Talk:Russell Targ

Substantial discussion of editing/improving this article is also occurring at User talk:Torgownik

Edits by Torgownik

Torgownik (talk · contribs) who claims to be Targ himself has been blocked for editing warring previously, he keeps inserting original research into the article and deleting criticism of his work. Does Wikipedia:Conflict of interest apply here? Goblin Face (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it says that you can give him advice as to how to approach this situation. Have you? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Targ has been told many times by three different users (including myself) to insert reliable references when he makes his edits on the article, if he did this there would be no problem and no user would delete what he has added but every time he inserted personal commentary into the article with no secondary references to back up his claims. He's now on websites promoting some kind of conspiracy theory that users are deleting information from his article out of bias, but this is false. It is Wikipedia policy to delete unreferenced original research, everything he added was his own opinion and not referenced. Targ also makes the false claim in his rant here that he was banned from editing his biography [1] which is not true. He was temporarily blocked for edit-warring. He's asking people to edit his Wikipedia biography so this may well be a case of Wikipedia:Meat puppetry. He has not helped himself, all he has shown is ignorance. So I will not be further trying to help him. Goblin Face (talk) 13:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Targ has indeed been complaining about what he (and I) see as unreasonable removal of information such as his first wife being married to Bobby Fischer, and I inserted this information through learning of his complaint, not because I was asked to do so by Targ as GF suggests. That detail can be seen on Joan Targ's w'pedia page so further sourcing is not necessary. but I suppose one can't insist that editors do such easy research before reaching for the delete button. Perhaps three people have sent him advice but I assume this advice didn't get to him as he has not mentioned it.
I also added the information about his 2nd wife, having checked the details with him. In fact this information was once there and has been gratuitously removed by someone. I should point out to those seemingly unaware of the fact that details of marriages, etc. are public domain (in the UK they are at least) and can be accessed through organisations such as ancestry.com: in view of this, sources should not normally be needed for such information. Removal of marriage information as seems to have happened sure looks like vandalism to me (but perhaps it was an honest mistake). --Brian Josephson (talk) 07:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk inserted in article reverted

I reverted the addition of a comment purportedly by Targ. Talk does not belong in an article. Post the message here and the points made will be responded to. Might I suggest finding reliable independent secondary sources for material one seeks to include. - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I am having difficulty finding secondary sources that discuss his laser work. Targ claims he is a pioneer in the development of the laser but only fringe paranormal books seem to be mentioning this and they are unreliable; no scientific journals or papers etc seem to mention it. There are reliable sources describing him as a "laser physicist" but they do not go into detail, he has published some old papers on lasers but I do not know how important they were (why are they not discussed in secondary sources)?

I found this though in the New Scientist which might be useful for the article [2] Goblin Face (talk) 18:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

And try this historical review: http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~phylabs/adv/ReprintsPDF/CO2%20Reprints/03%20-%20CO2%20Lasers.pdf. I've not read this through in detail (except to verify that the paper by Targ and Tiffany is in the reference list), but what appears on the Google search page is this:

Historical Review. Early in 1964, Patel et al. ... CO, laser transitions, the measurements of absorption and transmission spectroscopy, and ...... investigated recently by Targ and Tiffany(l59) who have measured the small-signal gain as well as ... .

In the light of this reference, I think we can conclude that Targ did not make up his claim, so it can be restored to the article. --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

What appears on the Google search page is not a reference. If you want to include content and cite a reference, I suggest you actually read the reference that's in keeping with policy. The content inserted was talk a statement by Targ about his careers and Wikipedia's unfairness. That content does not belong in the article. As I have actually read the reference you have linked to I'll fill you in on a few details. First the mention of Targ is not in the section of the chapter entitled "Historical Review"' Second the book itself is not a historical review but a book on the subject of lasers published in 1971. I am quite sure the field has moved along in the following 43 years and there are up to date actual scholarly historical analyses of the subject. Third the mention of Targ consists entirely of nothing more than one sentence you quote and a footnote cite on an illustration. In 224 citations the chapter cites Targ 3 times the above mentioned article twice and another article he coauthored once. This in no way supports any claims of being a pioneer or leader in laser research. It does support, "In the 1960s Targ was coauthor of several journal articles on lasers." I will add that and the reference you have provided. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I can't say I understand this business about 'what appears in the Google page not being a reference', since what appears on the search page is an extract from the results of a search. More clarification needed. --Brian Josephson (talk) 19:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Pioneer = 'a person who is among the first to explore or settle a new country or area', that's all. Is there not good evidence for that? My guess is that there would be -- it would basically just a question of checking dates and seeing who worked when. Leader would be more difficult to establish and I would not press for that. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually to attempt a survey of the early publications on lasers and make an assessment of who researched what first is the very definition of original research. Isn't there a book or journal article listing "milestones in the development of lasers" or more precisely "pioneers in laser development" something in a book saying, "the early work on lasers..." or "the ground was laid by..." or even "many people contributed to the early development of lasers, including..." That sort of source is available for most subjects and most contributors of significance to the field are discussed in this type of work. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

WP guidelines do need to be interpreted intelligently rather than blindly, and nowhere is this more important than regard to 'original research'. Doing 'what any fule would do' in given circumstances cannot reasonably be characterised as OR. And 'any fule' would immediately, in the context of the question of whether X was a pioneer in field Y, ask when did field Y begin, and in what period was X working in the field. And as regards attributability of the relevant information, please bear in mind that WP does not insist that sources be included in an article; a _reasonable presumption_ that such sources exist is sufficient. In this case, a 'sensible fule' would know that a Google search should provide the discovery date, and a Google Scholar search publication details. Sundry caveats in WP:NOR support these comments. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

First see the core policy WP:Verifiability it is quite clear on WP:UNSOURCED content, particularly in BLPs. Next look at the flaws in your proposed original research. Let's say Y field started in the 1940s is every person who was listed as an author on an article in the 1940s a pioneer of Y. What about those whose contributions are flatly called insignificant by authorities in the field later? What about those whose contributions are found to be completely flawed later? A host of examples (failures, frauds etc.) could be provided to show how any fule could be easily mislead by embarking on simplistic and flawed original research. (I'm sure I could find some "discovery dates" and publication details of sheer and utter bullshit on a number of fields important, and abandoned, discredited or not quite real.) When any such fule's content on WP is challenged the WP:BURDEN falls upon said fule. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Joseph McMoneagle reliable? due?

Can Joseph McMoneagle's book be considered a reliable source? He is certainly primary and not independent. What is the due weight he should be given. Is he a credible source for stating a specified number of documents? Is this undue? Is he a credible source for the continued classification of a government program? Is he a credible source for claiming that the AIR's government commissioned review of remote viewing's usefulness for intelligence was not given access to extensive material on the study of remote viewing? I think he is not a credible reliable source for this content. I do not object to the brief mention that he claims this but per WP:DUE it should be very brief. Other sources on the subject are much weightier and more credible. - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Not reliable for anything on this subject. I don't see how an involved primary source can be used at all on a controversial point like this. It would be incredibly simple for a real psychic to prove it and generate buzz that would attract reliable secondary sources. If none of them are reporting, Wikipedia has no business reporting. 165.214.11.76 (talk) 18:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion on list of works

The following set of papers was added without discussion here by an acknowledged COI editor.

• R. Targ, P. Rabinowitz, S. Jacobs, "Homodyne Detection of Phase-Modulated Light," Proc. IRE, Vol. 50, No. 11 (November 1962).
• R. Targ, "Optical Heterodyne Detection of Microwave Modulated Light," Proc. IEEE Correspondence, pp. 303-304 (March 1964).
• R. Targ and W.B. Tiffany, "Gain and Saturation on Transverse Flowing He, N2, CO2 Mixtures," Appl. Phys. Letters, Vol. 15, No. 9 (1 November 1969).
• R. Targ, W.B. Tiffany, J.D. Foster, "Kilowatt CO2 Gas-Transport Laser,"Appl. Phys. Letters, Vol. 15, No. 3 (1969).
• R. Targ, Roland Bowles, Michael Kavaya, and R. Milton Huffaker, "Coherent Lidar Airborne Windshear Sensor: Performance Evaluation," APPLIED OPTICS, 20 May 1991.
• R. Targ, James G. Hawley, Michael Kavaya, Sammy Henderson, and Daniel Moerder, "Coherent Launch-Site Atmospheric Wind Sounder: Theory and Experiment, APPLIED OPTICS, August 21, 1993.

What is the inclusion criteria for the list of works. Books published by publishing houses of course. I think to include papers published in journals they should be notable by citation count or discussion in media. Lists of works need clearly defined inclusion criteria, publication alone is not adequate indication that a paper is notable enough to be included in an encyclopedic article. Looking for consensus on what level of citation in this field contstitutes notability or references that discuss these (or other) papers. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The kilowatt laser one has been cited 99 times so is surely notable. This one: FM OSCILLATION OF THE He‐Ne LASER SE Harris, R Targ - Applied Physics Letters, 1964 has been cited 95 times and is surely good enough (ref: Google Scholar). Others on lasers have been cited more than 10 times which I suggest is good enough.
In any event, I'm sure whoever added those references had good reason for so doing, so why not leave them all in (or restore them if they have been removed). COI is a pretty illusory criteron as I think most research people have sufficient integrity that their judgements can be respected regardless of hypothetical COI -- it is not as if they are working for drug companies after all. --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

And again, MrBill3 refers to a 'COI editor'. I must say I have problems understanding how COI can be relevant here. In the first place, it is completely standard for an article about a scientist to include examples of his publications, and the number at issue can hardly be considered excessive. And in the context of 'including examples', the quality is hardly relevant -- one could perfectly well include dubious papers if those were typical of the subject of an article -- it is not at all the same situation as citing an article to support a point. Please take note of this distinction. Secondly, the only credible way in which COI might be relevant in regard to a specific publication would be if the claims in that publication had been disputed, which as far as I am aware has not been the case in regard to the cases cited.
It seems to me that objections to these publications are being magicked up out of thin air, and a much more cogent case needs to be made if you wish to censor them (assuming that was your movitation for bringing this issue up). --Brian Josephson (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

There's no harm in putting Targ's published papers into the article. Binksternet (talk) 18:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Glad you agree on that. I think rather than some box-ticking approach to the question of which papers should be included as some seem to advocate, the thing is to ask people in the field which papers they consider the most important, and I will look into that when I have time.
Incidentally, I find it bizarre that the article has a section on Targ's contributions to parapsychology but none on his laser work, where I gather he made important contributions. Rumour has it (I don't know how much credence to give this) that once there was such a section but it got removed by someone who wished to diminish Targ's credibility. I have not had time to look into this (the history should tell), and of course that rumour may be completely false. --Brian Josephson (talk) 18:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I've found out who removed the reference to Targ's early work on the laser, with an excuse that has no legs since there would have been absolutely no problem finding an RS for the material removed and the appropriate action would have been to insert a 'source needed' comment. Details will follow when I have the time. --Brian Josephson (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Targ should not be editing this article per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and maybe you should not be editing per Wikipedia:Meat puppetry. Targ is all over the web spamming facebook pages and forums which false libelous claims about his Wikipedia article and requesting for his fellow paranormal believers to edit it. He obviously told you and come to edit his article considering you are one of his parapsychology friends and it's funny how you took no interest in this article at all until he mentioned it on various paranormal websites. If you have reliable secondary sources for his laser work then that's great add it in, but as stated above it's been hard to find these sources. There is no conspiracy to suppress or delete Targ's laser work, the problem is the lack of reliable sources for it. Goblin Face (talk) 22:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Lighten up! Targ can edit his own biography as long as he does not violate the COI guideline. Wikipedia does not care what Targ is doing elsewhere on the webs. Our job is to tell the reader about Targ, not to prevent the reader from learning about Targ. Binksternet (talk) 22:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually an editor claiming to be Targ has edited this article repeatedly in violation of the COI guidelines and has repeatedly inserted unsourced content and talk within the article. Off wiki canvassing is against policy and there have been improper edits made to this article by editors who directly said they had been canvassed off wiki.

Targs contributions to laser have not been supported as significant or notable by any reliable sources provided. I reliable source in the relevant field is all that would be required to provide some description of his work with laser as important. As always on WP we paraphrase the encyclopedic content of reliable sources. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Targ is called an "accomplished laser physicist" by Jeffrey J. Kripal. Ian Anderson called him a "laser physicist". If you look on Google Scholar you'll find that there are a lot of papers co-authored by Targ on laser technology. The paper "Kilowatt CO2 Gas‐Transport Laser" was cited 99 times by other researchers. The paper FM OSCILLATION OF THE He‐Ne LASER" was cited 95 times. Both of these appeared in Applied Physics Letters. Please put away your distaste for the subject and acknowledge that the papers are significant. If Targ had never taken up with ESP experiments, he would have been well known in the laser field. Binksternet (talk) 04:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Who says Targ is well known in the laser field. The two links you give are to, Authors of the Impossible: The Paranormal and the Sacred and "Strange case of the psychic spy" not exactly relevant to laser science are they? Where is the relevant' source. Something in the field that describes Targ's contributions as of any notability at all. Note your contention is particularly weak since both of the sources you give are only discussion Targ because of his paranormal work. 99 citations in 45 years according to Google Scholar doesn't make a paper notable in fact it's fairly paltry. The journal Applied Physics Letters focuses on publishing new work rapidly, resulting in publication of plenty of non notable material. If Targ "would have been well known in the laser field" where are the reliable sources in the laser field that discuss him? If you want to propose a citation metric using a more reliable source than Google Scholar that would probably be appropriate. What kind of citation numbers do papers that experts in the field actually call important or highly cited have? Who in the laser field has called Targ's work important? It may be in some of the citations, especially later ones. The paper from the IEEE is certainly in a notable journal but note it is in the "Correspondence" depart not a featured research article.

BTW the second source you gave says Targ left the psychic reasearch center in 1982 should the article be changed from "from 1972 to 1995" to "from 1972 to 1982". What source is there for the dates of his involvement with SRI other than the one you just gave? - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

@Brian Josephson, it is a personal attack to attribute motivations not stated by an editor to their edits. Refrain from discussing rumours, ascribing motives and activity other than discussing how to improve this article on it's talk page. Your contention that "an excuse that has not legs" is not constructive, if there is absolutely no problem finding an RS provide it. Of note several editors have done some research and not found any indication that Targ's scientific/academic contributions outside his paranormal work are in any way significant.

Removal of unverifiable content is adherence to the core policy of WP:Verifiability: "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed."

To return to the subject of this section. It is not appropriate to include a list of publications without some basis for inclusion. If an expert or someone with knowledge of the field and some examples can suggest what would be considered a highly cited paper in the field I think including papers that are highly cited would be appropriate. Honestly a papers published 20 and 30 years ago that have not been cited over 100 times don't seem significant enough to include in an encyclopedia. Are these papers cited in textbooks in the field? Are they called important when cited by other papers? Have scholarly works on the history of the field described these papers as important? It is not enclyopledic in nature to provide lists of papers published without some inclusion criteria. Examples are not necessary or encyclopedic unless reliable sources have reported them as important. That's the standard on WP. An expert in the field could establish that X number of citations is significant for the field. Excepting that the material does not belong in the article. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC) This material should not be reinserted into the article until reliable sources for it's notability are provided or consensus is reached here. The assertion "because it's notable" requires reliable sources. At least someone knowledgeable in the field giving some indication of what level of citation could be considered highly cited. I will ask an experienced editor if they know or care to weigh in. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC) {{u:Binksternet]] Where on this talk page have you provided a reliable source that states the content you seek to include is notable? Per the WP:Verifiability policy, "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." Where is there any verification that this content has any significance, importance or notability? What RS even discusses that Targ published some papers? Much less that his publications are notable. Where are the books on the history of the development of laser that discuss Targ as an important contributor? Where are the citations of these papers which refer to them as important papers? This content is not supported, continued re-insertion without consensus or reliable sources is edit warring. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Where have you seen a guideline that says scholarly papers published in notable peer-reviewed journals are not worthy of inclusion in a biography about the author of the papers? It's hard for me to take your complaint seriously after I have already shown you two of Targ's papers that were very widely cited. Binksternet (talk) 04:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

WP reports on what others have reported. The guideline No original research applies a list of selected publications by an academic is based on that list being published in a source or the publications being considered important enough to be written about in reliable third party sources. WP does not include random or extensive lists of non notable publications. I don't think that an editors opinion that a paper is widely cited because has acquired less than a hundred citations in 45 years based on Google Scholar is exactly what establishes notability. Why would you say "I have already shown you two of Targ's papers that were very widely cited" the comment making that assertion was signed "Brian Josephson" this most recent comment was signed "Blinksernet"? If Targ's contributions to laser were notable enough to be included in the biography of someone notable for their paranormal research, I ask again, Where is the reliable source that states Targ's papers were important or notable or made a significant contribution to the field? This should not be hard to provide, the papers are over 30 years old there should be books about the subject which discuss these papers and the contributions they made. If there is no such reliable source these papers are not of significance. Not every paper published in a peer reviewed journal is encyclopedic content. The journals are not that notable btw and many of the publications of these journals have not been found notable. That said if you wish to propose a citation metric based on the opinion of someone with knowledge in the field, make a proposal. I may contact an experienced editor and ask if they care to weigh in on the subject of inclusion criteria for published papers in biographies of academics. Of note Targ is not so much notable for being an academic but for being a parnormal researcher who was highly criticized. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's what I posted just a couple of inches above, signed with my name:

Targ is called an "accomplished laser physicist" by Jeffrey J. Kripal. Ian Anderson called him a "laser physicist". If you look on Google Scholar you'll find that there are a lot of papers co-authored by Targ on laser technology. The paper "Kilowatt CO2 Gas‐Transport Laser" was cited 99 times by other researchers. The paper FM OSCILLATION OF THE He‐Ne LASER" was cited 95 times. Both of these appeared in Applied Physics Letters. Please put away your distaste for the subject and acknowledge that the papers are significant. If Targ had never taken up with ESP experiments, he would have been well known in the laser field.

Let's agree to write this biography with the reader in mind rather than writing it with an eye to punishing Targ for COI. Binksternet (talk) 05:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

As above Kripal is not an authority in laser in fact the source is a fringe book on PARANORMAL not on laser, the second source an article "Strange case of the PSYCHIC SPY" these don't provide reliable sourcing for asserting that Targ is notable in the field of lasers. Where is the reliable source that says he is? Under a hundred citations in 45 years is not exactly important and notable. The journal publishes new research rapidly, resulting in publication of plenty of non notable papers. The IEEE paper was published in a notable journal but not as a featured research article but in the "Correspondence" department. Where is the reliable source that says these papers are important contributions to the field? (Try reading some of the citations it may be there). Where is the reliable source that says Targ would have been well known in the laser field? Stop your personal attacks immediately and constrain your commentary to improving the article. Your attribution of positions and motivations I have not stated are inappropriate personal attacks if they continue I will make reports at the appropriate notice board(s). Let's agree to discuss the content of the article and policy based ideas on how to improve it.

