User talk:Famousdog

EFT article help

The EFT article is incredibly biased, and I was simply trying to remove a section which has no value. The intellectual arrogance on wikipedia is disgusting. These very effective techniques have been used for thousands of years, and helped countless individuals overcome incredibly disabling conditions. There should be sections on each of these articles about their historical use and effectiveness, not just the claims of the western scientific community. It's almost like Monsanto owns Wikipedia, and damns established practices that would conflict with the prescription of medication for those who could cure these diseases on their own. I don't know the proper way to go about fixing this, but I find it sad that Wikipedia tends towards pushing people away from anything modern corporate interests conflict with, especially when concerned with medicine. EFT works better than valium for every individual I've ever known for panic disorder and generalized anxiety disorder, disrupting cycles and preventing further episodes for the rest of ones life. No practice in modern psychiatry can tout such effectiveness. How might I include information about something like this in these articles? The level of unbalance in represented perspectives is pathetic, ruins this site.

Dear Anonymous user, I can't find your IP address in the EFT article history. Are you responsible for these unhelpful and abusive edits? If so, I don't feel that I need to justify myself to you. And please don't top-post on a talk page. Good day. Famousdog (talk) 13:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12

Hi. When you recently edited List of genetic algorithm applications, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eyewitness (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Orgone

Dear Famousdog, you removed my insertion of James DeMeo's video about orgone energy on the basis that it is an unreliable source. I would like to ask on what you base this claim? I would like to point out that much of DeMeo's work mentioned in the video has been published in peer-reviewed journals, for example such as you can read here.--Gulpen (talk) 14:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Gulpen, this video is a self-published source, therefore unreliable. If it is based on reliable sources, then please use those. Famous_dog 20:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok--Gulpen (talk) 20:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

To educate myself I read Wikipedia:Verifiability and happened to come across the following passage: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Would that change the situation? --Gulpen (talk) 22:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't see many of DeMeo's papers published in "reliable third-party publications". Correct me if I'm wrong. You might also want to look at WP:FRINGE. Being an expert in a fringe topic does not necessarily make you an expert. Famous_dog 07:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

How about the paper I referred you to in the opening message? --Gulpen (talk) 18:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

See my comments below. Famous_dog 08:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, I would like to point to the following (as I see was just added on the Wilhelm Reich page):

• 1. DeMeo, James. "Preliminary Analysis of Chang es in Kansas Weather Coincidental to Experimental Operations with a Reich Cloudbuster," 1979 University of Kansas Dept. of Geography. (See here.)

• Unpublished thesis. Counts as WP:SPS. Famous_dog 08:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Ok.--Gulpen (talk) 11:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• 2. DeMeo, James. "Water as a Resonant Medium for Unusual External Environmental Factors", Water: A Multidisciplinary Research Journal, 2011, pp. 1-47. (See here.)

• Water is a very new (only 2 vols so far) online journal. It does not look like a WP:RS to me. It is not listed in any of the usual databases (PubMed, Web of Science) and the only reference to it on WP is in relation to Orgone energy. Nuff said. Famous_dog 08:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Whether other WP articles cite the same journal is not a reason to qualify the journal as reliable or not. You have a valid point, however, regarding the non-inclusion of the journal in the 'usual databases' (I assume you have checked this correctly). However, I know from my own experience that many journals (that you undoubtedly would also consider as reliable) are not included in such databases, because they are included in the many hundreds of various sub-databases for specific disciplines. Moreover, whether the journal is electronic is a technical matter. It is true that the journal is relatively new (3 vols.). However, they seem to have a respectable editorial board which seems to me like a good reason to consider this as a reliable source.--Gulpen (talk) 15:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• 3. DeMeo, James. "Experimental Confirmation of the Reich Orgone Accumulator Thermal Anomaly", Subtle Energies and Energy Medicine 20(3):1-16, 2010.

• Subtle Energies is, forgive me, NOT a WP:RS. Famous_dog 08:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Whether or not you personally like and/or are in favour of research into any particular field of knowledge is not a reason to judge a journal as unreliable. This is not a convincing argument. Again, they seem to have a respectable editorial board.--Gulpen (talk) 15:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• 4. DeMeo, James: "Report on Orgone Accumulator Stimulation of Sprouting Mung Beans", Subtle Energies and Energy Medicine, 21(2):51-62, 2011. (For both see here.)

• Ditto. Famous_dog 08:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• 5. DeMeo, James: "Dayton C. Miller Revisited", in Should the Laws of Gravitation Be Reconsidered? Hector A. Munera, Editor, 2011, pp. 285-315. (See here.)

• Book. Counts as WP:SPS. Famous_dog 08:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Not "a book", but "a self-published book" is considered as WP:SPS (I presume! - otherwise how about all other books?). As far as I can see, this book is not self-published by DeMeo. However, the editorial policy of the publisher is not clear, so that leaves this source in a grey zone.--Gulpen (talk) 15:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can see, none of the four sources have any direct link to or interest in either Wilhelm Reich or 'Orgonomy' and, thus, qualify as third-party sources from my point of view.

