Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:38, 30 December 2009

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Science and Academia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance). An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. United States: Presidential elections Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections. Dartmouth College (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dartmouth College, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Dartmouth CollegeWikipedia:WikiProject Dartmouth CollegeTemplate:WikiProject Dartmouth CollegeDartmouth College Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Physics: Biographies Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Biographies Taskforce.

Rearranging and neutralizing

For some time, I have studied this biography and followed the discussion. It is clear that the article is being badgered by someone who harbors a negative POV and wishes to undermine it. All one has to do to see the situation is to compare this biography with others. For example, compare it with that of Francis S. Collins. Collins is another recipient of a Kilby International Award. He is a scientist, but also one who has been particularly outspoken about his religious beliefs and has written books on both topics. Nevertheless, the body of his scientific history and accomplishments is separated from material relating to his views on religion and the interaction between religion and science.

I suggest we rearrange the components of the Hagelin biography to make the biography more logical and to bring it more in line with other biographies by keeping the factual descriptions of his academic choices and his research separate from the examples of reactions to these choices and research. Moreover, these reactions need to be placed in their appropriate contexts, and they need to more clearly reflect a neutral POV.

The following is a set of headings that seems to better reflect Hagelin’s activities and the responses of others to those activities. I see no need for the major heading “Professional Careers.” Instead, all the bases seem to be covered by headings arranged as follows: Academic Positions; Research in Theoretical Physics and the Unified Field; Research on Consciousness and Peace; Notable Awards; Reactions to Hagelin’s Academic Choices and Research; Business Activities—Enlightened Audio Designs; Political Activities; Activities in Support of World Peace; Popularity; References.

Fitting the current material into this structure would not involve a major overhaul. Most items already exist and can easily be just moved about. A few sentences would be moved from one subhead to another. If we can reach consensus on these topics, I will rearrange the current contents of the biography into this order for others to see, either on this page or in a sandbox (Which do others prefer?). ChemistryProf (talk) 11:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The comparison is inapt. Collins is not a controversial figure, and does not propose as "science" theories which are regarded by virtually every mainstream scientist as "utter nonsense, and the work of a crackpot". "Neutralizing" is a loaded word. Our goal is not to "neutralize" either criticisms or praise reported in reliable, independent, mainstream sources nor to misrepresent fringe positions - and Hagelin's theories are the fringiest of the fringe - as being mainstream. Our goal is to accurately report, with neither understatement nor overstatement, what the reliable, verifiable, independent sources say about the subject. As olive proposed Talk:John_Hagelin#Example above, it is certainly a worthwhile goal to try to improve the article, and using "feature" bios as a model for improvement is a good plan to try to do so. But, the Collins bio is neither a feature article nor one which is particularly useful as a model. Instead, you should use as a model a feature article on a person who has been subject to serious criticism or controversy. If you do, you will see that the portions of the article which apparently disturb you are entirely appropriate and neutral, and that the efforts of some other editors to sugar-coat the criticisms of his work are inappropriate efforts to push the POV of the TM Org to which they owe their livlihood. And, as for who is trying to dominate the shaping this article, I'd suggest you're looking in the wrong direction. Edit Count-Article Fladrif (talk) 14:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for expressing your views, Fladrif. It has become obvious to me over the last months that you have strong views on this article, in fact, on all the articles relating to the Transcendental Meditation technique. Some of these views appear so strong that they must have a negative effect on your ability to perform as a neutral editor. I have been in this situation myself at times, and it’s not comfortable. It takes the enjoyment out of editing. If we cannot enjoy this work, why do we do it? Let’s see if we can relieve the pressure a little and make this a more enjoyable process, for everyone. Aside from improving the article, this is my main goal.

Fladrif’s first sentence above, “The comparison is inapt,” throws down the gauntlet. Right away it casts a negative light on any constructive points I was making. But is it true? I chose the Collins example precisely because his religious activities and convictions have led to considerable controversy. He has an ongoing, public debate with Richard Dawkins concerning God and the relationship between religion and science, and has been criticized by others. All of this controversy appears under one topic, “Religious Views.” Naturally, we want to make the Hagelin bio a Featured Article, but we have a distance to go to achieve that. The Collins article simply shows that controversial viewpoints on a person’s activities can be placed under one subsection, leaving the more factual material to itself.

Fladrif’s second sentence begins “Collins is not a controversial figure…,” which brings up another point that needs clarification. Let’s not be bigoted. A person is a person. His or her actions or expressed views may be controversial, but the person is simply a person. This is true of Hagelin, Collins, George W. Bush, Obama, Hitler, or Fladrif. Courts cannot try a person for being who they are. We can never know what a person truly is inside. Courts try men for their actions. Sometimes they may be tried for their expressed views, but that is a dangerous departure from our claims to be a free country, allowing freedom of thought, religion, etc. Let’s try to uphold the ideals of our republic, if at all possible. (Correct me if not all the editors working on this article are citizens of the US of A.)

Unfortunately, the remainder of Fladrif’s second sentence, “…and does not propose as "science" theories which are regarded by virtually every mainstream scientist as "utter nonsense, and the work of a crackpot,"” ventures further into the realm of judging Hagelin’s innermost person. If Fladrif is a scientist, or even a historian of science, he or she knows that mainstream scientists often have it wrong. How many examples can we think of where the mainstream has opposed a scientist’s discovery or set of views only to have to retract their criticisms some years or decades later? Galileo, Pasteur, Edison, and Einstein are a few names that come to mind. Their work was vilified in their time, but eventually was accepted, even by the mainstream. Galileo was hanged; Pasteur, Edison, and Einstein were called “crackpots.” What did that criticism do to advance our knowledge?

Is it beginning to be clear what the word “neutralize” was intended to convey? Editors can make their views known in an article through their choice and placement of specific materials. If an editor has a strong view for or against something, then unless they are scrupulously careful, that view is likely to be exhibited in their choice and placement of materials. Any experienced editor knows that. My suggestion is to move material that falls into the “opinionated” category into one section, a place for directly and indirectly airing different opinions of Hagelin’s work and of his chosen career path. That would leave the article much freer of bias and move us in the direction of a decent bio, one not prone to libel or anything of the sort. Let’s look at Fladrif’s example (not yet produced) of a Featured Article on a person who has been subject to serious criticism or controversy for more ideas, but let’s also give feedback on my earlier suggested rearrangement of sections. Here is a repeat of my earlier suggestions for rearranging the material. "I see no need for the major heading “Professional Careers.” Instead, all the bases seem to be covered by headings arranged as follows: Academic Positions; Research in Theoretical Physics and the Unified Field; Research on Consciousness and Peace; Notable Awards; Reactions to Hagelin’s Academic Choices and Research; Business Activities—Enlightened Audio Designs; Political Activities; Activities in Support of World Peace; Popularity; References." Comments, please. ChemistryProf (talk) 20:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I happened to see a comment here that I'd like to respond to, though I haven't followeed this whole thread or dispute. ChemistryProf writes:

• How many examples can we think of where the mainstream has opposed a scientist’s discovery or set of views only to have to retract their criticisms some years or decades later? Galileo, Pasteur, Edison, and Einstein are a few names that come to mind. Their work was vilified in their time, but eventually was accepted, even by the mainstream. Galileo was hanged; Pasteur, Edison, and Einstein were called “crackpots.”

The argument that we should give special treatment to unusual scientific theories because Galileo turned out to be right is probably made every day on somewhere on Misplaced Pages, but it is always wrong. Misplaced Pages should reflect the majority view of issues. If we were writing in the 19th century, and if the majority of reliable sources available characterized Edison's ideas as unscientific (or whatever) then that is the view to which we should have given the greatest weight. We also should have included other views, if available in reliable sources. We're not here to right great wrongs, or to show readers a higher truth that leading scientists don't (yet) recognize. We're just here to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view.   Will Beback  talk  20:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

That was a pretty essay. And pretty much fact-free too. Galileo was hanged? That's news. Go back and actually re-reread what I wrote. And, while you're at it, look at the feature bio for oh, say Wesley Clark, which is the example I produced when olive suggested looking at a feature article BLP as a template for this one. Clearly you weren't paying attention. Collins and Dawkins debating their views on whether or not God exists does not make Collins a controversial figure, whether or not one agrees or disagrees with those views. Hagelin positing that the unified field of physics is bound up in the Marishi's theories of consciousness and SCI, to say nothing of his proposals as to how those theories should be practically applied, are universially rejected by mainstream science and are regarded as the fringiest of the fringe of education, politics and any other field that he dips his toe into. That might not be apparent from the limited horizons of beautiful downtown Fairfield, but them's the facts, and its our job to report 'em, unpleasant though you may find them. Fladrif (talk) 20:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually I'd like to thank ChemProf for his comments. He obviously is attempting to help create an environment where all editors can feel comfortable. There are lots of ways to write articles and lots of examples on Misplaced Pages. We are in no way committed to any of them. I think Chem makes some good suggestions and I can't see a down side to what he is asking. Can anyone else? As an aside to Will . I didn't take it from what Chem was saying that we should allow material into an article based on the hope that Hagelin for example is another Galileo or Einstein. I thought he was suggesting fairness and good editor work ethics in dealing with whomever we are writing about since non of us are in a position to judge anyone else, either who they are, or the impact their work may have in the future. (olive (talk) 20:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC))

Thanks for the feedback, folks. Will Beback, olive is correct in her summary statement. I was not suggesting we give special treatment to any theory that is not welcomed by mainstream science, but simply pointing out that some of our greatest discoveries in the past were first ignored or vilified. So reception by the mainstream is not a valid measure of the value of a scientific discovery. For that matter, the words of a few scientists spoken in an interview with a reporter are not a valid representation of mainstream science. Challenging current paradigms is often a hallmark of leading-edge science. The context of this point was the current Hagelin article's treatment of his published research on consciousness, implying that because a few outspoken scientists dismiss it, their words should be given special importance and should be highlighted in the article no matter how caustic. This does not jibe with WP guidelines nor does it make scientific sense. It merely reflects the POV of the WP editor responsible.

