Talk:Oliver Sacks

Pubmed link
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)


 * 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)

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
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)
 * 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)

Copyvio
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. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 04:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


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

criticism
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)


 * I'm still uncomfortable with this issue, and I've raised it at Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard. Criticism of one of his books in a "letter to the editor" of a journal... fine in the article about the book, but WP:UNDUE in the article about the author, IMO.--Father Goose (talk) 03:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * To provide broader context, then, I've added three more sources. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I tweaked the wording a bit to make it clearer that there are only a few people who have criticized Sacks.   I think the bit about the letter to the editor should stay, because this sort of issue is very important to people who really care about the science.  The link wasn't working when I tried it, though. Looie496 (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback; I corrected some punctuation, and commented out the courtesy link to the full text of the journal letter (which can still be found via the journal). I left the links in comments in case they return or show up in the internet archive.  Of course, there is more criticism of his work, but it's not necessary to include all of it, and I don't really want to pay for journal access (Jstor, etc.) just to add a bit more; as long as we've given some coverage of the issues to provide balance, the article is good enough (now that the copyvios are under control).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Sources not included lest anyone is interested in further work on the section:







Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've now added the two that are available online, so we now have two sentences of criticism in the entire article, seven citations. Further additions probably requires subscription access to other journals. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The balance and coverage is quite good now. I appreciate the work you've done very much.--Father Goose (talk) 07:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * With the additional sentence you just added (the spoof), the paragraph seems out of balance to me now. Can someone locate a key positive critical review of his work overall, to re-balance?  Out of time today, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Howzat?--Father Goose (talk) 10:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Better. Because the article is now better balanced in terms of literary and medical/disability criticism, I wouldn't oppose moving the letter to the editor to the book article, if you want to do that. It does create a rather strange flow.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Separately, I must say that I still find the "letter to the editor" out of place in this article. (By the way, the PDF was only temporarily unavailable: .)  All it does is suggest that Sacks may have misremembered details of his interaction with the twins -- "Although I do not doubt... that the report was a basically true story..."  We don't need a sentence highlighting that Sacks made an error in one of his books if this is not a general criticism of his writing.--Father Goose (talk) 10:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * All I can say is that to me as a scientist, the difference between "basically a true story" and "completely a true story" is pretty large. Medical journals generally don't publish letters to the editor lightly.  If there is a consensus to drop the sentence here, I won't fight against it, but my opinion is that this item is important enough to stay. Looie496 (talk) 17:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Then maybe Jbmurray (who edited today) can improve the flow; it's a bit awkward now. I'm fine either way (and thanks for providing the initial Shakespeare source, Jb; I didn't have access to the journal, so couldn't cite it).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've looked at the letter, and agree that this should go. It's really a very minor piece of criticism indeed. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, now that I've got Sandy on board, I'll move it to The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat (actually, it's already there, but I'll reword it). Putting it in the general criticisms section in this article seems to cast a pall over all his work for a relatively small error in one of his books.  It is definitely of interest to the Mistook (heh) article, though.--Father Goose (talk) 20:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, now I've moved it and downplayed it somewhat, it's probably OK to stay. It would be nice to have a more substantive assessment, however, of the medical community's response to his work. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If there were such an assessment, I would support putting in. But in moving the Yamaguchi item to the front of the paragraph, I think its importance was intensified, not downplayed, and now it's been generalized into "criticism by the medical community".  This discussion of it has produced a solid "criticism" section in the article, and for that I'm very happy, but the Yamaguchi letter is not general criticism of Sacks or his writing, and retaining it here seems to compel editors to generalize it in that way, which lurches into WP:UNDUE.  I'll leave it in Mistook, remove it from here.--Father Goose (talk) 20:49, 12 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)


 * Okay, I've read the "reply" letter and re-read the first letter. In the first, Yamaguchi focuses on the fact that Sacks' book of primes could not have been a complete listing of all primes up to 10 digits.  However, Sacks did not claim that he had such a book, just that he had a book of primes that did have any primes larger than 10 digits.


