![]() | A news item involving Oliver Sacks was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 30 August 2015. | ![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on August 30, 2021. |
I oppose the use of PubMed search instructions as a link. They simply return everything written by someone called O. Sacks. Tomorrow, someone called Orville Sacks may publish something in an obscure journal and get confused with the great Oliver. There must be an online bibliography that does not use PubMed. JFW | T@lk 13:36, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Fine, have it your way, but I maintain that sending search instructions to a search engine is not a job for an encyclopedia. You may find a similar discussion I've held on Talk:Hematoma. JFW | T@lk 22:03, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
The Island of the Colour-blind is not really about the chamorans but about the pingelapese on an atol about 1000 miles away....
In the book he goes to several different places in that part of the world.-- PaulWicks 10:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I started to clean up this article (which is in very poor shape), and the first thing I found was a copyvio of the Guardian article, so there may be deeper problems. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 04:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, I removed that "questionable aspects" link because it has almost nothing to do with Oliver Sacks the person. The "1985 report" it references is apparently The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat, and it is already mentioned that article.-- Father Goose ( talk) 08:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Sources not included lest anyone is interested in further work on the section:
I take Shakespeare to be charging Sacks with commodifying his patients as a means of self-aggrandizement and self-enrichment.
{{
cite book}}
: |page=
has extra text (
help)However, Sacks's use of his preoccupation with people with disabilities as the foundation for his professional career has led many disability advocates to compare him to P. T. Barnum, whose own professional career (and its subsequent monetary profit) was based to a large degree upon his employment of PWD as 'freaks.' ... Note also the science fiction aspect to the title of Sacks's book, which frames the disabled people he writes about as 'aliens' from a different planet. One issue in the dynamic of the expert who appoints himself as the official storyteller of the experience of disability is that both the professional and financial success of the storyteller often rely upon his framing of the disabled characters as extraordinary, freakish, or abnormal. This is what disability studies scholars and disability advocates term the 'medicalization of disability' (Linton 1998, 1-2).
{{
cite journal}}
: |format=
requires |url=
(
help); |pages=
has extra text (
help){{
cite journal}}
: |format=
requires |url=
(
help); |pages=
has extra text (
help); Unknown parameter |publihser=
ignored (|publisher=
suggested) (
help)SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Don't you know? Article and Letter do not exactly match those in the everyday word usage. Some journals label scientific articles as Letter. Also see Reply by Yamaguchi in the same journal issue, and you will see Sacks was refuted.-- 125.14.233.56 ( talk) 16:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
How about the twin's 10 digit number which Sacks confirmed as a prime? Sacks lied here. Experts on autism already dismiss Sacks' this report. (Incidentally, Snyder's use of the word "priming" is wrong.-- 125.14.233.56 ( talk) 13:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
You should see how many divisions are necessary for confirming primality of 10 digit as compared to 8 digit numbers. Very different. In addition, even without explicit description, that's simply misleading and many books describe "the twins said 20 digit primes". Scientific value of the report was lost.-- 125.14.233.56 ( talk) 05:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Whether it's medical, scientific, news or sports, reporting must be accurate.
I don't mind continue discussing, although this discussion is contributing little to improving the main text.-- 125.14.233.56 ( talk) 07:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I can't solve this problem by edit-warring with 125, nor apparently is further discussion going to be effective. My basic assertion has been the same throughout: this criticism of Sacks' story about the twins is very limited, but it being spun into something far too large, such as "criticism in the medical community" or even "Sacks lied". As far as I can tell, Sacks has more support than criticism in both the medical and disability communities -- and for the time being, the only criticism of the medical community that's been put forward is Yamaguchi's critique of Sacks' story about the twins.
Are there more scientific or medical criticisms of Sacks out there? If they can be presented as a group, then it would have some weight, and I would in fact support putting them in this article. But I think the Yamaguchi critique by itself is too limited to belong in a general summary of criticism Sacks has faced. Again, I have always supported its mention in the Man Who Mistook His Wife article, as it is criticism specific to that book, but not something that should be elevated into a criticism of Sacks in general.
