Talk:V. S. Ramachandran/Archive 1

Research

Someone should add his interest in (and perhaps articles about) mirror-neurons, with a link?

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.100.61.182 (talk) 03:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

This article really deserves a section devoted to the research V.S. has performed. I know he has done alot on Synesthesia, and I saw him on a program about Savantism. Could someone who is more familiar with his general focus take as tab at getting this section started? Shaggorama 12:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Shaggorama, I did my PhD with "Rama" from 1999 - 2004, and am now a post-doctoral fellow with Stanislas Dehaene, in Orsay France. I have just recently spent a lot of time cleaning up the synaesthesia page, and have added a Numerical_Cognition page, reflecting two areas of research that are important to me. I am happy to add more details on Rama's work, but it will have to wait a few weeks. Edhubbard 14:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Reply number 2: I just took a look at your profile, and I saw that you were interested in adding something about philosophical implications to the synesthesia page. I think it would be great if you were to add that to the page. You'll see with the other clean-up that I've done, it should be much easier. Are you familiar with the work of Jeffrey Gray, and Richard Gray (no relation that I know of) and Adam Wager? They have all published some interesting articles/debate regarding the implications of synesthesia for functionalism, color externalism, and other topics. Edhubbard 19:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Quick note that Ramachandaran is also known for his work with epileptic seizure patients and the "God syndrome" I believe it is called, as well as his work & writing on "mirror neurons" or empathy neurons. This needs to be researched much more, so as to create a more consistent representation of this work and contributions to behavioral and physiological psychology. Stevenmitchell (talk) 22:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Needs a new photo

Anyone got a good free image of Ramachandran? This one is a little... unfortunate. I'll look around myself, but he doesn't seem to be a commonly photographed gentleman. Phidauex 04:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Oddly enough, although he is often featured on television, he rarely sits for still or publicity photos. Indeed, he rarely sits! One possibility is to take a still from another video, but I will also look around and see if I have any pictures of him that might be appropriate. Edhubbard 07:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Try the beyond belief 2006 conference i don't, know if the images there are currently available for use but i am sure if you asked they would be happy to oblige bladeScythe 07:47, 15 January 2007{UTC} —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.167.59.216 (talk) 08:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

Not sure which photo you meant. There's one on wikimedia commons (here), sorry if that's the one you're already talking about. It's pretty small too.Larryisgood (talk) 20:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

His Religion

Is he actually an agnostic? After watching him speak at the Beyond Belief conference and he sounds like an atheist. Quote: http://www.celebatheists.com/index.php?title=Vilayanur_S._Ramachandran He believes in god as "Nature" not some old man that we need to abide by, so I suppose atheist is more accurate for any normal reader...

-xe0us

As you have quoted, he's a selfdescribed agnostic. With your words Einstein was an atheist too. But he wasn't, because he had a cosmic religion, he was a pantheist.

--Starnold 18:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand he's a pantheist, but that doesn't mean he's theistic at all. He doesn't believe in a God like the one of the Bible, like you see in the quotes. Pantheism isn't religosity, they just believe in nature.

From the pantheism article: 'critics argue that pantheism is little more than a redefinition of the word "God" to mean "existence", "life" or "reality"'

He does not believe in God, he just believes in 'existence' which is rather pointless. Although therefore, he is an atheist. Agnosticism generally means one isn't sure about the existence of a Biblical god.

--xe0us 10 March 2007 3:42

I am sure that he said on the Reith Lectures that he was an agnostic. He did not come across as a militant atheist at all when he gave those talks. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm his son, he is hindu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.139.69 (talk • contribs) 2007-06-05T21:51:56

Ya I know this guy above me, he is hindu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.23.154 (talk) 21:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

We can't put statements about people's religious beliefs unless they are really relaibly sourced. NBeale (talk) 21:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Dude, why can't you accept it, he is HINDU! If you question that, then look for his talks on Hindu philosophy and Indian art. I just went to dinner with him, his son and his wife, and we were just making fun of this skepticism towards him being hindu. Just accept it and put it in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.20.116 (talk) 05:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Early Life?

Anyone know where Ramachandran was born? Also, what were his parents' occupations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.98.82 (talk) 00:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC) this is his son jaya, who is that that said he went to dinner with us? lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.160.79.86 (talk) 20:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Citation needed?

"Grandson of Sir Alladi Krisnaswamy Iyer who wrote the constitution of India (together with Ambedkar). Descended, through direct lineage, from sage Bharadwaja, who brought Medicine down from the Gods to the mortals in the second millennium BC."

Where does this information come from? And does the second sentence really belong in an Encyclopedia?? I'm not sure that anyone can verify that... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.125.138.19 (talk) 11:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed the dubious latter half of that section shortly after the above message was posted, and someone else rephrased/refactored the former half. It still doesn't seem to have any source citation attached to it, so I've added the {{fact}} tag. Robert K S (talk) 06:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Year of Birth

While the subject appreciates the interest in his WP:BLP page, he requests that his birth year be considered a piece of private information. This topic was briefly discussed on the WP:BLP page here, and the year of birth is sparsely sourced on the internet and in print. In addition, there are thousands of WP:BLP that do not include the year of birth of the subject, including, among others, these notable psychologists: [[1]] [[2]] [[3]] [[4]] [[5]] [[6]] [[7]] [[8]] [[9]] [[10]] [[11]] [[12]] [[13]] [[14]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbrang (talk • contribs) 19:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

