Talk:Daniel Tammet

Desired addition

This is not my text, only one of the statements that I have objected to the removal of:

Joshua Foer suggests that study of conventional mnemonic approaches has played an important role in the reported feats of memory.<ref name="Moonwalking" />

The claims are well documented in the book. It was written by a respected journalist who is an expert on memory techniques. Bill121212 (talk) 08:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• - What is the specific text in the book that talks about Tammet? Is it accessible anywhere on line? What is the page number where he discusses Tammet? I found this book review - Moonwalking with Einstein: The Art and Science of Remembering Everything by Joshua Foer – review - Joshua Foer's account of his quest to become US memory champion is a dreary and pointless celebration of trivia http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/apr/17/moonwalking-einstein-joshua-foer-review - however it doesn't mention Tammet. Off2riorob (talk) 08:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)Off2riorob (talk) 08:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Your careful obstruction of well-referenced, respected sources is highly suspicious. You haven't read the book, while the people asking for inclusion have read the book. Read the book and then come back and make your objections. If you don't know about the subject, stop writing as if your "approval" is needed. Like I said, this is Wikipedia at it's worst. Bill121212 (talk) 09:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia at its worst imo is single purpose opinionated accounts attempting to add weakly referenced negative content about living people. You are losing focus again - if you want to add something reference it correctly - stop your attacking accusatory focus on me. Off2riorob (talk) 09:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia at it's worst is inaccurate information on articles (added or omitted), blocked by one or two editors who either have agendas or who don't know about the subject. Certain editors obstruct adding balance to an article by endlessly citing Wikipedia rules and aggressively threatening other editors. Foer's book is credible in every way, as is Tammet's old website, which directly contradicts the Wikipedia page. You are the only person out of five or more Wikipedia editors on this talk page who objects to making the article balanced, and you haven't read the book. Bill121212 (talk) 06:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

This is endless...please if you want to add anything regarding claims in regard to these claims, just be a bit clearer, explain what you want to add, cite the reference and the page and the content that you are referencing and any location it is accessible so it can be assessed. That is not much to ask is it, all I see here is complaining without specifying what exactly the problem is. I also find it extremely strange that we have a bunch of claimed researchers turning up here - just keep it simple present your desired addition for discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 10:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

This isn't getting anywhere. The proposed sentence has already been given. It's cited from a book, and like other books this is not available online; it's widely available at bookstores and libraries and in ebook form. The part of the book discussing Tammet is in chapter 10 (most of that chapter is about him). In the book, Joshua Foer does suggest that Tammet may be using conventional mnemonic techniques. This has not been disputed by anyone (including Oughtprice who removed the sentence in question), so the above discussion isn't helping at all. To allay your suspicions about a "bunch of claimed researchers turning up", note that Ed Hubbard has been a contributor to this and many other Wikipedia articles for years.

The question at hand isn't what Foer's book says; it's whether what Foer says is notable enough and appropriate to be included in the encyclopedia, particularly in a biography of a living person; OughtPrice presented some possible reasons why it may not be. My own view, already given above, is that while it's borderline, I think it may be appropriate to mention Foer's suggestions provided that they are given an accordingly low profile in the article, and it's done in a sensitive way. This is on the grounds that it is a well known book by a professional writer, which does discuss Tammet at length and give it's own sources. I emphasise I do think it's borderline, and does need to be treated with sensitivity, so further suggestions, for example on amending the sentence, are welcome. Enchanter (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Speculation, even from a professional writer, should not be inserted into a living person biography page - even more so when it is denied by the individual concerned and represents a tiny minority viewpoint of him (as witnessed in part by the total absence - bar a notably critical comment in the New York Times - of a single major published secondary source concerning the comments in question).

It's important to remember that living persons in the public eye will always be subjects of a certain number of theories and speculation from both professional and non-professional writers. Blogs, books, and other forms of media commentary, give these views an airing from time to time. The encyclopedia's role differs: to summarise the person's life and career according to multiple major published secondary sources. Potential edits need not be treated with 'sensitivity' but only by these rules that hold for all encyclopedic articles.

