819:
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
445:), 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
288:: "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."
789:
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.
529:
215:
141:
123:
92:
425:. 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?
21:
517:
643:. 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.
549:
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.
871:(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
557:, 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.
151:
831:
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
803:
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
788:
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,
580:
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
552:
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 Knowledge, images
440:
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
870:
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.
677:
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
548:
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
449:
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,
874:
That
Cytowic (or any subject of a Knowledge article) would like to be presented in the best possible manner is understandable, we (the Knowledge 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.
660:
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
646:
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
327:
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
593:
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
818:
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
691:
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
541:
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
655:
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
694:
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
616:
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.
678:
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
581:
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 |Beyond My Ken] does not like the magenta. I've looked through
682:
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
467:
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
486:
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.
705:
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 Knowledge article is not someone's Facebook or MySpace page.
598:, 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
553:
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
401:
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.
542:
magazine article or a blog than it is for an encyclopedia. It doesn't matter in the least that the subject uploaded it, the
Knowledge article, although started and developed by him, does not
692:
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.
576:
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
589:
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
71:
921:
727:, 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,
31:
836:
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
906:
76:
840:
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,
631:
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
351:
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.
59:) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or
854:
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.
741:
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
868:
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.
423:"Richard E. Cytowic is an American neurologist and author known for rediscovering synesthesia in 1980 and returning it to the scientific mainstream"
916:
911:
169:
51:
173:
310:
701:
did it would not override project standards – just the opposite, in fact, considering that Cytowic's edits to the article would carry
177:
265:
I've gone over the article to clean up for neutral POV, and fixed some references. What more needs to be done? Further suggestions?
451:
168:, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Knowledge's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
724:
442:
233:
164:
128:
343:
Independent of any COI on this particular article, the general rule on wikipedia is to avoid commercial links with books (see
298:
I'm declining this request as it seems overly promotional. Knowledge isn't the place to highlight glowing reviews of a book.
225:
492:
477:
430:
249:
761:
I see you already posted a note on the WikiProject Biography talk page. I did the same on WikiProject Images and Media,
103:
820:
647:
have invoked the point that the image was uploaded by the article subject himself to show argue that there aren't any
284:
Baroness Greenfield, University of Oxford, writing in London Times Higher Education, May 17, 1966 (P 32), says of
27:
488:
473:
426:
91:
880:
769:
752:
711:
622:
562:
305:
229:
60:
590:
270:
372:
109:
762:
70:. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to
292:
20:
859:
845:
732:
666:
640:
607:
458:
406:
356:
876:
765:
748:
707:
618:
558:
300:
74:.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see
794:
636:
379:
333:
266:
243:
809:
582:
472:
references for the statement The reference you offer from Day seems like it would suffice.
156:
595:
572:
My feeling about this is rather simple. Cytowic knowingly uploaded this image of himself
67:
855:
841:
832:
over the magenta one. However, in the course of turning it from B & W to magenta,
728:
662:
603:
554:
528:
454:
402:
352:
900:
702:
657:
648:
632:
586:
577:
374:(admittedly written by the subject) but I think it clearly shows that he is notable.
837:
833:
790:
652:
375:
344:
329:
239:
805:
348:
140:
122:
824:
146:
224:
to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
450:
including best seller status, and was translated into additional languages"
827:
are. I assume that what SauliH means here is that we don't do things for
884:
863:
849:
813:
798:
773:
756:
736:
715:
670:
626:
611:
566:
516:
496:
481:
462:
434:
410:
383:
360:
337:
316:
274:
602:
your preference, I'll take the article subject's over someone else's.
747:
other biographical article that has a tinted image of the subject?
176:. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
293:
http://hjs.ff.cuni.cz/archives/v8/main/essays.php?essay=munisteri
252:) / Cytowic, Richard E. This user has contributed to the article.
