Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hippocampal theory of consciousness


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Hippocampal theory of consciousness

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

per WP:PROMO, WP:COI and WP:FRINGE. The article was written by, and is about a theory by, Ralf-Peter Behrendt, who did not disclose his COI. Also, the theory has no consensus within the field. There is a paper, written in response to his theory which says 'Where Behrendt’s and our models diverge is in our hypothesis that neurotypical subjective experience (NSE) does not take place within the hippocampus itself. We, like Behrendt, see the hippocampus as an experience generator, the node in which ‘news-worthy’ information from around the brain is bound together into a comprehensible memory. But we assert that the hippocampus is only capable of creating a complex coded output, the episodic memory engram, but that the event of experiencing that new memory must happen elsewhere.'

and further

'Behrendt’s proposed role for CA3 sounds like such a cul-de-sac, and thus seems implausible.'

Response to ‘Hippocampus as a wormhole: gateway to consciousness’ (PDF Download Available). Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319212843_Response_to_%27Hippocampus_as_a_wormhole_gateway_to_consciousness%27 [accessed Feb 19 2018]. David. moreno 72   07:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 08:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 08:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * In its current state, this article rather ticks me off; it's a deliberately misleading treatment, in that it represents a disputed minority view as "the facts". Given the CIO issues noted, that's not surprising. I would suggest a partial merge (being discussed here) since there clearly exists some discussion in proper scientific channels, and with appropriate caveats this should provide some useful content within the larger topic. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Response to the above: the paper from which these quotes were taken: ... 'Where Behrendt’s and our models diverge is in our hypothesis that neurotypical subjective experience (NSE) does not take place within the hippocampus itself. We, like Behrendt, see the hippocampus as an experience generator, the node in which ‘news-worthy’ information from around the brain is bound together into a comprehensible memory. But we assert that the hippocampus is only capable of creating a complex coded output, the episodic memory engram, but that the event of experiencing that new memory must happen elsewhere.' and further 'Behrendt’s proposed role for CA3 sounds like such a cul-de-sac, and thus seems implausible.'

... did not in fact contain an explicit discussion of previously published articles on the role of the hippcampus; it only referenced one of the later papers (the Frontiers article), but did not in any way deal with the content of that paper or the arguments for the theory proposed. I strikes me as possible that the Article for deletion suggestion came from the authors of that article from which these quotations were taken (Whiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Cognitive Science). I did discuss in two Editorial commentaries in that journal the 'cul-de-sac' objection specifically and also the idea that 'the experience of the new memory must happen elsewhere' specifically, but no mention of this is being made here. I did acknowledge the existence of this alternative view point in the Wikipedia article, as you can see. I invite everybody who wants to support deletion of the Wikipedial article to try and read the Faw and Faw paper (from which the references where taken) and the Editorial Commentaries dealing with that paper (in the same issue).

I don't think that removal of this Wikipedia article is justified on the basis of the above quotations taken selectively from an article that otherwise makes no mention of (and did not critically discuss [as you will find when reading that article in Whiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Cognitive Science, referenced and acknowledged nevertheless in the Wikipedia entry 'Hippcampal theory of consciouness']) the preexisting and multiply peer-reviewed (in higher impact journals) hippocampal theory of consciousness that fits well with a large body of evidence concerning hallucinations, dream imagery, anticipatory imagery and other forms of conscious experience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.226.152.202 (talk) 10:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC) — 195.226.152.202 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Ralf-peter b (talk • contribs).

The request for removal of the 'hippocampal theory of consciousness' article seems to be coming from authors of a rival theory that has less support in the scientific community and that is more philosophically (speculatively) argued than based on relevant scientific evidence. The request for removal, in my view, is biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.226.152.202 (talk) 10:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC) — 195.226.152.202 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Ralf-peter b (talk • contribs).


 * Regarding the other concern raised by those who want remove the article, the authorship of the theory outlined in the Wikipedia article is made very clear by explicitly referencing the theoretical aspects of the overall description. The article is identified as a theoretical piece, and any theory will have had somebody who first proposed it (those references to serious journals dating back to 2010, whereas the alternative, rather idiosyncratic (and certainly not accepted in any recognized 'field' [as was implied in the justification for removal]) theory of hippocampal simulation of reality was published without explicit discussion of the preceding work in 2016 (nevertheless it was afforded a subsection in the Wikipedia article, where the critical differences mentioned by the advocates for removal were actually pointed out). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.226.152.202 (talk) 11:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)  — 195.226.152.202 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Ralf-peter b (talk • contribs).