Fladrif, I read the Wesley Clark bio. It is interesting in several ways. First, it is extremely long, detailing every step of Clark's career advancement in numerous paragraphs. Positive, congratulatory comments were pretty much peppered throughout the article, sometimes without attribution, but the four descriptions of controversial material or controversial actions were inconspicuously placed under the topics to which they applied, and only muted language was used to describe Clark's actions. There was nothing resembling the current negative tone in several parts of the Hagelin article. It is similar to the Collins example in this regard. So now we have two examples, one having qualified as a Featured Article, that provide precedent for the type of rearrangements I am suggesting for the Hagelin article. Neither you nor Will commented directly on these suggestions, but I will make the changes and display them here before inserting them in the article. ChemistryProf (talk) 11:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the proposed structure: Academic Positions; Research in Theoretical Physics and the Unified Field; Research on Consciousness and Peace; Notable Awards; Reactions to Hagelin’s Academic Choices and Research; Business Activities—Enlightened Audio Designs; Political Activities; Activities in Support of World Peace; Popularity; References, would work very well. --BwB (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Since my name came up again I suppose I need to comment further. I disagree with the headings proposal. In particular, "Activities in Support of World Peace" is not a neutral title. The folks who built the MX missile, AKA the "Peacekeeper", could have been described as engaging in activities supporting world peace. While the current heading is over-long ("Invincible America, US Peace Government and Global Union of Scientists for Peace"), it can be trimmed to the most important of those entities. "Awards" usually go at the end, and "notable" isn't needed because we wouldn't include non-notable ones. If the "reractions" are in response to the "research" then they should go close together. Why would we have a "popularity" section? That sounds like it'd be more appropriate for a rock star. Overall I don't see the need for a re-organization, and the specific proposal does not appear to be neutral.   Will Beback  talk  16:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I think Will brings up some good points that I failed to see in a quick glance at the titles. Rather than say the proposal wasn't neutral can we say the proposal might create a non neutral aspect to the article. I have to rush of but maybe there's some middle ground we can discuss. Not sure yet. (olive (talk) 17:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC))

Yes some good points from Will. We can continue to consider different options. --BwB (talk) 18:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Good, I appreciate the constructive feedback. In the next day I will make a list of the reasons for the rearrangement and will follow up with suggestions to fix any problems pointed out by Will Beback. ChemistryProf (talk) 20:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

In answer to Will Beback's following comment "Overall I don't see the need for a re-organization, and the specific proposal does not appear to be neutral," I explained the need at the beginning of this thread and repeat here as follows: "For some time, I have studied this biography and followed the discussion. It is clear that the article is being badgered by someone who harbors a negative POV and wishes to undermine it. All one has to do to see the situation is to compare this biography with others. For example, compare it with that of Francis S. Collins. Collins is another recipient of a Kilby International Award. He is a scientist, but also one who has been particularly outspoken about his religious beliefs and has written books on both topics. Nevertheless, the body of his scientific history and accomplishments is separated from material relating to his views on religion and the interaction between religion and science."

"I suggest we rearrange the components of the Hagelin biography to make the biography more logical and to bring it more in line with other biographies by keeping the factual descriptions of his academic choices and his research separate from the examples of reactions to these choices and research. Moreover, these reactions need to be placed in their appropriate contexts, and they need to more clearly reflect a neutral POV." I can now add to this the results of further discussion above, namely, that Fladrif's suggestion to compare the Hagelin article with the one on Wesley Clark was followed, and the same conclusion was drawn. In the Wesley Clark "Featured Article," despite Fladrif's indication that he is a "controversial figure," the amount of discussion of controversy is minute compared with the detailed description of his every career step and activity. Negative comments are also restricted to a few places in the appropriate sections. Although that article does not have a separate section for the controversies, in the Hagelin article the controversies are overlapping in such a way as to make a single section for them more appropriate. For example, several points have to do with the interaction between his physics research and his consciousness research. The physics research part involves references to several dozen articles in this area, while his consciousness research involves only two or three articles. It would clarify the treatment of these topics, then, to deal with these research categories separately and to deal with the criticisms of their interaction together in one section following the research discussions. Likewise, there are logical reasons for each of the other headings suggested. Certainly, some of these headings can be refined following our discussion. That is why we have a discussion page. I appreciate the constructive feedback and will submit a revision of the reorganization plan incorporating the feedback. As for your (Will Beback's) comment that the proposal "does not appear to be neutral," in what way? I am trying to improve a bio that is in obvious need of improvements. The suggested rearrangements will be followed by further suggestions specific to each. Isn't this how WP works? ChemistryProf (talk) 12:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Quoting a large chunk of text from this same thread isn't really helpful. The suggested proposals are not neutral because they give exessoive prominence to the awards, and promote a view of the USPG. Maybe I don't understand what the point of a "popularity" section is, but I've never seen such a section in the article of a scientist before. If its related to his political success then it should just go in that section.   Will Beback  talk  20:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I took out the reference to Maharishi Central University in the Academic subsection, since it is not an academic institution at this time. If and when it becomes a functioning university its inclusion would be relevant. As of now it just clutters up the page to no purpose.Hickorybark (talk) 17:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

1982 and 1984 flipped SU(5) papers

Fladrif, I have the three physics papers in hand that we've been discussing, and I don't understand why you have written what you have. Deredinger 1984 doesn't mention flipped SU(5), so I don't understand why you've written that it describes flipped SU(5). And I don't understand the relationship between the 1982 and 1987 papers. Barr 1982 appears to focus on symmetry breaking and Hagelin 1987 looks to be describing a GUT model. I don't understand the sense in which it further describes flipped SU(5) presented in Barr 1982 and Deredinger 1984. TimidGuy (talk) 09:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering about that too, TimidGuy. Why would Discover make such a big deal of the work of Nanopoulos et al. if the theory had been published by someone else five years earlier? ChemistryProf (talk) 11:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Reception section: concerns

My recent deletions from the article:

Physicist Victor J. Stenger wrote in The Humanist that "quantum consciousness" as described by the Maharishi, Hagelin and others is a "myth" that "should take its place along with gods, unicorns, and dragons as yet another product of the fantasies of people unwilling to accept what science, reason, and their own eyes tell them about the world."

Pertinent quotes from Stenger:

They also resonate with the “cosmic consciousness” promoted by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and his Transcendental Meditation movement.

The myth of quantum consciousness should take

its place along with gods, unicorns, and dragons as yet another product of the fantasies of people unwilling to accept what science, reason, and their own eyes tell

them about the world.

Stenger doesn't say Maharishi talks about quantum consciousness. Others is weasel wording. I've removed them.

I'm not sure what this is about, but it looks like the author talks about the Maharishi and quantum consciousness:

• The Maharishi associates cosmic consciousness with the Grand Unified Field of particle physics. Maharishi University “quantum physicist” John Hagelin, Natural Law Party candidate for President in last year’s election, has spoken frequently about quantum consciousness.

While "associates" isn't the same as "describe", but that could be fixed by copyediting. Or maybe I don't understand the problem.   Will Beback  talk  04:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Stenger never says the Maharishi talks about quantum consciousness and neither should we. He says "cosmic consciousness"... "resonates with" and "associates". I don't care about the information but synthesis is something we don't need more of. I've added the older version of the quote from the article. (olive (talk) 09:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC))

The sentence I've brought here from the article probably deserves more discussion.(olive (talk) 09:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC))

I think we should remove this. Stenger doesn't give a source to back up his claim that Hagelin frequently talks about quantum consciousness. Hagelin has never talked about quantum consciousness. Maybe "cosmic consciousness," but that's something different. You'd think that if he frequently talks about it, it would show up via a Google search. But I couldn't find a single instance. We should be wary of using Stenger. He makes stuff up. As can be seen from the recent discussion, Stenger was utterly wrong that Barr 1982 and Deredinger 1984 had anything to do with flipped SU(5) heterotic string. TimidGuy (talk) 19:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

We should be wary of using Stenger. He makes stuff up. That seems a bit harsh. We usually review sources for reliability according to the reputation of the publisher, etc. Of course if a writer has a track record of errors that counts too. But if it's just our opinion that he "makes stuff up" then that might not be a strong argument. Unless someone can show definitively thet this is not a reliable source, I suggest that we start fresh and summarize what he does say in regard to Hagelin.   Will Beback  talk  19:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to be harsher still No we should not remove it. Stenger doesn't have to give a source. TG continually confuses what editors have to do with what authors of source material have do do. As for making stuff up, see Psychological_projection. What we can see from the recent discussion on SU(5) is not that Stenger was wrong, but that either TG is a pathological liar serial deciever or utterly incapable of reading technical material. Usually, I apply Hanlon's Razor to these kinds of dilemmas, but I don't think you're stupid.your track record here it too long and extensively documented to opt for the stupidity explanation for your actions. Barr is absolutely the first paper to describe Flipped SU(5), derived from SU(5),and his 1982 paper is repeatedly referenced for it, as anyone would discover from even the most casual of Google searches. Similarly, Stenger was absolutely correct about Derendinger's 1984 paper. And, I've read the papers, and your statements about them are, to put it most charitably, grossly misleading at best, and less charitably, absolute falsehoods. There is nothing that I can think of that is more disruptive to, or destructive of, the aims of Wiki than the willingness of an editor like yourself to continually misrepresent sources assert blatant falsehoods to try to push your POV on these articles. And yet you persist month after month, year after year, in the most outrageous deceptionsfalshoods, many of which were documented on COIN long before Will or I ever set eyes on this article, apparently with the motive of protecting this article that you wrote and had another editor post at Wiki. It is utterly unacceptable behavior, and frankly inexplicable since your claims are so easily falsified by any neutral editor. This has got to come to an end. Now. Fladrif (talk) 20:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I was not looking at the source but at the syntax and the synatx creates a synthesis situation. If the source is reliable and verifiable, and if the source says something we need then we can rewrite the text if not , no. I am not familiar with Stenger but for the article he writes to be considered reliable the material must be verifiable... and if its not the source goes. WP:Verifiable is a policy and underpins and also trumps the guideline, WP:Reliable.

