Talk:Stanley Coren

Handedness and mortality
In the version viewed on 9/12/13, the page notes that Coren's work on handedness and mortality has played out in the literature and cites a general psychology textbook as evidence. Unfortunately, this is not how the academic dispute played out, and on that matter the general textbook was simply incorrect in claiming that Coren and Halpern's hypothesis was vindicated.

In fact, the majority of the academic literature presses against Coren and Halpern's hypothesis and has supported the claim that Coren and Halpern's methodology (effectively a case-control design) was confounded by secular trends in the population - specifically changes in the reported prevalence of left-handedness that increased during a certain period among younger persons. This biased a sampling of death records as left-handed persons were more represented among the younger-deceased. Effectively, Coren and Halpern confused the average age of death as evidence for a differential mortality rate. Studies which have looked specifically at death rates for cohorts, a design that is not biased by these issues, often failed to find a mortality effect associated with handedness. This was evident even when Coren and Halpern published in the New England Journal of Medicine and other authors quickly disputed the conclusions, some even citing large cohort studies (specifically, NHANES data and the Framingham study) which found no effect at all. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199110033251412 See also a large study of Swedish conscripts here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8038249 and the Iowa Women's Health Study here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8059772

Furthermore, it's been demonstrated that these suspected differences in underlying prevalence of left handedness can produce effects as large as those observed by Coren and Halpern. http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.83.2.265

I suggest that the claim of Coren's theory playing out favorably and gaining acceptance be removed, given that the literature can most reasonably be summarized as "cohort studies do not show a strong effect of handedness on mortality rate". 128.163.7.150 (talk) 22:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

128.163.7.150 (talk) 22:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Untitled
Wow, this needed extension - glad to do it. I still remember Dr. Coren from first-year psychology - great guy, and well worth being recognized for his work. Tony Fox (speak) 03:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Violation of notability guideline
This article does not meet the guidelines for notability. Please reference: Notability (biographies)

This article will be nominated for deletion unless some demonstrable addition is made to conform to the notability guideline. BeachDog (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You may want to look at the Google Scholar results here; 385 papers and several books including the bestseller "The Intelligence of Dogs" would suggest that he quite easily meets WP:PROF. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Based on the six criteria set forth in WP:PROF, I don't see evidence in this article that Stanley Coren meets those criteria. For example, there are mentions of awards received and widely recognized publications, but no independent references are cited to substantiate those claims. Prolific publication of papers, books, or articles is not sufficient criteria for Notability. My previous comments are based on the article in its current state. I make no claim to be an authority on Stanley Coren's works or his notability. Briantresp (talk) 21:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The fact that he's been written up in numerous newspapers, magazines, etc., and is frequently quoted with regards to his research with dogs, sleep studies, and other issues, fulfills criteria 1. As noted, his books are regularly used as textbooks, and his body of work is significant and well-known, fulfilling criteria 3 and 4. Honestly, his numerous released books through major publishers should clear him neatly. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, the examples you cite are not referenced in the article - nor have you given clear examples here. To fulfill criteria 1 in WF:PROF, please cite multiple examples of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Regarding criteria 3, if his works are regularly used as textbooks, please cite specific, verifiable examples of which books and at what institutions they are used.


 * All that has been posted in this article and in your posts consists of conjecture, direct links to the subject's own works, or reviews that do not meet the minimum criteria for notability. The problem here isn't that Stanley Coren isn't notable. He may very well be. This article just doesn't meet the minimum requirements to be considered encyclopedic. Briantresp (talk) 03:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * One last note is that having published numerous books does not make one notable, and it would also be worthwhile to quantify the term "major publishers". Frankly, I have a colleague who has published many times more books than Stanley Coren, and he's done so through one of the largest publishers in the USA. I wouldn't consider him to be notable, and he doesn't have an article here. Briantresp (talk) 03:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I was asked to have a look, and I think he's clearly notable. Publication of numerous well received works shows recognition in the field, and meets WP:PROF. Routine information about biographic facts can be taken from the persons CV or similar publications,, unless actually challenged as erroneous. (That can in fact happen, tho its very rare--I know of one instance here in the last 2 years regarding academics where I investigated fully and found it was wrong, and the article deleted). If one thinks someone very likely notable, that is exactly was is meant by encyclopedic. The tag when one thinks there are insufficient references is not "notability" but "improvereferences"
 * The article does need some more references: a complete list of his published books, which can be easily found in WorldCat, which is definitive proof of the publication and number of editions of the books, and at least a lower bound to the number of libraries holding them and some mention of his most-cited scientific papers and the extent to which they have been cited, which can be at least approximated in Google Scholar, though if Brian has WebofScience available, he should do it from there to improve the article. (I assume he will help--the WP:Deletion policy is to improve articles, with deletion the last resort. Additional proof of notability for the books is to find and add book reviews--some should turn up in Google Scholar or Google Books, or ask for help from any public or school librarian. But even as is, the article should certainly hold up at Afd.