 * In the second letter, Yamaguchi refutes Snyder's response letter to some degree, but still not Sacks. He says that it's up to Sacks to prove that a book of primes was available in 1966; I'd be willing to bet that Sacks had Derrick Norman Lehmer's List of Prime Numbers from 1 to 10,006,721, which contains at least one 8-digit prime and could have easily contained a 10-digit prime in the introduction (see review).  None of this suggests that any aspect of Sacks' account was inaccurate.


 * It does leave the door open that Sacks' account was factually accurate but still misrepresented the twins' number abilities. Yamaguchi addresses this at the end of his second letter, and that's the part that finally turns up something interesting.   None of what's in either letter shows that Sacks was lying, or even necessarily exaggerating, just that the twins' priming ability was not necessarily as exact as Sacks presumed it was based on his limited experience with them.  Thus all that really should be said is not "Sacks lied" or even exaggerated, but maybe that he formed an impression of the twins' abilities that was not quite borne out by subsequent research.  That's a pretty limited criticism -- too limited to belong in Sacks' bio, I think, though it does belong in The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat.--Father Goose (talk) 08:06, 16 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)


 * Hey, let's tone it down a bit -- there's no need for a word like "lied". The question is whether Sacks was sloppy, for example by misremembering 10,xxx,xxx as a 10 digit number.  I haven't seen anything here to indicate deliberate deception. Looie496 (talk) 16:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sacks doesn't even say that the twins spoke a 10-digit number (they leapt from 6 to 9 to 12; he interjected one 8-digit and one 10-digit prime), nor does he explicitly say that he checked anything other than their initial 6-digit primes.--Father Goose (talk) 00:58, 17 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)


 * 9,500 divisions are needed to confirm 10 digit numbers, 3,400 divisions are needed to confirm 9 digit numbers, 1,200 for 8 digit numbers. Sacks says plainly that he couldn't check their 20-digit primes, so any book that says so is wrong through no fault of Sacks.


 * Such details are of interest to the Man Who Mistook article, but turning all this into "Sacks has faced criticism in the medical community" is an overgeneralization. Show me more than one criticism before you can cry "medical community".  Further, since when are Sacks' books "scientific reports"?  They're literary stories about his experiences as a neurologist.  Are you telling me the scientific community doesn't know the difference?  Is that Sacks' fault, or theirs?--Father Goose (talk) 10:24, 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)

Need help
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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

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)


 * 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.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Speech Impedement?
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)
 * 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)

Face blindness?
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)
 * Update here are the sources including one written by Sacks himself:


 * Prosopagnosia is not incredibly rare for those on the autistic spectrum. I can't find the article where Sacks speculatively outs himself as autistic. Worth mentioning if someone can find it, imo. 81.174.157.213 (talk) 02:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Um, the article has said this for some time: "For his entire life Sacks has had a condition known as prosopagnosia or face blindness.Prosopagnosia: Oliver Sacks' Battle with "Face Blindness"." Martinevans123 (talk) 07:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No, he is not Autistic.


 * "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."

- http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/08/30/face-blind


 * Andrea Carter (at your service &#124; my good deeds) 07:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Last night's BBC News at Ten repeated the clip of Alan Yentob showing him large pictures of various quite well-known people - he completely failed to recognise Oprah, Elvis and Barrack. (But then, he was British, I guess.) Martinevans123 (talk) 07:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Man Without Words
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)
 * 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)
 * Should we put in... A Man Without Words (1991) (forward)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huxley1860 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 13 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)


 * 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)

Hallucinations (2012)
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)
 * Now added and has its own article. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

British-American?
"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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Thanks. That seems quite clear at least. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)

Adding to his list of works
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)