Fladrif, the Deredinger papers you link to aren't the 1984 paper, as far as I can tell. Can you tell me the page on which the 1984 paper mentions flipped SU(5)? I keep searching the PDF and it just doesn't come up. And I don't see it when I skim the paper. Also, Barr had nothing to do with the flipped SU(5) heterotic string, which is a derivation of the flipped SU(5) GUT from string theory that came years later. Hagelin didn't claim to invent flipped SU(5). His website, which Stenger quotes, says he's "responsible for the development of a highly successful Grand Unified Field Theory based on the Superstring." What Hagelin did was use flipped SU(5) to create a GUT model, which Barr didn't do. I think the main problem is that you, like I did earlier, assume that flipped SU(5) always refers to the name of a GUT model. It doesn't. It's a tweak of SU(5). Barr applied it to understand symmertry breaking. Hagelin used it to develop his supersymmetric GUT model. I believe you're correct in saying that Barr was the first to describe flipped SU(5). But that's not the same as saying he's the first to develop a flipped SU(5) GUT, which is not what he did but is what Hagelin and collaborates did in the 1987 paper. And then several years later they derived the flipped SU(5) GUT model from string theory.

Will, please let me know if you can find an instance where Hagelin talks about quantum consciousness. I feel that if a source says that Hagelin says something and doesn't give an example of where he says it, and if no such instance can be found, then it's not a reliable source. TimidGuy (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

If you want to impeach the source that's your job. The article is published by reliable publication. For all I know, Stenger considers "quantum consciousness" and "cosmic consciousness" to be synonyms. We're not here to decide whether criticisms of the subject are correct or not. We're here to report the criticisms (and accolades and everything else that's significant). If author "Smith" had said "Hagelin is a nice guy" would we demand evidence to prove the assertion correct? If there are other reliable sources that say Stenger is incorrect then we an add those too. But discounting a source because we've decided it's wrong on a matter of interpretation is essentially a violation of WP:NOR: relying on our own original research to shape a Misplaced Pages article.   Will Beback  talk  22:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe we're here to decide whether sources are reliable. If Hagelin has never used the term quantum consciousness and Stenger says he often talks about it, then why isn't that a relevant consideration? I feel that if a source can be shown to be demonstrably factually incorrect, it shouldn't be used. Cosmic consciousness means something very specific when Hagelin talks about it. It's not the same as quantum consciousness. TimidGuy (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The criteria for establishing reliability are in WP:V and WP:RS. How can we prove that Hagelin has never used the term "quantum consciousness", and that Spegnewr is erroneous? It's generally considered difficult to prove a negative.   Will Beback  talk  00:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

FWIW (which isn't much), I just listened to Hagelin's talk on Youtube titled "John Hagelin, Ph.D on Consciousness 1 of 2". The entire lecture is about quantum mechanics as it relates consciousness (or vice versa). While he might never use the term "quantum consciousness" per se, it's a topic that he appears to discuss using similar terms.   Will Beback  talk  01:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Fladrif, It's possible that we're looking at different Deredinger 1984 papers. I believe I'm looking at the one you originally cited. I don't think your citation had a title, but what I'm looking at is titled "ANTI-SU(5)." I can't find any mention of flipped SU(5). Please point me to a particular page. By the way, I don't yet have Stenger's book. It should arrive in the next day or so. All I have is a short excerpt on this that someone e-mailed me about a month ago. I'm eager to see if Stenger says anything beyond the excerpt I have. TimidGuy (talk) 00:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I've looked into flipped a bit more. It's correct to say that Barr 1982 in the context of his discussion of symmetry breaking briefly examines flipped SU(5) as a possible GUT. It's incorrect in every case to say that he first described flipped SU(5) heterotic string or that his paper had anything to do with deriving flipped SU(5) from string theory. Hagelin's first 1987 paper introduced supersymmetric flipped SU(5). We would have to be very careful not to suggest that Barr 1982 first described this. Then later in 1987 Hagelin and his collaborators were the first to derive slipped SU(5) from the superstring. Hope that helps. By the way, flipped SU(5) apparently begins by presenting a rudimentary flipped SU(5) and then goes on to describe the supersymmetric flipped SU(5) originated by Hagelin and his collaborators. TimidGuy (talk) 02:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems like if you're going to include Barr, then we should also include mention of Sheldon Glashow's development of SU)5). TimidGuy (talk) 11:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I've read Stenger's critique of Lanza and watched the video. Stenger's arguments have nothing to do with what Hagelin says. Hagelin is talking about quantum mechanics in the context of superunifcation. And again he's proposing an identity between this unified field envisioned by physics and a unified field of consciousness. Stenger doesn't mention this at all. His critique is related to things Hagelin hasn't related to consciousness, specifically the EPR paradox. I've never heard Hagelin talk about EPR. He's coming from a completely different angle. TimidGuy (talk) 15:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I haven't heard Hagelin talk about EPR either, but that doesn't prove he hasn't done so. As for Stegner in general, if there's a reubttal of some kind we could include that, but I don't see a legitimate reason for excluding his view.   Will Beback  talk  18:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

He simply doesn't talk about EPR or collapse of the wave function — they aren't part of his primary logic. Both of those are early to mid-20th century. Hagelin's main work, and his focus, is on more recent unified field theory -- GUT and super-unification. He bases his understanding of consciousness on a connection between that and what the Vedic literature and Maharishi have said about consciousness. Stenger simply says that Hagelin often talks about quantum consciousness, which he doesn't, and then presents a rebuttal of Lanza, dealing with things that Hagelin doesn't discuss. We have absolutely no idea why Stenger thinks that Hagelin's ideas are a myth. (And though this is unrelated, there are many physicists who would disagree with Stenger's interpretation of EPR and collapse of the wave function.) Why do we include this as evidence when we have absolutely no idea what Stenger is objecting to, since Hagelin doesn't talk about quantum consciousness, and absolutely no idea how Stenger's comments in the Humanist article are related to Hagelin, since his focus has been something other than collapse and EPR?

Does Misplaced Pages have to include every passing comment that appears in print? If so, then why couldn't I present the hundreds and hundreds of comments by long-term practitioners of TM saying how beneficial it has been in their lives that have appeared in the news media coverage of TM? Or the article that credits practice of TM by former Mozambique president Chissano for his extraordinary success? And the many many comments by famous celebrities who say that TM has been beneficial? There are many reasons to exclude something without needing a rebuttal. One is WP:V, since Stenger's article gives zero information to support his view of Hagelin. It's just fundamental that if you're going to make an argument against someone's view, you show how it relates to that person's view. One is WP:WEGIHT. This section is now longer than the entire research section. Another is the excellent advice in WP:QUOTE. TimidGuy (talk) 10:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

You're selectively reading portions of the article and ignoring the rest to come to a false conclusion. It is very clear, both in the specific context of the specific article, and the broader context of his other writing, that Stenger regards the attempt to connect quantum mechanics with consciousness, whether by Lazla, the Maharishi and the TM Movement, including Hagelin, Capra, or others as all of a piece, whether one calls it "quantum consciousness", "cosmic consciousness", or Stenger's preferred term "quantum metaphysics", or the term used in Misplaced Pages "quantum mysticism", and his criticism is not limited to Lanza. The argument that the Stenger reference doesn't meet WP:V is nothing but Wikilawyering. Verifiability does not mean that a reliable source needs to provide footnotes or references for statements made by the author. You are confusing what is required of Misplaced Pages editors in citing reliable, verifiable sources with what is required of the authors of those sources. That is not what verifiability means.

The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.

