Talk:Elizabeth Rauscher

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.

Physics C‑class Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's History C‑class

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on 17 August 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by .

Uninvolved admin request

Template:Uninvolved

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I've reported these issues to WP:FTN. There are obvious ownership issues since the commentators on this talk page agree with me and not with Dreadstar. 76.119.90.74 (talk) 22:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]