Fancruft, here??
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)
 * Is it embarrassing because he's not a rock star? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I doubt he thinks of it as trivia. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I tend to agree. But I'd be interested to see other views on this. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Everything that doesn't interest me is trivial. That would be the 99.999999% of Wikipedia that I have never read. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And on WP we strongly favor consensus and RS to make judgments as to what is trivia and non-trivia, and not on any editor's personal opinion. Choor monster (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 0.04723639 of an article isn't very much, you know. Let's hope it was this one. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Dr Sacks offered details of his private life on Radiolab.
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)
 * 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) (the colour of heaven is quite intriguing).
 * 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)
 * À la Sally Ride I've added the LGBT portal. kencf0618 (talk) 21:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

First cousins
Don't think Lynn is a first cousin; Eban is; Lynn is Eban's nephew. Mwinog2777 (talk) 23:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * A reference was used to validate the comment about Sachs' first cousins. However, the reference, Sachs at Radiolab, only notes that Abba Eban was a first cousin.  Hence, unless we can get a reference stating such, I will add a "citation needed" notation.Mwinog2777 (talk) 03:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Still await reference re' Lynn being a first cousin.Mwinog2777 (talk) 05:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Once again there is a reference to Lynn as a first cousin; it doesn't make the grade; I would ask readers and editors of this page to look at it; it is a mishmash of a family tree with no definitive linearity and simply has branches with names. I note that this same reference was used for calling Rabbi Herzog his grandfather which was absurdly ridiculous and has been taken out.  Similarly we need to take out the statement that Lynn is a first cousin.  He is NOT.  Eban is Sachs first cous; Lynn is Eban's nephew; it is, therefore, impossible for Sachs and Lynn to be first cousins; the reason for the absence of a good reference is that there isn't one in the universe.  I trust that the person who gave the reference did so in good faith, so that rather than taking it out, I would like to further discuss this on this talk page.Mwinog2777 (talk) 00:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * With no discussion, I made a minor edit, I guess no objection.Mwinog2777 (talk) 04:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Is lead's first sentence wrong?
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)


 * He was English. That's a fact. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * He was also a permanent resident of the U.S., which was where he became notable. That's also a fact. --Nbauman (talk) 19:38, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So maybe his residence should be mentioned early on. This doesn't stop him being English. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Permanent residents are not "Americans". An American is someone who holds American citizenship - describing him as a US-permanent resident is fine and good enough. I support Martinevans123 suggestion. How do we know he is a permanent resident anyway? My cousin has lived in the US for 15 years - he has to renew his visa on a regular basis, but he is a full time resident. As long as he has a job, he can just keep renewing it, I believe. But if he lost his job, he'd be kicked out just like that. He's not an American - even if he regarded himself as such it wouldn't change the fact he is legally not in any sense. What was Sack's status? And what was his personal self identification? I believe they should be taken into account. --86.190.145.76 (talk) 20:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This isn't a court of law, it's Wikipedia, which describes people by its clearly-stated guidelines about nationality. He was obviously a non-citizen U.S. national. In 1961, he said, "I declared my intentions to become a United States citizen ...but never got round to it," although that's not a defining detail. In any case, the Biographical Encyclopedia of Scientists and Inventors in American Film and TV since 1930 (2011) titled its article about him as, "British-born American Physician and Author." I suggest we go with that, with a cite if necessary. --Light show (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * He wasn't ever an American. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You don't need legal citizenship to be American or British. A non-citizen national can be whatever they decide. He was certainly American by profession, residency, and choice. There are thousands of immigrants to the U.S. and U.K. who call themselves American or British although not bothering to get citizenship yet. --Light show (talk) 21:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Did he call himself an American? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "You don't need legal citizenship to be American or British" - I humbly disagree, although not with your sentiments in general. They can call themselves what they like, and I have no qualms with that - In fact, I am annoyed when someone highly Americanized (As an example but it is most prevalent in the US) in every way constantly refers to themselves by their previous identity and nationality to avoid or capitalize on certain things - but citizenship is the defining factor here when it concerns the US, at least. And there is no such thing as English citizenship, but it is generally agreed upon that people from the UK can be described in accordance with the home nation they originate from/identify with. I think to Sacks, his nationality and identity weren't particularly important. The way he mentioned his intention to get US-citizenship but "never got around to it" says it all, really.--86.190.145.76 (talk) 21:33, 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 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)
 * He didn't really sound very American to me, even in his 82nd year. Not that that counts for anything, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not an American citizen, not an American - he was English though. It's British you are disputing in actuality... And wait, BBC error!? So the BBC are bound by Wikipedia guidelines!? Seriously? The only way you can claim him as American is over his supposed permanent residency (which is a legal definition - like I said, I have a cousin who's been there for 15 years, and he would be kicked out quickly if he lost his job at BHP, so it makes me wonder) - Although I would concede that the idea of someone residing in a country for so long and not making their immigration status more secure than say, my cousin, would be eyebrow raising for sure...--86.190.145.76 (talk) 21:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Crikey - so while London-born Oliver Sacks is really American, though he never actually bothered to apply for US nationality, apparently some citizens of the USA think their own President, Barack Obama, isn't...! JezGrove (talk) 22:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The BBC article calls him a "British neurologist." But then WP even calls Charlie Chaplin an "English comic actor," when he did 99% of his work outside the U.K. and also left in his 20s. Neither description is correct, and both are misleading. Whether we define him as an American is not the issue. The issue is truth. --Light show (talk) 22:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Misleading they are not - seriously, do British people who go to live and work in the US (as we are dealing with the US) loose their identity and become flag-waving Americans? Ask yourself, honestly. Hardly at all seems to be the case. My cousin does not consider himself to be an American, even after 15 years. His Australian colleagues also. And Canadian. Yes, I am referring to English-speaking countries - those who move to a country that speaks the same language rarely loose their identity. There's no pressure for them to "Americanize". And there's no proof that he was a permanent resident - I really don't understand the problem here. I have already told you the BBC is not bound by Wikipedia rule sets. If Sacks did not wish to be considered British I'm sure he would of said so - and if he wanted to be American I'm sure he would of taken citizenship - which he did not. --86.190.145.76 (talk) 22:36, 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)


