Talk:Robert Lanza

A source

Here is an article about Robert Lanza:

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/medtech/0,72910-0.html?tw=wn_index_23

Critique section

WHOA! I am just an ordinary editor like you... not a point of authority.

The wp:criticism article is not a rule to be enforced, but simply a guide... it may be that the criticism section should stay. In any event, please stop stomping one another's edits and talk.- sinneed (talk) 15:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

At the top of the article, "This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion."- sinneed (talk) 15:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Now, beyond that, you are as a group wp:edit warring. Rather than tossing out one another's work, please consider integrating the too-long quotes into the section on Biocentrism.- sinneed (talk) 15:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

During this break from editing while the article is protected

Please consider and discuss compromise that might meet the requirements of the various editors.

• Should the quotes be included at all?- sinneed (talk) 02:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Should they be shortened?- sinneed (talk) 02:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• I encourage consideration of a section for the work on biocentrism, and include the criticism of that work there... perhaps in a subsection on on "reception" which has certainly not been uniformly negative.- sinneed (talk) 02:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• What other ideas might make whatever edits you oppose less objectionable?- sinneed (talk) 02:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I have reintroduced the referenced, critical quotes regarding Lanza’s controversial “Theory of Everything”. These statements on the plausibility and value of Lanza’s recent article and book are from eminent authorities (2 physicists & a philosopher) who have very high reputations themselves. I believe it important to retain the full quotes (especially the one by Lindley) for full context so readers can appreciate the critique. Clearly these experts each take the view that Lanza has embarrassed himself by stepping outside his field of qualification. Countervailing statements defending Lanza can also be added in the section for a “balanced” view. Dogwood123 (talk) 14:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's disputable that this criticism exists. However, it is too long. I recommend shortening that quote up considerably, and maybe striking the last Dennett part. That might be acceptable to all editors. Tan | 39 14:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Dennett is probably the most eminent intellectual of the three. I suggest all the quotes stay. "Balance" if you will.... 140.139.35.250 (talk) 15:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC) I also think "merging" & doing away with the "Criticism" section would be a mistake. Many less controversial people have "Criticism" sections. It's no great disgrace... 140.139.35.250 (talk) 15:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I can understand about the Dennett bit. However, the main, long quote is just simply too long for an article of this size or even of a person of this notability scope (if that makes sense). It needs to be summarized, or shortened to 1-2 sentences. Tan | 39 15:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

For wp:BALANCE I perhaps a + reaction from a prominent physicist? And how about an "interesting but time will tell" from one? We have 1 medicine positive, 2 x physics negative, 1 x philosophy negative. This seems a bit imbalanced. On the other hand, we start off with a Medical Nobel positive... which skews a bit the other way. *shrug* Just thoughts- sinneed (talk) 16:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Proposed wording. Shortened the long quote. Please consider simply adding the long quote back, rather than restoring the criticism section... but that quote is way too long. Surely the key bits can be summarized?
• I propose a section for "Biocentrism" - If his theory is correct, I think it will be much more important than the cell work. If not, then not. I doubt we will know in our lifetimes.- sinneed (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with a philosophy that says one must *always* balance a discourse with 2 for, 2 against, etc ,etc... There is such a thing as one side prevailing in an argument when it has the best points ... That said, I think a good balaance has now been struck with the existing "Pubs" section (although I personally would prefer that the "Criticism" section stay). (Beware edit warriors!) Dogwood123 (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, that didn't last long, did it.... Dogwood123 (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I strongly recommend everyone give this a break - one postive quote and one negative quote. Regener (talk) 17:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as the Dennett quote, it was previously pointed out that Lanza and Dennett have publicly criticized each others theories. It would be inapproapriate to quote this feud out of context (and adding that in here would be too much). This is not the place for a pissing match between different philosophies. Surely you can find other forums to get your views across (the "Robert Lanza" Wiki page is not the most suitable site for this) Regener (talk) 17:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I propose (as was done before) 3 positive quotes to "balance" the 3 negatives. I don't know that there's any "feud" between Lanza & Dennett. Just a professional disagreement (in an area where Dennett is the established expert). Dogwood123 (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Enough, all of you - you all accuse each other of edit warring but fail to realize you are doing it yourselves. Page protected for two weeks. Tan | 39 17:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