For those who have participated in this discussion or have been watching it, can I ask you to sound off here? Is the Yamaguchi letter enough of a criticism of Sacks himself to belong in this article, his biography? Is it appropriately neutral to say "Sacks has faced criticism in the medical and disability studies communities" when the criticism is coming from what to me looks like just a few individuals within those communities? Please do help me here.-- Father Goose ( talk) 09:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
In the previous versions, the letter was in the External Links, with no mention in the text. Later versions mentioned the letter as "skeptical view". You can revert the present version to these earlier wording.-- 125.14.233.56 ( talk) 13:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Does he have a speech impedement, or is there some accent in England where he comes from where they pronounce r as w? Readers of this article want to know. Chrisrus ( talk) 06:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello, all! I just saw a short news story on CNN with Oliver Sacks revealing that he is "face blind". Would this be relevant? I believe it would be because he is a world-renowned neurologist who has an incredibly rare neurological condition. I will try to find the sources in print. Lilly ( talk) 16:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Source 1 (this one is by Sacks) Source 2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilly granger ( talk • contribs) 16:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Parties, even my own birthday parties, are a challenge. (More than once, Kate has asked my guests to wear name tags.) I have been accused of “absent-mindedness,” and no doubt this is true. But I think that a significant part of what is variously called my “shyness,” my “reclusiveness,” my “social ineptitude,” my “eccentricity,” even my “Asperger’s syndrome,” is a consequence and a misinterpretation of my difficulty recognizing faces.
Shouldn't the article be Dr. Oliver Sacks? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.224.40 ( talk) 21:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello I am with a group doing a project on the book A Man Without Words by Susan Schaller. Oliver Sacks wrote the forward for this book and there is no mention of it on his page. I am a bit new to Wiki so I am unsure whether a forward qualifies compared to larger works, but the book is right up his alley. A few members of my group are reading the book and I can find out more about the contents of the forward and whether it seems relevant or not. Huxley1860 ( talk) 20:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
If you wish to include this, then you should include ALL the cases where Sacks contributed forewords.(Incidentally, clearly that book at least partially contains exaggeration)-- 210.196.11.171 ( talk) 02:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Sacks' new book will be published in November: Sacks, O., 2012 Hallucinations, Knopf, ISBN 978-0-307-95724-5. I had assumed that (provided the author's name was spelled correctly!) anything with an ISBN could be added to an article, whether actually published yet or not. What is Wikipedia policy on this? Should it just be mentioned in the article text, or instead be listed under a new section headed "Forthcoming publications"? Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 13:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
"Oliver Wolf Sacks, CBE (born 9 July 1933), is a British-American biologist,.." What is the justification for this statement? Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 17:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello everyone this is my first time editing a Wikipedia page and I am very excited! I wanted to add a snippet about Oliver Sacks' new book Hallucinations. Here is my proposed edit:
In November 2012 Oliver Sacks released his latest book, Hallucinations. In this work Sacks takes a look into why ordinary people can sometimes experience hallucinations and removes the stigma placed behind the word. He explains, “Hallucinations don’t belong wholly to the insane. Much more commonly, they are linked to sensory deprivation, intoxication, illness or injury.” [1] . Sacks writes about the not so well known phenomenon called Charles Bonnet Syndrome, which has been found to occur in elderly people who have lost their eyesight. The book has been described by Entertainment Weekly as, “Elegant… An absorbing plunge into a mystery of the mind,” [2]
I would greatly appreciate your criticism! -- Dberezowski ( talk) 13:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
I realize it's a hopeless battle against fans putting in every last pointless bit of trivia when it comes to music, sports, acting in general. But Oliver Sacks? Really, what encyclopedic purpose does it serve to include a statement of his on his terminal diagnosis? It's downright embarrassing. Choor monster ( talk) 20:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Dr Sacks has been a long-time contributor to Radiolab. In a recent episode called "Radiolab Live: Tell-Tale Hearts featuring Oliver Sacks: Dr. Sacks Looks Back", he has what might be a final conversation with Robert Krulwich. Brief background: http://www.radiolab.org/story/dr-sacks-looks-back/ Podcast of the episode: https://www.wnyc.org/radio/#/ondemand/453314. Dr Sack's portion begins at 31:30 of 58:47. He discusses how his parents treated him after he came out to them and talks about the love of his life. It's worth a listen for the information and the closure. Thank you, Wordreader ( talk) 06:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Don't think Lynn is a first cousin; Eban is; Lynn is Eban's nephew. Mwinog2777 ( talk) 23:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Per guidelines, and of course common sense, the first sentence is both wrong and misleading. He was born, raised and mostly educated in the U.K., but resided in the U.S. for his 55-year career as a neurologist and writer. The few honorary degrees he later received from the U.K. wouldn't affect that.