Oughtprice99 (talk) 21:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob continues his meticulous obstruction of information. I agree with Enchanter that the sentence has already been given. I don't think that Foer's book is borderline. The information in the book is referenced, and Tammet's old website confirms that the statement is true. Bill121212 (talk) 07:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems you are mistaken about my position, my main interest here has been to stabilize the article which has been a revert to and fro situation for quite a while and it is tiresome to be constantly personally focused on by you Bill as if I am the problem. I am only interested in a correct addition without assertions and two plus two type original research - I have boldly added this which seems a reasonable addition although primary cited, better if you have a secondary report but for such a simple addition it seems fine. - In his book Moonwalking with Einstein,Joshua Foer suggests that study of conventional mnemonic approaches has played an role in Tammet's feats of memory.Off2riorob (talk) 10:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. The article is now more balanced. The reason I was focusing on you is because you were creating obstacles to a simple, credible citation that doesn't even say anything about Tammet that he hasn't said himself. Bill121212 (talk) 10:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I would leave it at that, but now Oughtprice99 is editing the page to downplay the link. His addition is really stretching what a single book reviewer wrote. If we are going to have another edit war, I'm going to propose that a link to Tammet's old website also be added, because his own words contradict the Wikipedia page. Bill121212 (talk) 12:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I quite like the rebuttal added by Outright. I like to add both sides of a story and that looks like a decent rebuttal imo. Off2riorob (talk) 12:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Each objection to published facts that you make looks more suspicious. But it's fine to keep it as long as it's accurate. Bill121212 (talk) 13:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. No one is downplaying anything. Compromise goes both ways. If a contentious poorly-sourced claim is added to a living person biography page, the very least is to provide balance: in this case from the speculating writer's own book (during the conclusion of the chapter in question) and the sole review - a major published secondary source from an important figure in psychology - that treats Foer's speculation at all, and then negatively (which should tell us all we need to know about its actual notability). Oughtprice99 (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Like I said: this is Wikipedia at its worst. You are removing a citation of Tammet's old website that proves that the Wikipedia page in its current form is wrong. The NY Times review was written by an expert on dog psychology. Bill121212 (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't add the link to the old website back, but I changed it back to Rob's less-biased wording and clarified why she called it inexplicable. Bill121212 (talk) 19:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

"Alexandra Horowitz teaches psychology at Barnard College, Columbia University. She earned her PhD in Cognitive Science at the University of California at San Diego, and has studied the cognition of humans, rhinoceros, bonobos, and dogs." http://insideofadog.com/author.php It's relevant that Horowitz is a psychologist and not simply a reviewer.

Horowitz does call Foer's speculation a "misstep" - one of several in the book, but the one that is relevant to this article. It's noteworthy coming from such an authority, especially when it's the only comment on the book that has appeared in a major published secondary source.

Finally, Foer's chapter attempts balance by agreeing that Tammet meets the medical criteria for savant syndrome. It's important that any comment drawn from the book reflects this balance.

Oughtprice99 (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

You are exaggerating the meaning of her words. Bill121212 (talk) 08:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Chiming in as another Moonwalking.. reader who wondered how Tammet would be covered in wikipedia, I find the laser-beam focus on single comment in a book review to be really bizarre. Rickterp (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's Horowitz's paragraph in full (note that this is the only comment she - or any other major published secondary source writer - makes on the speculation):

"Irregular images aside, Foer's missteps are few. Discussing the neurological underpinnings of memory, he repeats some commonly held myths about it, for instance, that obscure facts -- where I celebrated my seventh birthday -- are lurking somewhere in my brain, waiting for the right cue to pop back into consciousness. In fact, not only are many such memories lost for good, even the memories we do have are often quasi-fictionalized reconstructions. Foer inexplicably devotes space to attempting to convince the reader that Daniel Tammet, a renowned savant who memorized 22,514 digits of pi, may not actually be doing it naturally, but only by using the same kind of mnemonic aids used by Foer and his fellow competitors (would it matter?). And at times he seems to have lost some perspective on his endeavor, as when he states, without apparent irony, that the Memory Championship, begun as a one-day contest 20 years ago, has now expanded to fill an entire weekend.

Note that the line comes right at the start of the paragraph - meaning that it applies to all that follows. This is confirmed by the use of plural 'missteps' with an 's'.

Horowitz chooses to preface her comments on the book's speculation with 'missteps', so it's important to add it to any summary of them.

Finally, when Horowitz says 'would it matter?' she refers to Tammet's savantism: 'a renowned savant'. As Foer himself concedes in his book, Tammet meets the medical criteria for savant syndrome. It does rather make all his speculation "inexplicable" as Horowitz points out. Oughtprice99 (talk) 10:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a page number for the passage where Foer says, "Tammet meets the medical criteria for savant syndrome?" Bill121212 (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is the passage, from page 194:

“In his book Extraordinary People, Treffert defines savant syndrome as “an exceedingly rare condition in which persons with serious mental handicaps…have spectacular islands of ability or brilliance which stand in stark, markedly incongruous contrast to the handicap.” According to that definition, the question of whether Daniel uses memory techniques would be irrelevant to whether he is a savant. All that matters is that he has a history of a developmental disability and can perform phenomenal mental feats. According to Treffert’s definition, Daniel would indeed be a prodigious savant, albeit one whose disability is less pronounced."

Dr. Darold Treffert, it should be noted, is "the leading researcher in the study of savant syndrome" (according to Wikipedia's article of the condition). His definition is the standard for diagnosis.