 * The idea of merger is being discussed separately, and the majority view, when I last checked, was against such merger. If already the accepted article on 'Hippocampal theory of concsiouness' 'ticks someone off' and causes them to declare it 'deliberately misleading treatment', then the reasons for such sentiments could be given on the relevant talk page. As is looks to me, the person who felt 'ticked off' by the article and called it a misleading treatment and disputed minority review is biased by pursuing his own theory, which in itself is not even reflecting a minority view and is rather patched together and vulnerable to criticism from multiple angles, as pointed out in a more moderate and diplomatic language in the Editorial Commentaries on their theory published alongside. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralf-peter b (talk • contribs) 11:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Please let me request the continued existence of the article 'Hippocampal theory of consciousness' on grounds of the apparently dubious motivation behind the request for its removal and on grounds of the importance of the contribution to the ongoing and so far frustrating search for the neural correlate of consciousness, which is a topic of keen interest among neuroscientists and philosophers alike.Ralf-peter b (talk) 11:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. It's very clear that this is WP:promotion of one person's theory by that one person, and Wikipedia does not tolerate promotion. My previous suggestion of a merge to Consciousness has been met with some reasonable objections, and I now think that deletion is the better option. That should of course not prevent any non-connected editor from including referenced discussion of this theory in existing pages according to the WP:weight that it merits. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * If you look at the article, it does much more than promoting a particular theory. The theory bit is only a small part of what should be an instructive article on hippocampal function, drawn from multiple authoritive sources. It offers some elegant integration, if you are familiar with the hippocampus and the debates about its functions. Furthermore, an alternative theory on the role of the hippocampus in consciousness is explicitly acknowledged and given a separate section, which my well be extended for the sake of balance. Novel theories that are recognized in reputable journals should be reflected in Wikipedia, I dare to suggest, therefore please do not delete. And let's hear what others have to say please.195.226.152.202 (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC) — 195.226.152.202 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — 195.226.152.202 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Ralf-peter b (talk • contribs).


 * Also, a distinction should be made between the promotion of opinion pieces, propaganda or self-promotion, on the one hand, the promotion of scientific theories that have gone repeatedly through rigorous peer review processes and have been published in reputable science journals. Therefore I would like to dispute that what we are dealing with here is a clear case of WP:promotion.Ralf-peter b (talk) 17:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Tend towards delete. (1) The theory is novel and as a tertiary source, Wikipedia should be careful with adding novel theories that have not (yet) gained mainstream recognition. (2) There is a lack of scientific papers endorsing the theory. This may be due to the newness of the theory, or because the theory has severe problems. We cannot know at this moment in time and therefore should not publish on the theory for now (but I think labelling this is fringe theory (WP:FRINGE) is too harsh, (3) The introduction of the theory by a main author in the field does indeed cause conflict of interest concerns WP:COI (and has some element of self promotion - see WP:Promo). The case that the theory were indeed notable and important would be much better made by an editor with no relation whatsoever to Ralf Peter Behrendt. Altogether I see an article that does little harm in itself but also adds little to nothing in the current form. Arnoutf (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * If the theory had severe problems it would not have been published in the type of journals it was published. It is relatively new (first publications in form of book of chapters actually predating 2010, if I remember rightly) but we all know that new theories tend to be shunned especially if they purport to deal with an issue of major importance and try to fill an important gap in our knowledge. I know this sounds somewhat grandiose, but if you look at the referenced papers you will find that the case is carefully argued and based on a vast array of evidence from behavioral neuroscience, neurophysiology, and biological psychiatry. I disagree that it 'adds little to nothing' to the debate (and I am surprised a little by the brushing-aside language used in this debate generally). Rather, it brings a new perspective to a debate that has made little or no progress over the last 20 years. I wish an expert in the field of consciousness research or in hippocampal matters would have an unbiased look at the entry. Thus far I get the impression that deletion is seen as the easiest option, one that does not require much reflection. It is generally easier to ignore somebody than to look at the issue in its own right and try and give it some justice.195.226.152.202 (talk) 19:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC) — 195.226.152.202 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Ralf-peter b (talk • contribs).
 * As I said above. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, making it somewhat slow on the adaptation of new scientific insights. Since about 2.5 million scientific papers are published each year, and since many academics build a coherent set of papers on a topic, the simple fact that there are papers is not enough to judge value. Not even if one of these publications is in a journal with a high impact. It is simply not the remit of Wikipedia to judge quality or relevance of topics based on its contents - that is the job of the (so far missing) secondary sources endorsing the theory. As tertiary source we really need these endorsements of the theory. If you think this theory should be included just make sure substantial support in the broader field appears in ranking scientific journals. Once that is done Wikipedia should be happy to include the theory. (PS note that in the past accusations of "rival theorists" and "Wikipedia shuns new ideas" have often been indicators of editors trying to push a fringe point of view into the project - so in my view these arguments do any case more harm than good). Arnoutf (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia lags the literature; it does not lead. Deletion isn't "the easiest option"; it's the only one compatible with policy. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Please do not delete This article is informative and introduces the reader to one of several extant theories on the nature of consciousness. It is logically constructed, well referenced and cites alternative points of view on the subject. As such, in my opinion, it provides a service to the public and should not be deleted. I believe the article could benefit from making the manner of presentation more accessible to non-specialist audience, but I see no grounds for outright deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.99.175.226 (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I extended coverage of the alternative, more recent theory on the link between hippocampus and consciousness, which was proposed by authors who appeared to have initiated this discussion about a possible deletion of this (previously accepted) Wikipedia article (please see the first several lines on top of this debate). I hope that I have thereby provided the article with greater balance and rendered it a fair reflection of the present debate about the role of the hippocampus in consciousness. I hope this will convince the initiators of the move for deletion and others that the article should be kept alive.Ralf-peter b (talk) 08:17, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment The first line of WP:YFA is 'Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and our mission is to share accepted knowledge to benefit people who want to learn.' (my emphasis). As it stands, it would appear that this theory is not accepted knowledge. It would appear to be the theory of one person. It doesn't matter how brilliant that person is, or how many papers or books that person has published. What matters is that it is widely accepted within the scientific community. At present, the article does not cite any other publications that specifically, and unambiguously, endorse the theory. The attempt to 'balance' the article is counter-productive, as it only further emphasises the lack of acceptance within the scientific community.


