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))

I'm still not following the logic. This does not mean he was not ostracised by his peers. Those papers are from the 80s and 90s and the article was written in 2005. Ellis and Hagelin appears to have stopped after 1992 for example. We aren't given a specific time frame or whatever. So why you are certain it is wrong puzzles me and there certainly isn't enough information to provide a basis for why you think it is wrong. Most certainly looking Hagelin's publications is the wrong way to go about it. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

According to our own article, Hagelin began the connection of conscoiuness to phyisics in the 70's. He went to MIU in 1984. Our own article and sources states he continued to collaborate until 1994. Ostracized by definition means there would have been no collaboration. Clearly there was collaboration.

Hagelin collaborators Dmitri Nanopolous and John Ellis were uncomfortable with Hagelin's move from Stanford to MIU but continued to work with him.[16] While at MIU, he received funding from the National Science Foundation.[6] (olive (talk) 17:57, 3 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)

It looks like we're choosing to prioritize third-party reliable sources over the awarding organization's website. Which is in keeping with my understanding of this site's sourcing guidelines and policies. MastCell ^Talk 22:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see that any chice has been made here except that an editor has chosen to add content which alone creates a inaccurate impression of this award. As well sources are reliable and verifiable specific to the content they support, and sources can be reliable per content about themselves. The definitive source on the Kilby award is the foundation website . Do you doubt its authenticity. That said I am suggesting that the content as is, in the article, deprecates the award and that we can satisfy NPOV by citing either more about the award so that it is fairly represented or remove content that by itself creates a pejorative impression.(olive (talk) 22:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC))

The questions you're asking lead me to believe that you haven't understood my point. I don't doubt the authenticity of the website. I disagree with you about "definitive" sourcing. According to this site's guidelines, our content should be based on "reliable, third-party published sources" (emphasis mine). Thus, our coverage prioritizes a third-party source (the Nature article) over the award's own website. The requirement for third-party sources is all the more important when the award in question is described as somewhat dubious: according to Nature, "Few have even heard of [the Kirby Award], perhaps because it was created three years ago by the Dallas Chamber of Commerce to draw attention to the area." MastCell ^Talk 22:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I understand your point perfectly. I did not say definitive sourcing (a WP standard), I said the definitive source on the Kilby award is the foundation website, which it is. The first standard on Wikipedia most especially in a BLP is to present content accurately which means that the policies, NPOV, including WP:Weight, and Verifiability must be adhered to. This article does not present accurate neutral content on the Kilby award; at present the content has been based on one source, and the argument for that is that the few words is that source trump the information on the website itself. Further the Kilby foundation website is not presented at all and a link to another Wikipedia article is not a source for this article. Second, the NPOV policy trumps the WP:RS guideline. We cannot use a RS or RS argument to present content in a non neutral manner which is what is happening here. Then, per weight an aspect of the NPOV policy, if there are differing views on content those views must be presented. The definitive information for the content on this award is acceptable as a RS, for content about itself. It may be a primary source, but primatry sources are appropriate and are RS as they self define. We self define the Kilby award nost accurately by looking at its website. We can define how others view that award by applying other RSs. Both in this case must be present. Finally, we can represent the award accurately either by removing any definitions of the award or if we want to continue to include explanations of the award as is in place now, we must per weight and NPOV include the content from the foundation site, since it is available, is verifiable, and which defines the award as the foundation defines it. I'm happy to do either one or the other, but the article and its content must be fair and neutral.(olive (talk) 03:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC))

I'm afraid I didn't quite follow that. It seems much less complicated than you're making it out to be. WP:BLP and WP:NPOV demand the use of high-quality third-party reliable sources. Nature is a high-quality third-party reliable source. Nature describes the award as obscure and a bit dubious. We convey that. I don't understand your argument that we need to water down the third-party reliable sources in this particular instance, and I don't see anything in WP:BLP or WP:NPOV to support your argument. MastCell ^Talk 05:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Reliable source as defined on Wikipedia does not exclude sources which self define. A third party source is being used as a reason to include the disparaging content but to exclude another verifiable source. Inclusion of a source does not exclude other sources. Oddly that source being excluded casts a somewhat more positive light on the award. Why is including a more positive view "watering down" the other source unless the object here is to present the most pejorative view possible.