I will edit the article's text to quote Foer's words directly. Oughtprice99 (talk) 07:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:RS to support addition

<ref name="Moonwalking">Joshua Foer: Moonwalking with Einstein, Penguin Press 2011,</ref>

Question

If he was really fluent and impressive in Icelandic, why doesn't the Icelandic page exist for him? Isn't he famous there? Also, how about mentioning psychic carrer? and memo[1][2]--211.5.25.103 (talk) 10:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Was it fraud[3]? Is this him[4][5]? Really has a medical licence?--211.5.12.49 (talk) 03:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[6]--211.5.25.181 (talk) 11:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

People can study a language without being notable in the corresponding culture - Latin, to give an extreme example ! Although IIRC no-one speaks Latin, so that may be a poor example. The principle stands.

"He learned conversational Icelandic in one week"

may never have been there ? Not likely to have become notable.

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 02:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

He was interviewed in an Icelandic TV.--211.5.14.12 (talk) 11:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Memo[7]--210.196.13.171 (talk) 10:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Please explain what this link is supposed to be, it does not work for me and if there is no context I plan to remove it from this talk page shortly. --Fæ (talk) 10:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh!You have joined discussion without reading Foer's book. Daniel Andersson is Mr Tammet, which he himself (reluctantly) adimitted.--210.196.13.171 (talk) 11:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

What I see is an unexplained commercial link to a yasni.co.uk people search page (overloaded with advertizing) that in theory might provide random search results for the text "Daniel Andersson" but after several attempts at trying to load this page in my browser (the last attempt running for over 10 minutes) displays no content whatsoever. This appears to be giving a false impression of providing a link to information that might justify a claim about a living person. If a meaningful context is not given soon, I shall delete these revisions on the basis that this appears to be the result of anonymous IP accounts using the discussion page to support a BLP violation. --Fæ (talk) 12:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

210.196.13.171's link was broken, but I was able to load it with the link at the top. Here is a direct link to the content.[8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill121212 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Foer's book (Moonwalking with Einstein)(p.192). Foer presents evidential document implicating that Tammet worked as pyschic. Tammet admits pretending to possess pyschic ability for financial gain. User 210 sharing Foer's evidence. Go to following links:

• Go to page 192 in Foer's book
• Click on User 210s link and select groups.google.co.uk at top of page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.130.236 (talk) 18:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk pages are not a forum. So far listed are apparently illegally reproduced copyrighted text on scribd.com and a link to a google group forum; neither of which am I going to waste time looking at. I propose to remove this thread within 24 hours on the basis that none of this appears to propose anything helpful for article improvement and still appears to be a BLP violation as per my earlier comment. --Fæ (talk) 18:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You had problems opening link. Simply informed you how to open link. Also provided book link (presumed ebook version) which details aforementioned undisputed fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.130.236 (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

With my PC, the link above opens promptly, without any additional click. And mail account Danielius is Mr Tammet. It is a pity someone who does not take time to read relevant books or material forcefully joins discussion.--211.5.11.51 (talk) 02:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

That link may be replaced by [9]. If you think reading Foer's book is waste of time, please do not touch this article. If you want to join, buy a copy or go to a library.--211.5.11.51 (talk) 02:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Posts on google groups are not a reliable source and should not be used as evidence for anything controversial on a biographic article. Equally, links to search pages are also not a reliable source. I have given no opinion on Foer's book or said whether I have read it or not. I will raise this talk page up for an independent review rather than take direct action. Fæ (talk) 05:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Re. Tammet's work experience as psychic

Tammet's own admission to working as psychic stated in Foer's book (Moonwalking with Einstein, p.192). Note, book previously accepted as reliable source. Think User 211 wants reliably-sourced fact edited in article. Yes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.86.79 (talk) 16:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Pi Record?

http://www.pi-world-ranking-list.com/lists/details/tammet.html Please explain?

This is news to me. It may be true that there was an error someplace in the recitation, even though he recited 22,514 digits. We should check this carefully (see WP:BLP), as many references cite the 22,514 number. Edhubbard (talk) 15:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