209:
85:
66:
from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially
43:
15:
222:
contributor may be personally or professionally connected
651:
issues here. But, it is also worth pointing out that,
447:
Synesthesia: Perspectives from Cognitive Neuroscience
723:One idea might be to get some input from people on
389:Actually, since it's an interview, it's not really
347:Number 15). I removed the same links from the
574:for use in the encyclopedia article about him.
656:inappropriate for wikipedia. I realize that
8:
441:articles on the topic in the mid-1970s (see
89:
117:
922:Articles edited by connected contributors
764:. Let's see what kind of input we get.
286:The Neurological Side of Neuropsychology
417:Issue with claim and references in lede
119:
397:the subject. Also, bear in mind that
7:
162:This article is within the scope of
907:Biography articles of living people
108:It is of interest to the following
14:
639:what we do or don't do is set by
661:their opinions on this. Cheers,
527:
515:
291:James Joyce Hypermedia Studies:
213:
149:
139:
121:
90:
49:This article must adhere to the
19:
443:History of synesthesia research
186:Knowledge:WikiProject Biography
26:This article was nominated for
917:WikiProject Biography articles
912:Start-Class biography articles
189:Template:WikiProject Biography
30:on 12 May 2009. The result of
1:
52:biographies of living persons
345:Links normally to be avoided
174:contribute to the discussion
821:Knowledge:Featured_pictures
64:must be removed immediately
938:
885:05:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
864:03:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
850:03:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
814:02:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
799:01:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
774:00:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
757:00:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
716:01:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
737:22:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
671:20:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
627:17:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
612:12:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
567:04:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
421:The lede currently reads
371:This was just published:
134:
116:
725:WP:WikiProject_Biography
497:03:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
482:14:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
463:23:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
435:19:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
411:18:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
384:17:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
361:18:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
338:17:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
317:20:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
275:00:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
220:The following Knowledge
393:the subject, but more
98:This article is rated
234:neutral point of view
165:WikiProject Biography
703:conflict of interest
658:consensus can change
226:conflict of interest
600:a drive-by editor's
489:Delicious carbuncle
474:Delicious carbuncle
427:Delicious carbuncle
399:Scientific American
804:best alternative.
367:Definitely notable
192:biography articles
104:content assessment
258:
257:
208:
207:
204:
203:
200:
199:
84:
83:
42:
41:
929:
583:Knowledge:Images
531:
519:
313:
308:
303:
217:
216:
210:
194:
193:
190:
187:
184:
170:join the project
159:
157:Biography portal
154:
153:
152:
143:
136:
135:
125:
118:
101:
95:
94:
86:
72:this noticeboard