(Emphasis added) This paragraph is reliably sources and verifiable. Arguments to the contrary are not well-taken. Fladrif (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you may be correct. And that's the problem with quoting Stenger out of context -- and the value of paraphrasing. You nicely give the context above. That's missing from the article. What you added to the article gives no sense for what Stenger means by quantum consciousness, and makes it sound like Hagelin talks about quantum consciousness. And it would be good to show how Stenger is generally applying this judgment. I believe this could be done in a couple sentences. In general, I would encourage you to paraphrase. And follow the excellent advice in WP:QUOTE. Give context, paraphrase, and stop focusing on using quotes for rhetorical effect. (By the way, Stenger confuses GUT with super-unification, both in this article and in his book.) TimidGuy (talk) 16:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I reorganized this section to provide factual context. Because the editorial history had arrived at a sort of unstable equilibrium, I was reluctant to delete material and kept almost all the sentences that were already there, with only minor changes. But the text was a mess, with the logic difficult to follow. So I edited with the objective of improving the flow of logic and making the various points of view clear to the reader.Hickorybark (talk) 03:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. However the additions showed the basic problem with splitting the research from the reception of the research. Where there were previously two sections (research and reception), I split it into three: Grand unification research, Maharishi Effect research, and Reception of Hagelin's connection of unified field of physics to the Maharishi Effect. I'm sure those heading can be improved, but the organizational concept is to place all of the discussion of a particular study or finding together. The "Reception" section is now just general views of Hagelin's linkage of the GUT to the ME.   Will Beback  talk  09:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that this is an improvement.Hickorybark (talk) 15:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I reworked the segment describing the debate between Fales and Markovsky and the rebuttal by Orme-Johnson and Oates. I think the debate is well worth keeping, but the issues were not very clearly laid out in the previous version. Fales and Markovsky base their critique on Bayesian confirmation theory, which is itself controversial in the philosophy of science. I tried to present their point of view without going into the technical details of Bayesian theory. Basically their point is that "heterodox theories"--theories that radically conflict with the orthodox or mainstream paradigm--have a very low "prior probabilty." Orme-Johnson and Oates's rebuttal is that low prior probability or not, the evidence is too striking to ignore and that anyway, prior probability has to be weighed against the alternative theories. And when it comes to consciousness, there are no good alternatives--in Bayesian terms, all theories of consiousness have a low prior probability. I hope this helps.Hickorybark (talk) 02:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

See #Lengthy discussion of Maharishi Effect research below. This material belongs in the TM-Sidhi article, where there is a complete discussion of this research. This article is a biography of Hagelin and yet this material doesn't even mention him.   Will Beback  talk  02:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, but the discussion of Fales and Markovsky that you reinstated is not very good. It doesn't make clear what their objections are (e.g. what "time lags" are they referring to, what are they referring to with "other strongly confirmed theories, and their supporting evidence," etc.) It gives the impression of a shouting match between the opposing teams. While that is certainly part of what's going on, there is actually a debate with cognitive content, and we should try to make some of that clear. The opposing authors do in their respective articles. If you don't have time to work on it, I may have time later in the week.Hickorybark (talk) 16:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Since we have an article on TM-Sidhi which has a large section devoted to an analysis of this study, let's keep most of it there. It's sufficient to note here that Hagelin's research methodologies have been criticized. While we can't use it as a source, the email that you linked to below is a good outline of the author's key objections.   Will Beback  talk  20:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

BLP/Noticeboard request for assistance

Discussion now archived at Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive70 #Use of "crackpot" in John Hagelin

I've asked for assistance on the Reception Section in particular a request for feedback the use of the word "crackpot".

The discussion on the WP:BLPN has been going on since September 3. When do we draw it to a close? --BwB (talk) 18:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

We have not received any new comments on the WP:BLPN discussion since September 8. When do we consider this issue closed? --BwB (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I see that this discussion is keeping us all up at night!! The topic is no longer in the index on the WP:BLPN page. Perhaps it is time to decide whether or not to remove the "crackpot" reference in the article? --BwB (talk) 15:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The discussion on BLP/N has been archived so feel free to restart the discussion here. :o) (olive (talk) 16:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC))

OK. What, if any, do editors feel were the outcomes from the BLP/N discussion. I cannot see any clear result myself. --BwB (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It's quite clear. Ignore what the involved editors say and just read what the uninvolved editors have written.

• The statement is a direct quote from a highly-regarded book, and I believe that it accurately reflects the views of the great majority of physicists. I don't see any undue weight issue here, as the section is currently written. Looie496 (talk) 21:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
• It follows directly from WP:NPOV that in cases of fringe scientists such as Hagelin we should seek out and include mainstream reactions to the work to document the fact that it really is fringe and describe the work neutrally. We shouldn't avoid doing so merely because it would hurt someone's feelings. And if we have a direct source saying that he's widely regarded as a crackpot, it would be a gross misrepresentation of that source (and therefore a violation of WP:NPOV) to water it down to "some scientists view his work as unscientific" or something more generic like that. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Those views are that the criticism is notable and should be included verbatim without paraphrasing.   Will Beback  talk  22:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Notice boards are places for uninvolved input and opinion. Those opinions are in no way binding. Unfortunately, only two uninvolved editors commented on the notice board while the discussion was overwhelmed with involved- editor comments. Two comments are insufficient to determine larger community position on the question we posted. The first comment, (Looie496), while highly applicable to Misplaced Pages articles in general does not take into account that BLP demands more than an ordinary article does such as "impartial tone" and "sensitivity".WP:BLP is a policy while WP: Reliable a guideline, and the demands of the policy must supercede the guideline.

The second comment, (Davis Epstein), is based on an inaccurate premise that Hagelin is a fringe scientist therefore we need to go out and look for fringe sources to support that idea. If the fundamental premise is incorrect, and it is-Hagelin published over 70 papers that according to Woit are still widely cited today, and only a few that were controversial-then how does the rest of the comment have any real applicability. David's concern is that the article will be watered down if we don't use the exact language of the source, while WP: BLP specifically ask for impartiality in tone. Do we have multiple sources that specifically call Hagelin a crackpot? Is crackpot an impartial encyclopedic term, or is it sensationalist and tabloid like? ChemProf made an important distinction in the BLP/N discussion; that our concern is that the WP article itself has an impartial tone, but our concern cannot be that the source itself is neutralized.

Will suggested at one point we rewrite parts of the controversial section. I'd include Woits comments in that rewrite to see if we can come up with something accurate and comprehensive, but impartial in tone, and so more encyclopedic than what we have now.(olive (talk) 22:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC))

It'd be inaccurate to re-write Woit's comment to make it more neutral. Our presentation needs to be neutral, but we shouldn't neutralize praise or criticism. I think it's safe to assume that the people who responded on BLPN are familir with BLP.   Will Beback  talk  23:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Summaries are accurate, and we use summary style all the time on Misplaced Pages. A summary style means we look at the overall sense of the source and write from there. Right now what we've done is select sensationalized comments from several different sources, then strung them together. This does not give the over acrhing sense of what is being said, and is not impartial in tone. On the contrary, what we have is a heightened partial tone because we've selected the most sensationalist comments from the sources and combined them to create something that is much more than any of the the parts.

I in no way am commenting on any edioter's knowledge of BLP, but was commenting on the applicability of the comments to our situation. if anything I said was taken to be a crticism of any editor I apologize . I am thankful for the comments, whether I feel they apply or not.(olive (talk) 23:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC))

I'm not sure how we would summarize "crackpot". A possible way would be to replace it with the dictionary definition: "one given to eccentric or lunatic notions". I don't see that as being any improvement though.   Will Beback  talk  23:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

One would summarize towards an impartial tone rather than away from it as using the dictionary definition would do. And this definition is exactly why we can't use crackpot in this BLP, and to to characterize a scientist whose work is for the most part so highly cited.(olive (talk) 23:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC))

NPOV requires that we include all significant points of view. To report that he is "highly cited" without also reporting that he's viewed as a crackpot would be a violation of NPOV. There is no BLP violation in neutrally reporting views that appear in reliable sources and which are given appropriate weight.   Will Beback  talk  00:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

How many reliable sources specifically use the word crackpot? How many reliable secondary sources cite the importance of Hagelin's research? That Hagelin has research that is controversial is a given and needs to included ... That Hagelin is a crackpot can be traced to one reliable source that I've seen. Including crackpot is not only a violation of BLP since its tone is not impartial, but it violates NPOV and Weight... (olive (talk) 01:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC))

These arguments were made at the BLPN and didn't find agreement. So far as I know, one source calls Hagelin a crackpot. Are we proposing that every assertion in this article requires multiple sources? If so, the article will be much shorter.   Will Beback  talk  01:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

FWIW: "Zen and the art of political campaigning", no follower of genetically-modified fashion. The term is also used on various blogs and forums. For example, Hagelin on Consciousness, . It isn't an extraordinary claim.   Will Beback  talk  02:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources: Intrepid media?... Blogs and forums?..

Crackpot is not significant in terms of reliable sources. Its a BLP so we have to take care with what we say ....We can't say crackpot equals, in terms of weight, Hagelin's cited research reputation... And we could be violating NPOV and Weight... Well, that's enough to go on.(olive (talk) 02:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC))

Just mentioning them to show it's not a unique view. Anyway, you can take it to BLPN again if you want.   Will Beback  talk  03:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

NIce. Thanks for your... kind comment. I'll try and rewrite it to see if I can create a version that satisfies everyone.(olive (talk) 03:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC))

I suggest you post your draft here first. Any text that waters down Woit's assertion is probably not going to find a consensus.   Will Beback  talk  05:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a bad joke, right? Olive takes this to BLPN and gets shot down. So now she wants to (i) ignore the input from the uninvolved editors and (ii) argue that they didn't know what they were talking about. Nice. Face the ugly facts. Hagelin is absolutely a "fringe" scientist. It's called quantum mysticism for a reason. His "research" on that theory isn't cited by anyone outside the tiny circle of TM true believers and TM-sponsored publications. Mainstream physicists, when they aren't condemning it as utter nonsense, are utterly ignoring it. The editors proceeding from a fundamental misunderstanding are those who have convinced themselves that this nonsense is mainstream science. It isn't; and trying to cast it as such is a direct and deliberate violation of Misplaced Pages policy on fringe science and scientists. "Crackpot" is a term that has been applied to Hagelin and his beliefs again and again by numerous mainstream, reliable sources. But even if it had only been by Woit alone, which it is not, it would still be absolutely notable and from reliable sources. Will is exactly right - any attempt to whitewash that fact is going to be vigorously opposed. Fladrif (talk) 13:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Lets clarify: To begin with, the content in the section we are talking about is not there by consensus. Despite that, I'm perfectly willing to post the rewrite here and ask for consensus as Will has suggested.

