Talk:John Hagelin

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).

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)

Agree, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:28, 10 August 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)

• If possible, could one of you provide a diff or outline of the specific material being disputed? Apologies if I've missed it. MastCell ^Talk 05:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

[4]. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:12, 18 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))

While I'm quite sensitive Wikipedia's potential to harm its article subjects, I think you're substantially over-reacting here. It's completely fair to ask IRWolfie to discuss his edits, but your inflammatory and emotionally manipulative language pretty much guarantees that any subsequent discussion is going to be unproductive. As you know, appropriate sourcing is necessary but not sufficient for inclusion; we remove "RS content" all the time when it's given undue weight, or used to advance original synthesis. MastCell ^Talk 04:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The only sources I removed where 1. primary sources which were being used for OR and 2. those sources highlighted by the GA as being unreliable, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The article must describe the controversial turn a brilliant scientist took in his career as outlined by the sources both by noting the controversy and noting in the most accurate way possible what that controversial research is. This does not constitute so called WP: Fringe sourcing, but is content that describes a relatively mainstream career which included a controversial change. Your comments above: considering the tone in Wolfie's opening comment, his peremptory and continued removal of content on an article that falls under the TM arbitration and your implied support of that removal, Wolfie's clear misuse of WP:Fringe, his misuse of WP OR, and his intractable and ownership style evident both in continuing to remove content and when I attempted to explain and to compromise, coupled with your ongoing attempts across Wikipedia to discredit a group of editors inform clearly of what I am facing here. (olive (talk) 15:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC))

Can you please cease the mudslinging. It won't get us anywhere. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I have noted for the record, my concerns here. Nothing in your comments indicate collaboration, nor in MC's support of your behaviour so I leave you two to this article. I have no further need to input here. Thanks.(olive (talk) 16:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC))

Olive, stop attacking me. It won't get us anywhere, how can we collaborate when every comment I make you reply with an attack? We can't have a rationale discourse if you attack me for everything I say. Discuss the edits, not me. You've made claims against me, but you have failed to highlight any specific issue. The article already does cover his change from physics to TM work, and the controversy that it caused, and it uses independent secondary sources to do it. Now, what I removed here: [5] in the edit you objected to was two things, firstly there was the OR as the IP in the section below noted. Then I added a more faithful cover of the Shermer source, which was previously being used to imply something a lot more positive than the source indicates. Thirdly, I removed some of the hyberbole about the Kilby award and an incorrect summary of why he was given the award, and added more secondary sources about him being nominated for the award by a TM practitioner. Fourthly, I removed the Positions held which lists a lot of TM titles, most of these are already covered in the article elsewhere and they are all primary sourced (TM people seem to love giving lots of titles, he appears to have about 10). Fifthly, I then removed the primary sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• My response was to Mastcell and had nothing to do with you. I apologize if placing my comment in sequence created misunderstanding.(olive (talk) 16:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC))

WP:OR

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.

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)

This may be, as is written marginally WP:OR. However, in fact the references we have clearly indicate one source (Anderson) itself is not accurate. We will have to adjust the text to be accurate, and per BLP we would not to want to in anyway slant content to create false information on a living person.

We have a couple of choices here. We can remove the content and source that is clearly incorrect or we can fairly present both pieces of information. However, why we would deliberately and knowingly include content that is false is a question we should deal with as well.(olive (talk) 19:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC))

What is false and what you are talking about is not clear. Can you clarify? IRWolfie- (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure: The Observer article says Hagelin was ostracized by his peers. However, this is clearly not accurate since the list of papers and another source , Woit, indicate Hagelin continued to collaborate after the introduction of his hypothesis connecting UF to consciousness. We have no mandate on Wikipedia to knowingly include false information. There are several ways of correcting this: One we can remove the at fault source, or two I can re add the deleted content in a way that it is not OR, and also delete the at-fault source. The source is at fault on a other point as well-that of Hagelin's divorce coinciding with his time at Stanford which was not the case. In general I'd say the observer source is poor given its clear inaccuracies. From what I can see the content you removed was added in an attempt to correct the inaccuracy with out removing the inaccurate source. (I mistakenly added Anderson as the source above which may have caused confusion).(olive (talk) 19:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC))

We have no idea of the dynamics behind the scenes, so why you say it is false I don't know. There are many reasons why he could have still produced papers but have been mostly excluded in one way by his former peers. Even the most ostracised person can still freely publish papers and attend conferences. That is surely original research, IRWolfie- (talk) 20:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Look at the papers published and note who Hagelin was collaborating with- his former peers including Ellis. The sources contradict each other, and we do have the accurate information. We cannot knowingly add false information and especially on a BLP.(olive (talk) 20:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC))

Kilby award

In 1992, Hagelin was given a Kilby International Award, an award from the North Dallas Chamber of Commerce. The nomination was from a fellow TM practitioner who was also in the Kilby selection committee. The award was given for his work in particle physics leading to the development of supersymmetric grand unified field theories.

• This is not in the source given "...an award from the North Dallas Chamber of Commerce."

• If we are going to include content about the award lets be accurate and inclusive. This pretty clearly attempts to denigrate and is not a neutral explanation of the award since it excludes most if not all of the information on the web site information: "The nomination was from a fellow TM practitioner who was also in the Kilby selection committee."

(olive (talk) 19:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC))

The Dallas chamber of commerce information is in the Nature source. On your next point, "the website information"? Can you clarify what you mean? IRWolfie- (talk) 20:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting the source. I refer to the Kilby award web site which is an excellent source about the foundation itself, and the award. This article clearly does not line up with the information on the web site and denigrates the award, those who have supported the foundation, and those who have won awards.

For example if we are going to describe the award why is this kind of information (below) ignored in favour of "chamber of commerce" which I don't see anywhere on the website by the way?

• Patrons: [6]

• International council:[7]
• Jury:

The Kilby Awards Jury is chaired by Sir Brian Heap, Master of St. Edmund's College at Cambridge University. A distinguished committee meets annually with Sir Brian Heap to consider candidates submitted by nominators throughout the United States and abroad. These Laureates are chosen from international candidates and celebrated in an Awards Ceremony.

The Kilby Awards Foundation annually recognizes five to seven individuals who make extraordinary contributions to society through science, technology, innovation, invention and education. --olive (talk) 20:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)