During this 2nd break from editing

Please make proposals, offer thoughts and continue to communicate. I do think a bit more positive presentation, and perhaps NOT having the Medicine Nobel guy 1st, and a section for this issue that is clearly important at least to some WP editors.- sinneed (talk) 18:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• My reasoning in arguing the Nobel laureate not be 1st is that the Medical Nobel prize carries HUGE respect, and gives wp:undue weight to his opinion about Physics.- sinneed (talk) 19:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Edited:Cap for medical, italics for medical and physics --- sinneed (talk) 22:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• My reasoning in arguing the other side of that... that there should be at least a positive physics opinion... is for wp:BALANCE. I agree, we don't have to have identical numbers of plus and minus. I also oppose quotes so long they need blockquotes... wp:undue and just plain ugly.- sinneed (talk) 19:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Both the Medical Nobel and the Physics Nobel are way prestigious, no doubt, but my take would be that a Medical Nobel laureate weighing in on a matter pertaining to physics/metaphysics/cosmology could suggest someone getting out of their depth (like Lanza himself!). It has less credibility. As to finding a "positive physics opinion", good luck... That may be hard to come by. (Although there is the Johns Hopkins prof's quote about political correctness.) On blockquotes being ugly: Aesthetics will always be subjective. I rather like them. Dogwood123 (talk) 14:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• You have restated my point well on the Nobel... his Medical Nobel lends his physics statements weight in readers' minds (IMO). Putting his comment 1st, again IMO, adds even more weight.
• I agree about block quotes... clearly subjective and many many people dearly love them. One argument beyond aesthetics sometimes go like this: For argument - using a block quote avoids breaking up the text, the quote is easy to skip to get to the real article. Against argument - yes but it makes the quote stand out, and may lend wp:undue weight to it.- sinneed (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Two other points on the present state of the article: (1) The 2007 "biocentrism" article is mentioned, but not the 2009 book. That should be fixed. (2) The current laconic "A says X, B says Y, & C says Z" presentation is rather stark & without context. Maybe a preliminary sentence that states that the "theory" has proven controversial could be put there... Dogwood123 (talk) 14:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with both.
• Maybe something like "Reception of the theory in the scientific community has been decidedly mixed"?
• It is important to remember that this is an article about the man, not the book. The book/his-version-of-the-theory itself is clearly notable, there is enough here for it to have its own article, though it might be best integrated into biocentrism. The criticisms I have read have been of the book, not the man... people aren't saying "omg he'z like dumb and stuff!" or "'e's barkers!"... they are saying the theory isn't a theory, it is brilliant, it isn't philosophy, it is just an essay, it is a new way of looking at the world, it is revolutionary, it's a yawn,blah blah... - sinneed (talk) 15:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The Biocentrism article itself is a mess. It goes into several definitions of the word and in a generally incoherent way. One way around this might be to create a separate article like "Biocentrism (Lanza)", but personally I don't think the concept is even notable enough to have it's own article. IMHO Lanza's "biocentrism" will soon be completely forgotten. (So why do I care so much? Got me!) Better to stick with the article on the man, who is notable (tho not for his Biocentrism concept...) Dogwood123 (talk) 15:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Biocentrism - article rework. Please help. I expect to argue strongly that more bulk for Biocentrism belongs in the article, ugly or not.- sinneed (talk) 19:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Images

Lanza himself has submitted some images to be included in the article, but I have not added them at this time due to the full protection. I request they are added after the protection is lifted. They are saved as File:Robert Lanza.jpg and File:Robert Lanza and Barbara Walters.jpg. J Milburn (talk) 13:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I have added the images to the article. There is no issue with using these images merely because of the fact they were provided by Lanza- there is an entire system in place to allow article subjects/their representatives to submit images to Wikipedia- see Wikipedia:Contact us/Photo submission. J Milburn (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

COI concern

NOTE: 140.139.35.250 is hosted by "cs.detrick.army.mil" and "may be shared by multiple users" You should be aware that this computer may be a party involved in an internet harrassment case targeting Robert Lanza. Thus, this individual's neutrality is in question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Regener (talk • contribs) 19:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Lanza's involvement in his own article would violate Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. He may also have been personally involved in the recent "edit war" over a "Criticism" section. 140.139.35.250 (talk) 13:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Which editor are you saying is Lanza? Also, I can't really imagine how a COI flag will help the talk page, and it is distracting, and I removed it. If that was incorrect, please restore, and please accept my apology.- sinneed (talk) 13:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

"involvement in" - well no... it is certainly ok for someone to shoot an image to WP commons, even if it is of themselves, if the image addition itself is appropriate.- sinneed (talk) 13:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The COI flag went to the talk page because the article is currently locked to edits. It could go there when unlocked. Which among the several recent anon editors might be Lanza is unknown. 140.139.35.250 (talk) 14:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• I think I hear you saying "there are anons editing, so one of them could be Lanza, so one of them is Lanza, and therefore the article needs a COI flag"?