Notice boards as I said above are places to ask for input, and opinions given there are just that and are not in anyway binding. I didn't agree with the two editors who posted nor does such non agreement construe a lack of respect for those editors ... Its simple. I don't feel they addressed the problem from a BLP standpoint.

No one is casting the studies in question as mainstream science, nor should assumptions be made about how the editors view the studies. Further the article isn't about the studies its about the scientist, and whether he's in anyone one's opinion a so called fringe scientist or not the article must be written with scrupulous detail to BLP. This is not just another article this is an article which describes another living human being. I have no desire to harm that person in anyway by what i would consider to be my own agendas on his life and work. Misplaced Pages is very clear about the tone and quality of BLP articles so that harm is not caused. What I am concerned about, and I can't speak for anyone else, is that this article and specifically this section adhere to BLP.

If you have reliable sources that specifically use the term "crackpot", I would be happy to see them, so that I can take them into account as I do the rewrite. I haven't seen any but that doesn't mean there aren't any.(olive (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC))

How does one conclude this discussion? The BLPN had some folks who felt the quote should remain, others disagreed. Can we thrash it out here, or are we all immovable entrenched in our viewpoint? If we are immovable, then there is no place to go. To me, the "crackpot" quote is chosen specifically to try to discredit Hagelin. Yes, he has done research in some unchartered waters, but the connection between matter and mind, physics and consciousness has been a topic of discussion for hundred of years. The fact that mainstream science does not consider Hagelin's work in the area to be significant does not necessarily make him a "crackpot". Perhaps the article can reflected in a balance, neutral way, that this area of research that Hagelin has spent his time is considered fringe, non-accepted, and radical without the characterization of "crackpot". --BwB (talk) 00:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Find a source which says that and we can add it too.   Will Beback  talk  01:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting how little there is in reliable sources on this negative view of Hagelin. Weight must definitely be a consideration.(olive (talk) 01:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC))

We devote one sentence to it.   Will Beback  talk  01:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I understand.(olive (talk) 01:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC))

Woit's comment receive very little weight already. I'm not sure what criteria is being suggested for deciding how much weight to devote to various views and matters.   Will Beback  talk  02:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I was actually referring to the entire section. Right now the controversy section that refers to a few papers is equal in length to the section on Hagelin's major body of research-73 studies and numerous cites. That's a weighty controversial section.(olive (talk) 02:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC))

Well, it's a bit arbitrary to assign some views to "controversy", then to decide that there's too much space devoted to them. We can fix that by moving the views into other parts of the article.   Will Beback  talk  02:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

A rose is a rose is a rose....Negative material to the subject is negative material however its organized, and weight must be considered wherever the material is placed.(olive (talk) 03:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC))

Negative and positive material should both be included with weight proportional to their prominence. Some of the topics covered in the article may have excess weight, such as the "Enlightened Audio Designs" section, which doesn't seem to have any 3rd-party sources at all. The presidential campaigns may not have enough weight. I don't see why the section in question represents ndue weight. Are you contending that there is no controversy concerning Hagelin, his research, or his views?   Will Beback  talk  04:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

And, I would point out that half of the "controversy" section is stuff the MUM crowd added to "refute" the criticisms. So the "negative" bits are half of what you contend. I have seen this "weight" argument again and again in these TM Pages. It is a complete misinterpretation and misrepresentation of what the policy actually is. And, as I pointed out at the BLPN discussion, Woit is not alone in saying that the scientific and academic community, to say nothing of the public at large as soon as they understand what he claims, regards Hagelin and his theories as "crackpot":

• Even Dennis Roark, the former dean of faculty and chairman of the department of physics at Maharishi University of Management (MUM), speaks of the university’s “crackpot science” protocols, it’s meritless claims concerning the relationship between physics and consciousness, and the suppression of negative data in movement-sponsored research that is widely quoted as “scientific” proof of the benefits of TM. .
• The accreditation itself has been questioned. "It's a crying shame," said John W. Patterson, a professor of material science and mechanical engineering at Iowa State University. The North Central Association, he said, "does nothing more than to lend credibility to these crackpots.
• One of the Maharishi's attractive analogies——in which he equates the solar system with the structure of the atom——is not only crackpot science; it is very bad crackpot.
• Hagelin needs to break through the crackpot labels and legitimize himself to voters and the media.

See also Frauds: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases; "What the #$*! do they know? (Movie Review) Skeptical Inquirer(Sepember 1, 2004); "Don't believe it; Faithful of all stripes take hit in Sagan book" Chicago Sun-Times (April 1, 1996) But, as I said above, even if it was Woit alone, it would be notable and the article as written gives it appropriate weight. Fladrif (talk) 14:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

"Are you contending that there is no controversy concerning Hagelin, his research, or his views?"

Nothing I've said at any time supports asking such a question. Please feel free to check the discussion here and BLPN archived discussion should you have any real concerns since I clearly state there that the controversy surrounding these few papers is significant, interesting and needs to be included. I am arguing that Misplaced Pages policy be adhered to. I am unclear as to what you are arguing for, but feel as if such questions are meant to bait . Hopefully I'm wrong on that. (olive (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC))

Flad, we are talking about the use of the "crackpot" quote in this article about Hagelin. We all agree that the physics/consciousness research is controversial and H. has received criticisms for it. No problem. But we do not necessarily have to include the "crackpot" quote. Let's stick to material sources that is relevant to Hagelin. --BwB (talk) 15:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes,we do. It is the whole point of this discussion. Hagelin is viewed as a crackpot by real scientists and real academics. You cannot water that down, whitewash it, or "neutralize" it (to use ChemProf's term) by trying to eliminate it from the article or to substutute some other term that you think is more palatable. As I pointed out at BLPN, still stronger terms might be used, as they are reflected in reliable sources, like "grade-A nut job" and "cult leader". Crackpot is hardly the harshest term that might be selected. "Crackpot" is mild by comparison. And I repeat that this absurd forum shopping - "I couldn't get agreement here, so I took it to BLPN, but I didn't get support for my position from the uninvolved editors at BLPN, so I want to try again here, where the MUM faculty and TM Org affiliated editors outnumber the other editors" is completely improper and evidences an utter unwillingness to abide by the fundamental priciples of WIkipedia. I don't care that TimidGuy wrote the TM article at the behest of MUM and its PR and legal departments - you guys (and gals) don't own this article. Fladrif (talk) 15:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I've discussed these points before. You are suggesting guilt by association, even assigning guilt to The Higher Learning Commission, and that's a stretch. Your comment about TG is not only an attempt to out TG but is false. Check the TM archives for who created the TM article. The editors on this article have never ganged up on other editors to reach a consensus on content and you'll note that seldom do any group of editors all agree. On the most recent discussion on mantras all editors but one agreed, even Will Beback. (olive (talk) 17:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC))

No, I'm not suggesting guilt by association; I'm quoting reliable sources. It's hardly guilt by association when the former chairman of Hagelin's own department at MUM to call the protocols of his own department and university "crackpot science" and Hagelin's theories "meritless". I have checked the TM archives for who wrote the TM article. I suggest you do the same. TimidGuy specifically said that he was requested to write it and had it posted through another editor. You seem to think that I just make this stuff up; that may be the protocol in beautiful downtown Fairfield, but not with me.Fladrif (talk) 18:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

We are talking about John Hagelin, and one word and its context.... lets stick to that.(olive (talk) 18:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC))

Olice, you've said, I believe, that Woit's view doesn't merit much (any?) weight because it is just one view. To the extent that it is held by nmore than one person (Woit says he's representing the view of most physicists, IIRC), then that adds weight to his comments.   Will Beback  talk  19:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Fladrif, you are indeed making this stuff up. I didn't write the TM article at the behest of MUM and the legal department. Roark was chairman of physics for a short time --two years or less in the 1970s. Hagelin was still in school then. (Plus, when you have two physics teachers at a small college, it hardly means much to be chairman of a department.) And your applying Roark's statement to 30 years of research that postdate it is the same sort of stretch that you've made before when adding content to the TM article. Will, that's precisely one of the things that bothers me about this quote. He says virtually every physicist in the world thinks Hagelin is a crackpot. The fact is that most of the physicists in the world haven't heard of John Hagelin. This is one small sub-discipline among many. BLP says to avoid overstatement. TimidGuy (talk) 10:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion rewrite research /controversy section

• Rewrite (as discussed) here:

I'll leave this here for a few days, then if there are no objections I'll move this version into mainspace.(olive (talk) 02:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC))

What did you change? Also, concerning the one line we've been discussing: Woit specifiucally asserts that other physicist think he's a "crackpot". Something like "Woit asserts that most physicists think Hagelin is a crackpot" would be closer. But I have a suggestion. The "sticking point here seems to be that Hagelin is being called a "crackpot". But Woit also says that his views are seen nonsense. Would it be more acceptable to say that "Woit asserts that most physicists think Hagelin's views are nonsense." ?   Will Beback  talk  02:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Is it really significant that one person makes the rather astounding claim that "most physicists..." Its just one opinion of one person.... do physicists working in other fields even know anything about Hagelin. This is a rather presumptuous blanket statement. Don't know....(olive (talk) 03:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC))

