Talk:Oliver Sacks

message: 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)
replies: text: Pubmed searches often have false positives in (e.g. Sacks O, returns Orville Sacks and Oliver Sacks), but is this really a good reason for not having them? IMHO, the number of useful hits from such a search outweighs their disadvantages. Lord.lucan 16:39, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pubmed link

message: 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)
replies: text: There were two parts two the book. One was about the colorblind people on Pingelap, and the other was about Lytico-Bodig on Guam.67.85.254.111 16:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Island of the Colour-blind

message: 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)
replies: text: It is indeed in poor shape.  We owe this fine man a better article.--Father Goose (talk) 08:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyvio

message: 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)
replies: text: My reading is that the article as-is provides the reader with a view of some of the criticisms levelled (of which the "freak show" is of MUCH greater significant than quibbling about primes) and provides sources if they want to follow them up in more detail. There is a quote you could use re: the former criticism by the way, which is "I would hope that a reading of what I write shows respect and appreciation, not any wish to expose or exhibit for the thrill," he sighs, "but it's a delicate business." from this interview: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2002/may/10/medicalscience.scienceandnature?gusrc=rss&feed=books. One thing I was surprised to see absent in here was mention of his personal life, which others have commented upon as being unusual. There is also nothing on more recent books such as Uncle Tungsten (which I have not read). As a footnote (and in declaring my interests) I will mention that I did once write to Dr Sacks a note about ALS on Guam via email; he replied some time later with a letter typed out on a typewriter thanking me for drawing his attention to the fact that ALS patients can get cognitive dysfunction. If anyone is interested I think we could probably get this bio up to a higher standard than "start class"?--PaulWicks (talk) 10:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I encourage you to edit the article.  In particular, I think your quote would go a long way toward balancing that paragraph. Also I'd like to reiterate what I wrote earlier:  to a scientist, the primes issue is important because it addresses the extent to which Sacks can be trusted to get details right.  The "freak show" criticism, on the other hand, seems very misguided:  I find it hard to understand how anybody can read his books without seeing that his purpose is to give us insight into how the mind works, not to make fun of patients. Looie496 (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I preferred the last version written by User:Jbmurray, which was balanced and accurate.  IP 125, please read WP:SOAP, WP:NOR and WP:NOTAFORUM, and in particular, please read WP:BLP; I share FatherGoose's frustration.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need help 

message: 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)
replies: text: Readers come here looking for this information, but are not told.  Why is this, has the issue never been addressed?  If there is no problem discussing his face-blindness, why would there be a problem with him haveing a simple speech impediment?  But I noticed several other Englishmen, Terry Jones, for example, that also seems to substitute W for R, albeit not in the initial position of a word, just in the middle.  Where is his accent from?  Is it regional, or a "school" accent, and is his "Welease Wodger!" way of speaking a characteristic of the way he was taught that it was proper to speak, or is it just that he has a speech impediment, as most Americans would probably assume.  I know it's not normal in England to say "wheelie" for "really", but I also know that even though it's a small country the situation with accents and dialects is extreemly complicated and numerous there, as opposed to the five-to-ten or so noticable accents we have in North America.  Is it a case of him having the same problem as Elmer Fudd, or just an obscure unusual English accent?  Readers want to know! Chrisrus (talk) 17:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speech Impedement? 

message: Shouldn't the article be Dr. Oliver Sacks?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.224.40 (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not according to WP:MOS. Thanks Martinevans123 (talk) 21:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming. 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes certainly, a foreword is usually notable, but especially if the book itself has its own article. It should probably go in that article first, but could also be usefully added here. In fact I now see that book article (it's about a 27 year old deaf man whom Schaller teaches how to speak for the first time) already mentions Sacks. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we put in... A Man Without Words (1991) (forward)?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huxley1860 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

text: So how many are there? Will they swamp the article? I'd suggest that each be considered on its own merits This one seems notable as it has its own article. And I'm pretty sure there are many works, which have their own article here, but whidh also "at least partially contain exaggeration". If you have a concern perhaps you should discuss at the Talk page there? Thanks Martinevans123 (talk) 08:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Man Without Words

message: Sacks' new book will be published in November: Sacks, O., 2012  Hallucinations, Knopf, . 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)
replies: text: Now added and has its own article. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hallucinations (2012) 