WP:RS says that we need reliable third-party sources. Not just any third-party sources. Famous_dog 08:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Moreover, as far as I can tell, there are at present no peer-reviewed journal articles concerning reproductions of Reich's orgone-related experiments on the orgone page. There is only one, Isaacs, journal article and I suspect s/he didn't reproduce an experiment (though I don't have access to the full-text at this moment!). Most of the other sources are merely popular science books which have to be used with due caution. In this context, DeMeo's three journal articles have considerable weight. If there are any peer-reviewed journal articles where any of Reich's orgone-related experiments are reproduced and falsified, then I would be very happy to learn about this. As yet, I do not know of any.

Finally, if you permit, I would like to copy&move this discussion to the talk:orgone page, because this discussion touches on issues that are of a more general interest there. However, just to be clear, I'm not arguing for anything here, except for inclusion of DeMeo's video. --Gulpen (talk) 02:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That other researchers haven't bothered to reproduce Reich's rather silly experiments does NOT mean he is right. Famous_dog 08:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, let's continue this on Talk:Orgone. I've transcluded this discussion there. Famous_dog 08:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

(Note: I responded also above) I have to submit, therefore, that the two journals can be considered as reliable sources (apart from that DeMeo can be considered an authority in the (fringe) field and that his above-mentioned articles seem to be well-written and well-referenced) Of course, as I stated, I am not implying that these articles of DeMeo validate Reich's work. If my assertion is correct that there are no other peer-reviewed experiments, then this merely means that there are no direct sources that can be used to counter/qualify DeMeo's work. This implies, therefore, that if any of DeMeo's work or his video are included in the article, we should provide general due qualification of their status, i.e. not-supported by majority view/scientific concensus.--Gulpen (talk) 15:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Subtle Energies is a joke and the jury is still out on Water is clearly a bullsh*t journal (see below). Regarding Water journal, I'm not familiar with the names of ANY of those researchers, sorry. What aspects of "water" do they research? How do you conclude that they comprise a "respectable editorial board"? There are no biogs or links. Regarding Subtle Energies journal, I at no point said that I "personally like and/or are in favour of research into" anything. Stop making assumptions about my motivations. Now, there are in fact several researchers on that board that I most certainly DO NOT respect as academics. Namely Radin, Norris, Benor & Kreiger. The others I am unfamiliar with. The "research" I have read from those particular editors has struck me as far below par. However, this is just my opinion. I think you will have a hard time convincing anybody that this journal is a RS rather than simply being a WP:WALLEDGARDEN. Finally, being an expert in a fringe area does not make you an expert or an authority. It makes you a promoter of fringe ideas and fringe ideas should not be published in an encyclopedia until such time as they become notable and/or verifiable. Please read WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. Famous_dog 19:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see Michael Persinger has published in Water and they publish waffle about how water retains information (i.e. has a "memory") which presumably explains how homeopathy "works" (i.e. doesn't). Frankly, this is not looking good... Famous_dog 19:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Though I do not personally subscribe to any of Michael Persinger's theories, I think that everyone has an equal right to publish articles. At any rate in academia we judge articles on themselves, not on the basis of the worth of the author (though on Wikipedia we do both). Whether you are personally familiar with the names of any of the researchers is not important, nor whether you respect them as academics, or whether you consider their work below par. I am unable to judge the worth of any of this. The only option is gathering details on their bios/work and decide together using the same information. I have to admit that I did not study the bios/work of the Water Journal editors - my assertion there was not substantiated. The board of Subtle Energies, however, at any rate shows due academic credentials.

Regarding my assumptions of your motivation, you stated "Subtle Energies is, forgive me, NOT a...", without providing any argument. Hence, I concluded that you had a personal judgement. At any rate, a strong judgement from you about this matter is evident from the language you use about the journals ("a joke", "waffle", "clearly a bull*shit") and the topics they cover ("what aspects of 'water" do they research?", to which the answer can be found on their front page.)

But rather than going around the bush a few more times - I do not get the impression we are approaching a consensus - how about we ask someone else to comment? I believe there is a RS settling forum or something like that. We can ask whether they consider the two journals & the Munera book to be RS (to the extent that it is allowed to represent a minority view!!) and, consequently, whether we can include DeMeo's video.--Gulpen (talk) 01:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Gulpen, that's a very good idea. I have posted a notice here. Hopefully we can get some second opinions. Famous_dog 07:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, Famousdog, after another lengthy discussion there the following was the verdict regarding our initial point: "Yes! Externals links are the perfect place for this material. It is of interest and pertinent (because the article topic is directly about the FRINGE content, so regardless of its acceptance people may wish to learn more); but, given that the video isn't a reliable source we can't expand the article with its content..." Which, I have to admit, was not the type of reasoning I had, and I think you neither. Anyway, do you find this agreeable?--Gulpen (talk) 19:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree fully with what was said on the rs noticeboard. The video is fine as an EL if tagged as an example of DeMeo's fringe work, but it cannot be used as a reference for the article text as it is simply not RS. This would also seem to imply that his papers cannot be used either. Are we going to remove article text based on DeMeo's academic work? Famous_dog (c) 11:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Your signature

Please change it to accord with WP:SIGNATURE#Internal links. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I must have missed that section of the guidelines. Done. Famous_dog (c) 19:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Famousdog, this section also shows up on the Talk:Orgone page. --Gulpen (talk) 19:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)