See the section 'Talk inserted in article reverted' section for a scholarly review supporting the fact that Targ has done notable work in the laser field. If Targ had not contributed anything useful his resarch would not have been included in the review; and it is absurd to say work cannot be considered notable if nobody has actually stated 'X's work is notable', which reminds me of Michael Frayn's joke 'I cannot see the fog unless I can see a sign telling me that there is fog' (or words to that effect). You would do everyone a service by not continuing to push this line. And now I must go and get on with important things. --Brian Josephson (talk) 07:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

See the above section for my response on the subject of that section and detailed response on the source. Your contention with the poor analogy of Frayn's joke does not hold up. Many researchers work is described as pioneering, important, substantial, significant, groundbreaking, laying the groundwork, instrumental, foundational and a plethora of other adjectives when the researchers and their work are discussed in scholarly works. The inclusion of a study specifically called recent by Targ as a mention in a chapter on CO2 Lasers in a 1971 book on lasers does not make his work on lasers notable. When citing notable works authors frequently use some of the above adjectives or provide a description of how the cited work laid the foundation for later work. Historical reviews of work done 40 years ago specifically identifies those who broke the ground and those who made breakthroughs or substantial contributions. Read a few "History of blah blah..." articles in the major journals and you will see third party, secondary sources that support descriptions of the contributions various scientists. Read a book on the history of a scientific subject, you will find it discusses contributors using adjectives and providing explanation and context of the importance of their work. If there is such that discusses Targ then WP can cite it and describe him as described with paraphrasing. If a book about lasers makes multiple mention of Targ and his work that would make it notable. That's not absurd that's what constitutes notability. Citation counts can establish notability and the published opinion or expert opinion in the field might help us set some criteria but frankly at under 100 citations using the non scholarly criteria of Google Scholar in over 40 years since publication is pretty weak. Something like a citation in a major textbook in the field would be notable. Some of the more recent citations may provide context and establish notability. Rather than presenting faulty and false analogies, unread sources with snippets from Google search and non policy based arguments on talk pages you would do everyone a service by reading sources and proposing content citing them that is constructive editing. If you are to busy with important things and can't be bothered, stop wasting peoples time with tenditious nonsense. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I have already made my position clear, and do not propose to waste further time responding to your tendentious comments. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

So you have no reliable source which describes Targ's work as notable or significant in any way and you make your footstomping retreat leaving behind only a false representation of a single sentence in a 1971 book that says nothing about the work being notable or important and the claimed ignorance of many scientist's work being described as notable or important? - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

It is a righteous duty, keeping low quality fluff out of biographies. However, the effort expended here is all out of proportion to the perceived problem. Despite his ESP work, Targ continued to be known for laser and electro-optic physics throughout his career. Our article says "From 1986 to 1998 Targ worked in electro-optics as a senior staff scientist at the Lockheed Missiles and Space Company." Targ's laser papers are not fluff. Targ's papers are cited three times in the 1998 book Handbook of Laser Wavelengths (ISBN 9781420050158). A paper by Targ is cited once in the 1996 book Lasers and Electro-optics: Fundamentals and Engineering (ISBN 9780521484039). A Targ paper is cited in 2005's Laser Processing of Engineering Materials: Principles, Procedure and Industrial Application (ISBN 9780080492803). A Targ paper is cited in 2012's Industrial Applications of Lasers (ISBN 9780323144780). The 2012 book Effects of High-Power Laser Radiation (ISBN 9780323149914) cites a Targ paper. What's mostly cited in these books is the 1969 paper by Tiffany, Targ and Foster, titled "Kilowatt CO2 Gas‐Transport Laser", published in the Applied Physics Letters journal. In the first volume of the journal Laser Focus with Fiberoptic Communications, published in 1965, Targ's 1964 paper is discussed, "FM Oscillation of the He‐Ne Laser", co-written with Harris. The journal says that Targ came up with the term "super-mode" to describe the observed FM laser output: "When T was adjusted to zero, then all of the energy that was previously distributed between the various sidebands of the FM laser signal appeared in a single 'super-mode' — as it has been termed by Mr. Targ." The term "super-mode" appears in just about every modern laser book. The 1978 publication of the journal Laser Focus described Targ and Puthoff as well-known: "Russell Targ and Harold Putoff [sic] are well known to the laser community, Targ for work in developing the gas-transport laser, Puthoff for his text Fundamentals of Quantum Electronics..." The 1966 publication of Electronics journal says "Russell Targ, a physicist who believes in esp and its allied arts, and is one of the developers of the f-m and supermode laser, [Electronics, Sept. 20, 1965, p. 101] feels that the typical card-guessing tests are self-defeating." Binksternet (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your response and for your research. Given the material you have referenced I think we should now add/restore to the lead that Targ worked in the early development of lasers. I think the bio section should then contain that Targ played a role in the development of the gas-transport laser. The papers cited in these books should be included (in the proper format, with full info). Again thank you for your research. I am sure Mr. Targ appreciates your efforts and I am pleased that his article can now more accurately represent him. Despite claims and allegations I don't believe there was an effort to discredit Targ but only to follow policy on WP. As I do a fair amount of research for WP I know your input represents significant effort, the subject of an article deserves such effort and WP is improved by it. - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Appeal for consensus: Do we now have adequate references to include in the lead "worked in the early development of lasers" in the bio some detail of Targ's contributions to the field and in the publications papers cited in books or journals that discuss Targ as a significant contributor to the development of lasers? Binksternet, Goblin Face, Brian Josephson and TheRedPenOfDoom - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

i havent been following this discussion and have not read all the materials, but if Binksternet's comment of 15:48, 7 May 2014 is accurate (i havent checked the sources, but have no reason to doubt it), i have no objections. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I think we have enough here to flesh out his laser work in the article body, saying that he helped pioneer F-M lasers, coining the term "super-mode" (as applied to lasers) in 1964, and that he helped pioneer gas-transport lasers. The lead section should be a brief summary such as has been suggested by MrBill3. Binksternet (talk) 01:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

We should avoid terms like "pioneered" per WP:PEACOCK but certainly include the specific facts. It makes for a better article and is more encyclopedic. Rather than he helped pioneer, what was his contribution, should prove interesting and be factual and encyclopedic. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if anyone else is uneasy about the use of this word (assuming they know its definition of course)? Do we have consensus that it is unproblematic and merely allows one to express in one word something that would otherwise require something more verbose? Such tortuous rewording adds little, and is best avoided IMHO. --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Did you read the guideline? This is precisely what is discouraged. Also read No Original Research determining someone is a pioneer when reliable sources don't is the definition of original research. If reliable sources use such puffery (pioneer used as puffery rather than used meeting it's definition no country or area explored or settled) they can be quoted otherwise WP uses encyclopedic tone. As an encyclopedia WP should include the facts. It seems Targ made some specific, fairly notable contributions to early laser research these should be given as facts in context. The paraphrase for the lead should be accurate, factual and neutral, not peacock. While looking up words check encyclopedia. - - MrBill3 (talk) 23:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I would find the use of "pioneer" as problematic. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Return to subject of section (discussion of changes in content below at "Request for proposal" please). I don't see notability for the lidar papers. They could be used as a reference in the proposed section for content such as "He continues to work in lasers researching the use of lidar in windshear" but as listed publications they seem to lack notability. If there are sources to support notability please provide them. Should "On remote viewing" and "On precognition" be combined into "On the paranormal"? - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Relationships issue

I added the fact that Targ's first wife was Bobby Fischer's sister, which seems to me quite an interesting piece of information, worthy of inclusion in the personal section of a biography. I have learned that there have been objections to such inclusion in the past, and in this context it is worth noting that the article on Paul Dirac includes the information

Dirac married Margit Wigner (Eugene Wigner's sister).

It is hard to see why including such information should be OK in Dirac's case but not in that of Targ. Of course, if the brother concerned were not a notable person there'd be a case for considering inclusion irrelevant, but Bobby Fischer can hardly be considered not notable. --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Is who someone's wife's brother is encyclopedic? What is done in another article is irrelevant, what is relevant is policy. Is there a reliable source that when writing about Targ has considered this important enough to include? Bobby Fischer may be notable, Joan Targ is notable enough to have her own article but how is it notable that Targ's wife's brother was Fischer? Our standard is what the reliable sources say. What do the other editors here think? It's not a big issue to me. Whatever the consensus leans towards is fine with me. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

i dont see how it is relevant - is there any indication that Fischer influenced Targ or vice versa? otherwise its just bringing in shoe string "relatives" (to garner "fame by association"?) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Lighten up, Doom -- it is not put in for 'fame by association', how ridiculous! It is absolutely absurd to even to consider that the fact that Targ married Fischer's sister might have enhanced his reputation, and the very fact that to try to boost your case you have made this absurd suggestion ('I'm related to a famous chess player, and that means people will think I'm a great person, yeah, sucks to all you ordinary people who have PhDs from Harvard but don't have famous relatives!') really destroys your credibility. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Publications to include in article

Thanks to Binksternet for the pointers. Apologies to Targ for not being aware of his contributions to laser research. Although I'm not an expert in lasers but as a general researcher when looking up Targ's papers in the references mentioned it seems they are of some importance in the foundational research in laser (consistent cites in developmental work, ref'd in later books). There may wind up being quite a number to consider listing in his publications. Still looking to establish a clear criteria but for consideration:

Weber, Marvin J. (1998). Handbook of Laser Wavelengths. CRC Press. pp. 643, 649. ISBN 9781420050158.

cites:

• Targ, R.; Sasnett, M.W. (February 1972). "High-repetition-rate xenon laser with transverse excitation". IEEE Journal of Quantum Electronics. 8 (2): 166–9. doi:10.1109/JQE.1972.1076913. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |authormask1= ignored (|author-mask1= suggested) (help)
• Massey, G.A.; Oshman, M.K.; Targ, R. (1965). "Generation of single-frequency light using the FM laser". Applied Physics Letters. 6 (1): 10–1. doi:10.1063/1.1754114. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |authormask3= ignored (|author-mask3= suggested) (help)

- - MrBill3 (talk) 00:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for proposal

Can an editor with some knowledge of laser physics and/or skill at paraphrasing propose content with refs for a section I propose, "Laser research". A proposed edit to the lead might also be appropriate. There is no problem with a COI editor making proposals here. Avoidance of WP:PEACOCK with clear specifics would be most useful. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much you for adding some of my early laser papers to my bio page. It would by unquestionably correct to say that "Targ did early research in lasers and laser applications. And was an author of the first paper on coherent detection with lasers. He also published the first paper describing the operation of a 1000-watt continuous wave laser." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torgownik (talk • contribs) 17:32, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the edits. Some of the references need to be completed. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Laser research

There's too many primary sources in this section. A user above has claimed there are secondary reliable sources i.e. Targ's laser work cited in laser or physics books. Can someone add these in? Goblin Face (talk) 18:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Recent edit warring

I am pretty convinced that Torgownik (talk · contribs) is 108.68.105.17 (talk · contribs). He has attempted to remove the fact that remote viewing is a pseudoscience from the article. His problem might be that "pseudoscience" has been used in the lead. I am not disputing remote viewing being a pseudoscience because it clearly is but I am not sure if we should use that word right in the lead, it might be asking for trouble which is what the edit-warring has been about. Have a look at the Jessica Utts article for an example. I think we should state his involvement with remote viewing in the lead but indicate about it being a pseudoscience in the parapsychology section. Any thoughts on this? Goblin Face (talk) 21:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

For those who have read and understood the literature, remote viewing has clearly been investigated scientifically and is thus not a pseudoscience (regardless of whether or not it is considered proved, which is a different issue to the pseudoscience claim), and the pseudoscience assertion clearly should be removed. You seem not to think it of importance that Utts was elected president of the ASA by people who must have been aware of this side of her statistical activities and would not have done this had her analyses be considered flawed. But then I don't expect w'pedia editors to give proper attention to points that actual scientist will accept, and fully expect you people to go on mouthing 'pseudoscience, pseudoscience!' till the end of time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian Josephson (talk • contribs)

Hogwash. It was investigated under an umbrella of science. It was found to be scientifically not supported. It was continued to be pushed under the a cover of sciency sounding "experiments" etc. hence it is the epitome of pseudoscience. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Found not to be unsupported? Where's your reliable source for that? Have you read Utts' rebuttal of Hyman, if that's what you are referring to? --Brian Josephson (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

ROFL Thats pretty hilarious, but i wouldnt give up your day job. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

And you think you can judge whether experiments are science, or 'sciency'? What, may I ask, are your own scientific credentials for making such judgements? What awards have you received in recognition of your scientific skills? Why should we take anything you say seriously (a legitimate question, under the circumstances)? --Brian Josephson (talk) 22:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Part of a series of comments that led to a block under the "no legal threats" policy

You might also consider the fact that persistently calling Targ's research pseudoscience might well be considered defamatory. I'll leave you to figure out the possible implications of that fact. --Brian Josephson (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC) You might also consider the fact that persistently calling Targ's research pseudoscience might well be considered defamatory. I'll leave you to figure out the possible implications of that fact. --Brian Josephson (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC) The fact is that you consider remote viewing pseudoscience. There are now hundreds of replications in the literature. People are reveiving PhD's for remote viewing research in England. Take it out of the lead. please. Russell Targ. <russ at targ dot co> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.68.105.17 (talk)

break

The problem is that an anonymous skeptical reviewer for Wikipedia who is passionate on the nonexistence of psychic abilities can erase my forty years of work in the field, comprising nine books and about fifty papers published in refereed journals. Wikipedia holds itself to be a factual encyclopedia, not a forum for passionately held beliefs. ESP is a controversial field, no doubt. But we were able to provide the CIA information that they found useful enough to keep us on their payroll for 23 years. Of course, they never took action on anything we said. We were just one asset, of many. The reason they kept us is that on many occasions we were able to provide "first intelligence" that led then to look in the right direction. "pseudoscience" is a screaming anonymous insult, when directed to a hundred-year-old field with hundreds of researchers. Russell Targ. <russtarg at gmail. com> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torgownik (talk • contribs) 00:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Its not my fault that 40 years of work merely resulted in substantiation that magic doesnt exist. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

This talk-page is not a forum or a place to argue, please suggest references to improve the article. There are no scientific references that are supportive of remote viewing only pseudoscience publications. This is not the remote viewing article or the place to discuss remote viewing research. You can read about the pseudoscience of remote viewing on the main article. This is what Robert Todd Carroll has written regarding the work of Puthoff and Targ on parapsychology:

For a detailed account of the incompetence of the work of Puthoff and Targ see chapter 13 of C. E. M. Hansel's The Search for Psychic Power: ESP and Parapsychology Revisited. (Prometheus Books, 1989). See also chapters 2, 3, and 13 of David Marks's The Psychology of the Psychic, (Prometheus Books. 2000) and chapter 7 of James Randi's Flim-Flam! (Prometheus Books, 1982). After reading these accounts of the work done by Puthoff and Targ, the reader will understand why Randi refers to them as the Laurel and Hardy of Psi! [3]

The Hansel and Marks references are used on the article but Randi's Flim-Flam may be of use here. Goblin Face (talk) 01:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

The issue here is not the nonexistence of psychic abilities, it's the validity of your own work. Hindsight (always 20-20) shows the study of remote viewing to have been a trip down the rabbit hole. It's the 20th century equivalent of n-rays. That's what the sources show. There is no clear, reproducible, empirical evidence for the validity of remote viewing, there is substantial evidence that the research into remote viewing fell prey to confirmation bias and other errors. It's not clear what we are supposed to do about that: you plainly don't like it but we don't judge, we just tell it like it is. I am sure other websites adopt a more sympathetic viewpoint, but in matters of science (which the investigation of remote viewing intended to be), we go with the scientific consensus. We aim to be fair and accurate, but we're not going to wave away reality for you I'm afraid. Guy (Help!) 20:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I like the current version saying 'field' of remote viewing in the lead, in view of the way it accords much better with WP:NPV than does the alternative that has been there for quite some time which unconditionally presumes a specific position that future science may show to be misconceived (think Continental Drift, Semmelweis for analogous cases from the past), rather than being neutral in this regard. More compact, also. --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Putting "pseudoscience" in the lede like that seems a bit much, but to try to pass this off as a field is worse. I've trimmed it back. The explanation of remote viewing in the lede still seems a bit undue, but I realize we're trying to balance WP:N, WP:NPOV, and WP:FRINGE here. --Ronz (talk) 15:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

'Field' = 'a particular branch of study or sphere of activity or interest.' I can't see what the problem is with use of the term. Characterising RV as a field is not making any statement about its quality, and does not detract from NPoV in the way that pseudoscience does. And the number of people working on RV seems to be enough for it to qualify as such. --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

It depends. If your research amounts to pathological science then you're not really doing research in the field of x (cold fusion, say) - you're doing work to bolster its mythology. Research into n-rays does not include the numerous reports by believers, because they did not actually test anything other than their own ability to believe. Guy (Help!) 09:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Illegimate removal of information

With reference to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russell_Targ&diff=0&oldid=608011468: I'm sure there's a source for this information which you have removed. Please bear in mind WP policies and do not do this kind of removal without discussing it on the talk page first, or alternatively add a 'source needed' template. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Utter bullshit. There is nothing whatsoever in Wikipedia policy which states that unsourced claims directly contradicting sourced material need to be tagged rather than removed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Really? I don't see any footnote on what I removed. The content, "Dr. Tart not only removed the alleged clues, but he randomly re-numbered all the transcripts. So that even if some clues remained, they would not be useful to a judge." has no source. It contradicts itself "removed the alleged" you can't remove something if it's only alleged, then "removed... So that even if some clues remained" What's the deal were the clues, clues? Did they exist and were removed, or were not all of them removed? Oh wait let's look at the content above "when it was discovered they still contained sensory cues" referring specifically to the transcripts after Tart supposedly removed the sensory clues, is that sourced? With 2 footnotes! This also contradicts the content I removed, "'considering the importance for the remote viewing hypothesis of adequate cue removal, Tart’s failure to perform this basic task seems beyond comprehension'" is that sourced? Yup there's a footnote.