 * What I find rather distasteful in this discussion is the attempts to smear me with unsubstantiated, and to be frank, quite ridiculous accusations of bias or a conflict of interest. I do not have a 'rival theory', nor am I an author of any publications. I simplify cited a response to one of the authors papers as an example of the lack of consensus towards the subject. I do not 'endorse' any of the competing theories. On the other hand, it is the author, Ralf-peter b, who has failed to disclose his WP:COI.


 * I came across this article in the AfC process. I declined it twice, first for reading like an essay, and then second, for WP:FORUM, WP:PROMO and WP:COI. So per WP:FORUM, it says 'Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information', and 'Wikipedia can report your work after it is published and becomes part of accepted knowledge'.


 * So after it was rightfully declined, the author, ignoring the html comment 'Do not remove this line!', removed my comment, and without declaring his conflict of interest, resubmitted the article. Yes it was accepted, but this does not give full endorsement of the suitability of the article. Any article created may be subjected to a deletion discussion. Once I saw that this article was being discussed as a possible merge candidate at Talk:Consciousness, I felt it necessary to raise the possibility of deletion for the numerous policy violations. This was later supported, and so I nominated the article for deletion.


 * I also notice that one of the participants of this discussion, IP 195.226.152.202, was rather unsuccessful in adding the theory to the Consciousness and Hippocampus pages, and was actually admonished with 'the sources quoted by this anonymous user are mainly from one person, which is not desirable, indeed rather suspicious. Also the other sources do not see to confirm the hippocampus as the source of self consciousness, or of consciousness itself.' Also at Talk:Consciousness there was 'There are two basic problems with the material: (1) it is not written neutrally (see WP:NPOV); (2) it is not notable enough to belong here.' and 'Fully agree. For such a complex and much discussed topic we should cover the main approaches and not spend too much (if any) space on novel theories supported and developed by only few scientific authors. Also I agree the tone of writing is more like a persuasive pitch than a neutral presentation and for that fact alone the text would not be acceptable.' The IP was also warned about violating WP:3RR. Then at the same time of this kerfuffle Ralf-peter b appears with the Hippocampal theory of consciousness draft. (and being an active AfC reviewer, came across my desk) This can't simply be a coincidence, and so it would appear that there is some form of sock puppetry or undisclosed close association involved. Either way, it's very suspicious.