Thanks, Will, for exploring alternatives. I really appreciate it. Regardless of what we decide about "most," it seems like "nonsense" is more in accord with the BLP advice on being sensitive than "crackpot." TimidGuy (talk) 10:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that 'nonsense' is a better word instead of an inflammatory, name calling, word like 'crackpot'. This kind of intelligent change is more in accord with BLP policies and the tone we should be adopting in cases like this.-- — Kbob • Talk • 11:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we are moving toward consensus. I think Will's suggestion is good. --BwB (talk) 18:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

No, we're not. I object to this rewrite in the strongest terms possible. Among other things, it is a complete and total violation of Wiki policy for editors here to "decide" that (i) Woit can't possibly know what "most physicists" think, so you want to misrepresent the article as reflecting his viewpoint, instead of reporting the viewpoint of the wider scientific community; (ii) that because Lopez didn't collaborate with Hagelin (an assertion that I take to be original research, since I've seen no citation to a reliable source saying that), he can't possibly know what Hagelin's former colleagues think of him, so you want to delete that, notwithstanding that reliable sources show that Lopez works closely with Hagelin's former colleagues, and he is reported as relating their views. He is certainly in a position to know what Hagelin's former colleagues think about him. You don't get to argue with reliable sources based on your own views and original research. That's just for starters. Fladrif (talk) 13:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Another thing, I assume that in saying that Woit calls Hagelin's research "wishful thinking" you are referencing the sentence where Woit poses the question: How does one separate what is "legitimately science" from "irrational wishful thinking". If you're going to call it "wishful thinking", you need to call it irrational as well, if you're going to accurately reflect the criticism. There will be more.Fladrif (talk) 15:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Consensus means as I understand that a majority of editors are in agreement. A majority of editors are in agreement that this rewrite is acceptable at least for the most part. Editors are discussing one specific phrase at this point as Will has outlined above.

There is no violation of policy . In fact the violation has been in efforts to select and combine the strongest possible negative language from the sources we are using, then tacking them together to create a section that trashes another human being . That is a clear violation of BLP's "impartial tone". We are expected to use more of a summary style on Wikipedis. In doing so we attempt to give an overview of a source rather than quote it directly and or cherry pick information to create a particular point of view. Faldrif you have quite clearly indicated in other posts what you think of Hagelin. Do I think Hagelin is a crackpot? No, not unless you want to classify all physicists who deal in new ideas as crackpots . But I did include crackpot in this rewrite as a taste of what Woit is suggesting . Wiot in no way can say with any kind of verifiablity that "most physicists" anything ... that is an extraordinary claim and his opinion. There are multiple fields in physics and many in those fields have not even heard of Hagelin. Using the word crackpot is name calling pure and simple and is Woit's word/explanation ... That's fine but we don't need to use everything Woit says. We need to give a flavour. We aren' writing a book here just a paragraph. Woit also places Hagelin in a very clear context ... the context of the chapter, the context of the theme of the book, and in context of Hagelins own career. Our section needs to give a sense of that.

In terms of the Anderson source, we again don't need to include every negative comment made. I already include a rather large dose of quotes. Investigating the studies to see If Lopez ever collaborated with Hagelin is not OR ...WP:OR refers to what goes into an article not the research an editor does. All editors research to some extent. Does Lopez know what Hagelin's collaborators think ... I have no idea and neither does anyone else here, because the article doesn't say that . The article suggests Lopez was a collaborator. He wasn't. If Lopez was the only quote we had I could see using him. We have other quotes.

Since you feel strongly and have made some suggestions about this rewrite, I would suggest you go to the sand box paste in the rewrite there and adjust it to suit how you think it should be written. Its clear that the majority of editors have concerns with what is in place now.(olive (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC))

Consensus doesn't mean, as I understand it, that a handful of editors in the employ of an organization agree to whitewash and water down criticism of the organization or one of it's prominent members, who may or may not be their boss and/or bestest buddy. You completely misrepresent statements made by reliable sources and exclude others because of your own POV and original research which you claim is some twisted an unrecognizable corrolary to WP:V which has no basis whatsoever in Wiki policy. This "rewrite" is an abomination, which, to borrow Woit's title and the reference is not merely wrong, it is not merely completely wrong, it is so wrong as to be not even wrong.Fladrif (talk) 17:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

How do you explain Will Beback's position.(olive (talk) 20:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC))

By what stretch of a tortured imagination do you construe Will's comment as supportive of your draft or approach? I'll leave Will to speak for himself, but I don't interpret his comment as supportive; it suggest to me that Will agrees with me, and disagrees with you on the point that Woit isn't merely giving solely his own opinion when he says that virtually every physicist regards Hagelin's theories as nonsense and the work of a crackpot. So, I can hardly view Will's comment above as supporting your position or any "consensus" position.Fladrif (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Flad, as I have requesed before - "the message, not the messenger". Many thanks. --BwB (talk) 18:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

And I suggested you make your own changes, yet you prefer to attack the editors here. Why would you suggest these editors are all in agreement when they so obviously are not agreeing on the text I suggested.(olive (talk) 20:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC))

I'm not attacking the editors. I'm pointing out that an agreement between you, TG, BWB, CP, KBob, and other TM Org affiliated editors does not establish a consensus position. I have specifically commented on the draft and how it is inaccurate and inappropriate. I think the current version of this particular section of the article is accurate, reliably-sourced, encyclopedic, and appropriately balanced. I have said so repeatedly. It does not need to be rewritten. So why would I want to edit a rewrite that I consider to be entirely out-of-bounds and improper. Which part of my position on this question is unclear to you?Fladrif (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Rewrite

Note: Made change as per group agreement (Rewrite in sandbox here)

Since no further comments have been added in the last day or so I'd like to see where the editors involved in this discussion stand on this rewrite, whether in agreement to adding it and replacing what is in place now or not. Please add comments below. (olive (talk) 16:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC))

Note: I've added a bullet point to comments that are either specifically agreeing or disagreeing with the rewrites so we can get a clear vision of how things stand. I hope that's ok with everyone.(olive (talk) 21:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC))

I'll give this a few days but will assume those who don't respond don't care one way or the other.(olive (talk) 01:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC))

Comments

• I oppose this rewrite. It amounts to the deletion of reliably-sourced material, accurately and neutrally presented, and the misprepresentation of other reliably-sourced material, based solely on the POV of certain editors that the sources are wrong or unduly harsh in their assessments of Hagelin, his theories and his "research". Olive and others have been quite candid that they question the source material not based on any reliable sources of their own, but on their own "original research", a misinterpretation of WP:V. It is driven entirely by pushing their own POV rather than accurately representing reliable, verifiable sources, and is an effort to "neutralize" the source material, rather than an effort to present it neutrally. . The version that is in the article right now is appropriate; the redraft being proposed is not. Fladrif (talk) 14:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• I think the rewrite better conforms to Misplaced Pages policies. The current version has too much quoted material (hence the template on that section). It violates the core policy WP:NPOV. which says "Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." It violates WP:UNDUE in that it's about twice as long as the material that presents Hagelin's two papers and his single research study related to his hypothesis. It's not in accord with the excellent advice in WP:QUOTE, which says to avoid quoting when "the quotation is being used to substitute rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias." And it's redundant. Plus, the material is in some cases taken out of context, as in the case of Anderson, in which summary is needed to clarify what he means when he says Hagelin is linking SU(5) with TM. (The first part of the article clarifies what he means.) I think if no one else comes up with a version that reasonably addresses these issues, we can go ahead and put this in this rewrite. TimidGuy (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

All editors engage in so called original research as they look for sources .This should not be confused with WP:OR which refers to what and how content is added to the article itself. The onus is on the editor to write an accurate article. If a source as the Anderson source does misrepresents information and if there is also information in the same source that is accurate , then the editor who chooses to use the inaccurate information contributes to weakening the article and the encyclopedia. As well, in the rewrite I used all quoted material from Anderson that was there before except the Lopez comment. Misplaced Pages suggests a summary style and is not ion the business of completely paraphrasing the sources it cites. Leaving out one quote by a researcher who is misrepresented in the source can hardly be construed as not accurately representing the source. (olive (talk) 16:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC))

Except, you're not looking for sources at all, you're simply asserting without support that you don't like what has been written in reliable sources about Hagelin. Anderson didn't misrepresent anything, and TimidGuy's claim that Hagelin never wrote about SU(5) and never wrote about it in the context of linking it to consciousness was absolutely false, because Hagelin did precisely that in his paper in the inaugural issue of JMSVS. There cannot be any question that TimidGuy knew for a fact that he was asserting something that was demonstrably false when he made that claim here. So, take care where you're pointing fingers here. I utterly reject the rationale being advanced above in favor of this rewrite. Fladrif (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is. I am citing the sources that were in the article. And you are making assumptions; that I didn't look at other sources and I don't like what was written about Hagelin. I am attempting to help write an encyclopedic article in line with the policies. How is see that is different than how you see it. That's fine. There is no definitive article.