 * Funny, it sounded like a British accent to me! :-) All seriousness aside, the obituaries seem to be divided fairly equally between "English", "English-American", "English born", and dodging the issue entirely. But WP guidelines—and common sense—tell us that if he was born in England, and died a British subject ... he's English.  I agree with Guy.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  00:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Charlie Chaplin? American? The 'Land of the Free' couldn't tolerate his politics and revoked his re-entry permit so he couldn't return despite having lived there for decades! JezGrove (talk) 10:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You can’t trust a guy with a moustache like that ... Martinevans123 (talk) 10:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure you can. I've never met a barber I couldn't trust. Have you? --Light show (talk) 19:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Unwanted dictator hair?" Good job you don't live in South Ealing... Martinevans123 (talk) 21:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What I wouldn't trust, however, is someone who trimmed their mustache to look like a famous film star. --Light show (talk) 01:16, 1 September 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)
 * You're saying the word used as the infobox parameter is wrong? I think maybe you ought to open a new topic thread, at Template talk:Infobox medical person, to discuss that. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should scrap "English/British" from the lead and just list him as being a New Yorker? I think that could work, but then again "guidelines" and all that pizzle. --109.149.122.179 (talk) 10:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "lol" .. "you should know the score by now" ... Martinevans123 (talk) 10:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Or an Englishman in New York...!JezGrove (talk) 11:38, 3 September 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)
 * I'm really not sure what the problem is supposed to be that this fixes - the rest of the lead (and the entire article) is extremely clear about the fact that he worked and resided in the US after qualifying in the UK. JezGrove (talk) 18:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * A description such as British neurologist and author wrongly implies that the was living in Britain during his professional career. It shouldn't be necessary to clarify by having people read the rest of the story. It should be made clear prima facie. --Light show (talk) 19:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, such a description correctly states that he was British by nationality. I know attention spans are supposed to be getting shorter, but surely readers can make it as far as the third sentence of the lead! (At least we're in agreement on that spelling :) JezGrove (talk) 19:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I like 's suggestion of "British-born neurologist and author who was educated in London and lived in the U.S. for most of his life". I get that this is spelled out already in the 2nd paragraph of the lede -- but in journalism school they teach you to summarize key facts as early & succinctly as possible. Or at least they used to teach that, a century ago in my cub reporter days...  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  21:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, not so bad, I guess. Maybe "spent his professional life in US" might be better. But the problem is this - "British born" because he was, in fact, British. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * He was also a neurologist. He just wasn't a "British neurologist," since he never worked in Britain. That's why I tried to add his citizenship, to help clarify his status. --Light show (talk) 22:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Good job he wasn't a British brain surgeon, eh? Martinevans123 (talk)
 * Sacks spent his entire 55-year career in the U.S. So only if he got around to it, as he said, by reading up on some history, signing his name, and shaking hands, would he have suddenly become "American?" That photo, btw, would have been taken in Britain had the politicos there given him this instead of this! --Light show (talk) 23:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, the politicos. If only Oliver had worked on British brains - he might have been rich. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, come on -- physicians don't get rich in Britain! But all seriousness aside, he was British, and he was a neurologist, so "British neurologist" doesn't seem unreasonable, especially if we add the rest of it: "British neurologist and author who spent his entire professional life in the United States" -- how about that? (I took out "educated in London" because he was also educated in the US - did his neurology residency in San Francisco - I suppose we could add "educated in London and San Francisco", though that's all in the next paragraph.)  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  23:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No objections. Looks ok to me, thanks Joe. The UK has many notable physicians. Martinevans123 (talk)
 * Yup, I'm happy too - thanks everyone. Of course, there's one notable British medical practitioner that would have made a great case study for Sacks if he'd been born in an earlier age... JezGrove (talk) 08:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Except by then he would have read Frankenstein and decided science was not for him. So he still might have taken one of these and gone West ;) --Light show (talk) 17:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm all good with the new lead as well. Even in death, Sacks will carry on his duty of reclaiming the colonies for the empire from within the belly of the beast! Huzzah! Ahem. Sorry about that... --109.149.122.179 (talk) 17:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Criticism
Is a 2006 Master's thesis, by a non-notable MIT student, a suitable source for the criticism section, even with a quote: Martinevans123 (talk) 18:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It should first have been republished or quoted in a reliable source, not school related. However, I've seen a major U.K. tabloid newspaper publish a criticism about an author, and gave the critic's credentials as simply being a graduate student. WP allowed that source, which effectively defamed a best-selling author as being a fraud in his article. --Light show (talk) 19:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I would support leaving it in, since the source does cite its own sources, internally. But it is one of two citations supporting the exploitation charge, so it could probably be safely removed if there is consensus for that.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  19:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that accepting an unreliable source citing a reliable one gets around the problem. It's still an unreliable source. --Light show (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My opinion, take it out.Mwinog2777 (talk) 14:54, 3 September 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. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If you mean this, I think that's a news item, not an obit. As it's not a newspaper, the BBC doesn't generally do respectable "obits", Unlike, say, The Times, The Guardian, The Independent or  The Telegraph. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I noticed that you removed Kushner's observation—that Sacks's approach was "idiosyncratic and anecdotal"—as "not a criticism". I certainly would have taken it as one.  Sacks responded that he was writing for a lay audience, not other doctors -- but the observation is valid (and sourced) and I would vote for putting it back in, unless you feel strongly about it. (Obviously I didn't feel strongly enough to put it back myself.)  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  21:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Wasn't that Arthur K. Shapiro's comment, reported by Howard Kushner? Although Kushner was writing about Tourette's, I would not object to some or all of Shapiro's comments being restored somewhere, given his preeminence in that field. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right, my mistake. If added back it should probably be rewritten so as not to confuse dullards such as myself. DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  22:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Re: "Howard Kushner's A Cursing Brain?: The Histories of Tourette Syndrome, says Shapiro 'contrasted his own careful clinical work with Sacks's idiosyncratic and anecdotal approach to a clinical investigation'".
 * It's a stretch, IMO, to call that a clear criticism, when someone is comparing, or "contrasting," two writer's styles. Even if it wasn't phrased to be a criticism, it would lack context for Sacks' bio and fit better in Shapiro's. --Light show (talk) 00:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * From a physician's paradigm, "idiosyncratic" and "anecdotal" are the opposite of "careful clinical work" -- that is, synonymous with "casual" and "lazy". And as such, intended as criticism, IMHO. While I do see your point, I would still vote for restoring it as an example of criticism.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  03:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You're probably right, that one doctor describing another doctor's work as "idiosyncratic" and supported by "anecdotal evidence," was intended as criticism. But we can't claim to know what he intended, or even implied. The word idiosyncratic is defined as a "peculiarity," or "anything highly individualized or eccentric," which may have been Sacks' intention. Many writers would consider that label as a tremendous compliment, especially in the age of television.
 * As for his using "anecdotal evidence", as opposed to scientific evidence, that would only be a criticism if he were writing for a medical journal aimed at professionals. But his books were intended for the general reader. You can't have it both ways. What he did is very rare in the field of psychotherapy, and much more difficult than writing in academic jargon for your peers. In any case, taking those few words and redefining them as to imply "casual" or "lazy" is probably wrong, and they could well mean the opposite. But it's not something WP editors can interpret.
 * BTW, the same kinds of criticisms were initially made about Carl Sagan when he popularized astronomy by writing about it for the average reader. His book Cosmos, one of many he wrote, became an award-winning TV series. In a way, what Sagan did for outer space science (example), Sacks has done for inner space. --Light show (talk) 04:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, he was writing for a lay audience, and he succeeded in making incomprehensible medical concepts comprehensible to that audience; no argument there. He performed a tremendous service in the regard (as did Sagan, in astronomy and physics). I'm just saying that Shapiro clearly intended his comments as criticism. Whether the criticism was justified is another matter, but it was criticism, and by all accounts that I've seen, Sacks took it as such. I don't want it "both ways"; I just think, in the interest of WP:NPOV, we should acknowledge that he did have his detractors.  FWIW I'm not one of them; I have all of his books, in first editions, and they are a treasured part of my collection.  I wish I could write like that -- as do many other medical writers of my acquaintance.  I also think that the argument that he "exploited" his patients is ridiculous.  But it doesn't matter what I think; NPOV dictates that we document both sides, yes?  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  05:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I restored the material and rephrased a bit. Feel free to revise it for better clarity. --Light show (talk) 06:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Sacks himself refers to various criticisms in his memoir, On The Move. These can be (I don't say should be) included on that basis.  Criticisms like the three-paragraph review by a mathematician on his writing about the prime-number savants is simply not notable, and depends on claims not in evidence.  All the dross should be removed, and the section might be better under a subheading for reaction or so forth. μηδείς (talk) 22:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with Medeis about Tamaguchi. And I bet his argument was paper thin. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've got just about all of Sacks' works in storage. I may eventually get to it.  If he says he had a book of all such primes, the criticism can stand.  If Sacks says he had a book listing such primes, the criticism fails. As I said, Sacks himself mentions a lot of criticism in his own memoirs, such as ffrom one of his Tourete's patients.  That can stand give Sacks himself felt it needed to be answered. μηδείς (talk) 23:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Japanese name WRONG
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)
 * Have now unlinked, thanks. Sacks not notable for his origami. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Dubious statement
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)
 * 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)


 * 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)

CV discrepancy
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)
 * I tried rephrasing the details. --Light show (talk) 03:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

English
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)

Uncited material in need of citations
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)

Career
...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.

Synopsis
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.

Personal life
Sacks' eldest brother Marcus also had prosopagnosia.

UK vs US language confusions
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. 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)


 * 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)

Articles listed under bibliography
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)