message: "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)
replies: text: What do you mean? Are you disputing the British bit or the American bit? He was born in Britain, is still a British citizen (no idea whether he's taken American citizenship too), and has lived in the USA for nearly fifty years, although he still appears to visit Britain quite a lot. He's certainly British, but America is his adopted home. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still rather unclear what the criteria are for having dual nationality. I thought one had to "take American citizenship" or some such, to legally "become an American". Or hold two passports? Or does 50 years residence automtically qualify one? Or does Sacks refer to himself as a British-Amercian? I was looking for a reliable source for the claim, not just our own personal opinions. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: British-American was inexplicably changed to American-British on 20 February 2015. I have removed American and provided two references which state: "he lives in New York, but has never taken US citizenship" and "but he is not even a citizen of the country he does live in. 'In 1961, I declared my intention to become a United States citizen, which may have been a genuine intention, but I never got round to it'." 163.167.125.215 (talk) 09:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. That seems quite clear at least. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No citizenship = Not American. Simple. British people are almost never pressured into becoming "Americanized" anyhow 86.190.145.76 (talk) 10:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  British-American? 

message: 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.”  . 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,”
I would greatly appreciate your criticism!
--Dberezowski (talk) 13:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding to his list of works 

message: 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)
replies: text: Is it embarrassing because he's not a rock star? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Right.  I expect this kind of trivia to be put into rock stars' articles.  Not medical writers' articles, however well-known and celebrated. Choor monster (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt he thinks of it as trivia. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: His opinion doesn't count here.  But I suspect he puts it way way way down compared to his body of work. Choor monster (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, not suffering form the debilitating effects of a massive ego, he probably does. But maybe there is some room for compromise here? A smaller part of the quote, but one which still shows his stoically positive attitude? I suspect that many people who are interested in Sacks would want to read his newspaper piece in full. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Short of some part of the quote getting a life of its own (book title, say) it remains unencyclopedic. Choor monster (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect you may be right. It may look less important as months and years go by. But I still think it rather nicely sums up his approach to life. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it is a nice summary.  I can see the quote or something similar getting a life of its own just because writers on death and dying (or on Sacks) pick up on it.  It's just not our call to decide what's "nice" or "significant" or the like. Choor monster (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree. But I'd be interested to see other views on this. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fancruft, here?? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Quite a revelation. That poor man. Do you think anything should be added, about his private life, based on his recollections? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: He has been quite open about his personal life in his autobio.  Wechsler had an article in Vanity Fair which i referenced.  Both were in graphic detail.  So, almost nothing is being held back at the present time; I added a few sentences about his personal life, and left out a few I thought about.  They have been there a while, and no comments/edits about them, so I guess its OK.  Mwinog2777 (talk) 17:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: À la Sally Ride I've added the LGBT portal. kencf0618 (talk) 21:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr Sacks offered details of his private life on Radiolab. 

message: Don't think Lynn is a first cousin; Eban is; Lynn is Eban's nephew. Mwinog2777 (talk) 23:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: First cousins

message: this is unrelated person:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makoto_Yamaguchi  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.175.255.217 (talk) 10:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Have now unlinked, thanks. Sacks not notable for his origami. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese name WRONG 

message: 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)
replies: text: He was also awarded an "Honorary MD" at Karolinska Institutet in Sweden in 2003, although this is not yet mentioned in the article: . But I guess this is something else again! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: In general, if a physician receives a medical degree from an accredited university elsewhere and then immigrates to the US, he/she has to acquire ECFMG certification, and then complete a residency in the US. ("Re-doing" the degree itself is not necessary.)  Sacks did a neurology residency in San Francisco, so I'm guessing that's exactly the way it went.  I agree that the phrasing in the article could be clearer.  Let me check his autobio, and then I'll have a go unless someone gets to it first. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 21:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious statement 

message: The lancets obituary  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)
replies: text: I tried rephrasing the details. --Light show (talk) 03:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  CV discrepancy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  English 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bibliography 

message: 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)
thread_title: Uncited material in need of citations

message: 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.
"": this is graduating with a medical degree, nothing more.
"": 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: . 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 . 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)
replies: text: Yes, perhaps this has arisen partly from his fame in the US. A BM BCh is not just from Oxford, of course. Oxford isn't that weird, is it. But the article has had a {Use British English} tag since January 2013. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:48, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK vs US language confusions 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Articles listed under bibliography