The guidelines make it pretty clear that in describing a person's location or nationality: this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable. Yet the first sentence incorrectly describes him as "an English neurologist and writer." Thoughts? -- Light show ( talk) 18:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Side note: I'm using the spelling of "lead" instead of "lede" since "lede" is not a word in either the Oxford American Dictionary (Oxford Univ. Press) or the American Heritage Dictionary. -- Light show ( talk) 18:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
The original question, responses, the article and sources make it clear what he was not, which is an "English neurologist and writer." And the fact that even the BBC can't even fix their own misleading description, doesn't affect that. Sort of another Comedy of Errors. -- Light show ( talk) 21:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I checked this, I found no evidence of naturalisation. English it is. As if his speaking voice left any room for doubt; he spoke entirely without accent (just like me, and my school was over half a millennium older than his). Guy ( Help!) 23:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Revisionism seems a special-ISM to some editor of this article. Could someone provide a reference for this particular word usage as I have not seen it used anywhere else but here. Spyglasses 10:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Or British-born neurologist and author, who was educated in London and lived in the U.S. during his career. -- Light show ( talk) 18:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Is a 2006 Master's thesis, by a non-notable MIT student, a suitable source for the criticism section, even with a quote: Verlager, Alicia (August 2006). "Decloaking Disability: Images of Disability and Technology in Science Fiction Media" (Master's thesis). MIT. Retrieved 2015-08-31. Martinevans123 ( talk) 18:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
There is an uncited direct quote in the lead. And ... From the New York Times obit
Scientists could be dismissive, however, complaining that his clinical tales put too much emphasis on the tales and not enough on the clinical. A London neuroscientist, Ray Dolan, told The Guardian in 2005: “Whether Dr. Sacks has provided any scientific insights into the neurological conditions he has written about in his numerous books is open to question. I have always felt uncomfortable about this side of this work, and especially the tendency for Dr. Sacks to be an ever-present dramatis persona.” In an otherwise laudatory review of “The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat” in The New York Times Book Review, the neuropsychologist John C. Marshall took issue with what he saw as Dr. Sacks’s faux-naïve presentation (“He would have us believe that an experienced neurologist could fail to have read anything about many of the standard syndromes”), and called his blend of medicine and philosophy “insightful, compassionate, moving and, on occasion, simply infuriating.” More damningly, the disability-rights activist Tom Shakespeare accused Dr. Sacks of exploiting the people he wrote about, calling him “the man who mistook his patients for a literary career.”
The NYT obit seems quite superior to the BBC one, which is used in the article, while the NYT is not. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
this is unrelated person: /info/en/?search=Makoto_Yamaguchi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.175.255.217 ( talk) 10:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
The comment “After converting his British medical qualifications to American recognition” was added back in April 2007; the expansion “i.e. an
MD as opposed to
MB ChB” was added May 2008, and variations on this have been made since, without actually making it any clearer. Does anyone know what this means?
AFAIK medical doctors throughout the world have to acquire an academic degree, followed by a professional qualification to practice. In the UK, the degree is the MB ChB, the professional qualification is registration with the relevant Royal College; in the US it's an MD, followed by a State medical licence.