Why are you "sure there's a source for this information"? If there isn't a footnote to support it? Unsourced content is subject to removal per WP:V (see the section WP:ONUS). What WP policies are you talking about it would seem you have it backwards. This is what policy says,

"The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation"

There is no citation to a reliable source directly supporting this contribution, the burden has not been met. WP:V is a core policy. Take some time to familiarize yourself with policy before making assertions. This behavior is WP:tenditious WP:patent nonsense and demonstrates incompetence. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

What Brian has pointed to there was completely unsourced so it should have been removed but I also think this is a case of not reading the references. The claims of the parapsychologist Charles Tart regarding the remote viewing transcripts of Puthoff and Targ have been refuted. Those references are on the article already i.e. David Marks and Christopher Scott "Remote viewing exposed" published in Nature in 1986 and pages 135-136 in Terence Hines book Pseudoscience and the Paranormal (2003). Goblin Face (talk) 13:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

As this is a BLP, editors should expect unsourced material to be removed. --Ronz (talk) 15:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't really understand the problem here. Targ may well have been a laser researcher at the start of his career (and maybe even after that) but what he is known for is not laser research. If he had done only the laser research, we would almost certainly not have an article on him. The majority of significant and biographical sources about Targ, are primarily about his work on remote viewing; those which do note his laser work, do so as background colour. What he is known for, is remote viewing. He may prefer it otherwise, and I'd have every sympathy if he did, but that's how it is: nobody's made a film of his laser research starring George Clooney, nor are they ever likely to. And I don't think Targ himself disputes it: it's the lead of his LinkedIn profile, after all. Guy (Help!) 19:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Up the page a ways at Talk:Russell_Targ#Criteria_for_inclusion_on_list_of_works I argue that Targ was well known in the laser research community. There's no way to know whether he would have achieved Wikipedia-norm notability solely for lasers if he had never researched remote viewing. I think he would have, as the foundation is there. Targ coined the laser term "supermode" which is found inside every laser physics text. Binksternet (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Objection! Calls for speculation ;-) Yes, he may well have done, but the fact is, he didn't. If he had retired in 1972 and none nothing else, we'd have no article. Guy (Help!) 20:57, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

How did this thread get so far off topic. The topic is the following completely unsourced material was removed and another editor objected.

"Dr. Tart not only removed the alleged clues, but he randomly re-numbered all the transcripts. So that even if some clues remained, they would not be useful to a judge."

As the material has no source, is contradicted by reliable sources in the article, this should be done. Open another thread for another topic. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE and list of works

Targ published a hell of a lot more works on remote viewing than are listed; alternatively, we seem to cover the majority of his works on lasers. This seems to diminish a major part of his career. See http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=targ+remote+viewing&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp= Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Many of the observers discussing Targ as a remote viewing researcher note that he is also a laser researcher, so I don't see a problem. If you see a problem with UNDUE then perhaps the solution is to add more papers on remote viewing. Binksternet (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

That would be my preferred solution, yes. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

It does look a bit WP:UNDUE, but in the end we could always collapse it or something. Do we routinely list all of the papers by a scientist in areas outside the subject they are known for, especially when that subject is - ahem - controversial? Guy (Help!) 20:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

The early laser work is pretty highly cited. The later work on lidar and windshear is minor and could be moved to references. Is there any source that considers his lidar and windshear work notable enough to report? If there is no secondary source does it belong in the article?

If we are going to include more works from the parapsychology genre, we should establish inclusion criteria. I suggest highly cited or discussed in the media. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Placing list of works added then removed so their due weight can be considered.

• Targ, R.; Puthoff, H. (September 1977). "State of the art in remote viewing studies at SRI International". Proc. IEEE International Conference on Cybernetics and Society, Session on Psychoenergetics Research, Washington, D.C. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |authormask1= ignored (|author-mask1= suggested) (help)
• Targ, R.; Puthoff, H.; Tart,, C. (March 1980). "Information transmission in remote viewing experiments". Nature . 284: 191. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |authormask1= ignored (|author-mask1= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
• Targ, R.; Puthoff, H.E. (March 1979). "Experimental psi research: Implications for physics". Proc. 14th National Meeting of the AAAS, Houston, Texas. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |authormask1= ignored (|author-mask1= suggested) (help)
• Targ, R.; Puthoff, H.E. (April 1977). "Possible EEG correlates to remote stimuli under conditions of electrical shielding". Proc. IEEE ELECTRO 77,Special Session of the State of the Art in Psychic Research, New York, N.Y. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |authormask1= ignored (|author-mask1= suggested) (help)
• Targ, R.; Targ, E. (March 1986). "A study of the accuracy of paranormal perception as a function of target probability". Jour. Parapsychology. 50. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |authormask1= ignored (|author-mask1= suggested) (help)
• Targ, R.; Tart, C.T. (September 1985). "Pure clairvoyance and the necessity of feedback". Jour. A.S.P.R. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |authormask1= ignored (|author-mask1= suggested) (help)
• Targ, R.; Targ, E. (September/December, 1984). "Moscow - San Francisco Remote Viewing Experiment". Psi Research. 3 (3/4). {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |authormask1= ignored (|author-mask1= suggested) (help)
• Targ, R.; Katra, J. (1995). "Viewing the future: A pilot study with an error detecting protocol". Journal of Scientific Exploration. 9: 367–80. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |authormask1= ignored (|author-mask1= suggested) (help)
• Targ, R. (1996). "Remote viewing at Stanford Research Institute in the 1970s: A memoir". Journal of Scientific Exploration. 10: 77–88. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |authormask1= ignored (|author-mask1= suggested) (help)
• Targ, R. (September 1994). "Remote viewing replication: Evaluated with concept analysis". Journal of Parapsychology. 58. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |authormask1= ignored (|author-mask1= suggested) (help)

Just thought I'd move them here for comment/consideration... - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Where were all the dashes coming from? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:04, May 12, 2014 (UTC)

The format of a bibliography/list of works for the subject of the article does not repeat the name of the subject for each item. If the subject is the sole author then no author is listed, if there are multiple authors the subject is represented in the list of authors by a dash. This list is not really accuarate at this point as Targ is listed as author1 for all the articles and he was not lead author for them all. See the list as it appears now, you will see Targ is indicated at third author on the first laser article etc. See WP:MOS. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Got it. I find the whole "Cite Something" style a bit confusing on the eyes, so I usually just stick something between ref tags and square brackets. Wouldn't work in a section.

As for whether to include them, I don't see a problem with it. If someone doesn't want to see them, nobody's forcing them to read that section. If someone wants the info, they have it. Undue weight is only really a problem when a section about something gets heavy with something else. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:39, May 12, 2014 (UTC)

Before adding back or adding any more publications to the list they need to be found notable. Literally millions of papers are published each year, they don't all get listed in WP in the article on the author/coauthor. For inclusion in an encyclopedic article the publication must have some notability to establish it's WP:DUE weight. A research article in a highly prestigious journal, like Targ & Puthoff 1974 in Nature is notable, subsequent publication of a letter defending this 1794 paper from criticism is not really notable, it belongs in references but not in a list of journal articles (it's not even a journal article). Articles that have been discussed in scholarly works are notable, those that have recieved considerable attention in the media are notable. Articles that are discussed and cited in textbooks or major articles on a general topic and referred to as foundational, fundamental or important etc. are notable. Articles that are highly cited (by the standards of the field) are notable. Without meeting this kind of criteria articles don't belong in an encyclopic list of publications by the subject of an article.

WP:DUE applies to all content. If someone wants to find publications by Targ they can use search engines, like google, pub med and a dozen others. Or they can go to his website, a fan website etc. WP is an encyclopedia. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

You can use google scholar to see how many times a publication has been cited in subsequent research (link). Some have been cited a lot; others, not so much. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Google Scholar isn't really that great for that purpose. What it considers citations goes well beyond subsequent research and the publications included go far into magazines and fringe. It's a decent starting point though, and a huge number on Google Scholar would indicate notability. Web of Science is taken seriously in the academic community as are a few other proprietary citation indexes. What constitutes highly cited varies pretty broadly by field so an expert opinion or some published opinion is useful. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Even with the questionability of Google Scholar I think 2 of the lidar papers could be considered highly cited. Both close to 100 cites on GS the citations listed are pretty much all actual journal articles in journals with some repute. Waiting to see what others think. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Improving the lede

I expanded the lede to give better context. Since Brian Josephson tidied up my typos instead of reverting, I think that's a sign this might be a way forward. An ideal lede has up to three paragraphs.

TRPoD added a sentence, "The claims made about the remote viewing have been dismissed and called fatally flawed." I think that's a bit blunt and lacks nuance. I changed it to: "Remote viewing is now regarded as pseudoscience, and Targ's work has been criticised for lack of rigour". Targ adds "by some" (regarded by some as pseudoscience) which is I think not going to fly, as the consensus is pretty clear, so I go with "generally regarded". Guy (Help!) 20:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

the "fatally flawed" comes straight from our article and straight from our sources United States National Research Council (NRC) concluded, "there should remain little doubt that the Targ-Puthoff studies are fatally flawed". and i would think "almost universally" would be more accurate, but i can live with "generally".-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure, and we have that lower down, there's no need to put the boot in at every opportunity. Guy (Help!) 21:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree with generally per my comment below (assert mainstream scientific consnensus). I do agree "fatally flawed" may overboard for lead "criticized for lack of rigor" is pretty encyclopedic and provides a summary. I believe the assertion that remote viewing is pseudoscience belongs in the lead as it summarizes and presents the mainstream scientific consensus as due. - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Details about SRI

Edits keep getting made to say Targ co-founded SRI, that's not what the source says. Kripal 2010, "this program was originally set up by Stanford alum Harold Puthoff", "After hearing Puthoff lecture...Targ...asked to join his research group." Edits keep getting made to say Targ and Puthoff conducted 20 (or some such number) years of research at SRI, that's not what the source says. Anderson 1984, "Targ, a laser physicist, left a psychic research center in California in 1982". Edits keep getting made that indicate SRI recieved 23 (or some such number) million dollars, no source says that. The sources we do have indicate that much may have been spent in total on defense department, CIA and other government research into applied psychics, not all of this was at SRI, other projects are identified in the sources so we can't say the program at SRI was funded with that number. The source we do have, Anderson 1984, says, "SRI which received $500,000 a year for 12 years from the defence department to conduct psychic research". Content must accurately reflect what is in the sources. Unsourced content must be removed and not replaced without supporting sources. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't know who's saying that, it hasn't been in any of the versions I've been looking at. How many instances are of these edits that "keep getting made"? Guy (Help!) 10:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

A few examples are recent as 12 May 2014:diff - Revision as of 23:47, 12 May 2014, diff - Revision as of 12:39, 10 May 2014, diff - Revision as of 14:15, 18 April 2014, diff - Revision as of 13:19, 10 April 2014. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Uri Geller

I would like to expand some of the article so it discusses Puthoff and Targ's experiments with Uri Geller at the SRI. As I understand it these were not all "remote viewing" experiments, so perhaps we should have another section on this. Here is a source I have found which discusses some of these experiments:

The observers were more appalled, however, than impressed. The SRI staffers (physicists Russell Targ and Harold Puthoff, who specialized in lasers) “already believed in E. S. P., and therefore their goal was to make Geller as comfortable as possible in order to make him produce it” said one of the independent experts, Ray Hyman. Hyman, a University of Oregon psychologist (and amateur magician), added that the think tank’s work was “incredibly sloppy”. Geller was not psychic but a very gifted conjurer, Hyman concluded, employing classic mentalist’s tricks that would and should have been exposed by more objective methods. Over the course of his six-week stint at SRI (for which he was paid 100$ a day and all expenses), Geller had not even been searched for magnets, something that any good researcher would have known to do to instantly identify a fake. A magnet taped to one’s leg could make a Geiger counter click wildly, this a feat Geller had performed before researchers at the University of London who had been hoodwinked by the man.

Source: Lawrence R. Samuel. (2011). Supernatural America: A Cultural History. Praeger. Page 101. Goblin Face (talk) 16:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Better in the SRI article I'd say, unless Targ was sole investigator. Guy (Help!) 19:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

There is a lot on Geller and Targ. Perhaps it can be added to the Geller article we don't want it to take over this entire article, but Robert L. Park in his book Superstition: Belief in the Age of Science. Princeton University Press. Page 68 says "Scientists who knew Russell Targ scoffed; Targ’s eyesight is so notoriously poor, they said, that he would be the last person they would trust to spot any slight-of-hand used by Geller." Also on page 69, Park describes Targ as a "remote-viewing crackpot physicist". I am listing these sources here because if I add them in there will probably be a controversy or edit-warring from Targ over them. Goblin Face (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

These sources can be added, albeit summarized and fully attributed. Cwobeel (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that the article can manage well enough without quoting Park's characterisation. This is supposed to be a biography, not a compendium of Everything Nasty said about Targ. Present the evidence - assessments of the validity of the science - and let readers decide for themselves whether Targ is 'crackpot' or not. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Right. We don't need everything, only enough to show that his work was considered to fall below accepted standards of rigour, and hence is not considered compelling. Guy (Help!) 08:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Cwobeel and Guy. Further content should be tightly paraphrased. Perhaps this material belongs more at the article on SRI? - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

There is also Paul Kurtz's (1985) chapter Spiritualists, Mediums and Psychics: Some Evidence of Fraud which has a section on Uri Geller and Targ on pages 209-217 in the book A Skeptic's Handbook of Parapsychology. Prometheus Books. The section is online [4]. This may be a useful reference. I may as well document this reference here just in case we add a section on Geller, but I will probably add it to the main Uri Geller article. Goblin Face (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I am no longer looking for sources, these are the last ones I could find and I have spent hours looking. Two articles in the New Scientist magazine that discuss Targ's experiments with Geller. [5], [6]. Also note a source that would be a goldmine for information about Targ is the chapter Targ: From Puthoff to Blue in the book The New Age: Notes of a Fringe Watcher by Martin Gardner. [7] Goblin Face (talk) 20:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Delphi Associates

Targ has formed with Keith Harary and Anthony White a company to investigate psychic claims known as Delphi Associates, I believe this should be included on the article. An article in the New Scientist mentions it here [8].

Another possible source which discusses this:

Russell Targ and Keith Harary are branching out. Targ, along with Harold Puthoff, is the scientist who made a name for himself and Uri Geller at California's Stanford Research Institute several years ago. The two scientists set up the experiments that ostensibly proved Geller's psychic abilities. They put Geller on the psychic map by endorsing his so-called paranormal powers. The fact that knowledgeable skeptics later demonstrated that the experiments were a mockery of scientific method and that Geller was in fact a fraud had no effect on the blind beliefs of Messrs. Targ and Puthoff. Well, Targ teamed up with Harary, a parapsychologist with similar beliefs, and they went into business — definitely a more lucrative way of channeling psychic energies than doing laboratory research. They helped form a company named Delphi Associates to "conduct further research and explore new applications of psychic functioning." The idea was to give psychic advice to business people and corporations. Surprisingly, there's a tremendous market for this type of operation. On the Donahue show Targ and Harary claimed to have predicted prices on the silver market, helping to make money for themselves and, by implication, for their clients. They also make this claim in their book, Mind Race published by Random House. As with most psychic claims, there is little documentation to back them up.

Source: Henry Gordon. (1988). Extrasensory Deception : ESP, Psychics, Shirley MacLaine, Ghosts, UFOs. Macmillan of Canada. Page 147. Goblin Face (talk) 17:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Sounds OK to me. Guy (Help!) 19:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

This sounds relevant to the subject. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Assert mainstream scientific consensus

There is no reason to say "generally" considered pseudoscience. WP asserts the mainstream scientific consensus as due. If there is a significant minority opinion otherwise, supported by reliable sources, that can be presented as due. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

It is not appropriate to re-add material without consensus. No controversy exists, provide sources for fringe idea and it can possibly included as due. What source says generally? The sources I read state it is pseudoscience unequivocally. Read WP:FRINGE, WP:ASSERT and WP:DUE. Editors with a conflict of interest should propose changes on the talk page rather than directly edit articles they have an association with. - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The issue is that the subject and Brian Josephson reject the statement that it is or is considered pseudoscience, both advocate either omitting it or saying it is considered pseudoscience by some scientists. In fact, as the sources establish, it is generally considered pseudoscience. It's clear that people like Brian don't consider it that. We have good sources for it being considered that, few dissenters, but saying it's generally considered pseudoscience is properly neutral and not synthesis, as the existence of even a single dissenter means we can't assert it as unambiguous fact. Guy (Help!) 13:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

So according to WP the Earth is generally considered not to be flat? It is considered pseudoscience and that should be asserted. Is there any "serious dispute"? WP:FRINGE theories should be presented as fringe and other published reliable sources that represent a significant minority opinion can be presented as WP:DUE. These policies seem clear. Even if Targ and Josephson reject a statement it is what reliable sources say and that should be presented in proportion to it's prominence. - - MrBill3 (talk) 13:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

There are not many people like Brian. When it comes to Nobellists who'll passionately believe in any and (more importantly) every kind of absurd nonsense, he's pretty much always in a minority of one. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

And what do you know about the statistics? That is pure speculation and I happen to know that you are wrong. --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:01, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I think we should constrain discussion to improving the article. That said there has been at least some effort by the subject and others to engage in talk and work with policy. This should be encouraged. WP benefits from a wide variety of input if policy is adhered to, articles are improved. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

MrBill3: The earth is not flat. This has been conclusively demonstrated by measurement and observation. That remote viewing is pseudoscience, is a philosophical point of view. It is possible to recognise it as nonsense without subscribing to the view that is it pseudoscience, and some people do not recognise it as nonsense, a view which is generally agreed to be completely wrong, but science is not in the business of proving negatives. Guy (Help!) 17:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

If the "philosophical point of view" that RV is pseudoscience is presented in multiple reliable sources that is what should be represented on WP. I think however that Alcock 1988 presents a scientific analysis of the Targ-Puthoff studies that clearly characterizes them as something presented as science which is not. Fatally flawed studies are not scientific, presenting them as science is pseudoscience. Multiple RS has presented and agreed with the interpretation of RV as pseudoscience. Science does discard pseudoscience thus the standard for fringe, a lack of serious debate in the academic community. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Misconceived difference

In a recent edit, JzG reintroduces the term pseudoscience ('... known for his research in the pseudoscience of remote viewing'), on the grounds that 'the work he did was within the pseudoscience of RV, not the objective analysis of it', asking me if I see the difference. My response is that I can see that while in principle there is a difference, asserting a difference in the current context is to misunderstand the actual use of that term.

The difference between science and pseudoscience is connected with the standard of the work. Science, in its search for the truth, has by trial and error established procedures for reliability, which may differ from one field to another. The fact that some research in an area is bad enough to be characterised as pseudoscience does not make the area itself pseudoscience. This is best explained with regard to medical and especially drug research. At this time it is gradually being realised that much research in these areas is unreliable. For example, drug companies may publish just the tests that come out in favour of a drug and not those that do not come out in favour. This selective publication may suggest that the drug is working, whereas analysis of all the tests would cast doubt on the claims. That kind of research might well deserve to be called pseudoscience, and yet we do not call drug testing as such pseudoscience because it is possible to do valid research on the effectiveness of drugs. For the same reason, we cannot call RV a pseudoscience just because some research on it is of poor standard. You might put this simply: 'once there's 'objective analysis' in a field, that field is no longer pseudoscience'.

