Talk:Kim Peek

Kim's mother
What about Kim's mother? Softy (talk) 14:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Tammet-Hugging

 * "In 2004, Peek met another savant, Daniel Tammet, for the UK Channel Five documentary The Boy with the Incredible Brain.[12] He hugged Tammet and said "Some day you'll be as great as I am."

How relevant is that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.194.177.234 (talk) 03:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Death
I'm glad to see that someone put the date of death back to December 19th (as I typed it)! Someone changed it after my entry (to Dec. 20th), and that was WRONG. Honestly people, do some research and get a source before you correct someone! I knew Kim, and received the information first-hand from his father, Fran.

Wikipedia has secured permission from Darold A. Treffert, M.D. to use the text and pictures from the following link: http://www.wisconsinmedicalsociety.org/savant/kimpeek.cfm N.B. Click on "Savant Syndrome" icon, bottom left; "Page Not Found" message is irrelevant. Frankly speaking (talk) 09:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Memorizing
I once read that Peek could remember only about 95% of things he's read. It might be nice to find the actual percentage if anyone has the time. -- Someone

If he can remember the content of the books he reads, why does he need to turn the books themselves upside down to remember which ones he has read, which is surely much easier to memorize? 130.234.170.84 17:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It was not for him, but for others to know that he had read and memorized them, and did not want to be bothered with them.--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 05:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I watched a documentary about Kim, and his father says he remembers 98% of what he reads, the documentary is on YouTube if you want to see it.

This is correct. His father says he remembres approximately 98% of what he reads using his speed reading style.


 * I removed the figure "98.7%" since no source was cited. Even if his father has given that figure, this is very obviously a rough impression - we shouldn't be leading readers to believe that this really has been measured to three significant figures. --GenericBob (talk) 02:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Permission
Email Text:

Mr. [removed [USER:catskul]] You have my permission to use the WMS savant syndrome web site Kim Peek images and text as long as those are properly attributed to WMS and myself as exists on that savant syndrome web site posting at present. Kim is a fascinating person and making more information about him more available to viewers will be a worthwhile posting on your site indeed. The posting should be attributed to Wisconsin Medical Society Savant Syndrome web site and to myself, Darold A. Treffert, M.D.                            Darold A. Treffert, M.D. - Original Message - From: "REMOVED"  To:  Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 3:15 PM Subject: Copyrights for Encyclopedia Article on Kim Peek > Dr. Darold A. Treffert, > > As it appears that you are the copyright holder this is being sent to you. > I would appreciate that you forward the message along with my contact > information to the appropriate party if this is not the case: > > I wish to make copies of the following images and to post them to > en.wikipedia.org as a contribution to the free encyclopedia article on Kim > Peek. > > Wikipedia, a free-content encyclopedia in many languages. > > To allow uploading the copyright holder must agree to the following: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights > > These are the images in question: > http://www.wisconsinmedicalsociety.org/savant/images/peek1.jpg > http://www.wisconsinmedicalsociety.org/savant/images/peek2.jpg > > Its important to note that the images would not be constantly retrieved > from your website, but rather they would be served from the wikipedia servers > eliminating any additional load on your servers and not taking any of your > bandwidth. > > Furthermore we as a community would like permission to use text contained > within the article published at the following address: > http://www.wisconsinmedicalsociety.org/savant/kimpeek.cfm > > Members of the Wikipedia community try their best to make sure that all > content on wikipedia is free and legal. We thank you for your consideration in > helping this be possible. > >     Thank You, >    REMOVED

Rain Man edit
I made a minor edit to identify Barry Morrow as the screenwriter for the movie Rain Man. He was incorrectly attributed as the director. Barry Levinson directed Rain Man.

I also made a minor change to his apperances in which i added that he was on the discovery channel for a short time.

Not autistic (AGAIN!)
If Kim Peek wasn't a savant, please, where is the reference that supports this claim following the final sentence of the introductory paragraph to the wikipedia page on him that ends with FG Syndrome?

According to this article, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6964730.ece, he was an autistic savant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZenithNoesis (talk • contribs) 00:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Kim Peek is not autistic. We have had this discussion before - see Talk:Autism/History_as_of_2006_June_5 and Talk:Autism/History_as_of_2006_June_5 for more information. this version is more correct on this issue. RN 05:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

HOWEVER, PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING: Kim Peek is speaking at my company's Annual appreciation dinner in two weeks. According to the information he has sent us he is "diagnosed as an autistic savant. However, he is not behaviorally autistic." I'm not sure where the idea that he is not a person with autism has come from but it definitely is not from Peek himself. Netherhereafter 18 October, 2006
 * My guess is that the belief that Kim Peek is not autistic came from people who interpretted the claim that Kim Peek is not "behaviorally autistic" too literally. Q0 05:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

There has been a lot of confusion about this. As I understand it, the term "idiot savant" was abandoned in favor of autistic savant which sounds better, but it's confusing because not all so-called autistic savants have autism. The autistic savant article doesn't really clarify this. There used to be a link from Kim Peek to autistic savant, but someone changed it to simply savant which really isn't appropriate. Ntsimp 16:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Now it is linked to Savant Syndrome. This won't do at all. WizardOfTheCDrive 23:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Anyone editing this page should also note that it is generally considered inappropriate to refer to people as "autistic." Rather, please refer to them as "people with autism" or something similar.

please explain to me that difference between "autistic" and "people with autism" and why you think it is inappriopirate ?