No, the COI flag says "a major contributor to this article appears to have a conflict of interest..." I agree with your first 2 clauses, but not the last 2. The vehemence with which the anon editors (which could be one or more people) resist even well referenced, authoritative "critical" quotes (which he/they characterize unrealistically as "bashing") is very striking & strongly suggests personal bias. Lanza is now stated (above) to be aware of the article & actively providing material for it. Nothing inditable here, but I think it clearly justifies a COI flag. 140.139.35.250 (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• That makes sense. I think your interpretation of the COI is more correct than mine. Thanks.- sinneed (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

POV

As soon as the lock comes off, I am going to put up a POV flag. I wish there were a "queue the harps and violins" flag for the serenade in the " His home life was less than the Norman Rockwell ideal." and " Like Emerson and Thoreau -- two of the greatest American Transcendentalists – Lanza’s youth was spent exploring the forested woods of Massachusetts that teemed with life. His understanding of nature began on those journeys." POV...not encyclopedic.

There is a wp:BLP violation about the daddy and sisters... no reason to think they are dead, I should think. And... what is wrong with being a gambler? POV. What is wrong with choosing not to finish US high school? POV. No wonder his critics are unhappy with the article.- sinneed (talk) 14:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Apparent copyright violations

I am very dubious.

• The images in the article appear on copyrighted pages at web sources for ACT and WFU.
  
• Much of the text I checked was a straight paste from the websites or from the USNews article. All are wearing copyright flags.

I fixed what I saw, and directly attributed the quote. - sinneed (talk)21:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Lanza works at ACT and WFU, so it should be no surprise he would allow them to use the images of himself Regener (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• No, it wouldn't be surprising. Nevertheless, I observe that the image here appear identical, and the ones on the other web sites (this is just a website) are wearing copyright tags saying they belong to those sites. No more, no less.- sinneed (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay. BTW The ACT website even furnishes a high-resolution version of the image for download. Most scientists and institutions routinely provide permission to use headshots/pictures for scientific meetings, the media, and the publicRegener (talk) 21:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC).

Desperately wrong

Something is desperately wrong when an editing war occurs, and the only result is that three (3) very negative quotes are added. So much for WIKI objectivity. WikiWatch31 (talk) 01:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

wp:talk - De-escalation is needed here, rather than escalation.- sinneed (talk) 03:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Idly, this is one of the (many) reasons wp:edit warring should be avoided. The article will likely be locked in some random state.- sinneed (talk) 03:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Time for a reality check

Folks- I'm sure no one wants to hear this, but it may be time to step back and use some common sense. Doesn't it seem odd to anyone that an individual/s is so obsessed with adding negative after negative quotes about this guy? The escalation is ocurring because you're feeding this person. You don't have to be a psychiatrist to realize that this individual is bashing - these quotes are vicious. Wikipedia editors and administrators should be trying to prevent- not encourage- this kind of abuse from ocurring on Wikipedia. As far as the edit wars- this guy came in with his/her cannons and started blasting away, and Wiki pats him on the back. Gee, I can't imagine why that might trigger an edit war. Prosody31 (talk) 16:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, that was most helpful. Tan | 39 16:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

"use some common sense" - Well, I guess I don't have any, as you see the world.

I fear I am not as intelligent as Tantalas39, and I have no idea what you are saying. "pats him on the back"? - what? "this individual is bashing"? "quotes about this guy?"

No need to explain for me, I am just not bright enough to see through, I guess.- sinneed (talk) 16:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

And thank you, Prosody31, for creating your account and completing your 1st post on this discussion 9 minutes later.- sinneed (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No offense was intended. You are to be commended for your efforts Prosody31 (talk) 17:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

"Folks- I'm sure no one wants to hear this, but it may be time to step back and use some common sense." - It is always time for this.