This article seems to utterly contradict what's claimed at the first link I gave, but what's the source of the info about Tammet Pi recitation? - it's in a US newspaper and the record was supposed to have been done in the UK: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/15/garden/15savant.html The NYTimes article includes a claim that the recitation was monitored by people from "Oxford Brookes University", which is apparently a real university in Oxford, UK, but not the well-known University of Oxford, while a page that looks like it is from the University of Oxford verifies that it all happened at a museum which is also a department of University of Oxford. I guess it's not impossible, but it's a mite confusing. http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2004/040315_1.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.231.124 (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The sources are the ones currently in the article as 17 and 18: http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2004/040315_1.html, http://pi-world-ranking-list.com/lists/memo/index.html. In addition, you can search for the "BrainMan" documentary, which had a camera crew there rolling the whole time (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4913196365903075662, starting at 4:55). During the filming, there was no one that stood up and said, "this is an error". So, if we assume that all of the sources are reporting to the best of their knowledge, this error went uncaught for some time years. However, the website you've listed above is the only one saying this, so we'll probably need some additional confirmation of this (see WP:RS and WP:BLP). Edhubbard (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I've seen the Brainman documentary myself, and no way in the world are solid, uninterrupted hours of reciting Pi shown in the doco, and I'd never assume that any filmakers will automatically report every aspect of an event depicted in a doco. This was an event held for charity - hence a certain pressure on all for it to be a success, thus there could have been a motivation to overlook rules. Perhaps we need to ask if there is a difference between a serious record attempt within a set of established rules, and a less formal event done for charity, science or entertainment with less stringent rules. Is there an established body or organization who overlook record attempts? I've noticed that in one media story about Tammet that mentioned the Pi recitation, the journalist stood out as a better investigator for telling the reader about Tammet's change of surname, and he also did not himself state the number 22,514 as the number for the European record, but left this number to be given in a quote from Tammet, while himself mentioning 22,514 as the number of places simply recounted by Tammet. Evasion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.231.124 (talk) 03:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Everything I've seen suggests that this was a serious, verified record attempt. In particular, as noted in the references and in the video, there were at least two checkers there (maybe even three or more), verifying that Tammett was reciting pi correctly, which according to the only website that seems to be tracking this, is what they require for an official record attempt ([10]). The video does show conspicuous failures when Tammett was in Las Vegas, so I don't think it's so far-fetched that they would have mentioned it if he had failed. Similarly, the press releases, for example, from Oxford and in the New York Times and other places wouldn't have come out if someone had stood up *at the time* and said that there was an error. Major outlets, like the NYT, and so on have a duty to get it right, and so have fact checkers. This why we here in wikipedia count NYT times and other major papers as WP:RS. But, if this source is correct that there was an error that was identified after the attempt, we should be able to find other sources for it too. Edhubbard (talk) 03:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Oops! Forgot to give link to last article mentioned: http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2005/feb/12/weekend7.weekend2 This press article by Richard Johnson from The Guardian stands out among all the articles by jouros and also science journal papers by academics as the only one as far back as 2005 which noted that Tammet had changed his surname, which it turns out was a major clue relevant to Tammet's past. I could cite a number of later papers by academics who studied Tammet who appeared to be blissfully unaware of Tammet's name change and past life as a memory champion, so it is not true that articles in well-known papers or even papers by academics are infallible or even slightly investigative.

I noticed that Dominic O'Brien (memory champ?) was in the credits of the Brainman documentary. Was he present during the Pi event? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.231.124 (talk) 04:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Quote from Tammet in US radio interview in 2007: "Pi is one of my favorite numbers. I devote a chapter in the book to it. I have a peculiar claim to fame with the number pi. I hold the European record for reciting the number pi to 22,514 decimal places at the Museum of the History of Science in Oxford in 2004 on pi day - 3/14 - March 14th. And it took five hours to recite from start to finish. There were mathematicians to check the digits to make sure that I was accurate." http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=6860157 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.231.124 (talk) 15:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is relevant (maybe your) blog--211.5.11.43 (talk) 10:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's an interesting bit of info - way back in 2001 Daniel Tammet contacted Karen Ammond from the publicity and marketing firm KBC Media with the aim of having his interests represented. This was the same year that Tammet changed his name, 3 years before Tammet's Pi feat and 6 years before he was a study subject featured in a number of journal papers. Tammet was just a naive autistic boy with inexplicable abilities? I think not. Tammet is case study number 5 here: http://www.kbcmedia.com/ Ammond was an Associate Producer of the documentary Brainman: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0447877/fullcredits I'd say she could well have experienced a conflict of interests as Tammet's commercial agent and also a co-creator of a doco that is held up as an impartial record of events. Baron-Cohen and Darold Treffert appear as themselves in the documentary - HA HA HA! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.150.32.120 (talk) 15:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Need for a Wikipedia page about the Brainman / The Boy With the Incredible Brain documentary

I've not been able to find any Wikipedia page devoted to this controversial documentary alone. It was the launching pad for Daniel Tammet's career and has also been the subject of claims that it was deceptive ( http://myreckonings.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/LightningCalculators/lightningcalculators ) and could have had an error in Tammet's recounting of Pi edited out of it, and had as an Assocate Producer Karen Ammond from the marketing and publicity firm KBC Media which was also Tammet's PR firm ( http://www.kbcmedia.com/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0447877/fullcredits#cast ), and despite all this was nominated for a BAFTA Award and won some other big award, and has been referred to as a serious record of a scientific phenomenon by researchers. These are reasons enough to justify giving the doco a page, as there are many questions about it, and it has been very influential in the world of science and pop psychology. There is also much confusion about the two different versions of the doco under different titles for different countries. Apparently they are not exactly the same, and I've seen conflicting info about the producers and directors for each title.

Trained Mnemonist - Yes/No?

There appears to be verifiable evidence Tammet is a trained mnemonist.