All except the second and last of those cited articles are essentially stubs; it seems less likely that birth year information has been omitted from those articles than has just never been included for want of it. Which is fine, if it has never been published by multiple secondary sources, but such is the case with Ramachandran, whose authorship of books intended for popular audiences and participation in popular television programs have made him more of a public figure than the average academic. Seeing as Ramachandran's birth year is available from numerous media profiles [15] [16] and alongside his name in library catalog records of his books, it seems that it should be included per guidelines. It seems to me that editors who seek to keep birth year information out of the encyclopedia should either justify why current guidelines permit excluding it, or should build consensus to change the guidelines at the previously posted link. Robert K S (talk) 06:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If his birthday is public and can be referenced without verifiability doubts, i.e, appears in the biography provided in his books, he can not ask for it to be eliminated. Nobody has ownership of a WP article, not even him on his biograhpy article.--Garrondo (talk) 13:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd add, if I could, that his year of birth is readily searchable: at least that San Diego Union-Tribune article comes up within second-page results with the right prodding of the Google, so I'd ask, as a measure of consistency, whether this imposed policy of excluding birth year should also preclude citing and linking to articles containing that information; would pointing out where to find that information be any less intrusive, on the one hand, or, on the other, any more encyclopedic? Also, woah-- I've had a Wikipedia edit edited by someone who's done something significant with someone famous enough that I'd heard of him; I, for one, am inspired. Wikimancer (talk) 17:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

That birth year in the 1st paragraph can't be right -- he was 13 years old when he got his MD? Is it really supposed to be 1951? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.12.26 (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Robert K S (talk) 01:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Year of Birth, redux

Dr. Ramachandran is puzzled why anyone should insist on putting his age back into WP when it is removed; matters of age, religion, weight, height, skin color, etc. are entirely personal matters and it is up to each individual whether he/she wants them in WP or not. WP states that a presumption in favor of the subject's privacy should be made and Dr. Ramachandran feels strongly about this issue. Accordingly, he regrets that unless editors respect his privacy on this matter, he will request this article for deletion. Dbrang (talk) 20:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This has already been addressed above: Dr. Ramachandran's birth year is available from numerous media profiles [17] [18] and alongside his name in library catalog records of his books. It's public information about a notable individual. None of the attributes you list are private information for a public figure who makes those data public. Skin color and height are in particular disclosed simply by appearing in public (their relevance to the article is another matter). Dr. Ramachandran has also publicly remarked on his religious beliefs (but again, that is not necessarily relevant to the article, though I suppose the argument could be made for it). Year of birth is standard biographical information, and there is consensus on the policy pages that while date of birth can be removed for living figures privacy reasons, a well-sourced, widely available year of birth is isn't subject to removal by request, even by WP:HARM. If Dr. Ramachandran seeks to keep birth year information out of the encyclopedia, the proper channel would be the guidelines discussion at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. As a reminder, biographical subjects do not own their articles per WP:OWN. Robert K S (talk) 16:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I would ordinarily stay out of this but am now forced to say something. I have no idea why you or anyone else should make this such a big issue or become obsessed with someone else’s date of birth. I have seen many WIKIPEDIA entries that do not post date of birth. I don’t see what relevance it has to my role as medical scientist, scholar and public figure. The question is not whether the information is “out there“ somewhere so that someone can ferret it out with a Sherlock Holmes like persistence. The question is why it should be publicized and why it’s anybody else’s business.

I do not wish to pursue this discussion further with either you or WIKIPEDIA. If the changes I have now made are once again reversed I will have to delete the entry. People Googling me can always find my CV on my university WEB site which has the added advantage that no one else can tamper with it.

I hope you will respect this request; I would be grateful for the courtesy. Ramachandran —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.239.194.79 (talk) 22:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you're too notable to have the choice. We're an encyclopedia, not a site for autobiographies, and people do not get to choose whether or not they are to get written about, nor do they dictate what the article says, as long as the information is true and not a violation of our policies to prevent mention of minor crimes and the like not relevant to the career, or unduly personal data. By the standards of an encyclopedia or any reference work, an person's year of birth is certainly not unduly personal, but basic information--the very model of basic information, that is never omitted from a biographical article unless we cannot determine it from reliable sources. Height and skin color for an academic, agreed, I can't see including this in an article whether or not the subject's wishes. For an actor, sure, but not an academic or an author. But in this connection, we usually include photographs with all biographies if we can find a suitable non-copyvio public source; I don't think we have ever decided whether a photograph can be included against the subject's wishes. Where the subject himself makes his photograph widely available, I can't see why we would omit it. As for religion, it is relevant in the case of a person where it is relevant to his career, and it is reliably stated in a published source, preferably by the subject himself--and this includes many people writing notable popular works in the sciences. I would need to check your works to determine this, but the presumption would be to omit it in most cases. I strongly support the inclusion of birth year, and assuming others do not disagree, am perfectly willing to take administrative action to prevent its removal -- or the deletion of the entry. If you wish to follow up on this , the methods are a discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard or via WP:OTRS. But this question has come up here before, and I doubt further follow-up will advance your position--our policies in this respect are clear, and you are instead likely to bring about to a very visible public discussion that may well give what you will consider unwanted publicity to the matter. Such is the dilemma of public figures. But as an older man than you myself, you do indeed have my sympathy. DGG (talk) 19:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with DGG in this matter, I have to mention that the current reading of the relevant section of the BLP policy does lend considerable support to Dr. Ramachandran's position, and perhaps has confused the matter. Still, given the doctor's notability, a biography on him is appropriate. Once we have reached that threshold, it becomes obvious that the biography should include this most basic unit of biographical information. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

As was pointed out to me on my talk page this discussion concerns the birth year only. As such, the attempts here to add the year only would appear to be in keeping with policy. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The New Yorker

The New Yorker featured Ramachandran in an excellent article published May 11, 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siddharth9200 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)