Talk:Roger Bingham

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia'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 articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Theoretical Evolutionary Neuroscience

Reviewing recent edits, it seems that the paragraph having to do with Bingham's book and Theoretical Evolutionary Neuroscience have undergone a lot of change recently so I thought it should be discussed on the talk page. I felt that Bingham's commentary to Edge.org [1] was a good narrative into the topic and am confused as to why the reference to the paper that introduced the topic was removed. I would like to add these two pieces of information back to the paragraph and make the flow of the paragraph smoother. Let me know what you think. Caromk (talk) 01:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think a discussion of evolutionary neuroscience would be welcome but is more suitable for entries on neuroscience or theoretical neuroscience. The theory proposed by Roger Bingham and Peggy La Cerra is a controversial one that requires a full explanation. Pros and cons. The paper is exceedingly technical and there is some question about its status. Be sure to read the PDF version and notice that there is a 1734 disclaimer for the paper. Neurorel (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)Neurorel[reply]

I have read the disclaimer and there is nothing unusual about it. Many journals have page charges. I agree that this article is very technical; but that's not my field. Edgeform (talk) 05:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)Edgeform[reply]

Agreed. There is nothing unusual about this PNAS paper paying page charges, as PNAS charges "$70 per page, from all authors who have funds available for that purpose." Note the all here and understand that "funds available for that purpose" usually come from federally sponsored research grants. See the PNAS official editorial policies here [2]. Other academic journals, including all of the journals of the American Physiological Society also require page charges [3] and accordingly mark all articles published there with the same disclaimer.

As to your other comments, concerning the theory advanced in the 1998 PNAS paper, you seem of two minds about it. First you say it belongs elsewhere, and then you say that it needs full explanation ("pros and cons"). I believe that discussion of the author subject's work, when that person is a scientist, involves actually including that work on their bio page, so it should be included. "Exceedingly technical" is relative, since PNAS is published for specialists, not a lay audience, but that fact alone does not automatically render it wrong, or even controversial.

You also say "there is some question about its status". What does that mean? Do you have verifiable references for that claim (remember WP:BIO and wikipedia policies on potentially libelous claims, even on talk pages)? Edhubbard (talk) 11:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the scope of the article is to give a broad overview of the subject's work. Deep technical explanations are not required; the link to the paper is included so that readers can dig into that on their own. If there are verifiable controversies about the article/Bingham's scientific beliefs, they can be included in the overview of his work. Neurorel - can you provide this verification? Also, can you verify your sentence about his inspiration by John Allman? Caromk (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to the question above: I was referring to its status as a significant/influential pager in the field of neuroscience. According to PNAS it has only been cited once since it was published in 1998. Perhaps there are more citations in other data bases. Neurorel (talk) 01:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)Neurorel[reply]

I checked ISI Web of Science (requires subscription) and found that the paper has been cited 12 times. (Google Scholar estimates 37 but is always high.) Also, apologies, Edgeform added John Allman, I think I may have mixed up the changes I was wondering about references for. Caromk (talk) 03:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) It's also worth noting the well-known fact (at least among academics) that the vast majority of scientific papers are cited rarely, if at all. This has been documented since at least 1965 [4] and has been demonstrated again more recently, as part of an analysis of which journals publish the most highly cited papers [5]. Although it is easy enough to conclude that highly cited papers have had a substantial impact on their fields, the converse does not hold: 12 citations in 12 years is not a mark that the paper is unimportant. Furthermore, the 12 citations certainly would not support your argument above that the theory is controversial. You seem to be trying to have it both ways: the paper is controversial (i.e., has generated controversy) but is not important (i.e., has not generated citations). If the paper had generated controversy, it should have also generated those citations as other scientists must cite the paper to say why they disagree with it. Edhubbard (talk) 12:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that if the paper has been cited a reasonable amount of times, presents new ideas associated with Bingham and inspired Bingham and LaCerra's book, it is worthy of mention and reference in the article. Neurorel - do you feel your concerns have been adequately addressed? If there are no further objections, I intend to proceed as I stated at the beginning of this, restoring the reference to the paper and the Edge question which speaks to what motivated it. Caromk (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As currently stated the article does not make clear that the theory presented by Origin of Minds was developed by Peggy La Cerra. From the back flap :“Peggy La Cerra developed the models of the mind and life intelligence systems presented in Origin of Minds…” For the sake of accuracy and fairness to Peggy La Cerra the article should make clear that the book gives credit to her for the original ideas that underpin the book. Neurorel (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)Neurorel[reply]

SERIOUSLY?!?! Do you not even know the basics of scientific citations and publications? The fact that Peggy Le Cerra is listed as first author on both the PNAS paper and the book already clearly indicates that this was intellectual work that Le Cerra and Bingham did together, and that Le Cerra's contributions were substantial. Any more than that seems to be your personal attempt to minimize Bingham's contributions (which honestly seems to encapsulate your whole editing style both here and on the Ramachandran page). I don't know if you have a personal issue with Bingham, or Ramachandran, but the simple fact of the matter is you have never, in the time you've been part of wikipedia see, edited any other pages (see Special:Contributions/Neurorel and wikipedia's policies on single purpose accounts). Your editing pattern suggests a potential conflict of interest on your part, which makes me less and less able to continue to assume good faith. Edhubbard (talk) 01:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried my hand at an edit and tried to highlight La Cerra a bit more. Neurorel and Edgeform - I kept the information about John Allman and Caltech visiting scholar, but I'd like to have references for those. Especially about Allman, I wasn't sure how to include that. Caromk (talk) 04:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, You seem to be taking my comments and suggestions in a personal way and responding with a certain amount of rhetorical hostility that inhibits the editing of this article. We have different points of view. I hope you will take a moment to think about how we can reach some sort of consensus. Perhaps we should ask Wikipedia for some pointers or guidlines. Do you have any suggestions. Neurorel (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)Neurorel[reply]

I am not taking your comments personally (you have not made any personal attacks) but I am becoming frustrated by your editing pattern. You have worked on only two articles, and in both cases, your edits have consistently been to remove and challenge information, much of it readily verifiable. This pattern is commonly referred to as Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing, and wikipedia has clearly laid out this basic "behavioral guideline" well before you or I started editing here... Put simply, if your goal here is to help build a better encyclopedia, things will be fine. If your goal is to try to tear down two highly accomplished individuals via their wikipedia entries, then your goals and the goals of all of wikipedia will be at odds. For additional links, see the blue links in my previous comments above. In addition, you might take a look at the most fundamental wikipedia policies, which are important enough that they are referred to as the five pillars of wikipedia Wikipedia:Five_pillars. Edhubbard (talk) 00:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neurorel - Do the current version of the article and the discussion above address your comments and suggestions? If not, could you specify the areas in which you feel require consensus? Caromk (talk) 04:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]