• Wayback Machine (which archives snapshots of website content) evidences (from Tammet's own early website in 2001) Tammet studied and used mnemonic memory techniques, and sold a course based on mnemonic memory techniques.

Source: [11] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.61.121 (talk) 18:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

E.Hubbard (Scientist: U.C. San Diego lab) tested Tammet. E.Hubbard confirmed Tammet passed the tests, but remarked "it is possible (indeed probable) that he (Tammet) is using strategies." (See statements above by author of study). S.Azoulai, researcher (referred to by E.Hubbard as, "the least skeptical" in the team), noted in a particular memorization of numbers test, the results were expressed in a manipulated form, quote "his (Tammet's) answers were written down in pairs, which means he was almost definitely using some memory tricks." (See statements above).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.118.84 (talk • contribs)

Where was this test documented? You added these quotes to the article, but only provided a "Statements specifically authored by scientists in Talk Page" as your source. A Wikipedia talk page obviously isn't a reliable source, we should cite the document you're quoting. --McGeddon (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Reminder of Wikipedia's rules regarding Living Persons Biographical articles

I see one or two 'conspiracy theorists' have (once again?) taken to obsessively editing this article to their point of view. Please note Wikipedia's strict rules regarding living persons biographical articles:

No original research No_original_research

In particular: "Any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources" and "Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research."

Foer's chapter specifically discounts the likelihood that Tammet has 'faked' anything:

"If Daniel had concocted his story of being a natural savant, it would have required a degree of mendacity that I couldn’t quite bring myself to believe he possessed"(Page 189).

Foer equally disavows any of the certainty that a few here like to attribute to him:

"The one thing I know I can say for certain about him (Tammet) is that he is exceptionally bright” (page 193).

In fact, no reliable published source has specifically claimed that Tammet has lied or faked (very serious allegations, with potentially important legal and other consequences) at all.

Similarly, 'conspiracy theorist' claims about documentary makers faking scenes, or media reports lying about Tammet's Pi performance etc. clearly also constitute original research.

Neutral Point of View

"This policy is non-negotiable and all editors and articles must follow it" and "Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view."

Foer's perspective represents a tiny minority viewpoint, alone among the hundreds of reliable sources in published media and the scientific community. To dedicate an entire section of the article to Foer's claims would seriously distort the article's balance, in contravention of Wikipedia's rules.

Wikipedia is not a forum

"Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages" and:

"Scandal mongering, something "heard through the grapevine" or gossip. Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles should not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person".

Wikipedia is not a democracy

"Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary, but not exclusive, method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting."

Oughtprice99 (talk) 08:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Oughtprice99. Contributions history 100% on Tammet. Aprrox. 60 edits in article. Incessant removal of verifiably sourced material. Suspicious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.118.41 (talk) 20:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Many people told you to sign at the end, but you do not conform. If you do not respect the rules, you are not welcome.--119.173.188.106 (talk) 06:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Someone who forgets to sign their comments is still welcome. Editors should comment on the content, not on the contributor, though. "I think this guy is suspicious!" is not a useful rebuttal of the points he makes. --McGeddon (talk) 09:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit protection

Due to the recent edit war on this article and in consideration of an apparent history of previous disputes on similar lines, I have fully protected it for a week. Please use {{editprotected}} to propose and discuss changes and take note of The three-revert rule which has already been broken. --Fæ (talk) 16:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Mention of Tammet's 2001 old website in article

In Tammet’s own website from 2001, he states during school using “these tried-and-tested techniques” to improve exam performance. Reliably sourced and exact.188.29.13.109 (talk) 16:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Problem with link? Go to http://www.archive.org/web/web.php then next to “Take Me Back’ button enter http://www.danieltammet.com click on “2001” bar then click “3 May” then click “About Me.”188.29.13.109 (talk) 17:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

There is justification to mention in the article that Tammet launched a website in 2001. For reasons of accuracy and balance there is justification to mention that Tammet previously (during school) used "tried-and-tested techniques" to improve exam performance.188.29.13.109 (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned in the article, and scores of published secondary sources, the website belonging to Tammet is called Optimnem and did not appear online before 2002.

User 188.29.13.109’s cited primary source is a long defunct webpage, the owner and author of which has/have not been confirmed.

Furthermore, the sole secondary source to mention the webpage is Foer’s book, whose (minority) perspective has already been included in the article following much discussion and eventual consensus between editors.

The possibility that Tammet uses or has used mnemonic strategies (of whatever nature) is also already stated in the article, including a link to Wikipedia’s ‘Method of Loci’ article.

User 188.29.13.109 has repeatedly attempted a number of poorly sourced and contentious edits to this article over a period of several days, without once seeking consensus, deleting a talk page thread, and ignoring other editors’ comments.

Finally, Wikipedia’s rules are clear that living persons biography articles should be edited conservatively. Poorly sourced and contentious claims are always to be avoided.