Brian, if your colleague has published multiple books through major publishers, that person is almost certainly notable, and if you think you can do it without COI, you should certainly add the article on him or her. The absence of an article that should be in WP doesnt prove other articles inappropriate.

For a fuller explanation of some of the factors involved, see in my talk page archives and, since I've been asked about this before. Essentially any academic or other author with major published books can be shown to be notable. Such is widely accepted at AfD--based on my experience there, I cannot imagine an article as strong as this being deleted. The argument that goes there is that the peer reviews that have taken place, and the citations to the articles, and the book reviews, are the secondary sources that prove the notability.

I don't like to have to say it, but the objections here seem related to disagreements with the thesis of the authors work. Although that is of course totally irrelevant, it might be better to include some more specifics about his degrees and positions. DGG (talk) 12:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of criticisms available of Stanley Coren's hypothesis, methodology, and conclusions in The Intelligence of Dogs - if that's what you are referencing. But that is immaterial to the quality of the article and value of its subject as encyclopedic knowledge. The bottom line is that while Wikipedia has established low thresholds of notability, we must still provide adequate support for the information presented. Stating that articles are clearly notable is fine, but if that's so clear, then independent, third-party references should be easy to come by.


 * The primary basis of the claim of notability for Stanley Coren seems to revolve around the anecdotal remarks that he has "major published books" or that his books are used as textbooks. Neither has been proven here. The sales rankings of his books far fall below the threshold to consider them "major", and while one of his books has been cited as required reading in one referenced course, it has not been shown to be the primary text of any coursework. Briantresp (talk) 16:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:BIO states that people are presumed to be notable if they are the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent and independent of the subject. In the article at present, there is a link to the Reader's Digest interview with Coren. Here's a clip from The Early Show featuring him. An article from the New York Times discussing some earlier research that got a lot of coverage. A review of another book from CNN. Here he is on the Science Show, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio program. One of those dreaded reviews from the New York Times on another book. More coverage in The Age. And I could go on, but I have other things to do right now.


 * Yes, none of this is in the article. Yes, it will be in the article when I have the time to work on it some more. I'll happily strip out the contentious issues if necessary (and the reference about the textbook, even if it is just there, as noted, as an example that it is, in fact, being used as course material - I knew it was going to be challenged when I put it there, but thought what the hell), but I think the above should confirm the biographical notability here. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record, this may take a while, as I'm a) on several deadlines in the next week or so, b) attending some conferences, and c) nursing an f'd up back. =P Tony Fox (arf!) 04:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * pls note that notability of a textbook requires use in multiple schools.DGG (talk) 07:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the notability tag from this article. I have added an awards section which includes independently verified fellowships with two major psychological associations, which, by their nature, confer notability. Per guidelines of the Canadian Psychological Assocation: "Fellows shall be Members of the Association who have made a distinguished contribution to the advancement of the science or profession of psychology or who have given exceptional service to their national or provincial associations." and from the Association for Psychological Science: "Fellow status is awarded to APS Members who have made sustained outstanding contributions to the science of psychology in the areas of research, teaching, service, and/or application." - Jcolbyk (talk) 00:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Stanley Coren. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121019035407/http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12717262.800-science-older-mothers-have-more-lefthanded-babies-.html/ to http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12717262.800-science-older-mothers-have-more-lefthanded-babies-.html/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090614092037/http://www.time.com:80/time/magazine/article/0,9171,972749,00.html? to http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,972749,00.html/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121019195638/http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-5531361_ITM to http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-5531361_ITM/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Stanley Coren. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090426015246/http://www.apa.org:80/monitor/2009/01/brain.html to http://www.apa.org/monitor/2009/01/brain.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Website
As stated here; on the stanleycoren.com website, stanleycoren.com is a not owned or run by Stanley Coren. It used to be, but the name was allowed to expire and then bought by an entirely unconnected group of people. His personal website is www.stanleycoren.online. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:06, 30 July 2021 (UTC)