 * So, to those participants with 'skin in the game'. If you wish for this article to survive, you must demonstrate that the article does not violate WP:NOR, WP:COI and WP:FORUM. This is done by, and I quote 'Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources.'. So first off, remove all of the references to Ralf-Peter Behrendt's publications. (this would satisfy WP:COI). Next, provide university level textbooks (or other similar secondary sources) and published papers written by other established and reputable researchers that explicitly endorse or have expanded upon the theory. If you are unable to follow these directions, then the article will continue to violate Wikipedia policies and must be deleted. Thank you David. moreno 72    01:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Response to detective david.moreno72: 'Ralf-Peter Behrendt's publications' are reliable, published secondary sources, published in reputable journals and peer-reviewed and endorsed by specialists in the field of behavioural neuroscience! There is nothing in the preceding extensive polemic that deals with the content of the article itself, nothing that suggests that david.moreno72 is in a position to evaluate the content of the article or has even read it carefully. Let us please ask the person who kinldly accepted the article in the first place to have a look at this debate and offer a comment!


 * Yes, versions of the article were initially unsuccessfully included into broader topics ('consciousness' and 'hippocampus'), but but this should not be seen as a 'crime' and held against someone who had never before tried to contribute to wikipedia (and who had at that point no knowledge of any of the rules or conventions and what constitutes a 'violation' of such rules and conventions). In any event, I accept it better stands on its own. In an ongoing process of improvement, the article has become more balanced and there is only a small portion within the overall article that hinges on references to Behrendt, although this is a crucial portion. The overwhelming majority of the space is devoted to referenced factual information that is widely accepted but that may not yet have been seen and appreciated in this context.


 * With regards to the issue of bias, it seemed to me that authors of the quotations on top of this discussion or someone closely associated with them have initiated this motion for deletion. These are quotations that I personally know and that someone concerned with policing Wikipedia  doesn't just happen to come across. This discussion was clearly initiated as a polemic against a theory established in the literature, although not widely known, rather than as a technical criticism of the article itself (please go back to the beginning of this debate and have a look). The conflict of interest issue was already being dealt with separately (an acknowledgment of authorship has now been added as the first reference in the article). Again, summarising a scientific theory that has been in the literature since before 2010 (including some book chapters in authoritative volumes) should not be readily confused with promotion of personal interest.


 * But as it happens, the articles from which those quotations are taken are precisely the ones that have explicitly endorsed or expanded on the theory, despite the appearance of disagreement given by the quotations themselves (see Faw and Faw's paper quoted in the article and a closely related one in the same issue of the same journal). I hope somebody other than david.moreno72, who is rather heavily involved in the fight against my humble contribution to an area of wide scientific and philosophical interest (a contribution that has been quoted more widely in the literature than just Faw and Faw's articles), will make the ultimate decision as to whether this article should remain or not. Can I ask who will make the decision (will it be those with 'skin in the game' or those who have a specific interest in the topic)? And when will it be made?Ralf-peter b (talk) 07:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


 * PS to response to david.moreno72: How can you call for all references to Behrendt's articles to be deleted, if a hippocampal theory of consciousness only came into being and entered the scientific debate through my writings? I included into the article a new reference to Howard Eichenbaum's latest and sadly last paper (2017) which too points to a link between episodic memory and the experience of time and space, further supporting the ideas outlined in my 2013 Frontiers paper, in particular.Ralf-peter b (talk) 11:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Response to Ralf-peter b. May I remind you of the Wikietiquette when contributing to deletion discussions at WP:AFDEQ, specifically 'Avoid personal attacks against people who disagree with you; avoid the use of sarcastic language and stay cool.' and 'Do not make unsourced negative comments about living people. These may be removed by any editor.'.


 * First, Ralf-Peter Behrendt's publications' are not secondary sources, they are primary. Please read WP:USEPRIMARY. Second, your unsubstantiated accusation that 'that authors of the quotations on top of this discussion or someone closely associated with them have initiated this motion for deletion' is totally baseless. So how is it that 'someone concerned with policing Wikipedia doesn't just happen to come across', actually come across such quotations. One word. Google. This might come as a surprise, but I have reviewed over 8,000 AfC's and have over 60,000 edits to Wikipedia. Before reviewing a complex subject I will take the time to not only read the AfC, but look at the web presence of the contributors and research the topic by searching Google Scholar.