It may just be stigma. "Coloured" versus "people of colour" for instance. -Bordello 07:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a lot of controversy about the "people with autism" vs. "autistic people" labels. Some people, including some autistic people, prefer "autistic people" to "people with autism". Some people, on the other hand, prefer "people with autism". Part of the reason for this controversy is that some people see autism as something which is separate from the person (and thus prefer "people with autism") and some people see autism as a part of the person's identity and as something that cannot be separated from the person (and thus prefer "autistic people"). Q0 10:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

"Autistic savant" may be inappropriate or unexact, but not as inappropriate as "savant" without qualification. Robina Fox 11:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we should change "autistic savant" to "a person with savant syndrome" (Treffert & Wallace, 2002) - to be technically correct. All savants do not suffer from autism, though savant syndrome is certainly marked very often by autistic tendencies. (72.171.0.146 (talk) 00:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC))

I think the idea to change autistic savant to "a person with savant syndrome" is completely ignorant. First off, have you read the article on savant syndrome to know that someone with savantism does not necessarily have autism and someone with autism does not necessarily have savant syndrome? Seriously... —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZenithNoesis (talk • contribs) 00:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Kim Peek was ABSOLUTELY autistic. Saying "Kim Peek wasn't autistic, he had FG syndrome" makes as much sense as saying "So-and-so isn't intellectually disabled, they have a lesion on their left hemisphere". Whoever thinks that Kim Peek wasn't autistic simply does not understand what autism is whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.154.174 (talk) 14:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

So I just happened upon this but to the people suggesting that "Autistic people" is somehow less correct than "people with autism" you really need to research how English operates with its relation of noun to adjective and how it places importance based on the order mentioned. Typically speaking, when someone says "Could you hand me the red shirt," the focus is more on the fact that they want a shirt, but also they prefer a red color. If, however, that person was to say "Could you please hand me the shirt that is red," they are purposefully putting more importance on the fact that the shirt is red. This is common and almost universally consistent for what our language does for importance. That is intended to mean that the part that comes second is almost always the defining part. To insinuate that "people with autism" is somehow more respectful is to actually define a person by a disability, instead of the fact that they are a person. This is why "Autistic people" is perfectly fine. They have autism, since it's clearly stated, but more importantly, they are a person. I also have a large problem with people assuming what others find disrespectful. The rule of thumb is that for many words, there is a large amount of differing preference. Plenty of people probably prefer the technically "more disrespectful" way because of how the phrase is to be intended, and plenty will probably prefer the other way. However, until you actually know what people prefer, it just seems logical to use the "default more appropriate form" which would follow putting the most important factor second. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.211.21 (talk) 22:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Well I just happened upon this too, almost a decade later—and although I suspect that the anonymous author of the above rant (and classic seagull attack) is long flown away, I couldn’t help but swoop in myself (signed) and object. Although I applaud their dissertation on the syntactical implications of adjectives (including their instructive choice of examples), their ultimate conclusion, as it pertains to the order of the terms “person” and “autism” here, completely dismantles their authority on the subject. A red shirt is a inanimate object bereft of emotions or dignity, whereas a person with autism is decidedly not; one only needs to invoke the vastly divergent implications of the phrases “person of color” vs “colored people” to comprehend that language is not only a didactic construct but a political and social one as well. So no matter how grammatically sound the inferences are when “red” is placed before or after “shirt”, the decision as to whether word order conveys pejorative intent rests in the realm of accepted social conventions, and more importantly, in the collective conscience of those historically harmed by the epithets themselves. Therefore, no matter how flustered a grammar purist might get over that pesky “political correctness” thing, if the consensus majority of people affected by autism deem “autistic person” to be offensive, even if their reasons make no sense to the rest of us, then that choice of word order should not be acceptable, regardless of the “research findings” of the contributor above. Alanrobts (talk) 03:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

The birth date
Thanks for the subtle humor (or whatever you'd call it), giving the weekday for his birth date, and thereby deviating from the norm of listed dates on Wikipedia to tie in with his ability at telling weekdays quickly. I hope it's not removed but stays -- it gave me a smile, and there's nothing saying we can't have weekdays like this in the intro text. :-) -- Northgrove 03:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Except the fact that it's useless spam. I vote to remove the sunday. Jolb 02:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, those 10 bytes could be better spent elsewhere! Tsch, please... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.43.182.51 (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

