Jump to content

Talk:Wim Crusio

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 66.62.194.226 (talk) at 03:38, 26 October 2011 (→Possible COI). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Some minor edits that are needed

As I am the subject of the article, I'll leave it up to somebody else to do this:

Thanks! --Crusio (talk) 14:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability and copy edits

Whoever this guy is, he certainly appears to be notable.

I think I have seen him editing around here on Wikipedia once or twice. Maybe :>) Has anybody else seen this guy around here?

OK seriously - the wording of this article appears to be neutral wording throughout. In fact, I consider this to be a well written article.---- Steve Quinn (talk) 19:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maude Bernardet and a few other issues

An editor has removed "Maude Bernardet" from the list of PhD students. A source for the fact that she did indeed do her PhD under my direction is the very first page of her PhD thesis, posted on the website of the University of Bordeaux 1 (admissible to source non-controversial statements, I think): "Etude des Traits Autistiques chez un Modèle Souris du X Fragile" (PDF). Ph.D. Thesis. Université de Bordeaux 1. Retrieved 2010-11-23. {{cite web}}: line feed character in |title= at position 29 (help) (For some reason that I don't understand, this is not formatted well, sorry about that).

As an aside, I don't think this BLP should rate "high" in importance for the Neuroscience and Genetics projects. I suggest "low" instead.

During a recent cleanup of the article, several references were removed with the remark "ref spam". Those refs were originally placed more closely to the statements they were supposed to support (Steve Quinn moved them to the end of the paragraph to improve readability). Some of these were secondary sources and might help address the issues addressed by the tag at the top of the page. Others were written by me, but vetted and published by a reputable source (such as the history of IBANGS).

Concerning the OR tag, I am not sure how to interpret that, as far as I can see all that is in that section has been published and all statements are supported by references (which, indeed, are primary sources, of necessity, I think; according to WP:BLPSPS such sources are admissible in a BLP if written by the subject; but I may be too close to the subject to appreciate the problem). If the concern would be explained in more detail, I could perhaps suggest solutions here. --Crusio (talk) 09:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of third-party sources

This article is, almost exclusively, sourced to Crusio's own papers. This is problematical particularly in the 'Research' section, where it attempts to WP:SYNTH Crusio's overarching thoughts and aims based upon them. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PRIMARY:

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

I don't think this article currently comes even close to meeting this standard. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • As I (fortunately :-) am not dead yet, nor (unfortunately :-) have won a Nobel Prize, nobody has written an article about "Crusio's thoughts". (Nor will this happen very often except for the most notable of researchers, such as Nobel Prize winners). The closest to this are review articles that I have written myself about my own work, which of course even though reviews are still primary sources for the purpose of this article. So how do you propose to solve this? Delete the research section? Some reviews by others have mentioned my work, of course, but digging that stuff up would be a major undertaking and each separate mention would only be a detail in that particular article. (It would seem to me that this is a problem particular to all scientist bios, not just this one, so this discussion should perhaps take place somewhere else (like the wikiproject on scientist bios). --Crusio (talk) 09:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest having the [article's 'research' section] base itself on review articles that place your article within the context of the wider research. This would also have the advantage of putting some editorial distance & perspective between the article and yourself (which its creator, UB1Talence, clearly failed to do). Basing an article solely on the basis of your published work cannot help but result in an article that is either a laundry-list of your articles and their findings, or one that crosses over the line into WP:SYNTH in order to create some form of narrative from them -- and I think the current article suffers from both problems. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC) [Clarified, a bit HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC) ][reply]
  • But if you do that (and I am talking now more in general than just about this article), then the article becomes about the research and it is not a bio any more. If I write a bio on somebody (whether for WP or an obituary for a scientific journal), I describe the things the person did and (if available) mention something others have said about this work (but if it is non-controversial stuff, that is often not very easy to do). In an obit, I would probably add my personal value judgment (obviously not appropriate in WP). A bio should be primarily about the person, not about the wider research. It's generally easier to write about dead scientists, because if they are notable, there are obits available (which are secondary sources). It's usually also easy to write about controversial figures (varying from fringers to people working on subjects that are controversial, pedophilia or something to do with politics, for example). But how about all those other notable scientists? --Crusio (talk) 10:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whereas if I write a bio for Wikipedia, what I do is first start with what third party sources state about the topic, then fill in any narrative gaps or details from primary/affiliated sources, where absolutely necessary. If you're writing an obit you're meant to know the person & use personal knowledge/do original research -- Wikipedia doesn't (and realistically can't, given its current structure) work that way. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I agree, but my whole point is that third party sources are exceedingly rare for the vast majority of scientists. Primary sources will be plentiful, though (inherent to being a notable academic) and are admissible for uncontroversial facts. I agree that you're going to skate on the borders of OR... --Crusio (talk) 11:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is most probably why WP:PROF has the following caveat: "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject." The unfortunate fact is that a worthless (from a scholarly point of view) crank is more likely to generate secondary coverage than a solid-but-less-than-stellar legitimate scholar (for which we can blame the news media's love of novelty). This means that, excepting those in the top tier, having a Wikipedia article about you in your lifetime is more likely to be a mark of shame than of respectability. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:-) --Crusio (talk) 11:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that sections of this article are WP:SYN. To me it appears to be reporting the facts, whether biographical or research edeavors. For example, I am sure that Crusio's hypothesis is part of the reference - hence I don't see the problem. I think WP:SYN is being misunderstood here. Crusio's research is part of his biography, and is therefore relevant and appropriate. I have reviewed this article myself and have found no bias, or synthesis. I am inclined to remove the tags. If Crusio wrote this article, then there would be a problem. But since another editor wrote the article, and still at least one other reviewed it with the intent of copy editing, this article appears to pass muster. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The abstract of the reference itself says there is a "hypothesis". Also a conclusion was reached, "Such genetic architectures were actually found for those exploratory behaviours..." I don't see any synthesis here. I see reporting of the facts, supported by acceptable, and reliable sources. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The section makes numerous claims appearing to evaluate Crusio's research and intentions, and placing it in the wider research context. Does Crusio for example mention parrot fish in his own work? If not, then their inclusion is synthesis. Is the prefactory remark that "When confronted with a novel environment, animals from non-sessile non-predatory species will often engage in exploratory behavior" contained in the cited article, or OR? "During his postdoc, Crusio became interested in..." makes a conclusion. "Taken together, Crusio and collaborators think ..." clearly articulates synthesis. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually: in my 2001 review (in BBR) on the genetics of exploratory behavior, I do mention that this kind of genetic architecture is also found in other species, such as paradise (not parrot) fish. While "became interested in" certainly is true, I agree that there is no source for this and it could be reformulated. "Taken together...", as far as I recall (no time right now to check), this seems to paraphrase something I wrote in another review where it must have said something like "we think that taken together". So by and large I agree with Steve that the OR here, if any, is very minimal. The 2005 review is freely online, I can send a PDF of the 2001 review to any interested party. --Crusio (talk) 08:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible COI

It's very interesting how a new editor, now blocked, knew all this about someone. Even the average stub created by a student here about his Ph.D. adviser is not anywhere near as detailed as what was provided in that single edit. This guy must have been a real fan of Wim Crusio, and an incredibly quick learner, to master all that Wikipedia formatting on top of all the the details. FuFoFuEd (talk) 01:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not COI, it's a self-promotional piece written by the author himself. This page has no business being on WP, and is competely out of proportion to the importance of the person. The fact that the subject of this page is himself a major referee on WP means that it goes unchecked, a fact that itself proves the self-serving nature of Wikipedia.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wim_Crusio&oldid=457428541"