Hagelin's research was in flipped SU(5)...as a matter of fact flipped refers in part to the four researchers who worked on the theory. The argument that he mentioned SU(5) at some point is a red herring . The reference is to his research, and his research was not in (SU)5.(olive (talk) 18:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC))

No, the red herring is the argument which you and TG advanced that Anderson is not a reliable source, based upon a knowing falsehood regarding what Hagelin wrote about in his papers idnetifying the unified field in physics and consciousness.Fladrif (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Lets be accurate here and not toss out false information. What has been noted is that parts of Anderson are not verifiable and are inaccurate. Anderson conflates SU(5) and flipped SU(5) in this article and there are some inaccuracies such as alluding to Lopez as if Hagelin had collaborated with him. In spite of those concerns with the article I used parts of the article that are verifiable and so reliable, and with one exception I used just what was in the the section in the first place. No one has argued that the content of the research is on consciousness and unified field theory...nor that it should be included and is significant. No one has argued that this is not controversial material. The issue is how to present this material. Its that simple.(olive (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC))

Exactly my point. So, stop with the inaccuracy and perpetuating false information, which is exactly what you and TimidGuy have been doing throughout the discussions on this article. And, on top of that, you continue to engage in the most absurd Wikilawyering when you try to claim that Anderson isn't verifiable. . Anderson's statements are absolutely verifiable. You can read the article in the original publication or online. That is what verifiable means. Do you even bother to read the policies you claim to be relying upon? I really doubt that you do, because there is nothing whatsoever in WP:V to support your claims on this point. Anderson does not confuse or conflate SU(5) and flipped SU(5); that is absolute nonsense perpetrated by TimidGuy which has no basis in fact whatsoever. Anderson does not claim, assert or imply that Lopez is one of Hagelin's former collaborators. You claim that he isn't, which is original research. What Anderson does is quote Lopez, who says that Hagelin's former collaborators are furious with him. Lopez is, of course, perfectly well situated to know what Hagelin's former collaborators think about him because, unlike Hagelin, Lopez continues to work with those people.Fladrif (talk) 20:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Fladrif. Since we have been over these points multiple times, and since its obvious we are no closer in agreement, I won't comment further. You have a right to your opinions and interpretation of policy as do I. You are misconstruing what I am saying, and that's fine too. (olive (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC))

I feel things are getting way overblown here. The rewrite seems very reasonable and balanced. It presents the criticisms of Hagelin. The word "crackpot" is not used. It is necessary to use it? --BwB (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

and BWB. Could you clearly state for us whether you support or do not support the rewrite with its change in place ... refer to sand box for the adjusted version.(olive (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC))

Hi BWB. I included "crackpot" in the original rewrite I did but Will Beback suggested an alternative. I removed crackpot and put in Will's suggested alternative based on a general consensus from other editors. I personally did not support the change but a majority of others did.(olive (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC))

• I have not been involved in every twist and turn of this issue but I will say this. It is my understanding that BLP's have a special status on Wiki and that while varying points of view should be included, we are also encouraged to use extra care, to summarize and use a conservative tone. I think Olive's rewrite accomplishes that. For example, Will's suggestion that we replace the work

'crackpot' with another word used by the source ie. 'nonsense' is a good decision. This need to use a conservative tone is a view I have expressed on other BLP discussion pages where I am an active editor, such as George W. Bush and Sara Palin. So I am encouraging the same kind of tone in the BLP here.-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

OK I see the thinking now, especially from the BLP perspective. I am OK with the proposed version of the rewrite. --BwB (talk) 01:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's be even more precise here when discussing physical science. Hagelin absolutely did not relate TM to SU(5) as Anderson incorrectly states. He did not even relate TM to flipped SU(5) as others here have stated. Hagelin's important contribution to physics was his "flipped SU(5) heterotic superstring theory". To people unfamiliar with high energy particle physics (the vast majority of people, even of physicists), this distinction may seem trivial, but in fact it is the basis of the most successful and cited of the GUTs (grand unified theories). The breakthrough was in his reconciliation of flipped SU(5) with heterotic superstring theory, and it is a major breakthrough, and includes unique proton decay predictions and a significantly smaller number of SO(10) gauge groups. Further, Hagelin also interpreted flipped SU(5) heterotic superstring into supersymmetry (and its required symmetry breaking), which garnered him the Kilby award. So he made two major advances of flipped SU(5), highly regarded and well cited, and which is still among the most successful of GUTs. So Anderson clearly does not understand even the physics of Hagelin's (et al) work. And then he further makes the erroneous statement that Hagelin relates his breakthrough theories to the mental practice of TM. In fact, not unlike many physicists before him who have written of the relationship to understanding the paradoxical world of high energy particle physics with "eastern philosophy", Hagelin in fact credits his highly regarded theoretic proposal (of "flipped SU(5) heterotic superstring theory") to his reading and understanding of the eastern philosophical texts called the vedas. Not to TM, a mental technique for reducing stress in the physiology, which also happens to have its roots in the vedas, but to the vedic descriptions of ultimate reality (which is also the province of high energy particle physics). So people who are ignorant of both high energy particle physics as well as of the vedas and eastern philosophy will likely miss all of the substantially significant differences, but that ignorance then leaves them erroneous in their statements about both subjects and therefore about Hagelin's work.

Further for reference, some of the "many physicists" who drew physics insights from vedic philosophy include Robert Oppenheimer who referenced the vedic text the bhagavad gita, as one of the most influential texts which shaped his world view. Many other prominent physicists including a number physics nobel laureates such as Eugene Wigner, Hannes Alfvén, Werner Heisenberg and Brian Josephsen have as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.102.9.66 (talk) 08:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Since no one has addressed the violations of policies that I listed, I guess we can go ahead and put in the rewrite. And regarding the specific point about Anderson, it's clear from the context that "linking SU(5) with TM" is a shorthand way of referring to Hagelin's public lectures in which he extends grand unified field theories to human consciousness and includes discussion of TM (actually the TM-Sidhi program). That context is accurate. The shorthand description without context is not — and the rewrite resolves this. It is also in better accord with policy and guidelines.

As an aside (and in accord with my habit of quibbling), Fladrif, you misrepresent what I have said. I didn't that Hagelin "never wrote about it in the context of linking it to consciousness." I said that Hagelin has never linked TM and SU(5). I would almost agree with your more generalized twisting of what I said. Hagelin has indeed often spoken and written about unified field theories and their relationship to consciousness. And Olive's rewrite resolves this. TimidGuy (talk) 11:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Since Will Beback has been a major contributor to this discussion, I've posted a note on his page notifying him of the discussion should he want to comment on his position one way or the other. I'll wait a few days to give him time to post. Thanks.(olive (talk) 14:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC))

Thanks for the considerate note. I've been preoccupied elsewhere, but I'll look over the draft today or tomorrow and amke some remarks.   Will Beback  talk  19:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

As I just now noted in Olive's sandbox, I think the two paragraphs on Woit's and Anderson's views are much improved, and I like the sentence suggested by Will as a major step toward lowering the emotional tone of this BLP, in accord with WP policies and guidelines. I also made a suggestion concerning the first revised paragraph, the one dealing with Park's comments. Anyone interested can check that out in olive's sandbox. ChemistryProf (talk) 04:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Reducing number of quotes, improving the tone

As pointed out on the noticeboard (see previous), the tone of parts of the Hagelin BLP is not appropriate for WP articles in general, much less for a BLP. Also, under the section on Reception of Hagelin's comparison of..., someone has asked for a reduction of quotes and a proper use of the quotes. I have rewritten the second paragraph of that section to better reflect these goals (see below). If we can agree that this rewrite captures the meaning of the previous version without the use of quotes and with a more dispassionate tone, then let's make the substitution. This will remove much of the fuss over this section.

Suggested substitute paragraph: "In a 1992 news article responding to Hagelin’s entry into politics as the presidential candidate of the newly formed Natural Law Party in the US, the author recognized Hagelin as a gifted researcher well known and respected by his colleagues and a co-developer of one of the better-accepted unified field theories, the Flipped SU(5) model. The article cautions, however, that some of Hagelin’s investigations seeking to extend grand unified theories into the realm of human consciousness, in particular using these theories as possible explanations of how practice of the Transcendental Meditation techniques might influence world events, had not been received well by some of his colleagues. The article includes quotes from Jorge Lopez, a Texas A&M University physicist and sometime collaborator of Hagelin, denouncing this venture, indicating that he and other collaborators were upset over this direction of the research. The news article also quotes another collaborator, John Ellis, then director of CERN, as saying "I was afraid that people might regard as rather flaky, and that might rub off on the theory or on us."" ChemistryProf (talk) 19:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Its better if a little long...Lopez was never a collaborator so that should come out and Lopez can't speak for other collaborators as well. This would work there:

The article includes quotes from Jorge Lopez, a Texas A&M University physicist who denounces this venture, indicating that he and other scientists were upset over the direction of the research

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleolive oil (talk • contribs) 20:11, September 4, 2009

• Current text:
  • According to a 1992 news article in Nature by Christopher Anderson, Hagelin, co-developer of one of the "better-accepted" unified field theories known as the Flipped SU(5) model, "is by all accounts a gifted researcher well known and respected by his colleagues". According to Anderson, though, Hagelin's investigations into how the extension of grand unified theories of physics to human consciousness could explain how Transcendental Meditation allegedly influences world events "disturbs many researchers" and "infuriates his former collaborators". "A lot of people has collaborated with in the past are very upset about this," says Jorge Lopez, a Texas A&M University physicist. "It's absolutely ludicrous to say that TM has anything to do with flipped SU(5)." Anderson says that John Ellis, director of CERN, was worried about guilt by association. Anderson quotes Ellis as saying "I was afraid that people might regard as rather flaky, and that might rub off on the theory or on us."

The editor who added the "quotefarm" template was TimidGuy. I'm not sure that there are an excess number of quotes in the current section. Here's the relevant guideline Misplaced Pages:Quotations   Will Beback  talk  20:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I like Will's sentence better. Concerning the reasons for removing some of the quotes, my intention was not just to reduce the number but to change the tone. The following guideline from WP:Quotations was my main reason: Quotes are not appropriate when

the quotation is being used to substitute rhetorical language in place of the more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias. This can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Misplaced Pages's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided.