Sources do not somehow magically achieve status on their own. They achieve importance per the content they reference. If we are describing something like this award we must first describe it as accurately as possible and where do we go for that kind of information? Priority of sources is per the exactitude with which they reference the content given they are both reliable and verifiable. Nothing in our policies designates priority sources at the exclusion of other reliable sources. While I am willing to include both pejorative and more positive content showing different views and satisfying NPOV you and Wolfie are not. Why is that? (olive (talk) 07:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC))

Olive, it's really a simple issue and I'm not sure what the issue is here. You are trying to use a non-independent primary source from the award website about an award to make the article appear more positive in spite of the less than positive reception the award gets in independent secondary sources. This is exactly what we shouldn't be doing per WP:NPOV and WP:SECONDARY. As policy indicates, this is rather standard: "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." It should also be self-evident that any dubious award is going go to read more positively on its own website! Using a primary source in this way to contrast against the coverage by secondary sources is original research, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

For the record: on novel understanding of policy

I will withdraw from this discussion now, given this discussion is not progressing. I note the misuse and or misunderstanding of policy in the thread above and in a BLP. Wolfie: This is not a correct understanding of WP:OR. In no way is using the foundation site an analysis or evaluation of the the content in the source, and is not OR per Wikipedia. Your assumption that using the website to describe its own award is pretty standard way of defining something, and has nothing to do with "trying to make the article more positive" That you think this is the case and that coupled with your recent deep revert is a clear POV, and violates NPOV. And yes NPOV is simple when adhered to.

Mastcell: You suggest that one source trumps another despite that fact that the sources in the discussion above, the Nature source and the Kilby award foundation website, are being used to support two different pieces of content. There is no such policy, and such a reading of sourcing is illogical since it would remove masses of content and sources for Wikipedia articles as editors removed content based on a personal priority system(olive (talk) 17:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC))

If the secondary sources are overwhelmingly negative about an award, and you use the awards own website to make it seem more positive, at a minimum that violates WP:NPOV. My edits are neutral because they conform to the independent secondary sources, IRWolfie- (talk) 17:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Wow! We have one source with a few words, Nature. Use of the foundation website to set the standard for how the foundation sees its own award is a standard in editing.(olive (talk) 17:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC))

Physics research

The idea that Hagelin's TM practice with Consciousness is part of his physics work, work that is explicitly rejected by his co-workers as having nothing to do with physics violates WP:FRINGE guidelines. The secondary sources such as Nature indicate strongly that this is not part of his physics work but rather he has been accused of distorting science, IRWolfie- (talk) 15:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

If you disagree I will happily contact wikiproject physics for more opinions, IRWolfie- (talk) 15:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Wolfie: That you think you have the right or expertise to determine what qualifies as a physicists work and what doesn't, that you unilaterally edit based on this determination, that you would deep revert another editor's painstaking work, unilaterally, based on some notion you have about what a scientists work is, and that you would then threaten editors on this page should they disagree with you is ownership and beyond the pale. You are skating on the thinnest of ice.(olive (talk) 16:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC))

"That you think you have the right or expertise to determine what qualifies as a physicists work and what doesn't ... is ownership and beyond the pale" I am qualified as a physicist, I am currently engaged in research in physics and have been studying it for many years, I have physics publications, so I would have thought that would, perhaps, give me some expertise? But anyway, I'm not saying anything that the sources don't say. I am not basing my edits on any expertise I may have (imagine if qualified individuals wrote articles, truly an awful world!). Again, I am open to asking Wikiproject physics. I have not threatened anyone and quite frankly have no clue what you are talking about, but if I was to summarise I would say "You are skating on the thinnest of ice" sounds rather treat-like. I am talking about content issues and you respond with an accusation that I am making a threat. Assuming good faith I have no idea what I am meant to make of that, IRWolfie- (talk) 17:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

No editor has the right to determine a scientist's work does not qualify as his work. While you can determine that the sources are critical of the work dismissing the research out of hand as not part of a life's work in not your or our business as editors. Further most scientists I know would never take that step, critical of the work sure, but not the next step which you take here by excluding the research from the research section in this article based o n your personal opinion of what is research and what isn't. Such a move clearly illustrates a POV. Further you reverted an editor who has been uninvolved in these discussion after he spent a fair amount of time working on the article. Ownership. Further fringe deal with sources. There is no violation of anything by setting out the range of Hagelin's work contentious or not as that work may be. You misunderstand Fringe.(olive (talk) 18:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC))

I came to this fustercluck with no pre-existing view. My previous edits have been entirely stylistic. I started making more substantive edits and seem to have run afould of some sort of long-standing argument, replete with an ArbCom case, evidence of edit warring, lots of WP:OWN behavior, and a level of incivility that's an archetype for the reasons for the attrition the project is suffering because people of good will decide the project isn't worth the tsuris and indigestion. The near realtime reversion of edits is just plain annoying. It bespeaks WP:OWN, WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:TENDENTIOUS problems at a high degree of magnitude.