Sacks got his degree in the UK (an MB ChB), then (presumably, since he practiced there) was licensed in California. So when he moved to New York, surely all he need to do was convert his California licence to a New York State one.
The text as it stands implies he had to re-do his medical degree (all four to six years of it).
The only other thought is that (as he was a professor of neurology in New York) the MD referred to is the US equivalent of
one of these.
Anybody know?
Moonraker12 (
talk)
20:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
The lancets obituary Alison Snyder (19 September 2015). "Oliver Sacks". The Lancet. 386 (9999): 1130. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00211-1. mentions he "interned at Middlesex Hospital in London and Mount Zion Hospital in San Francisco, then completed his residency in neurology and neuropathology at the University of California, Los Angeles" different to what this page mentions. Who is right?-- Wuerzele ( talk) 01:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
One editor is persisting on changing from UK English to US English, such as ‘travelling’ to ‘traveling’ and ‘doctor’ to ‘physician’. This is inappropriate for an article about a British citizen, and the use of UK English is clearly noted when editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.106.14.81 ( talk) 03:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
I have commenced a tidy-up of the Bibliography section using cite templates. Capitalization and punctuation follow standard cataloguing rules in AACR2 and RDA, as much as Wikipedia templates allow it. ISBNs and other persistent identifiers, where available, are commented out, but still available for reference. This is a work in progress; feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 ( talk) 05:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I am moving the following uncited material here until it can be properly supported with inline citations of reliable, secondary sources, per WP:V, WP:CS, WP:IRS, WP:PSTS, WP:BLP, WP:NOR, et al. This diff shows where it was in the article. Nightscream ( talk) 15:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
...where he had been an extremely frequent visitor since he first moved to New York City, as well as a very active member of The Fern Society, which meets there.
In the period from 1966 to 1991, he was a neurological consultant to various New York City-area nursing homes (especially those operated by Little Sisters of the Poor), hospitals, and the Bronx Psychiatric Center.
Sacks' eldest brother Marcus also had prosopagnosia.
This article speaks nonsense by referring to internships happening in English hospitals. This is an American term which isn't used in the UK. After completing his medical degree, he will have have held junior house officer posts.
That December, he qualified for his internship, which would begin at Middlesex Hospital the following month. [...] He then did his six-month internship at Middlesex Hospital's medical unit followed by another six months in its neurological unit. He completed his internship in June 1960 but was uncertain about his future.
"he qualified for his internship
": this is graduating with a medical degree, nothing more.
"He completed his internship
": a junior house officer will have completed two six month rotations, one as a physician and (usually) the other as a surgeon. This is not an internship.
There is also some concision relating to his university studies: Sacks began medical school at Oxford University in 1956
. As is the case in the UK, he would have started the study of medicine after leaving school (ie the school attended by children, adult education is not "school" in the UK). The study of medicine at Oxford would have been (and still is) in two parts
[3]. The first is three years and results in a BA (Oxford is weird, they don't do a BSc); this is pre-clinical. He then undertook a year of research; this is an optional extra. Then he began his clinical studies, jointly between Oxford and Middlesex Hospital Medical School, which lasted for 3 years and results in the BM BCh from Oxford.
I'm going to correct this in the article, but I can't fit all the above in an edit summary. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 16:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Currently there are only two articles listed under Bibliography/Articles and they seem to be chosen arbitrarily. Dr. Sacks published frequently in the popular press, for example dozens of pieces in both The New Yorker and The New York Review of Books. It doesn't seem practical to list every lay publication, but as written the page implies there are only two of these. It might be best to remove the Articles subsection altogether or replace the list with a paragraph explaining the various places he wrote for (it is also possible to link out to his archives at some publications)?