I guess tight-ass conformity trumps humor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.125.189 (talk) 11:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Health?
I saw a documentary recently that said he has heart problems because he never exercises and likes junk food. That should probably be added. Jack Daw 14:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Why? That doesn't seem notable to me. Dreamyshade 22:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Now that he's died of a heart attack, I guess "Dreamyshade" can bite it, eh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.229.138 (talk) 21:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Biography?
This page needs quite a substantial cleanup before I could imagine it gaining inclusion into the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection. Citations need to be added, and the "autistic savant" vs. just "savant" issue needs to be resolved with citable evidence from reputable sources. Loose cannon claims; "we had this discussion already" retorts; and personal, unsubstantiated justifications will not do.

Syntax Change
The word "importantly" is an adverb. "Most importantly," therefore, is incorrect grammar. Your sentence should read, "most important, . . ." I have made this small change.
 * What? Adjectives can modify adverbs, why the heck can't they? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 04:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Tag
The "missing citation" tag is boring. It don't feel comfortable seeing so many construction sites in Wikipedia.... IF necessary, why don't you place it at the end of the article?

Reading ability
The text I added withour citation about his ability to read the left page with the left eye, and the right with the right comes from a comment made by his father Fran in the documentary "Daniel Tammet - The Boy With The Incredible Brain", viewable on YouTube. I'll let the person who took it down restore it. He can add the comment about 8 seconds too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.125.189 (talk) 12:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Religion
Just a simple question: who cares of what church Kim Peek is a member? It has exactly nothing to do with why people are interested in his life. It would be cool for someone to remove this extraneous detail from the page. 66.45.157.158 (talk) 18:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Evan
 * I would normally have had some sympathy for this suggestion. However I have just seen a doco about savants featuring KP. It seems to me that it is indeed fortunate that he is a "member" of the LDS since there is no doubt that he will be cared for appropriately should his father, Fran, who seems to care for him very lovingly pre-deceases him. This does not mean I don't think know LDS beliefs are for dingbats. Albatross2147 (talk) 11:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Weather it should remain on the page or not, the information of him being a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should be in his biography section, not the increased ability section ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.3.251.3 (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The Peeks were very active within the LDS Church, and their religion is an important part of Kim's biography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.229.138 (talk) 21:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Where is the reference to backup the claim of his religion ? Why is such a claim in a biographical article with no backup ? Looks rather poor - 114.129.180.236 (talk) 11:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

question
In the article it says that he can recall 12000 books. Does it mean the titles or the content?--Megaman en m (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Both. He really is that amazing. --  JackofOz (talk) 00:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Wish I could do that, would improve my grades XD anyway thanks for answering.--Megaman en m (talk) 09:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

neurological terminology
"information bounces around in his lob" "immobilize his left lob" I am not a neurologist, but I suspect this section has been added by someone with even less knowledge : Is that supposed to be 'lobe' ?--195.137.93.171 (talk) 18:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm a cognitive scientist, and this is nonsense. 18.93.3.251 (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Autism?
Kim Peek is part of a discussion for my Psychology class, so I thought I would look up a few things about him only to find a bunch of comments about how he is not autistic. My university textbook says he is, and I feel that people posting here think that it is some sort of insult for Mr.Peek to be labelled as an autistic person, which I do not believe it is. I find it very disturbing that this website clearly states that Mr.Peek is not autistic, when my textbook (which I am pretty sure is far better informed than this site)states that Mr.Peek is autistic. The text is "Psychology: frontiers and applications" I hope that this information can be changed soon as it is wrong.

Cmoore03 (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The current article says he likely has FG syndrome which seems entirely different from autism. I wasn't convinced.

Here's what the FG syndrome entry says:


 * FG syndrome's major clinical features include mental retardation, usually severe; hyperactive behavior, often with an outgoing personality; severe constipation, with or without structural anomalies in the anus such as imperforate anus; macrocephaly; severe hypotonia; and a characteristic facial appearance due to hypotonia, giving a droopy, "open-mouthed" expression, a thin upper lip, and a full or pouting lower lip.


 * Textbooks can be wrong, and this is a good example. Kim certainly did NOT have Autism. His father told me this personally, and Dr Treffort (the foremost authority on Savant Syndrome) makes the statement consistently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.229.138 (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * While I don't know much about FG syndrome, my first clue (apart from the fact that it is not among the autism spectrum disorders in the first place) that it is distinct from autism would be "hyperactive behavior, often with an outgoing personality". That most certainly is not characteristic of autism. My understanding, however limited, of FG syndrome is that it may cause "autistic-like" symptoms. So can being bored out of one's mind (e.g., thumb twiddling); this does not mean, however, that one has autism. Perhaps FG syndrome can be comorbid with autism, but it most certainly is not identical to it and is not regarded as a mere variant of it. Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Den Riktiga Rain Man
From the article about Kim Peek documentaries: "Den Riktiga Rain Man (The Real Rain Man), a Swedish documentary that was aired July 6:th 2006 across the country's channel four (TV-4) TV-station."