A corollary of all this is that saying someone is working in an area that is pseudoscience is ipso facto implying that his research in that area is of a poor standard. Targ says he has sent wikipedia a document (I don't know what he means by that) saying a number of things that attest to the standard of his work in this area, but I will not fill the space with that as that is not the main point -- the main point relates to the use of the term pseudoscience as I have explained above. This approval of the standard of Targ's RV work has, I know, been disputed by sceptics, but, as Mandy Rice-Davis would put it, they would say that, wouldn't they. --Brian Josephson (talk) 15:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of the merits of these views in the minds of Wikipedia editors, what you're having a hard time grasping is that it's not what is in the minds of Wikipedia editors that primarily determines content here. If there's a widespread view in reliable sources that RV is a pseudoscience, that's what the Wikipedia article will say about it. Now, as for what's in my own mind, my sense of all of this is that RV was perhaps initially properly considered a field of inquiry in which people attempted to apply standard scientific techniques -- but at this particular point in time it has become impossible (in light of subsequent research) to maintain a conventional scientific engagement with RV, because it has been definitively found wanting via scientific evaluation. Your point about the way things evolve is fine in general, but in the present RV is a pseudoscience. But again: the main issue is evaluating the secondary sources about this topic and conveying what they say. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, I think this is the moment to send you what Targ wrote to WP. Of course I don't for a moment imagine you will do anything other than continue to maintain that as far as WP is concerned RV is still a pseudoscience -- that's what happens in WP when the GS and their ilk are at work. But it will be a very interesting situation, in that it will be clear to anyone reading this discussion and the following statement, in conjunction with what the article says, that WP editors are very happy to have content that is clearly at variance with the facts, and many will be fascinated to learn of this. I can't imagine that editors of any other encyclopedia would be happy in the same way, but as you have all been keen to impress on me WP is merely a mechanism for regurgitating whatever may have appeared in the pages, true or false hardly matters, of a so-called reliable source.
And here is Targ's communication:

There are a number of reasons that editors at Wikipedia should not characterize remote viewing as pseudoscience, when it is not characterized that way by the informed scientific community.

This rant is spam/trolling which Targ has copied to a number of places, it has no relevance to improvement of this article

In order to publish our findings in the 1976 Proceedings of the IEEE, we had to meet with Robert W. Lucky, managing editor, and his board. The editor proposed to us that we show him how to conduct a remote viewing experiment. If it was successful, he would publish our paper. The editor was also head of electro-optics at Bell Telephone Laboratory. We gave a talk at his lab. He then chose some engineers to be the “psychics” for each of five days. Each day he hid himself at a randomly chosen location in the nearby town. After the agreed-upon five trials, the editor read the five transcripts and successfully matched each of the five correctly to his hiding places. This was significant at 0.008 (one in 5!, 5-factorial). As a result, he published our paper on “Information Transmission Over Kilometer Distances”. In our 23 year program for the government at SRI, we had to carry out “demonstration of ability” tasks for the Director of CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency, NASA, and Commanding General of the Army Intelligence Command. (The names are available upon request.) For the CIA we were able to accurately describe and draw a giant gantry crane rolling on eight wheels over a large building, and draw the 60 foot gores, “slices” of a sphere, under construction in northern Russia. The sphere was entirely accurate, although its existence was unknown at the time. The description was so accurate that it became the subject of a Congressional hearing of the House Committee on Intelligence. They were afraid of a security leak. No leak was found, and we were told to “press on.” Remote viewing is easily replicated and has been demonstrated all over the world. It has been the subject of several Ph.D. dissertations in the US and abroad. Princeton University had a 25 year program investigating remote viewing with more than 450 trials. Prof. Robert Jahn also published a lengthy and highly significant (p = 10-10 or 1 in ten billion) experimental investigation of remote viewing in the 1982 Proc. IEEE. The kind of tasks that kept us in business for twenty-three years include: SRI psychics found a downed Russian bomber in Africa; reported on the health of American hostages in Iran; described Soviet weapons factories in Siberia; located a kidnapped US general in Italy; and accurately forecasted the failure of a Chinese atomic-bomb test three days before it occurred, etc. When San Francisco heiress Patricia Hearst was abducted from her home in Berkeley, a psychic with the SRI team was the first to identify the kidnapper by name and then accurately describe and locate the kidnap car. I was at the Berkeley police station and witnessed this event. Jessica Utts is a statistics Professor at the University of California, Irvine, and is [president-elect] of the American Statistical Association. In writing for her part of a 1995 evaluation of our work for the CIA, she wrote: “Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well established. The statistical results of the studies examined are far beyond what is expected by chance. Arguments that these results could be due to methodological flaws in the experiments are soundly refuted.… Remote viewing has been conceptually replicated across a number of laboratories, by various experimenters, and in different cultures. This is a robust effect that, were it not such an unusual domain, would no longer be questioned by science as a real phenomenon. It is unlikely that methodological flaws could account for its remarkable consistency.” Whether you believe some, all, or none of the above, it should be clear that hundreds of people were involved in a 23 year, multi-million dollar operational program at SRI, the CIA, DIA and two dozen intelligence officers at the army base at Ft. Meade. Regardless of the personal opinion of a Wikipedia editor, it is not logically coherent to trivialize this whole remote viewing undertaking as some kind of “pseudoscience.” Besides me, there is a parade of Ph.D. physicists, psychologists, and heads of government agencies who think our work was valuable, though puzzling.

By the way, I (bdj) would dispute your assertion that what is in the minds of editors is irrelevant. Certain editors have made their views (using strong language to do so) very clear and, surprise, surprise, these are just the people who go round changing the article to make it seem unfavourable to the biographee. Another point to mull over: you seem to have no problem accusing people like myself of having a mental bias that is affecting what they write, but on the other hand people such as yourself claim to be completely immune from such influence. Remarkable! I'm afraid I don't believe it. --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The statement "WP is merely a mechanism for regurgitating whatever may have appeared in the pages, true or false hardly matters, of a so-called reliable source." bears a close similarity to the truth. Actually read WP:NPOV, "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Some editors may not like it but that is the core policy. Discussion of the reliability of particular sources is an important activity on WP, for issues not resolved on talk pages there is the Reliable sources/Noticeboard. No original reasearch is allowed on WP, again a core policy. If an editor has objections to the core policies, this talk page is not the place to argue them. Neither is this talk page the place to present original research. Either propose content in keeping with policy or go fight to change policy. A talk page is not a forum for discussing the topic of an article (or WP policy, or conspiracy theories). It is for discussion of improving the article. If there are not reliable sources that present a view it doesn't belong on WP. WP is not a soapbox nor a place to tendentiously strive to right great wrongs. This has been explained repeatedly. Follow policy here or go fight policy on the talk pages of the policies, stop disruptive editing. - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I think this a very clear situation: we are following WP guidelines and policies to the letter, in particular for a WP:BLP. The article as it stands now conforms to these policies. Any poorly sourced material will be summarily deleted, and any material that violates WP:NOR will go the same way. Cwobeel (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

It is Wikipedia policy to delete libelous material when it has been identified. (WP:Libel linked from WP:BLP). I don't feel that policy is being followed, for reasons that have been discussed. --Brian Josephson (talk) 07:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

You're just trying to game the system with that one. WP:BLP links to that in the section titled "Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced". Libel reasonably excludes "all information being referenced through the citation of reliable published sources, so as to maintain a standard of verifiability." Otherwise, we'd have to remove everything from the David Berkowitz article except his birth, early life, and conversion in prison[REDACTED]. None of the stuff identifying remote viewing (which is not Targ himself) as pseudoscience is poorly sourced or unsourced, unless you want to provide further proof that you're only tendentiously trying to censor the site. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

And what you are doing, Ian, is to dream up non-existent law in an attempt to defend your misconceived position; take a look at http://nationalparalegal.edu/public_documents/courseware_asp_files/torts2/Defamation/GeneralPrinciplesOfDefamation1.asp to become better informed (see the section on republishing). And, in addition, you are trying to curtail legitimate discussion by means of threats.
What reputable organisations normally do in such situations is to remove the offending material if asked to do so by the person concerned, as Targ has done in this case. I trust you will do this now (i.e. remove the word pseudoscience from the statement that Targ is best known for his work in the pseudoscience of RV).--Brian Josephson (talk) 16:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Bull. You're just dancing on the line of legal threats again. And as we've explained before, we're merely repeating what any scientific source would say. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

There are many differences with the Berkowitz case which you cite in an attempt to bolster your misconceived situation. For example, the article is concerned primarily with facts, while it is purely an opinion, disputed by a number of people, that RV is pseudoscience. The fact that the statement is high profile being at the beginning of a profile makes it more serious than the original sources, none of which link Targ so directly with pseudoscience. Besides this, a legal factor is the question of whether the text at risk damages the reputation of the person concerned. In the case of Berkowitz it can well be argued that his reputation based on his history is such that it could not be damaged further by repetition of the facts. This is not so in the case of Targ.
I see people have been bringing up the 'no legal threats' in great number. What absolute nonsense -- no one is threatening anyone with legal action, and this is purely a further attempt to stop me drawing attention to well-defined WP policy in regard to BLPs. Surely no-one can be so intellectually challenged to think that because I mention the law I am making a legal threat? Perhaps some are! --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I thought you had stated you were going to stay away from tossing around the legal bits as part of your unblock? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, it isn't a matter of opinion. Remote viewing is a pseudoscience, according to everyone who didn't make a career out of futily trying to find it, and those who did who weren't lying to themselves or doing a terrible job of research. This is according to every mainstream scientific source that comes close to discussing it. That you keep failing to get that is more proof you don't belong here. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

ANI discussion about this article, its subject, and his account.

I have started a discussion at ANI regarding the edit warring, meatpuppetry, and other disruptive behavior in this article. The thread is "Russell Targ needs to be blocked, or at least topic-banned". Ian.thomson (talk) 19:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Inconsistent spelling

In the section "Remote viewing", there's inconsistent spelling of cuing/cueing - it's not a major thing, but if there's a passing admin who feels like correcting it, that would be nice. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

More disruption from Russell Targ

Targ has been blocked for a week for disruptive editing but he has now posted on the Society for Psychical Research facebook page telling his psychic friends to come over and tell Wikipedia what they think. [9], also here [10] which includes comments from other banned Wikipedia users. Because of this advertising the article should remain locked for a bit longer maybe but please keep it open to autoconfirmed users. Goblin Face (talk) 17:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm starting to wonder if we could/should get an edit filter set up before the protection goes off. Maybe any non-confirmed user removing the word "pseudoscience" in the intro sets it off and is flagged as a sock/meatpuppet of a COI POV-pusher. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll be semiprotecting the article when full protection wears off or is removed, and will leave it on until offsite canvassing calms down. Easier than setting up an editfilter. Kevin Gorman (talk)

• I've dropped the protection level down to semi, and will leave it as such until the offsite canvassing calms down a bit. Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
• And once again the fact that he is best known for RV has been removed from the first sentence, and once again I have put it back because that is what he is known for. Guy (Help!) 11:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

To repeat, I have not objected to the assertion that Targ is 'best known for RV' and I don't believe Targ does either. And the potentially defamatory statement I referred to and said should be removed has not (so far at least) been restored; thank you all for your consideration in that respect. --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

It is not defamatory to identify that he is best known for his contribution to the pseudoscience around RV. As I said, his work is specifically cited as having been part of this pseudoscience. Whether we include it in those terms or not is editorial judgment, but it is amply justified and well supported and not in any way defamatory just because he doesn't like it. Guy (Help!) 15:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

If someone can unambiguously provide these sources then, as you say, it becomes a matter of editorial judgement whether to repeat the claims in the article. I'd prefer to avoid terms like "defamatory" here as I am not a lawyer. We use WP:BLP here to determine what is and isn't acceptable. Our over-riding concern should be to "do no harm" to the subjects of our articles. I do not think personally that Targ is in the same category as say Andrew Wakefield, who is predominantly notable in the real world as a charlatan and was disbarred from practising as a doctor for his misdeeds. I would rather see the article describe Targ's work neutrally and dispassionately, without shying away from recording the specific concerns reviewers have had with the quality of his work. These concerns do need to relate specifically to the subject, i.e. mention him by name and specifically use this language in relation to the subject. I am still concerned that the wording on the article may fall foul of WP:SYNTH. --John (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

No, "do no harm" is not the appropriate test: if someone is best known for a criminal conviction, say, then "do no harm" would indicate that we omit that fact. What we should be is fair and accurate. Which the article is, I thin. Obviously the failure by early editors to unearth Targ's former career as a balnace ot his career in pseudoscience, is presented by him as a conspiracy, but I think we all know better than that. Guy (Help!) 22:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Is Targ best known for a criminal conviction? --John (talk) 06:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps a glance at WP:HARM will help avert further unhelpful distraction. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

That's an interesting essay. I prefer "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion... Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively ... Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[3] The burden of evidence for any edit rests with the person who adds or restores material" (my emphasis). --John (talk) 06:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

" Delphi became notable for its success in psychically forecasting changes in the price of silver commodity futures in 1982, as described in the Wall Street Journal, October 22, 1984"

The above [11] was added by User:Torgownik, who I think we've established is Targ himself. Needless to say, it has been reverted, presumably per WP:COI if for no other reason. It appears the the WSJ archives don't go back to 1984, but it should be possible to access the journal somehow. I'll see if I can track the article down, and we can then decide how to proceed - though I very much doubt that we will be stating in Wikipedia's voice that 'psychically forecasting' took place... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Link for WSJ article

If someone wants to buy, read and possibly cite the WSJ article "Did Psychic Powers Give Firm a Killing In the Silver Market?" by Erik Larson October 22, 1984 in the Wall Street Journal. Here's a link ProQuest Archiver link to purchase "Did Psychic Powers Give Firm a Killing In the Silver Market?" - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Having tracked the article down online (I'll not provide a link, as I suspect it may be a copyright violation), I can confirm that the WSJ does not state that "Delphi became notable for its success in psychically forecasting changes in the price of silver commodity futures", or anything approximating that. Their 'psychic' seems to have guessed right a few times, but failed to replicate the results. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I have had a little chat with Targ about this on his talk-page. Unfortunately, it's a lot more complicated then Targ has written. Firstly regarding this alleged silver market 1982 psychic predication thing where allegedly $120,000 was obtained from "paranormal" ability this was from the psychic Keith "Blue Harary" but there has been some skepticism about this (even from Keith himself?) as there was no replication and a dispute over the interpretation of the event. This is not a reliable source but it's useful for some background information. Harary, K. (1992). The goose that laid the silver eggs: A criticism of psi and silver futures forecasting. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 86, 375–409 which asserts "that all such interpretations are based on flawed logic and misinformation about the nature and results of the original effort." [12]. The magician Henry Gordon was skeptical about this event (and is briefly cited on the article already). Martin Gardner also has covered this and has written some interesting things, he asserts that Harary believed he could telepathically communicate with his cat, if that's not nutty enough according to Gardner he later fell out with Targ and tried to sue him. I do not have the Gardner source right now, so I cannot be of help here. I am pretty sure Gardner mentions the event in his book The New Age: Notes of a Fringe-Watcher which has an entire chapter about Targ's life with skeptical commentary. We can only cover this if reliable secondary sources can be located. I think the Gardner source would be a good starting point. Goblin Face (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Termination of the SRI program

I added a long paragraph here responding to concerns about the termination of the SRI program. My comments are gone from this page.? Our program was supported for 23 years, which is an extremely long time in aerospace. It is absurd to criticize the program because it was eventually terminated, as CIA management changed. You are criticizing the longest running program I have ever heard of, for being terminated. Torgownik (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)Russell

It doesn't look like you've edited the talk page here for several days. Perhaps you didn't save your post? Please feel free to write again. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Nothing of any significance has been deleted from this page. Are you sure you didn't post it into the article by mistake? This post [13] in the article was deleted because it was clearly misplaced - though frankly, I doubt that it would have achieved much if it had been posted in the correct place. Insulting contributors is unlikely to help... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• He entered it in an old unrelated section of my talk page [14]. I'm not sure how he ended up editing that section by accident (might be an accessibility thing) but for God's sake please have some understanding for some mistakes since, as the article says, Russell Targ is legally blind. The text is as follows:

"I worked as a research scientist in aerospace and other government supported programs from 1956 to 1998. In that 42 year period I never heard of any government supported program that ran for anything remotely like the 23 years that the SRI program had support. At Lockheed where I was saving aircraft from wind-shear and air turbulence, we had to fight to get one year extensions. And though NASA loved the program, they simply didn't support any outside research past five years. I propose you drop the idea that that we were supported for "only" 23 yeas, shows a defect in the research. That's an absurd proposition. Knowledgeable people are stunned that the CIA supported is for two decades. Torgownik (talk) 17:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)Russell <russ at Targ.co>"

Wnt (talk) 19:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I think Carl Sagan summed this up well:

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.

— Carl Sagan

These days we have a name for it: cognitive dissonance. Unfortunately, anything that requires belief to replicate, is to a very high degree of certainty, baloney, hence the general view that RV is peudoscience. Perhaps you prefer Huxley:

The great tragedy of science – the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact

— T. H. Huxley

The result is the same. Guy (Help!) 20:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Parapsychology section and guilt by association

There is this sentence in the parapsychology section that raises my eyebrows:

"Targ and Puthoff stated that their studies of Geller at the SRI demonstrated that Geller had genuine psychic powers, though flaws were found with the controls in the experiments and Geller was caught using sleight of hand on many other occasions."