44:
23:
16:
937:
936:
932:
931:
930:
928:
927:
926:
897:
896:
591:WP:Encyclopedic
539:
538:
537:
536:
535:
532:
524:
523:
520:
509:
419:
369:
325:
311:
306:
301:
282:
263:
214:
191:
188:
185:
182:
181:
155:
150:
148:
102:on Knowledge's
99:
12:
11:
5:
935:
933:
925:
924:
919:
914:
909:
899:
898:
895:
894:
893:
892:
891:
890:
889:
888:
852:
786:
785:
784:
783:
782:
781:
780:
779:
778:
777:
776:
721:
720:
719:
644:
533:
526:
525:
521:
514:
513:
512:
511:
510:
508:
505:
504:
503:
502:
501:
500:
499:
418:
415:
414:
413:
368:
365:
364:
363:
324:
321:
320:
319:
281:
280:Requested Edit
278:
262:
259:
256:
255:
254:
253:
218:
206:
205:
202:
201:
198:
197:
195:
161:
160:
144:
132:
131:
126:
114:
113:
107:
96:
82:
81:
77:this help page
61:poorly sourced
47:
40:
39:
32:the discussion
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
934:
923:
920:
918:
915:
913:
910:
908:
905:
904:
902:
887:
886:
882:
878:
877:Beyond My Ken
872:
867:
866:
865:
861:
857:
853:
851:
847:
843:
839:
835:
830:
826:
822:
817:
816:
815:
811:
807:
802:
801:
800:
796:
792:
787:
775:
771:
767:
766:Beyond My Ken
763:
760:
759:
758:
754:
750:
749:Beyond My Ken
746:
745:
740:
739:
738:
734:
730:
726:
722:
718:
717:
713:
709:
708:Beyond My Ken
704:
700:
699:
690:
689:
688:
681:
676:
675:
674:
673:
672:
668:
664:
659:
654:
650:
645:
642:
638:
634:
630:
629:
628:
624:
620:
619:Beyond My Ken
615:
614:
613:
609:
605:
601:
597:
592:
588:
584:
579:
575:
571:
570:
569:
568:
564:
560:
559:Beyond My Ken
556:
550:
547:
546:
530:
518:
507:Infobox image
506:
498:
494:
490:
485:
484:
483:
479:
475:
471:
466:
465:
464:
460:
456:
453:
452:Go to page 29
448:
444:
439:
438:
437:
436:
432:
428:
424:
416:
412:
408:
404:
400:
396:
392:
388:
387:
386:
385:
381:
377:
373:
366:
362:
358:
354:
350:
346:
342:
341:
340:
339:
335:
331:
322:
318:
315:
314:
309:
304:
297:
296:
295:
294:
289:
287:
279:
277:
276:
272:
268:
260:
251:
248:
245:
241:
238:
237:
235:
231:
230:autobiography
227:
223:
219:
212:
211:
196:
179:
178:documentation
175:
171:
167:
166:
158:
147:
145:
142:
138:
137:
133:
130:
127:
124:
120:
115:
111:
105:
97:
93:
88:
87:
79:
78:
73:
69:
65:
62:
58:
54:
53:
48:
46:
45:
37:
33:
29:
25:
22:
18:
17:
873:
869:
838:User:Cytowic
834:User:Cytowic
828:
743:
742:
697:
696:
693:
686:
685:
684:
679:
653:User:Cytowic
641:WP:Consensus
599:
573:
551:
544:
543:
540:
469:
446:
422:
420:
398:
394:
390:
370:
328:either way?
326:
323:Bibliography
299:
290:
285:
283:
267:Winchester55
264:
246:
221:
163:
110:WikiProjects
75:
63:
56:
50:
35:
534:replacement
349:synesthesia
100:Start-class
901:Categories
825:MOS:IMAGES
637:WP:COPYVIO
261:What next?
856:Edhubbard
842:Edhubbard
729:Edhubbard
663:Edhubbard
604:Edhubbard
455:Edhubbard
403:Edhubbard
353:Edhubbard
183:Biography
129:Biography
68:libellous
596:WP:POINT
522:original
250:contribs
28:deletion
791:Protonk
555:WP:NPOV
376:Smartse
330:Smartse
240:Cytowic
829:purely
823:and
806:SauliH
649:WP:BLP
633:WP:BLP
587:WP:BLP
578:WP:BLP
545:belong
232:, and
106:scale.
687:basic
680:Wired
395:about
312:Space
881:talk
860:talk
846:talk
810:talk
795:talk
770:talk
753:talk
733:talk
712:talk
667:talk
623:talk
608:talk
585:and
563:talk
493:talk
478:talk
459:talk
431:talk
407:talk
380:talk
357:talk
334:talk
307:From
302:Them
271:talk
244:talk
172:and
36:keep
34:was
744:any
635:or
470:not
236:.
57:BLP
903::
883:)
862:)
848:)
812:)
797:)
772:)
755:)
735:)
714:)
698:he
669:)
625:)
610:)
565:)
495:)
480:)
461:)
433:)
409:)
391:by
382:)
359:)
336:)
273:)
228:,
879:(
858:(
844:(
808:(
793:(
768:(
751:(
731:(
710:(
665:(
621:(
606:(
561:(
491:(
476:(
457:(
429:(
405:(
378:(
355:(
332:(
269:(
247:·
242:(
180:.
112::
80:.
55:(
38:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