Isn't this just a Swedish translation of the documentary mentioned above, not a unique documentary made in Sweden? 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

After death
As Peek had such a unique brain, did he leave it to science after his death? 86.147.160.219 (talk) 18:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Ethnicity
In the article Ben Klassen is was determined that White is not an ethnic group because "White is a racial not an ethnic grouping. The main difference between ethnicity and race is that race is made up of categories into which persons are put by others on the basis of their physical characteristics - ethnicity is group into which one puts oneself because one identifies with its characteristics which are usually cultural rather than physical..." Is the term "White American" an appropriate title for Peek's ethnicity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scochran4 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Supersavant not megasavant
It is not logic to call it megasavant. It's as little logic as calling it kilosavant or terrasavant. In proper language, supersavant is correct. Urbanus Secundus (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The source says megasavant, as does his father, so that is the term used in the article. Beach drifter (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

One eye per page?
I've heard/read but cannot find in print the thought that he read one page with each eye. Is this true? Can it be documented? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.127.246 (talk) 22:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * There are many references on the net confirming it - such as this from Kim Peek's obituary in The Telegraph:
 * "the only savant known to science who could read two pages of a book simultaneously – one with each eye, regardless of whether it was upside down or sideways on. His ability to retain 98 per cent of the information he absorbed led to his designation 'mega-savant'."
 * http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/medicine-obituaries/6867567/Kim-Peek.html
 * A unique ability which should be mentioned in the arctile. Stanley Oliver (talk) 16:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am an ophthalmologist. This claim is nonsense. 91.77.226.142 (talk) 12:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I added it without reading this first. I heard it from his father firsthand and while the "upside down, sideways" seems hyperbolic, that part was not repeated Kim or his father. The speed that I saw Kim read, the distance he held the book from his face, and the 2 different positions of his eyes, I wouldn't disagree with this. Additionally, Kim has been to the best doctors around the world; (I wish some would contribute here) I don't know why a falsehood would be continually perpetuated. 76.106.2.110 (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Agenesis of the corpus callosum
I edited the line stating that it was discovered in 2008 that Kim Peak had agenesis of the corpus callosum. The reference cited was dated 2006, so this could not be possible. Also, in July 2006 Kim Peak was a special guest at the NODCC (National Organization for Disorders of the Corpus Callosum) conference, where it was already well known that Mr. Peak had agenesis of the corpus callosum. This is supported by information provided on the NODCC website (http://www.nodcc.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=42&Itemid=111#2006)

10 minutes to read the Qu'ran?
The article says "He became a Hafiz after reading the Qu'ran in 10 minutes". According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafiz_(Quran), the Qu'ran is approximately 80,000 words long, thus, to read it in 10 minutes you'd have to read 133 words per second. This must be wrong? Maybe 10 hours? I think this should be carefully checked or removed as such implausible figures call into question the accuracy of everything else. 118.92.86.67 (talk) 07:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Even if he did read it that fast, Peek shouldn't qualify as a Hafiz, since, if I'm not mistaken, its not considered a real copy of the Koran unless it's in the original Arabic. I'll be removing this part.Cephalopod (talk) 01:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kim Peek. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080916062059/http://www.wisconsinmedicalsociety.org/savant_syndrome/savant_profiles/kim_peek to http://www.wisconsinmedicalsociety.org/savant_syndrome/savant_profiles/kim_peek
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080916062059/http://www.wisconsinmedicalsociety.org/savant_syndrome/savant_profiles/kim_peek to http://www.wisconsinmedicalsociety.org/savant_syndrome/savant_profiles/kim_peek

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kim Peek. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100512180639/http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_14043625 to http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_14043625

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:55, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Dustin Hoffman's guest at premiere of Rain Man?
I can't enter original research, but there should be supporting articles in the film industry magazines of the day. I read that Dustin Hoffman invited Kim to the opening of the film and arranged for his transportation from Utah to Los Angeles. Does anyone have good access to magazine archives of the era? Many thanks. Rainbow-five (talk) 00:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Kim was survived by his father Fran who died in 2014
Should be mentioned in the article I think, but I don't know if this is a sufficient good source for that.

https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/133906508/francis-elvin-peek 188.194.63.94 (talk) 15:58, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * findagrave is not a reliable source; see WP:RSP. Also, this article is about Kim Peek, not about his father, so I don't think it's important to mention when his father died. CodeTalker (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)