Talk:Siddhartha Mukherjee

citation style
since some of the references were cited in the cite.php style and others were not, i'm in the process of changing them all to that format for the sake of consistency. please don't be alarmed if you find them only partially done, as it's an ongoing process (although feel free to jump in if you'd like to!) &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ok, done now! &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Question
Which of all Rochesters stands in this article? --Олег-літред (talk) 14:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Email Address Needed
Understandably, Mr. Mukherjee needs his privacy. And I'm sure he has support staff to see to that. They could perhaps screen the emails that would be sent. We could all use a more visible email address with which to write to this intelligent man. 100.36.152.218 (talk) 02:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Fred Lane Burke, VA gridlane@yahoo.com

Changes to improve and tighten the criticisms and to place these in the broader context of the work.
I am a science editor and web maintainer from Seattle interesting in the history of gene therapy, the genetics of “intelligence”, eugenics and epigenetics.

I noticed that “Siddhartha Mukherjee” (whose book The Gene I am using for content generation) has a Wiki entry that was recently “rehauled” extensively and reorganized, adding new sections and adding content. The principal purpose of this seems to have been to add a “Criticism” section to the Wiki-page.

While it is perfectly valid, and even useful, to add “criticisms” to a biography page, it is quite unusual. Contrast with no such section for Richard Dawkins, say, or Salman Rushdie or Yuval Harari or Steven Pinker). This makes me wonder about the motivation for this section.

The section seems to have been “cherry picked” from reviews, and there is no area for correction or response. This seems manifestly unfair – especially since the area of IQ and intelligence is widely and broadly disputed in the scientific literature. A WIKI reader is left with the impression that these reviews are correct in their assertions. Furthermore, the previous section needed wide grammatical and content changes in organization. Please note that I have made a very “good faith” attempt to retain the original language of the editor; however, I believe this section is greatly improved in content and organization.

As a science writer and editor, once I had read the entries, I made changes to improve and tighten the criticisms and to place these in the broader context of the work. I changed the title to Criticism and Response (which is more fair).

These included the following:

Minor grammatical changes (“But Darwin had no idea on gene”) were corrected. Long copyrighted quotes from the New Yorker were edited and removed, but the main text was retained. The section was organized into four main points to prevent run-on points. Some confusing scientific points (“he asserts that gene function (epigenetic factors)” are…) were deleted because they are confounding and incorrect (gene function and epigenetic factors are not the same, of course. “Epigenetic factors” can influence gene function, along with multiple other influences, but the ) Finally, broadly disputed points were highlighted to present a more accurate description (e.g., there is not universal agreement that IQ is a generally accepted measure of intelligence, nor is there broad consensus that histone modifications lack an impact on heritable variations in gene expression. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary, which I added into the references). The section has been relabeled “Criticism and Responses” to ensure balance.

However, all these changes were immediately reverted for unclear reasons.

I would like to determine the background for the initial change and the suggested reversion. Therefore, I am reopening the discussion to ensure that the section is balanced and accurate in the context of our understanding of genes and the future of genetic therapies and our understanding of the complexities of IQ and intelligence measurement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Well attenuated (talk • contribs) 19:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello. You may note that the "principal purpose of" my edits was not to cricitise. In fact if you have the time to spare checking through the revision history, you will see that I have rewritten, formatted, expanded, supplied citations "extensively"; and "criticism" was only the final part.


 * You have not "greatly improved in content and organization" the criticism section. What you did was removing sourced content, adding format (linking) error, improper citation, and incorporating your original idea. You actually removed the only cited response. These are all forbidden by Wikipedia policies (see WP:Citing sources, WP:MOS, WP:Original research).


 * You also removed the text surrounding The New Yorker story, including the quote. This is actually the origin of the criticism story, hence, vital. Quote from copyrighted source is allowed as long it is kept minimal, relevant to the case and properly credited (see Non-free content).


 * This is not the place to argue for the importance of epigentic factors or the validity of IQ test. What was mentioned was the statements made from verifiable sources, and not my opinion. And you should not add yours either (see WP:OR). Making one's own argument is prohibited (see Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point).


 * Hence, your edits will never be a "balanced and accurate" treatment. Moreover, you added "the conservative English magazine" to The Spectator, which will be treated a biased description, and not acceptable (see Neutral point of view). You also added "that these changes [histone modification] are not heritable", attributing the statement to Mark Ptashne, which has no foundation. These are not the marks of good faith edits. Chhandama (talk) 06:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Dear Chhandama,


 * Your points are well taken. Removed some of Well Attenuated opinions and shortened and organized this section into main points. Criticisms of a book or its excerpts are too long and far too detailed for a general page on an author, and should be condensed into main points, without running into multiple paragraphs. When the critique gets in obscure biology, it is necessary to condense.


 * If sections like this were the general rule and appended to every book, every author’s page would be filled with selected critiques, reviews and excerpts. This is too long for a general page on a writer and of little interest to a general reader on a biographical page -- only salient points need to be captured. Particular concerns and discussion should be redirected to WIKI page on the book. However, I have made a "good faith" attempt to replicate your language and capture your main points. Since your main points have been captured and your language has been used, I hope we will refrain from "edit warring". We cannot keep reverting to our own prior edits without editorial compromise and synthesis, as encouraged by Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.145.202.35 (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok, I accept these edits as a reasonable solution to prevent "edit warring". Agree that a condensed section is more useful to a general reader Well attenuated (talk) 15:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)Well_Attenuated


 * You are talking to yourself! I suspect that 63.145.202.35 and Well attenuated are the same. Editing from multiple accounts (IPs) to make one's argument is a serious violation of Wikipedia policy (see Sock puppetry). If you can add info or improve the article, you are welcome. But you are more disruptive than constructive. I'll repeat: do not delete a sourced content, and do not alter standard formats (italic, quote). Chhandama (talk) 03:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)