"Doesn't it seem odd to anyone that an individual/s is so obsessed with adding negative after negative quotes about this guy?" - wp:AGF - " obsessed " - don't do this again.

"negative after negative quotes about this guy?" - Quote one, please. There are quotes about a book/article/theory.

• Cutting that down... I am used to seeing edit wars like this. A person, group, theory, flower, gardening style, or color of fabric offends someone and they put that into the article. Its fans take it out. Spiral up. Parkinson's Law of Triviality might apply.

"these quotes are vicious." - Which?

"Wikipedia editors and administrators should be trying to prevent- not encourage- this kind of abuse from ocurring on Wikipedia." - Like, by locking the article when the editors who should be reasonably reaching consensus to leave the quotes out... instead just revert revert revert revert... then become insulting? *You* are a Wikipedia editor. What compromise have you offered? Have you provided quotes to provide wp:BALANCE?

"As far as the edit wars- this guy came in with his/her cannons and started blasting away, and Wiki pats him on the back." - Nope.

"Gee, I can't imagine why that might trigger an edit war." Editors edit warring cause an wp:edit war. Nothing else. If you don't edit war, you will never have an edit war.- sinneed (talk) 18:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for reconsideration

You have rightly stated that “De-escalation is needed here, rather than escalation.” Administrator Tan placed a two-week “protect” on the disputed material to stop the edit war. By copying the entire disputed section involved in the edit war over to the "Biocentrism" page, it seems to bypass his intent. As someone vested with official Wikipedia authority, I’m wondering if duplication of an entire section (especially material protected on another page) is permitted under Wiki guidelines?

Also, I’m puzzled how this helps de-escalate the situation? In my eyes, this seems counter-productive and only serves to escalate the edit war to a second Wiki page. As is, one side has been rewarded with a 3-to-1 negative vs supportive quotes locked on the “Robert Lanza” page for 2-weeks. I understand how difficult your position is try to mediate between warring parties and would very much appreciate it if you would be willing to correct this situation. Thank you for considering this request and for the time you have invested helping to preserve this valuable online resource. Regener (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Wrong talk page. "By copying the entire disputed section involved in the edit war over to the "Biocentrism" page" - Please join the discussion there if interested. Please see wp:talk. "it seems to bypass his intent." - Intent: stop edit war. "As someone vested with official Wikipedia authority," - I have no idea what you are talking about. wp:talk - Focus on the content, not the editors - firmly "I’m wondering if duplication of an entire section...is permitted" - Please cite a guideline that you are concerned about. Please join the discussion there if interested. Please see wp:talk. "I understand how difficult your position is try to mediate between warring parties" - I stopped mediating and started editing. I trusted that the edit war was over. Mistake. " and would very much appreciate it if you would be willing to correct this situation." - Please join the discussion there if interested. Please see wp:talk. - sinneed (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Christ, Sinneed. Stop with the word-by-word refute of everything anyone says; you look like a dick. Tan | 39 17:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Tut,tut.- sinneed (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sinneed is out of control

..and a rude person —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.42.73.102 (talk) 02:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

To answer Regener's question, I am not aware of any policy that would forbid an editor from transferring text from one Wikipedia article to another, even from one that was currently blocked. If material on an article is libelous, however, it would need to be deleted from any article. That seems to be a misunderstanding here: Regener and others (if they are others) take the view that the "negative quotes" on Lanza's "biocentrism" are somehow personal, insulting, libelous, etc... They are not, they are intellectual, academic disagreements & departures from Lanza's views. Get over it. Dogwood123 (talk) 12:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Some material to help add balance

This was posted on the “biocentrism” talk page. It may be helpful here as well, since it’s about the same section (which is caused the edit warring). Whatever the final consensus, it should probably be for both. Staff3 (talk) 14:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

"It’s not neutral adding three quotes in a row that make biocentrism look nutty. There are LOTS of other top scholars and scientists in the world who think very highly of biocentrism. Here are just a few (I recommend the first four quotes be added for balance):

"Having interviewed some of the most brilliant minds in the scientific world, I found Dr. Robert Lanza's insights into the nature of consciousness original and exciting. His theory of biocentrism is consistent with the most ancient wisdom traditions of the world which says that consciousness conceives, governs, and becomes a physical world. It is the ground of our Being in which both subjective and objective reality come into existence." - Deepak Chopra, one of the top icons of the century (2)