Oughtprice99 (talk) 18:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Erroneous claim. Admin advice was sought prior to the recent well-sourced edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.216.124 (talk) 10:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Foer's perspective is a "minority" perspective? I bet his/our skeptical perspective wouldn't be seen as a fringe view if we had a top American PR firm selling our story. I've been able to find many media stories supposedly written by journalists about Tammet, and most of them fail to mention important facts about Tammet, including his name change and anything that happened in his life that wasn't written about in his autobiographies. I've found media reports of his Pi recounting that don't even give an exact number for how many decimal places he got to. I've also found some journal papers about Tammet that are full of methodological flaws, questionable and unsupported assertions and important omissions. I've found a relationship between Tammet and a supposed scientist/clinician in which the two write nice forewords for each other's books. A big pile of slovenly and sycophantic press articles, some bad science and two autobiographies that only tell a portion of the story doesn't represent a majority view, it just represents very good media management and partnerships with some scientists who don't deserve to be described as such. I'm insulted by characterizations of the skeptical view as conspiracy theories. I'm sure that I am not the only interested person who has always held a degree of skepticism towards Tammet's story, even though I am myself a synaesthete. Believing the official story as told in Tammet's books is the more outlandish view which violates Occam's razor, requiring a high degree of credulity. The findings of the journal paper about Tammet published in 2007 in Neurocase can only be reconciled with Tammet's self-description as a synaesthete with mysterious untrained abilities by special pleading, that Tammet is some special type of synaesthete whose brain scan does not conform to expectations about brain scans typical of synaesthetes. There's nothing odd or eccentric in expressing skepticism about such a paper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.150.32.120 (talk) 18:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk of libel is silly. Verifiable facts mentioned only. Something serious: Embedded point legitimate to mention given its importance (i.e. Tammet admits use of “tried-and-tested” memory techniques in his earlier website). Note: No quotation from Joshua Foer’s findings. Edit is imbalanced.

Suggestion: In his book Moonwalking with Einstein, Joshua Foer speculates that study of conventional mnemonic approaches has played a role in Tammet's feats of memory, citing contents from Tammet’s old website. However, in a review of his book for The New York Times, psychologist Alexandra Horowitz described Foer's speculation as among the book's few "missteps", questioning whether it would matter if Tammet had used such strategies or not. (Add references)

Regarding Manti (unpublished/unverifiable). Represents tiny point within Tammet’s work. Superfluous in article. Suggest removal and put the following sentence alongside edit which mentions language ability.

Suggestion: Tammet has invented his own constructed language called Manti, which uses vocabulary and grammar from the Finnic group of languages.188.28.83.176 (talk) 20:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting points User 124.150.32.120. Thanks. Can you provide source regarding Tammet's brain scan which does not show interaction with areas of the brain responsible for sensation of colour. Post here. Fact should be represented in article.188.28.83.176 (talk) 21:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I already did provide the necessary info! As I already stated, it is in the Neurocase paper which is behind a paywall. In brain scanning they found evidence that Tammet was using chunking, a technique of trained memory experts, and they found a lack of activation of areas of the brain associated with colour-grapheme synaesthesia: “Given the earlier fMRI study of synaesthesia had found extra-striate activation, using the same contrast we also specifically examined visual regions that corresponded to DT’s extra-modal percepts of colour, form, shape and texture. Neither the V4 ROI taken from Nunn et al. (2002), nor the anatomically defined visual ROIs showed any significant activation (all p>.1).” (p.315) Bor, D, Billington, J, Baron-Cohen, S. (2007) Savant memory for digits in a case of synaesthesia and Asperger syndrome is related to hyperactivity in the lateral prefrontal cortex. Neurocase. 2007 Oct;13(5):311-9. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/psych/nncs http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a791809555 I'd like to make it clear that is not "original research"! I am doing nothing more than restating what is clearly in this paper which was published in a supposedly reputable science journal. I did not conduct this study myself and my name is not among those of authors of this paper. I have quoted the words of researchers. I have not made up these quotes. Feel free to verify the info given by me yourself. you will need to either buy the paper or access it thru an academic library. Wikipedia's rule about "no original research" has the effect of reinforcing the elitist power structures that are in our society, often at the expense of the pursuit of the truth. Wikipedia very questionably regards just about anything published in print or written by an academic as credible, even if it logically contradicts other sources, while at the same time discounting people like me who base arguments or quote directly from published sources that are not readily accessible thru the internet. Over all the years that I have been scrutinizing the Wikipedia, I have seen huge discrepancies between the quality of materials that have been accepted by the Wikipedia as sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.150.32.120 (talk) 05:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Who talked of libel? I only pointed out the gravity of your claims that Tammet is a 'liar' and 'faker' etc. Your suggestion: "Tammet admits use of "tried-and-tested" memory techniques in his earlier website" requires a high level of evidence. Here's why:

• "Tammet admits..." The verb is loaded, so let's change it to the more neutral "Tammet states..." But the only primary source for this 'admission' or 'statement' is a long defunct webpage of uncertain origin (name misspelled, no copyright notice, etc.). The only website belonging to Tammet for which there are multiple reliable published secondary sources is Optimnem.co.uk which went online in 2002.