Putting aside my skepticism of a skeptical (i.e. blatantly biased) publisher like Prometheus Books, I question what relevence there is to mention Geller's sleight of hand here. If Geller cheated during Targ and Puthoff's experiments then provide a citation from a reliable source which can demonstrate this. It's irrelevant to mention alleged sleight of hand here unless it was proven to have occurred in the lab. Mark Turner (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I have documented the sources on the talk-page already (see above for some links in the Geller section), but I agree the Geller stuff does need to be expanded becuase what is on there at the moment is too vague. I will be working on it at some point and would very much like some help on this. Goblin Face (talk) 20:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Fantastic. I look forward to assisting you. Cheers. Mark Turner (talk) 22:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Fantastic. I look forward to objecting (politely and on talk pages) to every attempt to introduce pseudoscience into WikiPedia.Juan Riley (talk) 22:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Awesome. We'll continue the discussion there. Cheers. Mark Turner (talk) 23:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. How's the Geller revision coming? I would once again like to express my concern about the above statement as what Geller did/does outside of Targ's experiments has no relevance in an article supposedly about Targ. Cheers. Mark Turner (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Jessica Utts quote that Targ added

The following (unsourced) content from Targ that he added to the article has been correctly removed:

"Jessica Utts, president of the American Statistical Association wrote in her part of the same report: “Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well established. The statistical results of the studies examined are far beyond what is expected by chance." [15]

Jessica Utts is a parapsychologist, and believer in psychic phenomena, her fringe claims on remote viewing do not represent the mainstream scientific consensus on this subject. As the Utts article says: "A report by Utts claimed the results were evidence of psychic functioning, however Hyman in his report argued Utts' conclusion that ESP had been proven to exist, especially precognition, was premature and the findings had not been independently replicated. [16] According to Hyman "the overwhelming amount of data generated by the viewers is vague, general, and way off target. The few apparent hits are just what we would expect if nothing other than reasonable guessing and subjective validation are operating." [17] Goblin Face (talk) 20:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Just a quickie..but I cannot confirm that Jessica Utts was ever "president of the American Statistical Association". See President_of_the_American_Statistical_Association. Juan Riley (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

She is not the president (yet), according to this she will be from January 1, 2016 [18]. It's more of an argument from authority why Targ keep's mentioning this. It does not matter who she is what she has said, her endorsement of remote viewing and other psychic claims does not represent the mainstream scientific consensus on this topic and there is no positive repeatable data for Targ's psychic remote viewing experiments. If there was they would be all around the world in the top science journals but no such thing has happened. Note that most of Utts papers on this stuff are in parapsychology, not science journals. Goblin Face (talk) 21:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Nice work. Juan Riley (talk) 22:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

This article lacks NPOV

As a long-time Wikipedia editor I am greatly disappointed at the lack of balance shown by some editors of this article. I appeal to other editors who apparently don't have a stake in one particular outcome or another to intervene here. Mark Turner (talk) 20:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I am filing a mediation request. Mark Turner (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Presumably you would have to clarify the issues you have? Juan Riley (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

−

Let's start with the sentence in the first paragraph: "remote viewing is regarded as pseudoscience." This is factually incorrect. Just looking at this talk page shows there is not consensus. To definitively state this without qualifying it is wrong, and to revert my very reasonable correction of "some" sure looks to me like a problem with NPOV. Like everyone here I want the best possible article. So if we can't agree on this it will be up to the mediators. Mark Turner (talk) 21:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Mark you have posted your name so there's no WP:OUTING here, an internet search for you and "remote viewing" reveals websites where you are endorsing remote viewing and other psychic claims. You also appear to have a connection to Targ. Are you really going to pretend to be neutral? Did Targ invite you to edit his article? I find it interesting that you have taken no interest in his article until now. But explain why you believe the article lacks NPOV? Goblin Face (talk) 20:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

If you read WP:OUTING you'll see that it rules out the tactic of looking up someone's name and trying to dig up dirt to discredit his point of view. I mean, if you looked him up and it said he was a janitor or a truck driver you could say he doesn't know science, etc. But "Goblin Face", well, we all have to trust Goblin Face because we can't look him up. Doesn't work like that - an editor isn't supposed to be at a disadvantage because you can look up who he is. Wnt (talk) 21:00, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

If an editor has a conflict of interest, then he should disclose it. It's entirely reasonable (and surely desirable) to note a situation where this apparently hasn't happened. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

From what I see, this is a person local to Raleigh-Durham who attended a nearby talk on remote viewing and wrote it up on his blog. It reveals interest, yes, but it most definitely doesn't give him a serious COI. There's more "COI" when a Democrat (or a Republican) edits the Barack Obama article. Wnt (talk) 21:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

What I personally think is irrelevant. What MrBill3 personally thinks is also irrelevant. What matters is including facts, correcting issues where they are identified, and nothing when there is lack of consensus on a point. Anything else is a disservice to an article. Mark Turner (talk) 22:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Moreover User:Jmturner has not yet clarified what he finds lacking in NPOV. Give him a chance. Note how N I am trying to be. Juan Riley (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Wnt, if that were true then we would be prohibited from identifying any undeclared conflict of interest. It's a silly argument. Guy (Help!) 21:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

If a question of COI comes up the editor should be notified on their talk page with a pointer to the policy. Extended discussion here is only appropriate to deal with controversial edits or problematic comments neither of which I see. Let's focus on improving the article. Without specifics an NPOV assertion is useless. What content reflects a lack of balance? I have made several requests that RS documenting and supporting a significant minority view be presented. The current content has been thoroughly discussed and is well sourced. - - MrBill3 (talk) 21:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• :Well said. Juan Riley (talk) 21:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to Cwobeel for the recent edit. This sentence is now factually correct. Mark Turner (talk) 22:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

SRI remote viewing 1982-1995

I've started trying to put some organization into the parapsychology section, which confronted me with two statements: one that the program was found to have yielded no results and abandoned in 1982 (or "mid-80s") when Targ left, and one that says it was discontinued in 1995. I'd appreciate some input from the skeptics about what happened 1982-1995. My assumption is that Targ left under good circumstances and the program was not cancelled until 1995, and so I've deleted the first date of "no results" determination per BLP, pending clarification. Wnt (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

From what I understand, Targ left SRI in 1982 per the New Scientist article. Government funding for the investigation of PSI (Stargate Project) was discontinued in 1995, this meant that funding for SRI from the gov't did not continue past 1995. Some examination of the refs is needed to determine what the funding status of SRI's program was leading up to 1995. Some of the refs in the Remote viewing article may shed some light. I hope your restructuring edits improve the article, with luck there will be some constructive collaboration. You are certainly being bold. I wonder if it might be a better idea to compose your rewrite in a sandbox then open it to comment. - - MrBill3 (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Bold? Are you kidding me? I remember doing more radical surgery than this on a live TFA, though admittedly I can't for the life of me remember which one it was now. I really haven't changed much, aside from a few redundancies, order, and headings. Wnt (talk) 21:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

My characterization as bold was probably not the best. I agree that so far your edits have been mostly structure and basic. I was more talking about jumping in and making changes on an article that is being so feverishly discussed without proposing and discussing them here first. I am a fan of bold editing and don't mean to stand in your way. I'd like to let you get some work done and then see what the consensus is (and add my 2 cents). - - MrBill3 (talk) 21:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for being amused. I knew exactly what MrBill was alluding to with his use of the word "bold". Kinda like standing and watching the "Light Brigade" charging in and hoping User:Wnt doesn't step on any landmines.Juan Riley (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, to be clear -- my opinion is that whenever you start seeing things repeated in an article, it indicates bad organization. And when you organize an article well, defects in balance (like the lack of any initial detail sympathetic to the author from the IEEE article) stand out. And, I hope, the section boundaries can act as firebreaks to limit the spread of conflicts to small and easier to evaluate bits of text. Wnt (talk) 21:22, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Sympathy aint the point is it. Though I do agree with you the subject's refereed physics publications are appropriate to such a biographical article and should be treated with respect. Note, however, that as a physics professional I know that "conference proceedings" are typically NOT refereed. So some of them should be eliminated..my opinion...but I would not be so BOLD.Juan Riley (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Can one boldly edit the physics articles citations?

The point being that some of them are so vague as to be meaningless. E.g., "Laser Focus, 1978". Not only an unrefereed trade journal but also no specific volume etc.. Currently I would just replace such assertion cites with . There are more issues. Perhaps more later when I see the feathers fly on this suggestions. Juan Riley (talk) 21:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with ti, but experience indicates that the subject and his friends are very determined to maximise coverage of his legitimate work while promoting the idea that the work for which he is best (and probably only) known is of peerless value. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Not sure how to handle that stuff. I added the content and refs based entirely on posts to this talk page. To my knowledge there has been no verification. I was hoping when I added the refs with full citation needed tags someone would complete the ref and verification could be done. It was my good faith effort to respect the input of those who sought to include Targ's laser work. His laser papers are pretty highly cited, indicating at least some notability. One of his papers was with Gould a pioneer in lasers one of the scientists with a claim to the invention of lasers. There seems some substance to the assertion Targ was a notable laser physicist. Some of his later papers on lidar/windshear are fairly highly cited also. - - MrBill3 (talk) 23:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

After being CORRECTLY corrected on one of my seemingly innocuous citation edits I am taking this slowly. Would really prefer a consensus on these issues. Should non-refereed trade journal citations be used to establish scientific credentials? And I certainly do NOT deny that within the realm of laser/optical physics the subject has such credentials. And I have had professional dealings with some of the subject's co-authors on wind measuring lidar. Perhaps what bugs me the most is in the listing in On precognition of an AIP Conference Proceedings reference. The AIP allows (or allowed in those days) ANY dues paying member to present at its annual conferences. Thus there are well known "crackpot" sessions. In short, an AIP Conference Proceeding citation means nothing.Juan Riley (talk) 23:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The AIP cite can be cut as undue.

Regarding establishing standing based on trade journal articles, I'd like to get a look at the sources and evaluate them. If the trade press discusses his standing in the field I don't have strong objection, clearly a reputable journal would be a better source. As I said the content is based on what an editor posted to this talk page not my actual reading of the source so it really needs verification. Somebody got volume, issue, page number? The "first" status claimed for two papers also needs secondary support. I'd think this would be notable enough that some article would discuss it. - - MrBill3 (talk) 23:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I do understand your point. Not even sure if I would delete the AIP ref myself. Ah well maybe I would. Juan Riley (talk) 23:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

On just the narrow and neutrally scoped issue with citations on Targ's laser work: after having a few minutes to review the article some of the citation issues can be answered by the ref's given in the Journal Articles On lasers section. To be consistent with the way the lidar wind sensing refs are used (purely as reflist items) I would prefer to make these all just references..and eliminate the section Journal Articles On lasers. Object soon or I will carry this out. Juan Riley (talk) 22:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay and now I going to edit boldly. Since no one has seen the need to perform verification of assertions in the original text of his laser physics...I will tone them down...recognizing that others may bring forward citations making my edits wrong. Juan Riley (talk) 23:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Personal life section

I think the section needs refs tag can be removed. I have added cites for most facts. The only facts not supported are his son's professions and his second marriage. All the content on Fischer is in the refs given.

Speaking of the Fischer content, is it more lengthy and detailed than due? I think it is important content but should it be condensed? It is certainly notable enough for inclusion, there was quite a bit of coverage. - - MrBill3 (talk) 23:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

its longer than i had expected, but there is a lot of context that pretty much needs to be there.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Certainly relevant. Juan Riley (talk) 00:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't get the idea of dividing into "Biography" and "Personal life". To begin with, of course, "biography" is what the whole article is, so it's not a great title. But the contents of the section are more like what I'd call personal life, early life, etc. In any case I don't see the point of physically separating them - all his researches/writings/career should be together (it could even be under a top level heading as Career or something) Wnt (talk) 05:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

This page is about a person who is notable because of his work on remote viewing. Personal details are secondary and as in many other biographies, the personal section is usually posted at the end of the article. Cwobeel (talk) 14:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Re Targ's 2nd marriage, in the UK marriage information is normally public domain and can be accessed easily through organisations such as Ancestry.com. I assume the situation in the US is similar, and in view of this a confirmatory source is hardly needed. Have I already said made this point? I'm getting a sense of déjà vu --Brian Josephson (talk) 15:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

That's not the way WP:BLP works. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

As you wish, Nomo -- it's not something I'm going to lose sleep over. --Brian Josephson (talk) 15:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Targ's father and petty bias

I just made two edits which illustrate and are meant to counter the sort of petty and inexcusable bias that some people have indulged in here. First, I restored the fact that William Targ had published The Godfather [19] which was one of Putnam's most profitable purchases. Then, I had to tone down a statement [20] sourced to CSICOP [21] that said "Targ was introduced to the paranormal by his father who had published the work of Erich von Däniken" Now to appreciate how wrong this was, consider that CSICOP is a potentially quite biased source, yet even it didn't put it like that - because, after all, Targ's work has nothing at all to do with von Daniken, and as the CSICOP source pointed out, his father had had a paranormal section in his bookstore since he was practically a kid. I don't know if I went far enough here.

In short: please don't cut out everything about Targ's family bio that sounds respectable while harping in only on whatever you think will make him sound silly. Thank you. Wnt (talk) 07:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

How much detail about William Targ is appropriate for this article? William Targ has a WP article and a link is given. In general we don't go into much detail on the activities of the subjects parents. How is it relevant to Russell Targ that William Targ published The Godfather or that William Targ was 22 when he opened his bookstore? The information about how Russell Targ was influenced is what is relevant, the notability of William Targ's activities not so much. I agree with the changes in how the influence was paraphrased, if one wanted to go further Gardner's ideas of the influence might be attributed. If the reliability of the Gardner 2001 article in Skeptical Inquirer is challenged that's going to have to go to RSN. I would urge a focus on improving the article without attacks on editors. - - MrBill3 (talk) 12:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Wnt has done some good edits and I appreciate his work on this, but something else might be going on with him here. He's now writing that various sources are "biased", that various users are biased to Targ and in his commentary to Targ on his user page he has written "I think though that the tide is turning now". Would you like to explain your self Wnt? What tide is turning now? Anyway - even if we look at the source in the Skeptical Inquirer from Martin Gardner it said "Russell inherited his psi beliefs from his father, William Targ", "William Targ’s beliefs in the paranormal trickled down to his son Russell" and "At Putnam Targ was responsible for many best-sellers, including Erich von Däniken’s notorious Chariots of the Gods" - so the text that was in the article which said "Targ was introduced to the paranormal by his father who had published the work of Erich von Däniken" is entirely accurate. There is no "inexcusable bias". Goblin Face (talk) 13:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Whatever else may have 'trickled down', It is fairly safe to assume that approval of the ideas of Erich von Däniken was not among them. Unless there is confirmation of that from an RS, mentioning EvD is inappropriate. And with your quotes, you appear in addition to be doing some OR, as well as some highly dubious WP:SYNTH. --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

actually, there is no need to assume at all Targ himself has said that Gardner's piece "makes a nice little introduction" to his autobiography specifically keeping the "weird beliefs are passed down in families" bit. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Since there are indications that you are unfamiliar with WP:SYNTH I'll quote from it here: do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the author(s) of that source. The text I was originally complaining about, Targ was introduced to the paranormal by his father who had published the work of Erich von Däniken, tends to imply the conclusion that Targ accepted the ideas of EvD, for which there is no evidence that I am aware of, and even if this were the case the text as written would violate WP:SYNTH. Apologies for being a 'wikilawyer' here, but some attempt needs to be made to stop this becoming completely lawless territory. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
And as regards that '... is entirely accurate': surely GF does not intend to stoop to that tabloid trick of writing something that is factually correct, but has built in implications that are very doubtful? --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Goblin Face that the prior content was entirely supported. I would also point out that the source is the ideas of Gardner albeit supported with relevant facts. A proposal (or even a bold edit) to change the phrasing is within reason. If the current phrasing has problems I suggest proposing alternatives.

I also find the use of the term "petty bias" and the statement, "the sort of petty and inexcusable bias that some people have indulged in here" problematic. This is not WP:CIVIL nor collaborative it is disruptive and verges on a personal attack. Comments should be constrained to improving content. That said pointing out perceived problems with following the neutral point of view and biographies of living people policies is appropriate, if done in a constructive manner (pointing to specific problems, providing sources etc.)

It is my opinion that every person has some bias, even a collection of absolutely true facts reflects the point of view of the gatherer of the collection. I don't think discussing Wnt's point of view is needed except as it motivates problematic editing or comments. So long as an editor's intent is improve WP their POV is not an issue (given they follow PAG).

Short version, content not editors is what we should be discussing. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Targ's father has a full page in Wikipedia, so there is no need to belabor on his background or accomplishments. I have removed that sentence and added a link to Putnam's page as well. Cwobeel (talk) 14:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm very glad to see MrBill3 saying an editor's PoV should not normally be an issue, a corollary of which is that CoI should not be brought up as often as it is. --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you are unaware of the long-term problem of COI editing of Wikipedia. The consensus among the community is pretty solid: conflicted edits are rarely neutral edits. Additionally, the backlash if someone is seen to add the kind of promotional and tendentious content Targ has added here, can be significant. This is usually only controversial in the minds of those who have been prevented from promoting themselves, their business interests or their pet ideas. Guy (Help!) 23:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

BLP compliance

• Are there sources saying that remote viewing, as studied by Targ, is pseudoscience? That part of the lead seems to push BLP for me. If all we have is "Targ studied remote viewing" and "Remote viewing is a pseudoscience" then we are not allowed to meld the two to make a statement, especially on an article on a living person. I am also deeply uncomfortable with the There is no credible scientific evidence that remote viewing works, and the continued study of remote viewing is regarded as pseudoscience. for similar reasons. Are there sources that explicitly make that link, in the context of the living subject of this article? Finally I am deeply unchuffed at the bad faith shown to the subject of this article and by repeated efforts to have him topic-banned from his own article. Shades of WP:DOLT. --John (talk) 23:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

yes, there are: {{cite book|last=Gardner|first=Martin|title=Did Adam and Eve Have Navels?: Debunking Pseudoscience|publisher=W. W. Norton & Company|isbn=0393322386|page=60-67|pages=352}} Cwobeel (talk) 23:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Added that cite, and an extra one for good measure. Cwobeel (talk) 23:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't have the book to hand and the Amazon Look Inside feature won't let me view most of the relevant pages. Is there an actual quote where Targ's work on remote viewing is called pseudoscience? --John (talk) 23:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

These two books are books on Pseudoscience, with many pages dedicated to Targ and Puthoff's work on remote viewing. There is an entire chapter just on this. We don't need a quote that says "Remote viewing is pseudoscience", as what we are asserting in the lede is that Targ's work on remote viewing has been characterized as such. Cwobeel (talk) 00:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

If you read pages 59-60 of David Marks Psychology of the Psychic (2000, edition) he included a section called "Papering over the cracks" which discusses how science separates itself from pseudoscience. He explains how Targ's behavior over the remote viewing experiments was pseudoscientific i.e. denying other researchers access to data from the experiments amongst other things. Terence Hines book Pseudoscience and the Paranormal also covers flaws in Targ's experiments. It is accurate from the sources to describe those experiments as "pseudoscience", it is not original research. Goblin Face (talk) 00:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

If you want to look further, there are 684 books in Google Books that mention Targ's experiments in the context of pseudoscience. You can find additional quotes there. [22] Cwobeel (talk) 00:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Then you have this: TED pulls TEDxWestHollywood license over issue of "pseudoscience”

Critics last year had already begun leveling charges that TED was promoting "pseudoscience" at both official and TEDx events by giving a voice to people whose work did not have strong credibility in scientific circles. The issue came to a head last year after a TEDx event in Spain that included talks on topics such as "Egyptian psychoaromatherapy." The controversy prompted TED to issue a public letter to TEDx organizers that included more thorough guidelines for considering talks that touched on scientific issues or used scientific language. But TED, in that letter, notes the challenge facing lay people in identifying bad and dubious scientific claims: "There is no bright and shining line between pseudoscience and real science, and purveyors of false wisdom typically share their theories with as much sincerity and earnestness as legitimate researchers."

