Talk:Elizabeth Rauscher

‹See TfM›

Providing context or going off-topic? And what are the topics she studies?

I wonder whether Dreadstar thinks that this revert is appropriate because the text removed provides context for Rauscher. Kaiser wrote a great book, but this is not an article about his book, it's an article about Rauscher. Including a lot of exposition about his book seems to me to be turning this article into an unrelated coatrack for Kaiser's thesis (which, I admit is an intriguing one, but one that is not necessarily relevant to this page).

Additionally, I don't see any evidence that the areas of study Rasucher is known for is quantum mechanics and consciousness. The sources we list instead say that she's known for being interested in the other areas listed. In fact, even if you think her "eight-dimensional space-time" is what she is known for, it's not really quantum mechanics but rather quantum gravity that is the umbrella topic. However, I don't see much indication that anyone acknowledges that this is what she's know for more than parapsychology.

Thoughts?

76.119.90.74 (talk) 12:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• The mainstream physics world does not, in fact, recognize Rauscher for contributions to the quantum sciences, nor especially does it place her in league with the likes of Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, and Schrödinger, as the current version of the article subtly implies. I think the coatrack concern is a valid one. For example, Kaiser is either mentioned by name (e.g. "Kaiser writes") or cited 9 times in this article and the article's content is somewhat restricted to what Kaiser's book disusses w.r.t. Rauscher. There is still relatively little exposition of Rauscher's main works. For example, her experiments with Olga Worrall should probably be given a whole section, since there's lots of secondary sources. Likewise, detailed descriptions of her activities in remote viewing, energy control, and efforts to complete Einstein's Unified Theory should be added because those represent significant fractions of her overall career and there are lots of sources. I suspect there will be pushback, though. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 15:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC).

• Well, considering that Dreadstar asked me to get "consensus" for this first step, do you agree with reverting his revert? 76.119.90.74 (talk) 17:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• Yes. I agree with going back to what you had ("reverting the revert"), especially because you have another source. Agricola44 (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC).

• We can discuss adding content from the sources used here, as well as the content and source that was removed by anon in that same edit. It's inappropriate to revert that version back into place without consensus. As for the additition of all these items in the infobox, without any corresponding sourced content in the article is purely WP:UNDUE, and I think that would be adequately covered there by the much simpler parapsychology research rather than trying to add every detail. Add detail to the body of the article. . Dreadstar ☥ 22:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• Undue, absolutely. Let's keep the infobox trim and slim. Binksternet (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• Format is not nearly so important as content, which was what I was trying to weigh-in on above. I think there's still quite a bit of sourced information that needs to be added and I would assume that most eds would agree that that info should predominantly go into the body, not the infobox. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 15:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC).

I think that it's good to have vagueness in the infobox. I'll try that out. 76.119.90.74 (talk) 19:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with this assessment and was quite surprised to see this edit summary. Accusations of bad faith, I thought, were frowned upon. Anyway, I think that the removal of these unsourced claims of what Rauscher is "known for" is a good step. Seeing no argument against this and assuming WP:SILENCE means WP:CON, I reverted Dreadstar. Let him post on this page if he has an argument. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks POINT-y to me: "so remove per talk page exhortation to being "vague" in infoboxes" [1] and "I think that it's good to have vagueness in the infobox. I'll try that out" [2] there has been no such "exhortation", just as there has been no consensus, "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus". Dreadstar ☥ 23:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You should re-read WP:SILENCE too, "Consensus can be presumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident (typically through reverting or editing).". So there was no silence either. Dreadstar ☥ 03:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

That's not a coherent argument. 76.119.90.74 (talk) 18:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Known for...

I read in the sources about the FFG that Rauscher is known for founding the FFG. I read in none of those sources that she is known for her research. Thus: [3]. 76.119.90.74 (talk) 18:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

She's known for both, as discussed in the section above and elsewhere. Dreadstar ☥ 18:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Cite a source please. Give a direct quote that says, "She is known for..." 76.119.90.74 (talk) 20:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Infoboxes "present a summary of some unifying aspect that the articles share and sometimes to improve navigation to other interrelated articles" per Help:Infobox. The research into Quantum Physics and Consciousness is sourced in the article. One doesn't need to provide an exact quote that begins "she is known for", the collected sources show that. Dreadstar ☥ 22:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The claim that is being disputed is that she is not "known for" these points. I am disputing the claim that she is "known" for this research -- she is actually UNKNOWN for this research. Therefore, to claim this is an outright fabrication in contravention of WP:V unless you can find a source which documents that she is known for such activities. You are steadfastly refusing to do so for reasons I cannot understand. 76.119.90.74 (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I've reported these issues to WP:FTN and WP:DRN. There are obvious ownership issues since the commentators on this talk page agree with me and not with Dreadstar. The issues I outlined are clear from the edit summary. Since others have encouraged me to edit, I'm not sure what to do about this persistent obstruction without any sort of coherent argument. 76.119.90.74 (talk) 22:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Justification

I will now justify every single edit I made that was reverted by Dreadstar:

[4]

1. There is a claim that Rauscher is "known for research into quantum physics and consciousness" in the infobox. There are no sources which state this and Dreadstar has steadfastly refused to provide any quotations that support this claim.
2. There is a claim that Rauscher is "known for having theorized, in 1974, that an eight-dimensional..." however, the source does not say that she is "known for" this, but merely that she did this. I changed the wording to indicate this. Dreadstar changed it back.
3. By extension, it is also claimed in the article that she is known for "work" in psychic and faith healing which, it appears, she did on her own free time and did not receive gainful employment therein, thus I changed the wording to indicate the manner in which she was involved in investigating these topics. This was reverted without comment from Dreadstar except that I discuss it here. I hereby begin the discussion.
4. It is claimed by extension that she's known for her experiments with Russell Targ. There is no source which indicates that she is "known for" this. Rather, there are sources that merely illustrate she collaborated on his remote viewing project. We shouldn't claim she's "known for" doing this if we don't have a source which indicates it.
5. A paragraph about Nick Herbert's activities is included in this page. This is a page about Rauscher. Not him. It should be removed.
6. A see also list is included without so much as a justification for any of the links. Many of the links are already included in the article (e.g. Bell's Theorem). Others are of dubious relevance (e.g. Theory of everything). I removed the entire section as unnecessary, but this is something that may warrant further discussion.

Please address the points substantively by number.

Thanks.

76.119.90.74 (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'll take this 3O request if I'm welcome to. I'll return shortly with my comments. --FormerIP (talk) 23:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! 76.119.90.74 (talk) 23:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I've removed some of the highly dubius sourcing and statements from the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

What about New Physics as a see-also link? Does that make sense at all? Sure Rauscher's arxiv paper are "Beyond the Standard Model", but it isn't a notable theory in physics. 76.119.90.74 (talk) 01:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)