 * In regards to WP:COI, the method of disclose is detailed at WP:DCOI. I notice that it is only today that you have decided to disclose your COI, but still, without the proper template. Thank you David. moreno 72    13:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Response to that response by David.moreno72: The 'detective' bit was meant humorously (not sarcastically), sorry if offence was caused. Thank you for clarifying how you came upon those quotes, but if you read the articles themselves (two of them), you will see that Faw and Faw endorse and develop the original idea, just as you require. Insofar as there are differences of view, those were addressed and clarified in Editorial commentaries published alongside their papers (and touched upon in the article under scrutiny). I still have a feeling though that those quotes were utilised by yourself specifically to cast doubt on the theory, not to point out violations of wikipedia policies. In any event, the article was changed in response to those very quotes, as you will have seen in the last section covering the Faw and Faw source.


 * Those referenced papers of mine I regard as secondary rather than primary sources because they are review articles that summarise and tie together a large body of hitherto scattered evidence that points to a critical role of the hippocampus, in general, and of CA3, in particular, in the production of hallucinations, dreams, internal imagery - all varieties of conscious experience. Thank you too Ralf-peter b (talk) 14:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


 * (PS: With regards to the reminder not to 'not to make unsourced negative comments about living people', I hope this did not refer to me having said 'his sadly last paper', because sadly indeed Professor Eichenbaum, the visionary scientist who clarified the role of the hippocampus in the formation of memories [codes] of events as they happen, passed away recently.)


 * (one last PS: I feel silly now for having allowed myself to believe [on the basis of those quotations used as a rationale for deletion] that the motion for deletion of this article was initiated by Faw and Faw. My sincerest apologies to Faw and Faw! I always had constructive and fruitful discussions with Matt Faw in particular and I am grateful to him for those!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralf-peter b (talk • contribs) 16:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


 * comment on the above (sorry for disrupting the timeline). Ralf-peter b please be informed that tying together a large body of evidence, is literature synthesis, which is perfectly fine scientific practice. But it also involves a creative act in bringing forth a new theory which does make those conclusions primary. Arnoutf (talk) 10:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


 * David.moreno72, please notice that the article is not called "The final truth on the hippocampus and consciousness," it is called "Hippocampal theory of consciousness." It presents valuable information and an elegant set of arguments that enrich the field of neuroscience and contribute to the discussion of this very poorly understood subject. Therefore, as I mentioned in my previous post here, it does a service to the public, which Wikipedia should support, not suppress. I read various Wikipedia articles all the time, and many of them are full of mistakes, tendentious presentation of the subject, cherry-picking of the sources, or the use of incomplete or unreliable sources. And they all happily survive and thrive under your editorship. Why this useful article on the hippocampal theory of consciousness is singled out for deletion is beyond my ken. I would recommend to take a step back, let the article be, and allow the actual specialists in the field gradually to weigh in by editing it or commenting on it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.99.175.226 (talk) 15:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Reply to 67.99.175.226. Please read WP:OTHERCONTENT, WP:VALUABLE. The main argument against the article is not that it's a theory, but that it's a theory that does not appear to have widespread support within the scientific community, and most importantly, does not appear to be notable. At present, the leading theory is Integrated information theory, and yes, it is not perfect and there are criticisms, but it is most definitely notable. Any theory of consciousness will need to be ambitious, and will have it's detractors, but before it's inclusion in Wikipedia, there should at least be references in textbooks (ie. secondary sources), perhaps an entry in 'The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy' and mentions in more broadly scientific journals such as Nature or Scientific American. All of which has happened for Integrated information theory, but not for Hippocampal theory of consciousness. So, when it is comfortably demonstrated that the theory easily satisfies WP:N, then yes, Wikipedia should have an article about it. Until then, no. Thank you David. moreno 72    04:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . This should serve as a suitable summation of most of the expansive back-and-forth above. The article gives undue, and insufficiently critical, prominence to a "newcomer" theory. Which is desirable and indeed vital in scientific discourse, but not in a general encyclopedia. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. I tried to remove some of the WP:COI sources, but I'm just not finding appropriate WP:MEDRS/WP:SCIRS secondary coverage. None of the seemingly independent secondary sources even use the term. This appears to be promotion by the author of the term (who is much too close to be writing the article) as a WP:NEOLOGISM. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.