Talk:John Hagelin: Difference between revisions
→WP:OR: reply |
|||
Line 89: | Line 89: | ||
:::Wolfie. The TM arbitration has specific guides which you chose to ignore. There is no chilling effect when citing a guide for editing. If you chose to ignore that guide that is your choice. You are not understanding me. You deleted with out discussion and with no policy support pertinent content to this article which weakens the article. Further you misunderstand and misuse fringe. Nor have you outlined content that describes Hagelin's research. Your ownership, tone and arguments for deleting content on this article are not acceptable per Wikipedia. Please reconsider my points.([[User:Littleolive oil|olive]] ([[User talk:Littleolive oil|talk]]) 23:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)) |
:::Wolfie. The TM arbitration has specific guides which you chose to ignore. There is no chilling effect when citing a guide for editing. If you chose to ignore that guide that is your choice. You are not understanding me. You deleted with out discussion and with no policy support pertinent content to this article which weakens the article. Further you misunderstand and misuse fringe. Nor have you outlined content that describes Hagelin's research. Your ownership, tone and arguments for deleting content on this article are not acceptable per Wikipedia. Please reconsider my points.([[User:Littleolive oil|olive]] ([[User talk:Littleolive oil|talk]]) 23:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)) |
||
::::Nope you are wrong about what "Principles" means in that Arbitration page. I have already cited the P&G based reason for the removal [[Wikipedia:FRINGE#Independent_sources]], you have chosen to ignore that and advance non-policy based rationale. If something is important to note, a secondary source will undoubtedly have noted it. What we don't do is create paragraphs based purely on primary sources to act as fringe promotion. If you recall, the article was delisted precisely because the sources were of low quality and that there was "an over-reliance on the inclusion of much Fringe Theory information". [[User:IRWolfie-|IRWolfie-]] ([[User talk:IRWolfie-|talk]]) 23:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC) |
::::Nope you are wrong about what "Principles" means in that Arbitration page. I have already cited the P&G based reason for the removal [[Wikipedia:FRINGE#Independent_sources]], you have chosen to ignore that and advance non-policy based rationale. If something is important to note, a secondary source will undoubtedly have noted it. What we don't do is create paragraphs based purely on primary sources to act as fringe promotion. If you recall, the article was delisted precisely because the sources were of low quality and that there was "an over-reliance on the inclusion of much Fringe Theory information". [[User:IRWolfie-|IRWolfie-]] ([[User talk:IRWolfie-|talk]]) 23:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC) |
||
==Continued removal of RS content== |
|||
I note that you continue to remove RS content with out discussion or agreement. You are dealing this way with a BLP and another human being's life and do so to satisfy some notion you have of what fringe means. I have been willing from the beginning of the GA process to collaborate with those willing to make this article better. This is not a game Wolfie, this is a man's life. If you had concerns discuss them, collaborate, but leaching out content based on false premises is unconscionable.([[User:Littleolive oil|olive]] ([[User talk:Littleolive oil|talk]]) 04:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)) |
|||
== [[WP:OR]] == |
== [[WP:OR]] == |
Revision as of 04:13, 18 August 2013
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John Hagelin article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
John Hagelin was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Error: The code letter
|
|
||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
References
Parked content per BLP/ pending source
Hagelin was invited to be a plenary speaker at the 2007 Quantum Mind conference in Salzburg, Austria, organized by Stuart Hameroff (University of Arizona) and Gustav Bernroider (University of Salzburg).[citation needed]
Fringe Theories NB
An editor has posted a comment about this article on the Fringe theories NB here [1].(olive (talk) 01:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC))
Noetic Advanced Studies Institute should be removed
The section Noetic Advanced Studies Institute should be removed. It adds no information about the subject of the article. The Institute is of doubtful significance; it is apparently itself not covered by a Wikipedia article. The section only states a claim made by an organization of unknown notability concerning the writings of Dr. Hagelin. David Spector (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Peremptory deletion of sourced content
Wolfie. I'm wondering how you expect the reader to understand the controversial nature of Hagelin's research if there is no content in the article on that topic. You have once again deleted a massive amount of soured content in the face of the Arbitration guidelines while adjusting the weight of the article in favour of Hagelin's mainstream work and down playing the controversial work. Makes no sense.(olive (talk) 16:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC))
- As has been pointed out to you, the arbitration guidelines do not say what you think they say. If you want to make an arbcom clarification request: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment. Let's no exaggerate the size of what I removed, 950 bytes of non-independent self-published primary sourced content which were used to make points not in secondary sources, see Wikipedia:FRINGE#Independent_sources. What is of interest to the independent sources is that Hagelin attempted to make the "identification of a unified field of consciousness with a unified field of superstring theory", the specifics of him publishing in the Maharishi's journal is irrelevant, they don't give weight to that and the rest is already in the section I did not remove. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- Please leave your tone at the door.
- I'm sorry Wolfie but you are mistaken in your understanding of the arbitration.