• "...use of "tried-and-tested memory techniques..." This very precise claim counts as an extraordinary claim, seeing as no published secondary source (with the exception of Foer's contentious claims) has ever mentioned these techniques, beyond Tammet's synesthetic descriptions of colored words and numbers etc. Wikipedia's rules for living persons biographies require that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, i.e. multiple reliable published secondary sources.

• "in his earlier website" Again, this precise claim counts as extraordinary. No mention of it beyond Foer's claims which are contentious (and are disputed by Tammet in the same chapter of the book). Wikipedia's rules for living persons biographies require that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, i.e. multiple reliable published secondary sources.

As for Manti, Tammet talks about it in both of his published works. Multiple reliable published secondary sources describe it. I don't see any reason for cutting it.

Finally, please bear in mind that Foer's book - from which you cite heavily - represents one journalist's personal and subjective point of view regarding Tammet. In the same book, Foer says that he can be certain of nothing that he says about Tammet except that he believes him to be extremely bright. The consensus among editors here was that Foer's minority perspective should be included, but only very briefly and with caveats (see earlier discussions above). No new published reliable secondary sources have emerged since book's publication to alter that consensus. Cherry-picking quotes from the book is not appropriate for editing a living person biography article.

As for the claims of 124.150.32.120 (AKA 'Lili Marlene'), refer to Wikipedia's rules regarding original research and fringe theories.

If one of Tammet's brain scans "did not show interaction with areas of the brain responsible for sensation of colour" (User 188.28.83.176) it's because the researchers conclude based on their findings that Tammet "has an unusual and more abstract and conceptual form of synaesthesia" (quote from study). The idea that synesthetes' brains always show interaction with colour areas of brain is plain wrong. Take the abstract of this 2011 study for example:

"We observed no activation of ‘colour areas’ by graphemes in ten synaesthetes, whatever the strength of their synaesthetic associations, and no structural difference between synaesthetes and twenty-five control subjects in the ‘colour regions’. The localizationist conception of visual processing is therefore too simplistic to account for the synaesthetic experience, and further research should look for distributed correlates of synaesthetic colours...The key to synaesthetic colour experience might not lie in the colour system, but may be related to the complex construction of meaning by the brain, involving not only perception, but language, memory and emotion." (http://www.perceptionweb.com/abstract.cgi?id=v110285)

Oughtprice99 (talk) 09:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC) You've managed to dig up a single-author paper by an author who I've never heard of, (and I have read a lot of the research in the area of synaesthesia), which goes against the general consensus of researchers in the area of grapheme-colour synaesthesia. Is there soome kind of prize for this type of trick? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.150.32.120 (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Lack of balance in reporting of face memory testing and ability of Tammet

The article as it stands today mentions that Tammet's face memory ability was tested by Baron-Cohen and team (using an unnamed test) and found to be impaired, but it fails to mention that Tammet's face memory ability was also tested by Maguire, Valentine et al in their study of World Memory Championship participants, and I found nothing in that paper to suggest that there was a member of the group of subjects who had impaired face memory. One also needs to consider that Tammet reportedly got a gold medal in a World Memory Championship event titled "names and faces", and also two early press stories claiming that Tammet has face memory consistent with "super-recognizer" ability. At least one of these conflicting reports must be untrue. A careful reading of Tammet's first autobiography also provides reason to feel skepticism about Tammet's claims that he has a face recognition impairment. Would a prosopagnosic use the phrase "a familiar face" to describe an old friend? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.150.32.120 (talk) 18:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The Maguire study was a group study, looking for characteristics common to the participants rather than any individual differences (that's what individual studies are for).

The 'names and faces' event: The names could have served as a trigger for each photo. The Baron-Cohen test used only photos of faces.

The press stories you refer to were from British tabloids and would not be considered reliable sources.

No source (including Foer) suggests Tammet has ever been diagnosed with prosopagnosia.

Oughtprice99 (talk) 09:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

"The 'names and faces' event: The names could have served as a trigger for each photo." Trigger for what? A person who has prosopagnosia, which is the proper term for what Tammet has claimed to have a number of times, has no memory of faces to trigger. Tammet may not have been explicitly given the label of prosopagnosia, but in the Journal of Consciousness paper of 2007 Baron-Cohen et al wrote of Tammet after testing "...his face memory appears impaired...” and Tammet has clearly claimed to have serious problems with recognizing faces in his second autobiography "In my own case, I have great difficulty remembering faces, even those of people I have known for many years.", hinted at face memory issue on the Australian 60 Minutes show in 2007 and claimed to be impaired in recognizing people on the US 60 Minutes show in 2009. My point is that Tammet himself has claimed, post-first autobiography, to have big face memory problems, in stark contrast with earlier accounts of his face memory performance, including some text from his first autobiography. There are so many vast inconsistencies to find, if one bothers to look.