In the case of TEDxWestHollywood, TED officials seemed to have concerns about a handful of speakers, including Russell Targ, whose talk will be on "The Reality of ESP: A Physicist's Proof of Psychic Abilities." […] "We feel that the pseudoscience struggle is an important one. TED and TEDx cannot be platforms that give undo legitimacy to false evidence and selective logic — regardless of brilliant packaging," TED officials wrote in an email to Taylor.

Cwobeel (talk) 01:02, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I totally forgot Targ's ESP talk and TED. As I understand it Targ later claimed they banned his talk but this is not quite true. I think this should be mentioned on the article if we have other references, it is notable. Goblin Face (talk) 01:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Nice quote, and this is reaching towards what you would need to keep the material. It is somewhat undermined by TED officials did not cite specific speakers as being problematic. To be clear, what we need to label Targ a pseudoscientist in this BLP would be multiple reliable sources explicitly saying "Targ is a pseudoscientist". Wikipedia editors imputing guilt by association totally will not cut it. --John (talk) 08:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• My response to Brian Josephson is very simple: Wikipedia is quoting reliable independent sources that identify Targ's work, specifically, as being part of the pseudoscience around remote viewing, with robust arguments to support that identification. Targ dislikes the fact that it's generally viewed as pseudoscience, that is not our problem to fix. It is not defamatory to point out that the work is considered to be pseudoscience and of very poor methodological quality, nor is it a violation of Wikipedia's policies. He known, more than anything else, for his contributions to the pseudoscience surrounding RV - a field of pseudoscientific investigation for which he and his associates are, in fact, almost totally responsible. Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of cherished beliefs. Guy (Help!) 12:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

If that were true I would not be asking these questions. Once again, what we need here, to carry the sort of content that editors here want, are multiple sources specifically calling Targ a pseudoscientist. Show me this and I will be satisfied. Until then I am not convinced. --John (talk) 16:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

No, there is no scientific sources calling Targ himself a pseudoscientist, but as shown by many scientific sources (James Alcock, Martin Gardner, Terence Hines, David Marks etc) his "remote viewing" experiments and work with "psychics" contained flaws and were pseudoscientific. As far as I know only the philosopher Robert Todd Carroll has referred to Targ as a "famed pseudoscientist whose specialty is remote viewing". [23] but we are not using Carroll as a source. Targ has published some early scientific laser work, nobody is denying this. He reminds me of William Crookes or Hans Driesch - a scientist who has published some science early in his career but later abandoned science for parapsychology. I agree that the category "pseudoscientist" should be removed, but describing his paranormal experiments as pseudoscience is entirely accurate from what the sources say. Goblin Face (talk) 20:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Precisely correct. And in fact he is best known for his work on this pseudoscience. I have enormous sympathy: it cannot be easy to have devoted a large chunk of your career to something which is considered ridiculous by a peer community whose approval you very much want. Guy (Help!) 20:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I am still not sure and this conversation is making my BLP whiskers and my SYNTH whiskers tremble. See my longer post below. --John (talk) 21:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

John you are being tendentious. Above is Carroll, using precisely the wording you are objecting to. Gardner in a book subtitled Debunking Pseudoscience and at least a half a dozen other sources. - - MrBill3 (talk) 21:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

No offence, User:MrBill3 but it really isn't important to me whether you think I am being "tendentious" or whether you even know what the word means. What we need are multiple reliable sources for the negative material on this BLP. Not hand-waving, not one blog post which isn't even being used as a source. I already asked you for the quote from Debunking Pseudoscience. Maybe now is a good time for you to give the quote. Then you may feel free to post the other "half a dozen" sources; just make sure they actually identify Targ by name as a "pseudoscientist" or whatever it is you want the article to call him, and it isn't more hand-waving. In closing, be aware that I am not here to make friends with people; I came here because of the frivolous thread at AN/I which was recently closed without action. I am here as an uninvolved admin calling for conformance with core policy. I only ask a few times; when no answer is forthcoming I take that as an admission that there is no answer. I very much hope to get through this without blocking anybody, but blocks will be handed out if need be, if people want to play games with BLP, something I have absolutely no sense of humour about. You have been warned. --John (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Offense taken. The statement, "whether you even know what the word means" is patently offensive. Threats of blocking without citing specific edits which you feel are violations of policy are offensive and inappropriate behavior as an admin.

The Gardner book is a work on debunking pseudoscience. That is the thesis of the book and it's content is specifically to debunk pseudoscience a description of Targ's work that debunks it as pseudoscience can be found on page 61, "Most of the work of Puthoff and Targ at SRI..." Gardner then proceeds to debunk this work as pseudoscience. Thus the statement Targ's work has been characterized as pseudoscience is supported. The Hines book is a work on the paranormal and pseudoscience. Again the thesis of the book is that specific paranormal research can be characterized as pseudoscience. On page 126 in support of this thesis Hines states, "Further, the results of the tests were incorrectly reported in Targ and Puthoff's Nature paper." Is it your contention that stating something has been characterized as pseudoscience when it is discussed in books about pseudoscience is synth? Books do not restate their thesis when describing every example, these two books make their thesis clear in their titles. If you read the sources you will find the theses explained in the introductory chapters. Two authors in published works on the topic of pseudoscience have specifically described the pseudoscientific nature of Targ's work. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The "pseudoscientist" category on the article was removed. No sources are calling Targ a "pseudoscientist" and that is not on the article anywhere, just his psychic experiments (remote viewing) have been characterized as pseudoscience. You can read about that in Terence Hines book Pseudoscience and the Paranormal pp. 133-136. It is too long to quote here but you can find the book online for free (I can't paste the link due to copyright issues). Another source that may be of use here is Grove, J. W. (1985), "Rationality at Risk: Science against Pseudoscience," Minerva 23: 216-240. I have not read it yet I am in the process of doing this. Goblin Face (talk) 15:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I am still concerned that the sentence Targ's work on remote viewing has been characterized as pseudoscience,[2][3] and criticized for lack of rigor.[4][5][n 1] needs to be rigorously sourced before it can be included in the article. I am not sure from your response that it has been. --John (talk) 15:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Have you checked the sources and the footnotes? It is all there. Cwobeel (talk) 15:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

@John:: If you are here as an admin you should not be making threats about blocking editors or getting involved in a content dispute. I am a BLP/N patroller and came here from a report on that board, so I don't have any agendas beyond improving this article and ensuring compliance with WP:BLP. Cwobeel (talk) 15:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not getting involved in a content dispute, I am pointing out that BLP must be, and will be, enforced. And I am not making threats, I am pointing out a possible outcome for anybody playing daft games with our core policies. --John (talk) 15:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

If you are not making threats, kindly refactor your post above in which you said: I very much hope to get through this without blocking anybody, but blocks will be handed out if need be. That's a threat and I don't find it appropriate coming from ad admin, who should know that blocking is not punitive. Cwobeel (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Is there any chance this section can be moved to the bottom of the talk-page? Goblin Face (talk) 15:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

See also Williams, William F. (2013). "Randi, James". Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience: From Alien Abductions to Zone Therapy. Routledge. p. 296. ISBN 9781135955229. Where Williams describes Randi's ruthless debunking of what he sees as pseudoscience then gives the example of Targ & Puthoff and then cites public support of Randi's conclusions by prominent scientists. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Randi, is a skeptic and not a scientist. But there are enough sources besides Randi that supports a characterization of Targ;'s work on remote viewing as pseudoscience.Cwobeel (talk) 15:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Note that Randi's conclusions were publicly supported by prominent scientists. - - MrBill3 (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Randi is, however, a noted authority on the pseudoscience of psychic phenomena. Truth to tell, most scientists completely ignore pseudosciences. Guy (Help!) 06:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

There is Clegg, Brian (2013). Extra Sensory: The Science and Pseudoscience of Telepathy and Other Powers of the Mind. St. Martin's Press. ISBN 9781250019066. which discusses Targ's work in several places, it is using Targ's work as examples of the pseudoscience part not the science part, also there is discussion of "Puthoff's paper" of which Targ was coauthor. - - MrBill3 (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• John expresses concern that the sources don't support the content. Cwobeel asks whether John has checked the sources; I'd like to add my voice to that question. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Targ's personal commentary being cited in the lead

I am not too sure about Targ's comment on his website about Wikipedia being put in the lead [24]. The reason I say this, is because most of what he has written is completely wrong about Wikipedia but it also contains a deliberate lie "Wikipedia should not characterize remote viewing as pseudoscience, when it is not characterized that way by the informed scientific community." - The problem here, is that it is characterized as a pseudoscience by the informed scientific community, and there are countless references that show this. It is misleading to readers by linking to Targ's inaccurate comments about Wikipedia or the scientific community. Goblin Face (talk) 16:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this is not appropriate for the lead. Perhaps it should be in the body somewhere. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to follow WP:BRD. I think that it is appropriate, but we can discuss and reach consensus. Cwobeel (talk) 16:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Goblin Face and Nomoskedasticity, not appropriate for the lead, perhaps in the body. What is the intersection of BLP and DUE on this? Would we include the rejection of the characterization of a flat Earth ideas as nonsense in the bio of a flat Earth proponent? I think there is room for Targ's statements but not sure this is the best to choose. We have a series of discussions in Nature and published books that seem more weighty. - - MrBill3 (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I removed it. Find an independent source that considers it worth noting in a historical context as part of Targ's biography, then add it with due weight to an appropriate location in the article body. --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any idea how far off the reservation you are here? You're literally calling the subject a liar, not in some source's voice, but in your own! You're insisting on presenting only one side of the story and muzzling the subject of the article in a statement which - at least here - is cited only to indicate that he disagrees with being called a pseudoscientist. Most of the time, when some celebrity wants her topless photos or porn star history scrubbed from her article, I'm the person who believes in BLP policy the least. But my yardstick doesn't change based on the article, and now I'm saying you're deeply in the wrong here. Wnt (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

"literally calling the subject a liar" What? --Ronz (talk) 17:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

It appears that the esteemed Professor Goblin Face, after carefully reviewing Targ's work, has given it a thumbs down, saying The reason I say this, is because most of what he has written is completely wrong about Wikipedia but it also contains a deliberate lie. That's the reason given for excluding his right to respond to the content posted here. Now if there is anything more flagrantly wrong than Wikipedia editors picking through the sources saying "I agree with this one, but let's ditch that one because I disagree with it", it's doing that in a BLP, and if there's something more flagrant than that, it's doing it to the subject of the biography. Wnt (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I have not called Targ a "liar", I just said that one of his statements was a lie because he has been repeatedly shown scientific sources that describe remote viewing as a pseudoscience (James Alcock, David Marks, Martin Gardner, Terence Hines etc) yet in his anti-Wikipedia piece Targ wrote "Wikipedia should not characterize remote viewing as pseudoscience, when it is not characterized that way by the informed scientific community." (he gave no scientific references for this claim) But please look up the definition of a lie "an intentional untruth; a falsehood", it was not to attack Targ just point out what he wrote. It is a falsehood from Targ and I have no problem stating it, and no this is not original research or my personal opinion - what Targ has stated is in contradiction to the scientific sources. Goblin Face (talk) 17:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Yah, and Bill Clinton did not have sex with that woman. Is there a barnstar for Wikilawyering? Wnt (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Goblin-face's remark was probably not the most constructive contribution to this discussion. Can we now please focus more directly on how to edit the article? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, take away his rationale, and your rationale that allowing Targ's response creates a battleground (whereas reverting it doesn't...) and there is, of course, nothing left to prevent him from being heard. I always want to let the subject have his say in any biography. Sometimes people want a subject's comments left out because in retrospect they seem embarrassing, and sometimes because they make a point that is inconvenient for someone's POV, but in every case, letting the subject be heard is just basic common decency, fairness, and above all, provides an entry for those looking to evaluate what is true for themselves rather than relying on some Wikipedia editor to make "the right" call. Wnt (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I said nothing about "battleground". I've suggested finding an appropriate place in the body for it -- a comment not incompatible with your goal. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I would be more than happy to move it to the body, provided of course that the entire sentence goes with it. We should not have pro-X and anti-X statements in two different places; that would be bad organization. Wnt (talk) 18:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not bad organisation; in this instance it's a matter of WP:WEIGHT. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

If Targ publishes in a peer-reviewed scientific paper (or at least a notable book) his opinion that the "informed" scientific community take remote viewing seriously and do not treat the subject as a pseudoscience then let him. Until that happens his Wikipedia:SELFPUBLISH anti-Wikipedia comments on his ESP website will not do. I don't think they should be included anywhere on his article because other pseudoscience proponents and parapsychologists like Dean Radin and Rupert Sheldrake have also written negative comments about Wikipedia on their websites but they have not been cited on their Wikipedia articles as they are not reliable sources, so I do not see why Targ's comments should be included. Goblin Face (talk) 19:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:SELFPUBLISH, Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. -- so in this case, we have reliable third party sources naming him for his work on remote viewing, and he is a main proponent of that theory, so his self-published piece can be included and attributed. Cwobeel (talk) 21:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Huh? WP:SELFPUB and WP:BLPSPS give rather important caveats to what you're quoting. --Ronz (talk) 22:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Huh? Have you read these policies? per WP:BLPSPS, my highlight: Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject. Cwobeel (talk) 00:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Huh? Should a self-published AND minority if not, dare I say, fringe assertion be presented in the lede? WP:UNDUE? Juan Riley (talk) 00:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Pray tell, where would that lead? Juan Riley (talk) 00:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Answer:The lede has become drivel.Juan Riley (talk) 00:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The quote is most definitely a violation of WP:BLPSPS, as it is "unduly self-serving" --Ronz (talk) 00:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Lede temporarily WP:DE_DRIVELED. Thanks to User:Ronz. Juan Riley (talk) 00:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I understand where are you coming from, and respect that. But it is still my understanding that self-published sources written by the BLPs subject can be included. In this case, the subject is rejecting a characterization in a self-published page, which granted, it is a borderline case. So we may need to wait until a secondary source refers to that self-published piece, or a secondary source if found in which Targ defends his position to be able to include it. Cwobeel (talk) 03:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

i dont see any justification to include his presentation of blatant falsehoods. that is just making him look stupid. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The statement this SPS supports is merely that the designation as pseudoscience is a characterization which Targ rejects as "inaccurate and insulting". We can read what Targ wrote, see he said it is inaccurate and insulting, know he rejected it as inaccurate and insulting. It's not rocket science. And it also doesn't take a great mind to see that the objection to citing Targ's response is a matter of muzzling someone you disagree with. Wnt (talk) 05:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course he does. It would be remarkable if anybody prominently identified as a contributor to pseudoscientific inquiry, accepted the label. That doesn't mean we need to say this every time it's mentioned - it's a given. Guy (Help!) 06:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

JzG makes a good point above, but my concern is that the article in its current state can be considered to be more about a critique of Targ than a biography of Targ. For example, the Parapsychology section is 95% dedicated to a critique of Targ's methods than on the methods themselves. I added one short para providing context of what remote viewing is purported to be, but I think it is not enough. Just one point for my fellow editors here: I have no love at all for pseudoscience or for fringe theories such as these espoused by Targ. Just that we ought to make sure the article is balanced, this is a biography after all. Cwobeel (talk) 14:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The solution to the issues I raised above, could be to simply follow WP:SUMMARY and have two or three paras describing remote viewing and its reception by the scientific community, linking to the main article Remote viewing for details. This will make the article shorter and better balanced. I will follow WP:BRD again and see if it sticks. Cwobeel (talk) 14:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Good points. Let's see what you can come up with to clean up this mess. --Ronz (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Y Hope it sticks. Cwobeel (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

It needs, and should be mostly about, Targ's contributions and viewpoints, not just summarize Remote viewing. --Ronz (talk) 17:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

We really shouldn't cover all of remote viewing here, and it is indeed problematic for a BLP to dwell on a 1995 review of the value of a program that Targ left in 1982. You might justify it if you can show that the review specifically evaluated Targ's work, or argue that Targ supported the program after he left and this was a notable opponent of that view, but right now it's too far out on a limb. Wnt (talk) 21:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Not really, no., He started it, after all, and he was a major contributor to the work being criticised. This looks awfully like an attempt to whitewash the tranchant criticism of his rather credulus approach to the claims of purported clairvoyants. Guy (Help!) 23:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

There are multiple sources that specifically discuss Targ & Puthoffs work. There was a back and forth in Nature there was a reprocessing of the same data for a paper/submission to Nature that is also discussed and evaluated. This is work that Targ was directly and heavily involved in, much of the discussion concerns Targ's methodology, (distinct from the topic of remote viewing are the practices of a researcher). Why on earth would the original response to Targ & Puthoff's Nature paper have been removed, Marks, D.; Kammann, R. (17 August 1978). "Information transmission in remote viewing experiments". Letters to Nature. Nature 274: 680–1. doi:10.1038/274680a0? This addresses the way the research was conducted and being published in Nature makes it highly notable and reliable commentary on the research and research practices of Targ. I have to agree that there appears to be a blatant attempt at whitewashing. Look above on this talk page and see the many references given that specifically discuss Targ. They were asked for and given, they support content specifically discussing the subject of this article not just the topic of remote viewing. Removed content and references should be restored. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Martin Bridgstock back in please

A heck load of references have been removed. I am not too bothered because many of those references are on the remote viewing article so no information has been lost, but please put this one back in "Martin Bridgstock wrote in Beyond Belief: Skepticism, Science and the Paranormal, "The explanation used by Marks and Kammann clearly involves the use of Occam's razor. Marks and Kammann argued that the 'cues' - clues to the order in which sites had been visited - provided sufficient information for the results, without any recourse to extrasensory perception. Indeed Marks himself was able to achieve 100 per cent accuracy in allocating some transcripts to sites without visiting any of the sites himself, purely on the ground basis of the cues. From Occam's razor, it follows that if a straightforward natural explanation exists, there is no need for the spectacular paranormal explanation: Targ and Puthoff's claims are not justified." Thanks. Goblin Face (talk) 19:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Also put Marks and Kammann criticisms back in. But in brief if possible, i.e. use the Bridgstock source. Goblin Face (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

You can do it... Cwobeel (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

What are Targ's main contributions on the subject of remote viewing?

I went ahead and reverted, as the section had hardly anything about Targ left.

So what are Targ's contributions? --Ronz (talk) 20:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't follow your logic, and it was unnecessary to revert. The content there is not about Targ's work, but about a critique of Targ's work. That violates WP:UNDUE, and WP:BLP. Best approach would be to revert back and then put some effort in reading the sources available (there are aplenty) to summarize his work, or better help me summarize Remote viewing, adding more content that may be suitable in that context Cwobeel (talk) 21:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

My concern was that the section was more about remove viewing in general than Targ's contributions. I thought that starting this discussion would focus us better.