- Hagelin's discussion of the connection he makes to the UF and consciousness must be contained in the article simply to make sense. Sources can self define. In this case Hagelin has written on the topic and that is what we must use to begin a discussion of this topic. That's just good standard writing practice and is appropriate per Wikipedia. You are confusing fringe sourcing in which fringe content is not mainstream to the topic of the article with this situation. In this case Hagelin took a sharp turn in a brilliant mainstream career to look at this area. This is highly significant and must be outlined clearly in an article on the man's life and professional career. To not include the appropriate content is a violation of weight. And if you think the content you deleted is too long I'm sure it can be tightened up and shortened. Not a problem.(olive (talk) 17:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC))
- If that is your intention, that sounds a lot like original research from primary sources on your part. The sources don't give significance to this and the rest of the section highlights the pertinent part of what Hagelin did; attempting to make a connection between the two disparate areas. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- In discussing a scientist's research its necessary and in fact critical to include information on the work itself. The expert on John Hagelin's work is John Hagelin. For the reader to understand what critics and supporters of Hagelin's work are talking about we have to first give them information on that work. You've deleted that content.
- Hagelin's 1987 paper on consciousness and the unified field has been cited 175 times. This is significant in terms of this article. [2]
- Hagelin' s work is not being used to support a theory, it is being used to describe Hagelin's work in an article about Hagelin and about his work. This is appropriate and acceptable per Wikipedia. The sources are simply references for the reader wanting more information.
- There is no policy that supports this kind of removal. This is an arbcom guideline that does not support the deletion:
"10) Peremptory reversion or removal of material referenced to reliable sources and added in good faith by others, is considered disruptive when done to excess. This is particularly true of controversial topics where it may be perceived as confrontational." And the link: [3](olive (talk) 21:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC))
- Please do not misrepresent what Arbcom has said. I've asked you to stop referring to it in discussing as it merely provides a chilling effect. Arbcom is merely listing current practice, not special guidelines. Most of those "175 cites" on google scholar are not independent academic citations, in fact a great many are in fringe journals and the web. There is plenty of context already in the article as I have outlined, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- Wolfie. The TM arbitration has specific guides which you chose to ignore. There is no chilling effect when citing a guide for editing. If you chose to ignore that guide that is your choice. You are not understanding me. You deleted with out discussion and with no policy support pertinent content to this article which weakens the article. Further you misunderstand and misuse fringe. Nor have you outlined content that describes Hagelin's research. Your ownership, tone and arguments for deleting content on this article are not acceptable per Wikipedia. Please reconsider my points.(olive (talk) 23:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC))
- Nope you are wrong about what "Principles" means in that Arbitration page. I have already cited the P&G based reason for the removal Wikipedia:FRINGE#Independent_sources, you have chosen to ignore that and advance non-policy based rationale. If something is important to note, a secondary source will undoubtedly have noted it. What we don't do is create paragraphs based purely on primary sources to act as fringe promotion. If you recall, the article was delisted precisely because the sources were of low quality and that there was "an over-reliance on the inclusion of much Fringe Theory information". IRWolfie- (talk) 23:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- Wolfie. The TM arbitration has specific guides which you chose to ignore. There is no chilling effect when citing a guide for editing. If you chose to ignore that guide that is your choice. You are not understanding me. You deleted with out discussion and with no policy support pertinent content to this article which weakens the article. Further you misunderstand and misuse fringe. Nor have you outlined content that describes Hagelin's research. Your ownership, tone and arguments for deleting content on this article are not acceptable per Wikipedia. Please reconsider my points.(olive (talk) 23:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC))
Continued removal of RS content
I note that you continue to remove RS content with out discussion or agreement. You are dealing this way with a BLP and another human being's life and do so to satisfy some notion you have of what fringe means. I have been willing from the beginning of the GA process to collaborate with those willing to make this article better. This is not a game Wolfie, this is a man's life. If you had concerns discuss them, collaborate, but leaching out content based on false premises is unconscionable.(olive (talk) 04:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC))
However, Hagelin's collaboration with researchers at CERN and others continued for years after he first introduced his hypotheses regarding physics and consciousness. According to Woit, Hagelin began connecting consciousness and the unified field in the late 1970s as a Ph.D. student at Harvard. Hagelin's collaborative work in particle physics continued until 1994.[a]
This text and the associated footnote seem to be original research intended to contradict a source. -- 92.2.70.41 (talk) 23:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I've removed the OR and broken the SYNTH. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the help page).
- Delisted good articles
- Biography articles of living people
- C-Class biography articles
- C-Class biography (science and academia) articles
- Low-importance biography (science and academia) articles
- Science and academia work group articles
- Wikipedia requested photographs of scientists and academics
- Wikipedia requested photographs of people
- WikiProject Biography articles
- C-Class Transcendental Meditation movement articles
- High-importance Transcendental Meditation movement articles
- C-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- C-Class Dartmouth College articles
- Low-importance Dartmouth College articles
- WikiProject Dartmouth College articles
- C-Class United States presidential elections articles
- Low-importance United States presidential elections articles
- WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- C-Class physics articles
- Low-importance physics articles
- C-Class physics articles of Low-importance
- C-Class physics biographies articles
- Physics biographies articles
- C-Class Pennsylvania articles
- Low-importance Pennsylvania articles
- C-Class Pittsburgh articles
- Low-importance Pittsburgh articles
- WikiProject Pittsburgh articles
- Wikipedia controversial topics