I hope everyone realizes that importance of Tammet's genuineness for all of the many conditions that he claims to have. As a case study he has become thoroughly embedded in the scientific literature, in many published science journal papers and apparently also some textbooks, and has also made a huge impact on the popular understanding of psychology. If he is not genuine, this is a huge problem for psychology, and a huge embarassment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.150.32.120 (talk) 18:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with 124.150.32.120. This article is Wikipedia at its worst. Bill121212 (talk) 00:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Consensus process?

Hi, I see only two people in these discussions, so far, with little sense of consensus. If others have not spontaneously come forward, perhaps asking for a third opinion using Third opinion or expressing a neutral question for wider community comment using Requests for comment might provide useful alternative views and proposals? Thanks Fæ (talk) 14:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

There seem to be 3, not 2. IP 188.... and 124....(shifting) seem to be different.--210.196.9.19 (talk) 02:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I see IPs in Australia, the UK and Japan so it is fair to assume these are different folks even if some may use dynamic IPs. --Fæ (talk) 09:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Fae. Believe first title in talk page re-edited recently. Was titled 'disputed claims'. Opening lines recently added and user's whole original posting removed. Please check.188.29.61.207 (talk) 12:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

don't worry, that safely remains. just click Archive 1.--211.5.11.221 (talk) 02:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Andreas Brekken's edit and following edits still missing (see Archive). Inserting edits/deleting threads is strictlly forbidden and contrary to Wikipedia's rules.188.28.215.91 (talk) 12:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The article protection has expired. As I was asked, I have now looked through the archive and the discussions here. My opinion on the archive of danieltammet.com as a source is that it is a poor site on which to single-source information in a BLP. The same archived page claims he is a "leading authority on Mindpower", and I doubt that anyone would want that added to the article. If the information is to be re-added it would need more than an old archive of a now non-existent self promotional website. Sources for biographies of living people need to be of good quality and contentious information would require multiple quality sources. If this contentious information is re-added without a demonstrable consensus here first, it may be entirely legitimate for any editor to remove it; see WP:BLPREMOVE for the specific policy.

Warnings for previous edit-warring were given, please take careful note of the WP:3RR policy and make good use of this talk page instead in line with WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. If discussion here is reaching a dead end, you may find WP:BLPN helpful. Thanks Fæ (talk) 14:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Request re-think. Claim: International web archiver, Wayback Machine (which simply captures website content) is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.61.71 (talk) 17:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Consider that Oughtprice99 may be Tammet. Wayback Machine records webpages, and there is nothing inherently wrong with it as a source. Tammet's own website is a very reliable source. It just happens to be available on the Wayback Machine. Many people have tried to add links to it, but Oughtprice99 blocks it. Bill121212 (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Such speculation as to the identity of editors is unlikely to be helpful and may be seen as harassment. If you believe there is conflict of interest, please raise it for review at WP:COIN. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 00:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Dual roles of Karen Ammond and KBC Media need to be mentioned in this article

Karen Ammond from the PR firm KBC Media which Tammet has, by KBC Media's own account, been represented by since 2001, was also an Associate Producer of the documentary Brainman that arguably launched Tammet's career and reputation in the worlds of science and also in the popular eye. This is a potential conflict of interest, and it also goes against what the man in the street would expect from a documentary. Documentaries are generally understood to represent a non-commercial and non-fictional treatment of a subject. Science documentaries are definitely not expected to be creations of a PR person or to act as promotional vehicles. It has been many years since I bothered to actually edit Wikipedia, so don't look to me to do this work, but I'm mentioning it here for at least some readers to see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.150.32.120 (talk • contribs)

I agree that it should be mentioned in the article. It's obvious that this Wikipedia page is missing a lot of important information. Bill121212 (talk) 00:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

More complete account of research done on Tammet please

I see no mention of the old study of Tammet done by Ramachandran, Azouli et al which included the appropriately cautious statement "As in all cases like this we need to consider the fact that Arithmos may be performing almost of his ‘mental feats’ via pure memorization.", or the other documented research studies done by Gary Morgan and Neil Smith, or the recent book in which some of this research is described, co-authored by Ianthi Tsimpli, Bencie Woll, Morgan and Smith. I think readers might be interested to know that in testing Tammet has been compared to another language savant. There is too much emphasis on the research done by Baron-Cohen and his colleagues. To my knowledge Tammet has never been reported as doing the state-of-the-art test of grapheme-colour synaesthesia, The Synesthesia Battery, and he has never been studied by experts in the field of face recognition and prosopagnosia. Baron-Cohen et al's inquiries in these areas were using instruments which I believe are no longer the best available tools. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.150.32.120 (talk • contribs)