The second attempt is much improved. Given how strongly Targ is linked to remote viewing, I see how it's difficult to separate the two. --Ronz (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

He coined the term, did much to promote the idea of it as a legitimate field of inquiry, contributed significantly to the cottage industry in books and papers claiming it to be real leading up to and after the termination of the project, and since then has been one of the handful of people identified in every single treatment of the subject I have ever seen. Yes, it's kind of difficult to separate them. Guy (Help!) 22:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

So we have:

• Coining the term
• Early research published in respectable journals
• CIA funding (which led to further government interest)
• Remote viewing of atoms (Why?)

We no longer have:

• Criticism of the research (Why not?)

We don't have:

• Mention of Mind Reach as covered in the Gale Encyclopedia article

Why the wholesale removal of the criticism of his research? --Ronz (talk) 22:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Lot's of the criticism has just been deleted off the article, the reason was because apparently there was too much. But it is very important to mention David Marks and that he tried to replicate Targ's experiments into remote viewing but discovered they contained sensory cues, this is entirely notable and relevant (other writers just use Marks as a source) Marks was the one who literally debunked Targ. He published a rebuttal to Targ's original remote viewing experiments in the nature journal, and covers it all in his book The Psychology of the Psychic (two editions, 1980 and 2000) in three chapters. Goblin Face (talk) 00:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The removal was based on WP:SUMMARY, as we have a full article on Remote viewing that contains all the criticism and the reception by the scientific community. So, the idea is to summarize that article as much as possible and highlight the main points. Agree with Ronz that we should add the "Mind reach" andand other bits that are worth mentioning on Targ's work that are not included in remote viewing. The remote viewing of atoms is there on the note about Madame Blavatsky. Cwobeel (talk) 00:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Completely removing extremely prominent viewpoints on Targ and his work would be a POV violation. --Ronz (talk) 01:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

No, it is not a POV violation, and you can go easy on the wiki-lawyering. This is a biography, and a BLP, and as such we can and should include notable criticis but not at the expense of WP:UNDUE, and that can't be the only thing we put in the article... As we have an entire article on Remote viewing that contains substatial criticism, we ought to summarize that article here, per WP:SUMMARY. So here is what we have to do: summarize the critique of Targ's work in a couple of paragraphs. Give it a go. Cwobeel (talk) 02:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

there is absolutely no "must" that the reviews of a life's worth of work "must" be summed up in two paragraphs. That's ludicrous. As long as we have sources that are covering different aspects of his work we have enough room and pixels to cover them all, however many paragraphs or sections it takes. The burden is on you to establish that the coverage is redundant or trivial. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The content which was a discussion of Targ's work in published reliable sources should be restored. This article is about Targ and his work discussion of his work should be complete per NPOV, "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". If this article discusses the topic of Targ's work the published views need to be presented proportionately as due. Just because there is overlap with another article does not mean the topic discussed in this article should not be adequately presented. There is a distinct topic (Targ's work) that has been discussed in multiple sources as discussion of his work, not just as discussion of the topic or remote viewing. There are clearly two different topics, remote viewing as a whole and Russell Targ's parapsychological research. Removed content should be restored, it was well sourced, references that specifically discuss Targ and his work should never have been removed. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree, I believe those references should all be restored as well but until we can come to a consensus on this we should look at solving the other sections of the article, mass material needs to be added in about Targ and Geller (I collected all the sources above). On a side note Targ has been insulting Wikipedia users on his userpage as "trolls", asking "what alternate universe are they living in?" and he wrote regarding remote viewing "Within a decade modern physics will figure out how it works, and then you will all go away, back into your mother's basement." [25], [26]. All edits should be per policy not trying to please Targ. Goblin Face (talk) 07:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Prominent viewpoints should be given due weight in this article. I didn't expect we'd have to discuss the basics of what NPOV means and I hope we won't again. Doesn't this article fall within Arbcom enforcement? --Ronz (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

None of you are responding to my argument, which is that we have an entire article on Remote viewing, so it is incumbent upon us to summarize the article here rather than duplicate it. So, I have made an attempt to do just that in the "Reception" section, to which I invite you to contribute to. Just let's not make this article Criticism of Russel Targ, as that would be a violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP Cwobeel (talk) 20:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

My response was and still is that this article is about Targ and that we must include prominent viewpoints about Targ in this article. I think that others' responses were similar.

If Targ were mostly known for the criticisms about him, then the criticisms should dominate this article.

As for Arbcom, WP:ARBPS and WP:ARBFS apply. --Ronz (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I checked these two ArbCom cases and I don't see anything there that applies. Care to enlighten me? As for your other argument, sure WP:NPOV applies, but WP:BLP takes precedence. We need a balanced article and we can't just have criticism. And finally, you are not responding to my argument above, and spewing WP shortcuts is not the way to argue your case. Cwobeel (talk) 22:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

You said this article is about Targ and that we must include prominent viewpoints about Targ in this article... But most, if not all criticism is not about Targ, but about his work. And the work by which he is notable is this nonsense of "remote viewing", which is fully covered in Remote viewing. Get it? Cwobeel (talk) 22:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I like CwoBeel's reasoning for and implementation of a summary only of RV in this article. As he notes, the details on RV are already given in Remote viewing. And I think the main stream scientific criticism does comes through in his summary. Now of course there is less verbiage to argue over. At least in this article. :} Juan Riley (talk) 22:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC) Afternote: there be other issues that I don't follow CwoBeel on. Juan Riley (talk) 22:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

"We need a balanced article and we can't just have criticism." We'll have whatever the sources indicate we should have. Is that unclear, or is someone saying we "balance" articles regardless of the sources?

ARBPS addresses issues of pseudoscience, ARBFS with fringe science. Since we have mention of pseudoscience in the lede, I don't know how anyone would think they don't apply. --Ronz (talk) 01:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

On those points I agree with you Ronz. I think CwoBeel was making an aside point of just summarizing RV on this article since RV has a page of its own. Believe me I agree with you (for all that that matters) on the issue that fringe POV's are not to be given UNDUE weight...regardless of BLP. Juan Riley (talk) 01:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Ronz: I don;t know what you are saying. The ArbCom cases have no applicable sanctions to any of the involved editors here, and no discretionary sanctions, so I don't see the point of bringing these up. And again, once more 'you are not responding to my argument about WP:SUMMARY, so please do so. It will help finding a way forward on how to improve this article. One thing is clear to me: You can't have a BLP in which the majority of the article is a criticism. Cwobeel (talk) 02:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

"You can't have a BLP in which the majority of the article is a criticism." No matter what the sources say? --Ronz (talk) 14:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually Cwobeel, I responded directly to your argument. Multiple sources discuss Targ's work, with detailed discussions on problems of methodology and theoretical basis. As I pointed out this is distinct from the topic of Targ's research, it deals with the research itself. While a summarized discussion of the general topic of remote viewing is appropriate, a more detailed discussion of Targ's work is precisely what distinguishes this article. Do you see the two different topics? One is remote viewing as seen by the scientific mainstream, the other is Targ as a researcher, his focus, methodology, theories and the interpretation and analysis of this work by reliable sources. Also separating out reception is not appropriate per fringe. Where fringe ideas are presented the mainstream scientific consensus should be presented at the same point as due. Also per due, discussion of Targ as a researcher/theorist should proportionately reflect the published sources as due. Any article should be proportionally present what has been published on the topic, balance is per due, NPOV means representing what the reliable sources say. - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

It seems Cwobeel disagrees, but that would be clarified if my question was answered: Are BLP articles not allowed if they are mostly criticism, no matter what the sources say? --Ronz (talk) 19:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course criticism should be included, but the article should be balanced. That is all I am arguing for. Granted, many editors here (I just checked your contrib history) are in the skeptics camp, which is fine with me, but folks, this is a BLP and we can't have an article that describes the criticism of Targ's work without describing Targ's work, can't we? Cwobeel (talk) 21:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

You haven't answered the question. You don't have to, but it undermines your interpretations of NPOV and BLP, especially when you try to label other editors in the process. That is what you're doing, labeling me as a skeptic? If so, please withdraw it. --Ronz (talk) 21:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, did not intend to ruffle any feathers. Refactored. Cwobeel (talk) 23:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The cornerstone of BLP is NPOV. "This page in a nutshell: Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research." And a cornerstone of NPOV is appropriately presenting the mainstream academic view(s) of the subject. Failing to represent Targ and the reception his work has received in the academic community would be to fail BLP. Creating a false balance would be to fail BLP. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:32, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Blavatsky, Theosophy, Occult Chemistry

The way I read the current text gave me the impression that Occult Chemistry was Targ's book, but he has nothing to do with it. I haven't accessed the Gardner source -- but is there really any direct endorsement by Targ of this book? At this point I want someone to quote here (no, not in the article; I just want to see it) what Gardner actually says to see if it's "remote"ly convincing as a BLP-grade source for this statement. The mention that his father published her book, sourced to a skeptic's rhetoric, seems extremely tenuous, a once-used-the-same-subway-stop level of relevance.

It is also worth mentioning that Targ's writings on remote viewing do not exclude precognition, so for someone to "remotely view" an atom does not imply the fairly absurd idea the present seems to suggest that they literally project their mind to see electrons circling a nucleus. Rather, it would simply be that they would recall seeing an illustration in a future publication that showed this structure. The tendency of multiple scientific groups working in different countries to come up with an idea simultaneously is well known, and while a skeptic can certainly assume that, as per the Lehrer song, the best scientists (in terms of announcing breakthroughs) have networks of contacts who pass them privileged information in time to plagiarize it, precognition is a valid alternative hypothesis.

It's not like there aren't legitimate ways to criticize Targ. I don't see why the anti-psi people here have to resort to repetition, showcasing criticism, deleting contrary opinion, and irrelevancies to get their point across. Meanwhile, this low road to their goal means that they've missed serious opportunities for criticism, such as the commissions Delphi Associates received. Wnt (talk) 18:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Targ may well be interested in Theosophy, but I'm not aware of his having made any public endorsement of it. This mention of his father's publishing the Godfather and EvD may well be appropriate for an article about his father, but it does seem odd including it in Targ's own biography as there is no sourced connection. However, mention of his father's position as editor-in-chief to establish his status is reasonable. Hence I suggest the paragraph be abbreviated and tidied up thus: Targ was introduced to the paranormal by his father, William Targ, who was was editor-in-chief of G.P. Putnam's from 1964 until his retirement in 1972.[7] --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Science vs pseudoscience

There is an important point relevant to this article that may not be appreciated by those unfamiliar with experimental research in the real world. This is that experiments tend not to work the first time they are tried. Problems are identified and fixed, and the experiment is tried again. When it seems to be working and is producing results, the results are published, but further problems may be discovered subsequent to publication, so further investigations are carried out to see if the results hold up. This is all part of the normal business of science. An example is the Harwell experiment to test the General Theory of Relativity using the Mössbauer effect. The experiment appeared to yield the results expected by the theory so the Harwell team published their results. But it turned out that the experiment was flawed because the frequencies involved were very sensitive to temperature fluctuations, which had not been controlled. So they went back and added temperature controls, thus fixing the problem (as it happens, they did not publish the results of the new investigation themselves because in the meantime a Harvard team had also done the experiments and discovered the temperature sensitivity, and published their results from an experiment where the temperature was controlled).
A number of points arise from this:

• It is quite common for experiments to be published that subsequently turn out to be flawed. This is not considered a misdemeanour on the part of the experimenters concerned, which seems to be the emphasis in the present article.
• Further, history does not dwell on the early flawed results the way this article seems to have done (unless the flaws concerned have important consequences), but focusses on the subsequent corrected investigations.
• While the flaws point out by Marks et al. may have affected the results reported by Targ, there is a good chance they were irrelevant. This is because it is not that likely that knowledge of the temporal order of the targets was a relevant factor in the outcome, because there were independent indications (viz. naming the actual target in one case, rather than merely giving descriptions) that the subject had RV skills.
• The subsequent Stargate investigations did not have the flaws pointed out by Marks et al., but were successful from the scientific point of view (skeptic Hyman was unable to find any errors in the procedure), even if it was concluded that the process did not have significant value militarily (that is the public position at least; I would not be at all surprised if RV is not still used covertly on occasion, as it had been previously (Carter: confirms CIA remote viewing project).

In conclusion, the article as it is at present breaks good practice in the way it emphasises flaws in early experiments (flaws that may well not have affected the outcome in any case) at the expense of subsequent successful research where little detail is given. This serious defect needs to be fixed. --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

PS: out of curiosity I had a look at the GR article to see what it included relevant to this issue. It references the valid expt. by Pound and Rebka, and ignores the flawed Harwell experiment published at the same time. That is how things should be. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

@Brian Josephson: Professor, how do we go about fixing the article per your comments? As you know, in Wikipedia we can only describe what secondary, reputable sources say about a subject, so I am not sure I understand how we can apply your arguments above to this article. Cwobeel (talk) 14:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Josephson's claim that the flaws pointed out by Marks are "irrelevant" to Targ's remote viewing experiments is completely unreferenced. I would like to see reliable references for this extraordinary claim. He also says the Stargate Project was a "successful from the scientific point of view". This is a falsehood because there is an entire article on Stargate which is well referenced and the project was definitely not successful if you read those sources. Here is what Ray Hyman has written "Psychologists, such as myself, who study subjective validation find nothing striking or surprising in the reported matching of reports against targets in the Stargate data. The overwhelming amount of data generated by the viewers is vague, general, and way off target. The few apparent hits are just what we would expect if nothing other than reasonable guessing and subjective validation are operating." [27]. Josephson's claim "skeptic Hyman was unable to find any errors in the procedure" is not also not accurate, because errors were found [28], [29], [30] Goblin Face (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

And what Hyman says is equally 'vague, general, and way off target'. He clearly does not understand the principles behind the experiment (but this is bad science rather than pseudoscience). I'm not going to go into detail on this because w'pedia is not a place where proper scientific discussion is possible, and according to the logic that w'pedia goes by Hyman is to be accepted as gospel truth. --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

And pseudoscience works by taking on the trappings of science but rejecting any findings that don't fit the expected outcomes. The sources say we're talking pseudoscience. --Ronz (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

And pseudo-logic works by ignoring the principles of real logic, often spinning a conclusion out of thin air. Your statement above doesn't follow any of the principles and practices of real logic that I am familiar with. --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

"that I am familiar with" Then you need to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies. --Ronz (talk) 15:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm familiar enough to know that blind application of rules is the dominant activity. --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

If that's how you feel it really works, then don't expect to have much impact on anything here. We work by collaboration and consensus-building. --Ronz (talk) 18:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

(ot): I am new to this topic, this type of articles and the disputes, so I would want to understand why is there such a tension between scientists about subjects that are outside of mainstream thinking. It seems almost religious to me (from both sides of the dispute). Can any of you point me out to some reading on the subject? Cwobeel (talk) 15:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Already have: WP:ARBPS, WP:ARBFS, WP:FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 15:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

More WP shortcuts? Give me a break... I was referring to some reading on the subject of the animosity between mainstream scientists and those exploring boundaries that are outside of the mainstream (not on Wikipedia). Cwobeel (talk) 16:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I just read WP:FRINGE in its entirety, and found there WP:PARITY, which is what I have been arguing about all along. Cwobeel (talk) 16:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

If you want some background reading, I recommend this as a good historical overview by Robert Todd Carroll [31], for a refutation of some of the paranormal claims, this by Steven Novella [32] and this by Benjamin Radford [33], also this essay [34] and for a psychological take on the subject some comments from Bruce Hood [35]. Goblin Face (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

And this book is well worth looking at also: Dogmatism in Science and Medicine; How Dominant Theories Monopolize Research and Stifle the Search for Truth by Henry Bauer. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes but you forgot to mention Henry H. Bauer is an AIDS denialist who believes the loch ness monster is real. ^_^ Goblin Face (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Possibly, but that needn't detract from the interest and importance of what is said in the book. You are trying to distract, using techniques well practised by illusionists. --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

See WP:TRUTH, also WP:SOAP, WP:NOTFORUM and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Sorry if some editors have a problem with WP shortcuts but these subjects have been discussed to consensus and essays, guidelines and policies reflect a great deal of work alleviating the necessity to reinvent the wheel. Of note the application of logic in analysis is exactly what WP:SYNTH expressly discusses. WP does not do original research to discover the truth, we present what has been published by reliable sources. If your objection is to the way mainstream science works WP is not the place to fight that battle and right that wrong. - - MrBill3 (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I would add that Nature found Mark's criticism significant enough to publish. Where is the continuing science that has validated the concepts and theories despite flawed research? This article deals with Targ's research, the flaws are appropriate for discussion in this article. - - MrBill3 (talk) 18:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Is this article about Targ's research? I thought it was a biography of Targ. Cwobeel (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

It is, of course, about both. All biographies discuss the thing that the subject is notable for. In this case he's notable for tooth fairy science. Guy (Help!) 18:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

So wouldn't a biography of Targ discuss his work? Read any of the major published biographies of figures known primarily for their work. Why are biographies written? They are about what a person did, what impact they had etc. Absent Targ's work in parapsychology, RV in particular he would not be notable enough to warrant a bio on WP at all. On WP we base discussion of a topic on what is published in reliable sources. The focus of reliable sources is almost exclusively on Targ as an RV researcher. - - MrBill3 (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

@Brian Josephson: Actually you have that precisely the wrong way round. It is Targ who places undue emphasis on early results, and deliberately de-emphasises later work which shows the many ways in which bias and wishful thinking could creep into the experiments as he designed them. We would not accept Targ's claimed confirmation of the psychic abilities of Geller as a counter to the later complete demolition of those claims by other, more acute observers. Similarly we do not accept Targ's claims for remote viewing as a counter to Wiseman's later comments. The field as Targ left it can only be described as a shambles. Now, it is not even that. This is not cold fusion, where there is at least an objectively verifiable if inconsistent anomalous result: with remote viewing, properly controlled tests find no effect, just as they do with every other purported psi effect. Mr. Randi's million dollars has never looked safer. Guy (Help!) 18:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I can't believe that Cwobeel above opened up the can of worms about attempting to read up on science vs pseudo-science. Some of the suggested readings above are just what I would have guessed. If I were to suggest anything it would be the down to earth writings of Feynman (e.g., on the Cargo Cult). However, only a small fraction of the many scientists I have worked with over 40ish years would be able to discuss the nuances of Wittgenstein v Popper v Kuhn re the nature and philosophy of science--and I aint one of that small group and even had to look-up up Wittgenstein just to make sure I remembered the right guy and spelled his name right! BUT they virtually all know the difference between science and pseudo-science when they see it. And there is (at least fundamentally) no animosity of scientists toward denialists/parapsychologists/creationists/etc...just a frustration. Only if one makes a mistake of debating such folk (e.g., anyone who might say: "precognition is a valid alternative hypothesis") does frustration sometimes blossom into a raging animosity. So the key is no debate..unless of course one is interested in a complete china set of Russell teapots. Does this mean I think that a NPOV necessitates a main-stream science POV? You are damn right I do! Juan Riley (talk) 22:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Can of worms indeed! Thanks for the pointers, though. Cwobeel (talk) 23:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think Russell's teapot is a fair comparison. All over the world, peoples have traditionally believed in seeing the future. When something is traditionally believed, you should legitimately have scientific experiments to evaluate that. For example, Spallanzani's tests of spontaneous generation aren't seen as pseudo-science or unnecessary in their day. Now to be sure, I find the model that the Stargate program used to be very far from what I'd have in mind; it's truly based on some notion of extrasensory perception, with little more than lip service to precognition (for example, it doesn't seem like they addressed the paired retrocognitive event at all, or even considered it as a form of memory) -nonetheless, it was at least some data, and there are little nuggets in there of great interest.

