of living persons. “Material about living persons must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoiding original research.” Moreover, “overall presentation and section headings [must be] broadly neutral.” In the case of public figures, an allegation or incident must be “notable, relevant, and well documented” and backed up with “a multitude of reliable published sources.” Wikipedia contributors are warned “not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all.” “[T]he possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. . . . Contentious material about living persons that is . . . poorly sourced . . . should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.” Material that is “negative in tone, and which appear[s] to have been created to disparage the subject, should be deleted at once . . . .”

The editorial agenda of the "Controversy" section is obvious and transparent. It maligns and disparages Dr. Coles’ reputation. The general tone of the passage and the subhead itself are in no sense “broadly neutral.” On the contrary, they are narrow and contentious. The supposed accusations raised in the passage are neither verifiable nor neutral. The allegation itself is isolated to a single published source—a book review by a music critic—and relies on hearsay, opinion, and undocumented attribution. It is not notable, relevant, or well documented in the vast secondary literature on Dr. Coles’ writing. As such, the “Controversy” section creates controversy where there is none. Harmful, contentious, negative in tone, and poorly sourced, the section makes for a grossly disproportionate biographical profile. As such, it deserves deletion. Cooperddc (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the section heading and placed the allegation in parentheses after mention of the large number of prominent people that Coles has quoted over the years diff. Since presumably these many people Coles has quoted would have had ample opportunity to object had he misrepresented what they said, I think this gives ample balance to this one allegation. But the allegation is there, and needs to remain. Cooperdc, you've patched together phrases here and there from policy to make it appear to support your position. Tsk, tsk. EEng (talk) 19:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

In fairness to David Hadju (the source in question here), he makes no allegations against Coles' "fabricating quotes about . . . Springsteen" or "misrepresenting" Walker Percy. Here's what Hadju says: "I was not there to overhear them, of course, and it is impossible to check with . . . Percy. But I did ask Will Percy about the comments on Springsteen that Coles attributes to his uncle, and he called them 'outrageous.' Walker Percy 'definitely didn't talk like that,' according to his nephew." So the editorial issue here is not Hadju's "allegation." It is: How do I verify Will Percy's claim? What's the source? I can't find any other citable source in the vast secondary literature on Robert Coles that reinforces Will Percy's contention that a person quoted by Coles "didn't talk like that." Is Hadju quoting Will Percy's own original research, his opinion about what his uncle "talked like"? If so, what's so "outrageous" about a novelist "talking differently" to his nephew than he would talk, say, to an intimate friend like Coles, a fellow doctor, a famous writer in his own right, who also wrote a book on Percy based on 2 New Yorker profiles and to whom the novelist dedicated one of his own books? I speak very differently to my nephew than I would to a famous colleague with whom I share a friendship and a collaborative relationship. EEng's edit does not give "ample balance" against this isolated and unfounded allegation. It gives an undeserved measure of credibility to an allegation that exists, as far as I can tell, no where other than the head of Will Percy. Cooperddc (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Look, I'm a great fan of Coles and Springsteen both, but you have to let things like this stand on their own. I wouldn't have bothered to insert this topic on my own (someone else did, and I just happened to stumble in here), but now that it's here, and you're upset about it, I'm moved to make it as "encyclopedic" as possible -- but it can't just be removed because you don't like it. You're right that there's no allegation of fabrication -- maybe Coles just got his notes mixed up -- but Hadju (not just Will Percy) is definitely questioning the accuracy of Coles' reports of others' statements about Springsteen. I've again adapted the article copy more closely to precisely what Hadju said. There's no requirement that you (or anyone else) verify Will Percy's claim -- Hadju is an RS, and the article quotes him directly in quoting Will Percy. (And by the way, there's nothing wrong with Hadju reporting Will Percy's "original research" -- you need to review key Wikipedia policies.) If perhaps Will Percy retracted or clarified his comments e.g. in a letter to the editors of TNR, that would be useful. But otherwise, there it is. BTW, I have little doubt there's a ton of scholarly commentary on Coles' use of personal conversations, and you might well find something there which would counterbalance this minor unpleasantness. EEng (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It appears that you have again deleted this material. Please stop doing this as you're running seriously afoul of Wikipedia policy. Before you remove the material again, you're going to have to explain here why -- and not by cobbling together phrases from various policies. EEng (talk) 17:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. As you can see from reading the new material I substituted for the deletion, I have tried to put a more balanced, substantive, neutral, reliable frame around the isolated controversy provoked by Hadju's blog entry and research methods, something EEng her/himself rightly describes as nothing more than a "minor unpleasantness" that nonetheless occupies a substantial amount of real estate in this entry. I have quoted Dr. Coles himself. I have cited a Coles' scholar on the issue of his (controversial) documentary methods. I am not trying to gloss over or camouflage a controversy because it "upsets me" (or a respected living author or his family). I am trying to turn a hatchet job into something "encyclopedic." I am trying to replace drive-by journalism (phone calls, no fact-checking, no attempt to corroborate, etc.) and concussive rhetoric ("utterly incredible," "outrageous," etc.) with reasoned, balanced, respectful argument. While I know it won't fly here, I would argue in favor of deleting the Hadju screed and including the citation as a reference. Otherwise, I encourage EEng and others to continue massaging the Hadju insert and try to make it more "encyclopedic" and less what it is: an isolated cheap shot.Cooperddc (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Look, if there is any quality to the work found on Wikipedia (and there is indeed plenty of quality work here, along with plenty of trash) it largely comes from those who care about a given subject stewarding the growth of articles on that subject. Since you care so much, then instead of encouraging others to do it, why don't you continue to enlarge the article, so that what Hadju said will more and more be just a small part of a larger context. Think of the Hadju passage as the irritant around which a beautiful pearl-article will grow. As Mr. Justict Brandeis said, "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the process of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence." Any great man receives lots of criticism and Coles is no exception, so stop complaining and get to work. EEng (talk) 21:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC) P.S. Along with whatever else, one other thing that definitely "won't fly here", as you say, is misrepresentation by editors when participating in discussions such as this. So far as I can tell Hadju did not write in a blog (as you claim) but in TNR's print edition. For a lot of reasons, Wikipedia draws a bright line between those, and it's a bad sign that your contribution to the discussion confuses one for the other. Along with rhetoric like "screed," "hatchet job," and so on, and the fact that you suddenly appeared out of nowhere to edit just this one article, this is a very bad sign.

I'm glad to see that between the time I composed the above (several hours ago) and the time I got around to clicking SAVE, you seem to have read my mind and gone ahead and begun expansion of the article, very much as I urged. Keep up the good work, but be careful it doesn't turn into a hagiography. Those don't fly well on Wikipedia either. EEng (talk) 21:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Publications

May I suggest adding one item to the list of publications? I don't know how to do it myself and don't want to disturb the page as it stands. "A Spectacle Unto The World" by Robert Coles and Jon Erikson (photographer). Viking Press. (out of print). 184.15.18.107 (talk) 22:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC). EDITED TO ADD: The full title of the book is: "A Spectacle Unto The World: The Catholic Worker Movement, 1973." Apologies. 184.15.18.107 (talk) 22:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Mother's name

It is interesting here that Robert Coles' mother is listed as Sandra Young and from Ohio. As is well known in our extended family, her name was Sonya Yanowitch (I do not know if the name was changed later) and she was certainly not born in Ohio, but spoke with a Russian-Yiddish accent. At some point Dr. Coles' ethnic origins were reinvented. To undesrstand the man you should learn why.Yanowitch (talk) 00:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide some sources discussing all this? EEng (talk) 02:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)