Relatedly, the Articles subsection omits peer reviewed academic papers, which I believe should be listed separately from articles published in the popular press if it's best to list these at all? Splendor Hook Jog ( talk) 21:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
![]() | A news item involving Oliver Sacks was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 30 August 2015. | ![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on August 30, 2021. |
I oppose the use of PubMed search instructions as a link. They simply return everything written by someone called O. Sacks. Tomorrow, someone called Orville Sacks may publish something in an obscure journal and get confused with the great Oliver. There must be an online bibliography that does not use PubMed. JFW | T@lk 13:36, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Fine, have it your way, but I maintain that sending search instructions to a search engine is not a job for an encyclopedia. You may find a similar discussion I've held on Talk:Hematoma. JFW | T@lk 22:03, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
The Island of the Colour-blind is not really about the chamorans but about the pingelapese on an atol about 1000 miles away....
In the book he goes to several different places in that part of the world.-- PaulWicks 10:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I started to clean up this article (which is in very poor shape), and the first thing I found was a copyvio of the Guardian article, so there may be deeper problems. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 04:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, I removed that "questionable aspects" link because it has almost nothing to do with Oliver Sacks the person. The "1985 report" it references is apparently The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat, and it is already mentioned that article.-- Father Goose ( talk) 08:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Sources not included lest anyone is interested in further work on the section:
I take Shakespeare to be charging Sacks with commodifying his patients as a means of self-aggrandizement and self-enrichment.
{{
cite book}}
: |page=
has extra text (
help)However, Sacks's use of his preoccupation with people with disabilities as the foundation for his professional career has led many disability advocates to compare him to P. T. Barnum, whose own professional career (and its subsequent monetary profit) was based to a large degree upon his employment of PWD as 'freaks.' ... Note also the science fiction aspect to the title of Sacks's book, which frames the disabled people he writes about as 'aliens' from a different planet. One issue in the dynamic of the expert who appoints himself as the official storyteller of the experience of disability is that both the professional and financial success of the storyteller often rely upon his framing of the disabled characters as extraordinary, freakish, or abnormal. This is what disability studies scholars and disability advocates term the 'medicalization of disability' (Linton 1998, 1-2).
{{
cite journal}}
: |format=
requires |url=
(
help); |pages=
has extra text (
help){{
cite journal}}
: |format=
requires |url=
(
help); |pages=
has extra text (
help); Unknown parameter |publihser=
ignored (|publisher=
suggested) (
help)SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Don't you know? Article and Letter do not exactly match those in the everyday word usage. Some journals label scientific articles as Letter. Also see Reply by Yamaguchi in the same journal issue, and you will see Sacks was refuted.-- 125.14.233.56 ( talk) 16:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
How about the twin's 10 digit number which Sacks confirmed as a prime? Sacks lied here. Experts on autism already dismiss Sacks' this report. (Incidentally, Snyder's use of the word "priming" is wrong.-- 125.14.233.56 ( talk) 13:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
You should see how many divisions are necessary for confirming primality of 10 digit as compared to 8 digit numbers. Very different. In addition, even without explicit description, that's simply misleading and many books describe "the twins said 20 digit primes". Scientific value of the report was lost.-- 125.14.233.56 ( talk) 05:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Whether it's medical, scientific, news or sports, reporting must be accurate.
I don't mind continue discussing, although this discussion is contributing little to improving the main text.-- 125.14.233.56 ( talk) 07:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I can't solve this problem by edit-warring with 125, nor apparently is further discussion going to be effective. My basic assertion has been the same throughout: this criticism of Sacks' story about the twins is very limited, but it being spun into something far too large, such as "criticism in the medical community" or even "Sacks lied". As far as I can tell, Sacks has more support than criticism in both the medical and disability communities -- and for the time being, the only criticism of the medical community that's been put forward is Yamaguchi's critique of Sacks' story about the twins.
Are there more scientific or medical criticisms of Sacks out there? If they can be presented as a group, then it would have some weight, and I would in fact support putting them in this article. But I think the Yamaguchi critique by itself is too limited to belong in a general summary of criticism Sacks has faced. Again, I have always supported its mention in the Man Who Mistook His Wife article, as it is criticism specific to that book, but not something that should be elevated into a criticism of Sacks in general.