What's funny is that no matter whether you're looking for psi confirmations in the details or for debunker's gold in the fishy parts, you're missing them all by being so knee-jerk critical. I mean, I don't think you people even noted the role of Scientology, or compared and contrasted how they were able to access IRS offices with whether they might be able to describe the inside of an NSA office, or what the group might have had to benefit by having a star reader at the forefront of such a program, let alone the operational advantages of having an international church with independent, not-espionage groups in every country and readers at Fort Meade. I mean, you dig deep enough with this and you have Scientology, MK-ULTRA, NSA, CIA, DIA, Army Intelligence, and I think several other interesting threads all dancing around in a very small space, and it's worth asking what was going on in that space, gradually accumulating what is known until you can infer what is left unspoken. But to do so, we have to respect all the people involved, respect the ideas advanced, treat everybody fairly, because most likely not everyone is in on the mystery. Wnt (talk) 02:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

uhhhh, so you are saying this also falls under the ARBCOM Scientology ruling? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh my... maybe we should drop this per WP:NOTFORUM now and concentrate on improving this article? Cwobeel (talk) 03:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

You people are hopeless. Even when your own POV could be bolstered by diving deep into the facts and looking for answers, you still prefer sniping from behind a wall of misused bureaucracy over seriously researching the topic of the article. To be clear, Russell Targ is not himself a member of Scientology; you'll have to do a moment of digging to see how it figures in to the history. Wnt (talk) 06:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

"You people are hopeless" Not true!! But your agenda has become clear now. And please stop inserting fringe sources into the Stargate Project article. Goblin Face (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Really? Maybe you can tell me what it is, because I have no idea. Wnt (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Defending psychic woo-woo :) Goblin Face (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

This is not a forum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
My goal here is to defend the right of Wikipedians and society in general to understand events that actually took place in America's most important institutions - the NSA, CIA, Stanford, SAIC, etc. My goal is to support the right of all people to explore, and perhaps find support for, a range of personal interests and hypotheses, whether pro or anti psi. Because you still don't appreciate the idea I gave you, I'll spell it out explicitly - please note however that I have no reason to suppose that Targ was involved in any way, and this is purely a hypothesis that I would think would inspire a real skeptic to more careful research. Namely: According to [36] Operation Stargate included some very high level Scientologists. Putting together some other sources (maybe not BLP-citably just yet) I would tentatively say that these included multiple "OT VII" level (there were about 3000 people at that level), some as viewers, some as judges. Now right there, because Scientology has a strong sales reason to promote itself as a source of psychic abilities, there is a potential COI already; you could hypothesize that some members might have gotten together and conspired to cheat the test. But we're not started yet. Because it's more significant to bear in mind where Scientology came from: L. Ron Hubbard was in Naval Intelligence. He started a secretive Sea Org that permeated international borders, and made great effort to start chapters all over the world. And now, bring in what Scientology actually is -- by and large, it consists of "auditing sessions" where members are hooked up to a sort of simple lie detector called an E-meter and repeatedly drilled with questions that sound like they were chosen for espionage value to confess all their sins in past and present lives. All those auditing transcripts go to Scientology central HQ; there's no "seal of the confessional" in the organization and they freely make use of the data against their apostates. So --- in theory --- it seems like Scientology could be an operational intelligence gathering operation from beginning to end, with judges and viewers collaborating to deliver tidbits from their network as the results of remote viewing experiments. The main flaw in this conspiracy theory is that I haven't seen the evidence that the remote viewing operation produced enough tips to be relevant to the immense data collection capability of the Church of Scientology. Now I'm definitely not saying that is true, and I do happen to think that certain kinds of real psi are also possible (beginning with the paranormal experience we all share of conscious sensation and will), but what I am saying is, if you really value a scientific mind-set at all, stop trying to load the article with blanket denunciations and turn people loose to explore and set down all the facts about everyone neutrally, without judgment, until the truth at last finds us worthy to perceive it. Wnt (talk) 16:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Mind Race Controversy

This has been hard to find references for but it turns out in his book Mind Race, Targ wrote something libelous about the science writer Martin Gardner which has been referred to as "slander". The libelous content was also quoted in the Fate magazine (July 84) under the heading "Quote of the Month". After Gardner threatened legal action and complained - Villard Books apologized and removed the entire section from all later printings of the book. Fate magazine also apologized to Gardner. The source for this appears to be an old issue of the Skeptical Inquirer by Ray Hyman. I believe this was later re-printed in an article Outracing the Evidence: The Muddled "Mind Race" and re-published in the book Science Confronts the Paranormal edited by Kendrick Frazier. Unfortunately I used to have this book but sold it, I no longer have access to this book, only clippings are available for this source on Google books. If anyone does have full access, confirmation please needed here and I think this is a notable event that should be inserted into the article. Goblin Face (talk) 01:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Delphi description

I trimmed back the description to the two sources. Using the label of "psychic" on an individual and their services seems a bit much given it wasn't used in this manner in either of the sources and given WP:FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 15:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

A wee bit on my edits on the Laser etc research section.

This is in case there are issues with my edits in this section. Note that I am a WP newbie so I am giving my reasons NOT arguing yet for them. First and foremost, though Targ's optical research credentials are sound, I would not think they are sufficiently notable for a WP article on him. I don't think there is any contention other than that his WP notability is due to his parapsychology work. Thus I attempted to keep this section as short as it was when I first read it. Generally I compacted what I originally found in this section to keep it short--certainly modifying word choice, removing an as yet unverified reference, finding and adding a reference to a paper Targ co-authored that was explicitly related to one of the noted areas of research (mode-locking), finding and inserting an external link for one of the given references,etc.... I also made all references in this section inline ones in order to eliminate a later laser research category in a bibliography section--thus leaving this bibliography relevant to his WP notable parapsychology works.

With a few possible exceptions I do not believe I substantially added to or removed from the section any content. One such possible exception (or maybe two) is that I removed two claims of "firsts". There were no verifiable references that I could find which supported these claims. It is possible that someone can come up with such a reference. An alternative is we can let the "firsts" go back in with 's or the like. Juan Riley (talk) 21:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I thought previous discussion concluded that his laser research was pretty notable. I've not actually looked into your edits, but it sounds as if they should be reverted. In fact physicists would probably be more familiar with his laser work than anything else. I see answers.com claims 'He received two National Aeronautics and Space Administration awards for inventions and contributions in lasers and laser communications.' Assuming this is correct, that would seem to confirm his notability. http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2013/02/RIR-130203.php says the same. Can these people all be making it up? And I think it was pointed out that one of his papers on laser has been cited many times. And here it is said in an article by the President of Saybrook University: http://www.saybrook.edu/forum/univ/mark-schulman-defending-science-against-futurists-and-marketing-gurus-ted Please go and revert! --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Juan, Obviously I read more into your comment than was justified; you have not been doing any large-scale deletion as practised by certain editors. I'm not sure that the claims of 'first' should be that contentious. I haven't the time to look into the details, but I should imagine the appropriate procedure would be to restore the 'first' and include the reference where the work cited was published. In the absence of any previous publication of work on the same subject (which should show up in a Google Scholar search) it would be reasonable to include the 'first' which you removed (though I have to admit that the cabal is famed for not allowing reasonable material to be included). However, in the circumstances and absence of good justification I would tend to regard the removal of 'first' as going in the direction of tendentious editing. --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it is disingenuous to claim that anybody would probably be more aware of his laser work than anything else, especially in the absence of any reliable independent secondary source to that effect. It is beyond any shadow of doubt that he is best known for his promotion of remote viewing, and virtually unknown for anything else. If he is still known in the laser community, it is a side-note in the career of a man who is, according to every single reliable independent source I have seen, known almost exclusively for something else. Guy (Help!) 22:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

@User:Brian Josephson I did not mean to start a contentious issue. My argument on notability was purely to point out why I did not think enlarging the physics research section was appropriate as the WP notability was his parapsychology research. I am definitely NOT denigrating Targ's laser/electro-optics professional credentials. I did not cut anything out of this section except the "first" clams as I said above. Note: the type of organization (e.g., NASA) awards you refer to are perhaps resume notable but not WP notable. Juan Riley (talk) 22:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

This deserves a Wikilawyering medal. Having spent a week arguing that all sources about the paranormal are "fringe", even when Targ talks about his own frame of mind, now you tell us that the sources about the science must also be underweighted. It seems like there's no room for anything, science or parapsychology, that might in any way distract or dilute the damnatio memoriae. But all the fancy PR spin in the world doesn't change the fact that Targ was at the center of a serious program run straight out of Fort Meade with SRI and SAIC and CIA and NSA and all the heavy hitters that do mass surveillance on the Internet involved, and that's no joke and not something to simply be dismissed without examination. Wnt (talk) 03:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Can Guy produce a reliable source to support the assertion (implied by his comment above) that not a single person is more aware of Targ's laser work than anything else of his? What about people working on lasers at the time? You can not be serious! --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

@Brian Josephson: Thank you for your attention to this matter. As I should have said more clearly in starting this section: It is my thinking that although the WP notability of the Targ article is not based on his physics research, documentation summarizing his scientific physical research is important to the article as a whole. So important that it should be concise and be unquestionably referenced in order to avoid the donnybrooks that have, are, and will erupt over Targ's more controversial parapsychology work. You have to admit that I brought up my removing the claims of "firsts". Such claims almost always invite controversy--unless backed up with a definitive secondary reference or a widely accepted research community consensus. As I noted, I wouldn't be completely averse to putting them back in...but with 's which will be dated and, failing someone coming up with a reference, the firsts would again be removed sometime in the future. I would like the decision to involve more than just you and I.

PS I am guessing that User:Guy is sorry for his exaggeration.

@User:Wnt I suggest you actually review the edits and associated references whereof you are speaking. Juan Riley (talk) 17:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, Juan! You might find it interesting to look at the section Criteria for inclusion on list of works (right near the top of this page, item 4). You will see that once upon a time your very sensible suggestion regarding references was indeed implemented, but these references were soon removed with some paltry excuse. That is the unfortunate way this 'encyclopedia that anyone can edit' works in practice. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. Yes...some embarrassingly misguided remarks there. I should of course have reviewed the talk page from top to bottom before entering this fray--my bad. Though I am no fan of parapsychology (to put it mildly) there seems to have been (to this WP novice) NPOV violations where there should not have been have been no controversy: Targ's physics research credentials. On this we agree. Juan Riley (talk) 18:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I have to give folks here credit --- the POV here is concealed with an excellent knowledge of Wiki editing and a remarkable degree of strategy and regimentation. To a first and even a second glance you make it look like it's a law of nature that Targ is credited only with parapsychology publications in a highly visible section, because after all, the others are cited somewhere. True, with effort one can find the cites back from the references from things like "Targ & Puthoff 1977" to the parapsych works also ... but it is easy to miss that.

Nonetheless, this is just another way too fancy way of imposing POV on an article. What that POV is, what your goals really are, I should recognize is entirely unknown to me, beyond the obvious that as usual it seems to misrepresent Targ. Wnt (talk) 00:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

First - Content not editors, ascribing motivations to other editors is not only off topic but is a form of personal attack. Second per due what is the notability of the papers in the "Publications on lasers" section? Per due the representation of content is proportional based on what secondary reliable sources publish. I think some of Targ's work in lasers is notable based on citation numbers. What is the support for the notability of this work in secondary sources? Some secondary sources were proposed but full citations were never given for verification. I think someone with some knowledge of the field could contribute such support. It seems some of Targ's work was foundational to lasers. Some of his lidar work may achieve notability as mentioned by being highly cited. In regards to the appropriate prominence of Targ's publications in parapsychology there is clear support for that work to be highly prominent. It is discussed extensively in multiple sources per NPOV what secondary sources publish should be presented proportionately. What is Targ known for in secondary sources? What does the published ink devote time and space to when discussing Targ? Gould provides a good contrast, if you read up on Gould you will find multiple sources discussing his contributions to laser research. NPOV and balance are based on published reliable sources. How many books discuss Targ's work on lasers? I think the secondary sources are clear about what Targ is known for and about what publications are notable.

Goblin Face's movement of most of the laser papers to the references section is appropriate and should be redone, until secondary sources discussing Targ's laser research are presented. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

This is absurd. Targ's publications belong in a separate section because they're Targ's publications. You are arguing that Targ's parapsychology works are more widely referenced --- more mainstream, less fringe --- than his contributions to physics. This is skewed all the way to the far end of the world from how every other parapsychology source has been treated by the (apparent) skeptics in this and the related articles, as being not even worth mentioning because they offend editors' notions of what is right. Wnt (talk) 08:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, for the benefit of editors who have problems with Wnt's wording as per MrBill3's complaint, in the second sentence of the relevant paragraph Wnt (if he feels this appropriate) can strike though everything except 'As usual it seems to misrepresent Targ' (the first sentence can remain). Re PoV, laser research is regular physics and it seems to me that for some reason criteria are being applied here that are not normally applied in articles about physics. Re references, they should be linked to the article in appropriate ways (perhaps new text needs to be added), not relegated to the end. And as for 'Some secondary sources were proposed but full citations were never given for verification', I suggest the problematic sources be listed here so full citations can be given. --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

@Brian Josephson: I don't have to prove anything: you made a claim: "In fact physicists would probably be more familiar with his laser work than anything else". You have now struck that, I see, but it was to that comment I was responding. I do not think it very likely that more than a handful of physicists would be more aware of his early laser work than his later and massively more public involvement with the pseudoscience of remote viewing. Nobody has made a movie satirising early laser research, and there's a reason for that. The issue here is one of undue weight. It is fair to cite some of his laser work, it is not fair, appropriate or acceptable to snowstorm the article with these references in order to try to draw attention away from the fact that he is primarily known for the batshit craziness of Stargate. Accuracy and fairness do not mean we have to stray into the territory of apologia or hagiography. Targ is mainly known as a crank, and that's pretty much what we're always going to say, unless and until the real world changes in some meaningful way (which is unlikely on present evidence). Read the article on Prosper-René Blondlot. We do not spend much of that article talking about his obscure early work, we talk about the thing for which he is known: the canonical example of pathological science that is n-rays. That is what defines his reputation, in the same way that remote viewing defines Targ's reputation. It may indeed be unfair, but the unfairness is outside Wikipedia and only is it not our job to fix it, our policies also basically forbid us from even trying to fix it. Guy (Help!) 08:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I struck out the comment as a whole as it was based on a misconception, but still maintain that in total physicists would probably be more familiar with his laser work than anything else (though the majority of scientists would probably not have heard of him anyway since his contributions were a long time ago and probably mainly only known to people in the field anyway). I could probably prove this by conducting a survey, but don't plan to waste time on this even though I would be depriving myself of the satisfaction of proving you wrong as a result. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

{{citation needed}}. His work on Stargate is very well known and is discussed in books which are still widely read; Stargate itself has been the subject of a major Hollywood film. His work on lasers may have been significant in the day but I think it unlikely that current practitioners even in this specific field will be on nodding terms with papers that old. As far as I can tell, his crank papers are more widely and more currently cited than his laser papers, the citations of which are few and far between in recent decades. So, physicists are quite likely, on the face of it, to be entirely unaware of his laser work and while laser physicists might be aware of it, they are clearly not mentioning it every week. I do know a decent number of physicists who are well aware of his crank publications, but of course this sample will be skewed by the fact that I hang out with skeptics more than with laser physicists. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I was going to mention that the fact that you hang out with sceptics would rather skew your statistics. If Targ had been targeted by Richard Wiseman that would have made his link with RV quite well known in these parts, but RV seems not to be within the field of his radar. --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Apparently my point was not understood. It is a simple issue of WP:DUE. I was discussing notability not level of acceptance/fringe status. If reliable sources do not discuss Targ's papers on laser research they don't belong as content. If reliable sources discuss Targ as a laser physicist and cite his papers they might warrant inclusion as content in proportion to the reliable sources that discuss Targ as a parapsychology researcher. WP does not list non notable publications in bulk to whitewash what reliable sources discuss extensively. In response to Brian Josephson, the sources were posted here. I added the content that was claimed by the poster for them with the sources as provided with full citation needed tags (check some earlier versions of the article. As full citations were not provided verification was impossible. There was discussion here of whether they would be reliable sources for the content given the types of sources they were. With no full citation no assessment of the sources and no verification was possible so another editor properly removed them. If I get a chance I will look through some older versions of the article and post a link of a version in which they appear. If a case is being made for Targ's laser research being notable, adequate sources should be rather easily available, that's what notability is. - - MrBill3 (talk) 12:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

This entire issue can be solved very easily. It's been nearly a month now since I asked Targ to provide independent reliable secondary sources that discuss his laser work. Absolutely nothing was given by him. I take it that no physics textbooks discuss Targ's laser work. It's a month later nearly and still nothing given. What we have is a laser section on Targ's article sourced to basically his own publications. This is against Wikipedia policy. We don't get other physicists on Wikipedia where this is happening. Let's be honest the only reason the laser section was added is because Targ has complained. I will make this easy - find reliable sources in the next 4 days (I believe this is fair amount of time) that discuss Targ's laser work if not I am removing all those primary sources. Now Brian Josephson or Wnt think carefully before you reply, don't spout your usual rants about "bias" "skeptic's" or "POV", if you want to improve this article go and look for reliable secondary sources that discuss Targ's laser work, and please either mention them here or add them in the article. Goblin Face (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Primary sources are OK per WP:ABOUTSELF providing these are not unduly self-serving. I checked these primary sources and IMO these sources are acceptable and well within the policy constraints. Cwobeel (talk) 15:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Did a quick check in Google Scholar and there seems to be a substantial number of works citing Targ's work on lasers, which would satisfy the need for secondary sources. For example: [37] . Google Scholar search: [38] Cwobeel (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)