"It is genuinely an exciting piece of work.... The idea that consciousness creates reality has quantum support and also coheres with some of the things biology and neuroscience are telling us about the structures of our being. Just as we now know that the sun doesn't really move but we do (we are the active agents), so [it is] suggesting that we are the entities that give meaning to the particular configuration of all possible outcomes we call reality." - Ronald Green, renowned scholar, Eunice & Julian Cohen Professor, and Director of - Dartmouth College's Ethics Institute (1, 3)

"This new theory is certain to revolutionize our concepts of the laws of nature for centuries to come." - Anthony Atala, internationally recognized scientist, W.H. Boyce Professor, and Chair and Director at Wake Forest University. (1,3)

“Reading Robert Lanza’s work is a wake-up call....” - David Thompson, astrophysicist, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (3)

“I like to see books published that challenge my own ideas and thoughts in ways that make me think, but not ones that simply throw dogma at me. The essay is definitely of the former kind.” - -R. Stephen Berry, James Franck Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus, Department of Chemistry, University of Chicago (3)

“It’s a masterpiece-truly…magnificent. Lanza is to be congratulated for a fresh and highly erudite look at the question of how perception and consciousness shape reality and common experience....his arguments [are] both convincing and challenging.” - Michael Lysaght, Professor of Medical Science and Engineering at Brown University and Director of Brown’s Center for Biomedical Engineering (3)

“Like A Brief History of Time, it is indeed stimulating and brings biology into the whole…. Most importantly, it makes you think.” - E. Donnall Thomas, 1990 Nobel Prize (3) “What Lanza says in this book is not new. Then why does Robert have to say it at all? It is because we, the physicists, do NOT say it––or if we do say it, we only whisper it, and in private––furiously blushing as we mouth the words. True, yes; politically correct, hell no! – Richard Conn Henry, Professor of Physics and Astronomy, Johns Hopkins University (4)

There lots of possible references, but these 5 cover all the above quotes:

1) http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/1933771690/ref=dp_proddesc_0?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books 2) http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/health-care/dr-robert-lanza-featured-guest-deepak-chopras-sirius-xm-stars-radio/ 3) http://www.moxiestudio.com/designsamples/BenBellaBooks_Spring2009_Catalog_Final.pdf 4) http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/biocentrism.pdf "

Fixed spacing - it all ran together Staff3 (talk) 14:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

A consensus appears to have been reached

FYI At last, a consensus appears to have been reached on the disputed material (all sides 'grudgingly' said it was acceptable on the Bicoentrism page).WikiWatch31 (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

- Reception -

Lanza's article and book on "biocentrism" has received a mixed reception.

David Thompson, an astrophysicist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center called the “work is a wake-up call.” [10] Nobel laureate (Physiology or Medicine) E. Donnall Thomas stated that "Any short statement does not do justice to such a scholarly work. The work is a scholarly consideration of science and philosophy that brings biology into the central role in unifying the whole."[11] Arizona State University physicist Lawrence Krauss stated “It may represent interesting philosophy, but it doesn't look, at first glance, as if it will change anything about science.[12] Wake Forest University scientist Anthony Atala stated "This new theory is certain to revolutionize our concepts of the laws of nature for centuries to come."[13] But in a email message posted online, USA Today astrophysicist journalist David Linley responded to Lanza’s essay, calling it a "...vague, inarticulate metaphor..." and stating "...I certainly don't see how thinking his way would lead you into any new sort of scientific or philosophical insight. That's all very nice, I would say to Lanza, but now what?"[14] Daniel Dennett, a Tufts University philosopher, says he does not think the concept meets the standard of a philosophical theory. "It looks like an opposite of a theory, because he doesn't explain how it [consciousness] happens at all. He's stopping where the fun begins."[15] Richard Conn Henry, Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Johns Hopkins University points out that Lanza's theory is consistent with quantum mechanics, “What Lanza says in this book is not new. Then why does Robert have to say it at all? It is because we, the physicists, do NOT say it––or if we do say it, we only whisper it, and in private––furiously blushing as we mouth the words. True, yes; politically correct, hell no!” [16] Noted author Deepak Chopra stated “Lanza's insights into the nature of consciousness [are] original and exciting” and that “his theory of biocentrism is consistent with the most ancient wisdom traditions of the world which says that consciousness conceives, governs, and becomes a physical world. It is the ground of our Being in which both subjective and objective reality come into existence."[17]