For those who have participated in this discussion or have been watching it, can I ask you to sound off here? Is the Yamaguchi letter enough of a criticism of Sacks himself to belong in this article, his biography? Is it appropriately neutral to say "Sacks has faced criticism in the medical and disability studies communities" when the criticism is coming from what to me looks like just a few individuals within those communities? Please do help me here.-- Father Goose ( talk) 09:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
In the previous versions, the letter was in the External Links, with no mention in the text. Later versions mentioned the letter as "skeptical view". You can revert the present version to these earlier wording.-- 125.14.233.56 ( talk) 13:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Does he have a speech impedement, or is there some accent in England where he comes from where they pronounce r as w? Readers of this article want to know. Chrisrus ( talk) 06:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello, all! I just saw a short news story on CNN with Oliver Sacks revealing that he is "face blind". Would this be relevant? I believe it would be because he is a world-renowned neurologist who has an incredibly rare neurological condition. I will try to find the sources in print. Lilly ( talk) 16:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Source 1 (this one is by Sacks) Source 2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilly granger ( talk • contribs) 16:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Parties, even my own birthday parties, are a challenge. (More than once, Kate has asked my guests to wear name tags.) I have been accused of “absent-mindedness,” and no doubt this is true. But I think that a significant part of what is variously called my “shyness,” my “reclusiveness,” my “social ineptitude,” my “eccentricity,” even my “Asperger’s syndrome,” is a consequence and a misinterpretation of my difficulty recognizing faces.
Shouldn't the article be Dr. Oliver Sacks? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.224.40 ( talk) 21:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello I am with a group doing a project on the book A Man Without Words by Susan Schaller. Oliver Sacks wrote the forward for this book and there is no mention of it on his page. I am a bit new to Wiki so I am unsure whether a forward qualifies compared to larger works, but the book is right up his alley. A few members of my group are reading the book and I can find out more about the contents of the forward and whether it seems relevant or not. Huxley1860 ( talk) 20:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
If you wish to include this, then you should include ALL the cases where Sacks contributed forewords.(Incidentally, clearly that book at least partially contains exaggeration)-- 210.196.11.171 ( talk) 02:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Sacks' new book will be published in November: Sacks, O., 2012 Hallucinations, Knopf, ISBN 978-0-307-95724-5. I had assumed that (provided the author's name was spelled correctly!) anything with an ISBN could be added to an article, whether actually published yet or not. What is Wikipedia policy on this? Should it just be mentioned in the article text, or instead be listed under a new section headed "Forthcoming publications"? Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 13:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
"Oliver Wolf Sacks, CBE (born 9 July 1933), is a British-American biologist,.." What is the justification for this statement? Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 17:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello everyone this is my first time editing a Wikipedia page and I am very excited! I wanted to add a snippet about Oliver Sacks' new book Hallucinations. Here is my proposed edit:
In November 2012 Oliver Sacks released his latest book, Hallucinations. In this work Sacks takes a look into why ordinary people can sometimes experience hallucinations and removes the stigma placed behind the word. He explains, “Hallucinations don’t belong wholly to the insane. Much more commonly, they are linked to sensory deprivation, intoxication, illness or injury.” [1] . Sacks writes about the not so well known phenomenon called Charles Bonnet Syndrome, which has been found to occur in elderly people who have lost their eyesight. The book has been described by Entertainment Weekly as, “Elegant… An absorbing plunge into a mystery of the mind,” [2]
I would greatly appreciate your criticism! -- Dberezowski ( talk) 13:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
I realize it's a hopeless battle against fans putting in every last pointless bit of trivia when it comes to music, sports, acting in general. But Oliver Sacks? Really, what encyclopedic purpose does it serve to include a statement of his on his terminal diagnosis? It's downright embarrassing. Choor monster ( talk) 20:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Dr Sacks has been a long-time contributor to Radiolab. In a recent episode called "Radiolab Live: Tell-Tale Hearts featuring Oliver Sacks: Dr. Sacks Looks Back", he has what might be a final conversation with Robert Krulwich. Brief background: http://www.radiolab.org/story/dr-sacks-looks-back/ Podcast of the episode: https://www.wnyc.org/radio/#/ondemand/453314. Dr Sack's portion begins at 31:30 of 58:47. He discusses how his parents treated him after he came out to them and talks about the love of his life. It's worth a listen for the information and the closure. Thank you, Wordreader ( talk) 06:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Don't think Lynn is a first cousin; Eban is; Lynn is Eban's nephew. Mwinog2777 ( talk) 23:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Per guidelines, and of course common sense, the first sentence is both wrong and misleading. He was born, raised and mostly educated in the U.K., but resided in the U.S. for his 55-year career as a neurologist and writer. The few honorary degrees he later received from the U.K. wouldn't affect that.
The guidelines make it pretty clear that in describing a person's location or nationality: this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable. Yet the first sentence incorrectly describes him as "an English neurologist and writer." Thoughts? -- Light show ( talk) 18:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Side note: I'm using the spelling of "lead" instead of "lede" since "lede" is not a word in either the Oxford American Dictionary (Oxford Univ. Press) or the American Heritage Dictionary. -- Light show ( talk) 18:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
The original question, responses, the article and sources make it clear what he was not, which is an "English neurologist and writer." And the fact that even the BBC can't even fix their own misleading description, doesn't affect that. Sort of another Comedy of Errors. -- Light show ( talk) 21:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I checked this, I found no evidence of naturalisation. English it is. As if his speaking voice left any room for doubt; he spoke entirely without accent (just like me, and my school was over half a millennium older than his). Guy ( Help!) 23:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Revisionism seems a special-ISM to some editor of this article. Could someone provide a reference for this particular word usage as I have not seen it used anywhere else but here. Spyglasses 10:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Or British-born neurologist and author, who was educated in London and lived in the U.S. during his career. -- Light show ( talk) 18:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Is a 2006 Master's thesis, by a non-notable MIT student, a suitable source for the criticism section, even with a quote: Verlager, Alicia (August 2006). "Decloaking Disability: Images of Disability and Technology in Science Fiction Media" (Master's thesis). MIT. Retrieved 2015-08-31. Martinevans123 ( talk) 18:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
There is an uncited direct quote in the lead. And ... From the New York Times obit
Scientists could be dismissive, however, complaining that his clinical tales put too much emphasis on the tales and not enough on the clinical. A London neuroscientist, Ray Dolan, told The Guardian in 2005: “Whether Dr. Sacks has provided any scientific insights into the neurological conditions he has written about in his numerous books is open to question. I have always felt uncomfortable about this side of this work, and especially the tendency for Dr. Sacks to be an ever-present dramatis persona.” In an otherwise laudatory review of “The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat” in The New York Times Book Review, the neuropsychologist John C. Marshall took issue with what he saw as Dr. Sacks’s faux-naïve presentation (“He would have us believe that an experienced neurologist could fail to have read anything about many of the standard syndromes”), and called his blend of medicine and philosophy “insightful, compassionate, moving and, on occasion, simply infuriating.” More damningly, the disability-rights activist Tom Shakespeare accused Dr. Sacks of exploiting the people he wrote about, calling him “the man who mistook his patients for a literary career.”
The NYT obit seems quite superior to the BBC one, which is used in the article, while the NYT is not. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
this is unrelated person: /info/en/?search=Makoto_Yamaguchi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.175.255.217 ( talk) 10:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
The comment “After converting his British medical qualifications to American recognition” was added back in April 2007; the expansion “i.e. an
MD as opposed to
MB ChB” was added May 2008, and variations on this have been made since, without actually making it any clearer. Does anyone know what this means?
AFAIK medical doctors throughout the world have to acquire an academic degree, followed by a professional qualification to practice. In the UK, the degree is the MB ChB, the professional qualification is registration with the relevant Royal College; in the US it's an MD, followed by a State medical licence.