My apologies (didn't mean to make this two sections). WikiWatch31 (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear Tan - a consensus has been reached on the disputed material that is now holding on the "Biocentrism" page (which everyone involved in the discussion agreed). Would it be possible to lift your protect now and see if the edit war has been resolved. I think it has, but if for some reason it resumes, you can always add the protect again. WikiWatch31 (talk) 16:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

As recommended, I added new section for the material related to biocentrism (which includes the consensus version reached on the “Biocentrism” page)WikiWatch31 (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

"A consensus appears to have been reached"? Really? I see only a certain "WikiWatch31" talking to himself above... 140.139.35.250 (talk) 20:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there has been intensive discussion on this for two weeks both on the "Robert Lanza" and "Bicoentrism" pages by dozens of people. Please do not barge in here and vandalize the page againStaff3 (talk) 20:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

140.139.35.250 Please review the discusion on this on "Biocentrism" Again, please set aside any agenda - Chopra is a physician and writer (no need to start throwing adjectives around that taint him one way or the other. WikiWatch31 (talk) 20:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Question: "Staff3" and "WikiWatch31". Are you not actually the same person? 140.139.35.250 (talk) 15:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Sock puppetry: "The general rule is: one editor, one account. Do not use multiple accounts to create the illusion of greater support for an issue, to mislead others, to artificially stir up controversy, to aid in disruption, or to circumvent a block. Do not ask your friends to create accounts to support you or anyone else. Multiple accounts are not for collusion, evasion, disruption, or other misuse." 140.139.35.250 (talk) 15:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you have evidence to start a sockpuppet investigation? If so, please start an official inquiry. If not, please don't make unfounded or poorly founded accusations. Tan | 39 15:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no "accusation" above. Just a calm, clear question which the editor(s) have yet to respond to. I reject the notion that I must either start a formal investigation OR keep quiet. A civil, polite query is entirely in order..... Let him/them respond. 140.139.35.250 (talk) 17:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You are insinuating that these editors are one and the same. In my opinion, this is an ill-considered accusation of impropriety, a breach of WP:CIVIL. Either you have evidence or you do not - your quote of WP:SP shows that you are directly implying that you think these editors might be one and the same. If you are merely fishing, please stop. If you have evidence, present it. Tan | 39 17:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion. It is true that I "...think these editors might be one and the same." I am allowed to say so. I cite Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade and its "duck test". But let them/him speak. I may be wrong.... 140.139.35.250 (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. Just don't go overboard. Tan | 39 17:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

140.139.35.250 - this is getting silly. Question: Aren’t you and Dogwood123's (as well as others) the same person (your editing history includes very similar entries – some exactly the same)? I may be wrong as well. Staff3 (talk) 18:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair question. I am not "Dogwood123". I will take your response (or lack of one) to my question as an affirmative. 140.139.35.250 (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: David Lindley

The reference quoted explicitly states Lindley’s position. This is how the article starts:

“Astrophysicist and science writer David Lindley's full response to Robert Lanza's article. This is an e-mail message that was sent exclusively to USA Today's Dan Vergano and is posted here with Mr. Lindley's permission: "Staff3 (talk) 17:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, no mention of Lindley being a USAToday staff writer. He is an unaffiliated writer and guest essayist for USAToday. Dan Vergano is the staff writer. Thus, the wording in the article must be changed. 140.139.35.250 (talk) 17:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I would just change that; seems uncontroversial. Tan | 39 17:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, will do.... 140.139.35.250 (talk) 17:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You may be right - after re-reading the sentence it's not clear what his exact affliation with USA Today is. However, a quick scan on Google reveals that he has spent most of his career as a writer/auhtor and or editor at various journals. For instance, The American Scientist (link: http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/david-lindley) refers to him as “Astrophysicist and author” 72.165.90.110 (talk) 17:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

So, "science writer" seems to be the best bet, I think. Generically specific. ;-) Tan | 39 17:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - science writer is best. Also, the piece was never published in USA Today - however, it would indeed be corect to say "In a message posted on USAToday.com" Staff3 (talk) 18:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

No. The piece is featured (and titled) as an "Exclusive" to USA Today Online. So it is very definitely "published". 140.139.35.250 (talk) 18:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)