Sacks got his degree in the UK (an MB ChB), then (presumably, since he practiced there) was licensed in California. So when he moved to New York, surely all he need to do was convert his California licence to a New York State one.
The text as it stands implies he had to re-do his medical degree (all four to six years of it).
The only other thought is that (as he was a professor of neurology in New York) the MD referred to is the US equivalent of
one of these.
Anybody know?
Moonraker12 (
talk)
20:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
The lancets obituary Alison Snyder (19 September 2015). "Oliver Sacks". The Lancet. 386 (9999): 1130. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00211-1. mentions he "interned at Middlesex Hospital in London and Mount Zion Hospital in San Francisco, then completed his residency in neurology and neuropathology at the University of California, Los Angeles" different to what this page mentions. Who is right?-- Wuerzele ( talk) 01:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
One editor is persisting on changing from UK English to US English, such as ‘travelling’ to ‘traveling’ and ‘doctor’ to ‘physician’. This is inappropriate for an article about a British citizen, and the use of UK English is clearly noted when editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.106.14.81 ( talk) 03:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
I have commenced a tidy-up of the Bibliography section using cite templates. Capitalization and punctuation follow standard cataloguing rules in AACR2 and RDA, as much as Wikipedia templates allow it. ISBNs and other persistent identifiers, where available, are commented out, but still available for reference. This is a work in progress; feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 ( talk) 05:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I am moving the following uncited material here until it can be properly supported with inline citations of reliable, secondary sources, per WP:V, WP:CS, WP:IRS, WP:PSTS, WP:BLP, WP:NOR, et al. This diff shows where it was in the article. Nightscream ( talk) 15:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
...where he had been an extremely frequent visitor since he first moved to New York City, as well as a very active member of The Fern Society, which meets there.
In the period from 1966 to 1991, he was a neurological consultant to various New York City-area nursing homes (especially those operated by Little Sisters of the Poor), hospitals, and the Bronx Psychiatric Center.
Sacks' eldest brother Marcus also had prosopagnosia.
This article speaks nonsense by referring to internships happening in English hospitals. This is an American term which isn't used in the UK. After completing his medical degree, he will have have held junior house officer posts.
That December, he qualified for his internship, which would begin at Middlesex Hospital the following month. [...] He then did his six-month internship at Middlesex Hospital's medical unit followed by another six months in its neurological unit. He completed his internship in June 1960 but was uncertain about his future.
"he qualified for his internship
": this is graduating with a medical degree, nothing more.
"He completed his internship
": a junior house officer will have completed two six month rotations, one as a physician and (usually) the other as a surgeon. This is not an internship.
There is also some concision relating to his university studies: Sacks began medical school at Oxford University in 1956
. As is the case in the UK, he would have started the study of medicine after leaving school (ie the school attended by children, adult education is not "school" in the UK). The study of medicine at Oxford would have been (and still is) in two parts
[3]. The first is three years and results in a BA (Oxford is weird, they don't do a BSc); this is pre-clinical. He then undertook a year of research; this is an optional extra. Then he began his clinical studies, jointly between Oxford and Middlesex Hospital Medical School, which lasted for 3 years and results in the BM BCh from Oxford.
I'm going to correct this in the article, but I can't fit all the above in an edit summary. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 16:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Currently there are only two articles listed under Bibliography/Articles and they seem to be chosen arbitrarily. Dr. Sacks published frequently in the popular press, for example dozens of pieces in both The New Yorker and The New York Review of Books. It doesn't seem practical to list every lay publication, but as written the page implies there are only two of these. It might be best to remove the Articles subsection altogether or replace the list with a paragraph explaining the various places he wrote for (it is also possible to link out to his archives at some publications)?
Relatedly, the Articles subsection omits peer reviewed academic papers, which I believe should be listed separately from articles published in the popular press if it's best to list these at all? Splendor Hook Jog ( talk) 21:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)