The paragraph as revised now has a more informative context in the beginning and has a more dispassionate tone, but without losing the essential meaning. Will's version of the Lopez sentence will be used. ChemistryProf (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I think its fine.(olive (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC))

Sorry Chem that was my text on Lopez which I think is fine... I forgot to sign...(olive (talk) 21:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC))

I haven't suggested any text.   Will Beback  talk  21:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Why does the proposal omit the name and publication of the 1992 article? Is "not well received by" the same as "infuriated"? It sounds much milder than the quote. Also, the laudatory material is still quoted, just with no quotation marks. That's poor scholarship.   Will Beback  talk  21:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Anderson and article name should be used as context. My sense is that this is a more summary style and gives some background and context which I thought was good, but I didn't check specifically the quoted section. I'll let Chem deal with that. Are you saying the wording does not accurately describe the tone... infuriated for example. (olive (talk) 21:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC))

Yes, I don't think that CP's draft reflects the source. I don't see the problem with quoting Anderson and the others. A few partial quotations does not make a "quote farm".   Will Beback  talk  21:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

... but one more pig has to stop somewhere, and paring back the quotes has to start somewhere, too.(olive (talk) 22:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)0

Actually, When I first read the source I was surprised by the general tone which was much milder than our own article was portraying. Including the density of negative quotes and the way in which they are strung together as a reflection of what the article is saying, I think, is actually misleading.(olive (talk) 22:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC))

Of course the final will cite the source at the end of the first sentence and repeat it after other sentences if necessary. WP has no rule saying author and place of publication have to be specifically named in the text of the article. That would be strange. It would sound as if someone is trying to use this information as a special sign of legitimacy, when it is not. Fact is, it's a news article and is not written by some heavyweight like Walter Cronkite whose name might be important enough to mention. As for the number of quotes used in this paragraph, it has more than any paragraph of comparable length in any other WP article I have read, and certainly more than in any other encyclopedia article I ever read. But it's not the number that's most important, it's the tone. The WP rule mentioned in WP:QUOTATIONS, WP:BETTER, and elsewhere is clear. WP articles should strive to sound like an encyclopedia, not like a yellow journalism piece. The current version is clearly an attempt to trash John Hagelin and this BLP article, apparently by someone who dislikes TM. That non-neutral tone needs to be removed, and the suggested revision does that without losing any of the information originally conveyed in the paragraph. Here is a new revised version that uses Olive's sentence and corrects the other problems mentioned.

In a 1992 news article responding to Hagelin’s entry into politics as the presidential candidate of the newly formed Natural Law Party in the US, the author recognized Hagelin as a gifted researcher well respected by his colleagues and a co-developer of a notable unified field theory known as the "Flipped SU(5)." The article cautions, however, that some of Hagelin’s investigations seeking to extend grand unified theories into the realm of human consciousness, in particular using these theories as possible explanations of how practice of the Transcendental Meditation techniques might influence world events, had not been received well by some of his colleagues. The article includes quotes from Jorge Lopez, a Texas A&M University physicist who denounces this venture, indicating that he and other scientists were upset over the direction of the research. The news article also quotes another collaborator, John Ellis, then director of CERN, as saying "I was afraid that people might regard as rather flaky, and that might rub off on the theory or on us."

This revised version adheres to WP guidelines, whereas the paragraph as it stands does not. ChemistryProf (talk) 10:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this revision is better encyclopedia style. It's bad style to have sections, as here and in the TM article, that are basically listing quotes. I agree with Will that the paraphrase could be stronger -- it could say that most physicists reject these ideas. And I agree with him that if we revise this we could consider omitting the praise. I'd suggest condensing this a bit. Seems like there are really just two points in Anderson: most physicists reject his connections between physics and consciousness and his former collaborator wishes he wouldn't because it gives a bad impression of their research. We really do need to address this. The article simply uses too many quotes -- and it's not appropriate to neutral tone to constantly be using them for rhetorical effect. TimidGuy (talk) 11:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

NO. The current version accurately and in an appropriately neutral manner, represents the actual content of the source material. These proposals are neither neutral nor encyclopedic. The guidelines of WP:BLP require that the source material be accurately represented with neither overstatement nor understatement. These proposals, by grossly understating the source material, misprepresent and distort it. "Neutralizing" an article, to use CP's term, is a very different thing from an article being neutral. It is improper for an editor, by "neutralizing" either positive or negative material about a subject, to misrepresent an misconstrue the source references. I am also deeply disturbed that, after this matter was taken to the BLP Noticeboard and the uninvolved editors commented that the current text is perfectly appropriate, that this group of editors has decided that they will simply ignore that input.Fladrif (talk) 13:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

We have several opinions here as to what will make this section neutral, and we all have a right to those opinions. No one is right or wrong and to make this work we could go to a consensus, or to a compromise.

The BLP/N is dealing with one word, "crackpot" not the whole section or even a paragraph, and is again opinion. The notice board is still open for comments , no definitive position is apparent, and the editors here are dealing with a larger issue rather than the one word issue of the BLP/N.(olive (talk) 15:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC))

Here is a new iteration of the paragraph we have been discussing in this thread.

In a 1992 Nature news article entitled “Physicist running for president is accused of distorting science to fit guru’s ideas,” author Christopher Anderson describes Hagelin as a gifted researcher well respected by his colleagues. However, he goes on to emphasize that some of those colleagues take issue with Hagelin’s use of physics theories to explain effects of human consciousness on world events. He quotes heated testimony from Jorge Lopez, a Texas A&M University physicist, who attested that Hagelin’s attempt to relate unified field theories to human consciousness is not accepted by the majority of his colleagues. The article also quotes a Hagelin collaborator, John Ellis, then director of CERN, as saying "I was afraid that people might regard as rather flaky, and that might rub off on the theory or on us."

This version adheres to the core guidelines about remaining dispassionate and sounding encyclopedic, including alluding to the emotional tone of the Lopez testimony. The way it is written here is what is meant by an encyclopedic, dispassionate tone. ChemistryProf (talk) 04:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It misrepresents the source material on multiple levels. "Some of those colleagues take issue"? It says it infuruates his former collegeages. "Heated"? Now, here's your POV exposed. You're going to characterize the tone of Lopez's comments? And what's with the use of legalese? "Testimony?" "Attested". What courtroom are we talking about here? "not acceepted by the majority of his colleagues" It says that his theories are "absolutely ludicrous". This is a perfect example of trying to "neutralize" the source rather than being neutral. The current text neutrally presents the actual source material in an accurate manner. Your version does not.Fladrif (talk) 12:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I feel that CProf's version does neutralize the source, but that the "crackpot" phrase is going too far in the other direction. Perhaps something in between could work. I also feel that criticism of Hagelin's work in the relationship of UF theories and consciousness is not necessarily a bad thing. The topic has enjoyed some heated debate in the past and will, I believe, continue for some time. --BwB (talk) 15:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Please see the section on impartial tone — "Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." WP:NPOV is a core policy, and the way quotations are used in this article violates this core policy, as TimidGuy mentioned earlier. We need to summarize and present these quotes in an IMPARTIAL TONE, which is exactly what was done in the above alternate version. Besides this core policy, similar guidelines, such as found in WP:Quote and WP:Better, make the point from different angles. The point here is not whether the SOURCE is neutralized but TO MAKE SURE THE WP ARTICLE ITSELF HAS AN IMPARTIAL TONE AND IS PRESENTED FROM A NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW. This means in this case that we strive not to quote one man's heated words in a manner that "substitutes rhetorical language in place of the more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias" WP:Quote. Please tell me, Fladrif, if there is any way I can make this point any more clearly. ChemistryProf (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

No comments for a month so I assume this thread is dead. -- — Kbob • Talk • 23:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Orthography

Invicible American Assembly?? 62.57.50.138 (talk) 13:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

This spelling error was corrected on 9/5/09. -- — Kbob • Talk • 01:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPOV says to avoid using quotes and to summarize

Please see the section on impartial tone — "Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." NPOV is a core policy, and I think that the way quotations are used in this article violates this core policy. We need to summarize and present in an impartial tone. TimidGuy (talk) 10:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

OK - go for it! --BwB (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Its apparent I've been in agreement with this reading of the situation all along, but other editors have not so I suggest we'd need some kind of agreement/ consensus/ compromise situation before we go ahead.(olive (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC))

How do you suggest we reach this compromise? --BwB (talk) 18:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The core principle is repeated in different forms under various headings and is quite clear. The best way to proceed is probably to place suggested alternative wording here for feedback. If people are serious about improving this article, we will soon have a version acceptable to everyone. ChemistryProf (talk) 03:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No comments for a month so I'm assuming this thread is dead.-- — Kbob • Talk • 23:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The Secret and What the Bleep

Added references to Hagelin's participation in these projects. --BwB (talk) 16:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite Hagelin article

I've added the rewrite into the mainspace article as per consensus. The rewrite includes changes suggested by both Will Beback and by ChemProf.(olive (talk) 00:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC))

What consensus? I don't agreee. Will said he would comment, and has not yet done so. His "suggestion" was an inquiry over whether your indigestion over the word "Crackpot" could be met with other language. He did not agree to this change. A bunch of TM-Org employees agreeing to rewrite an article after several rounds of unsuccessful forum shopping is not a consensus. Fladrif (talk) 20:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course, the request for input at the BLP Noticeboard referred to the use of one word, "crackpot", and not on any other part of the section. I conceded to your desire to include the word "crackpot" and to COIN input, and put it into my rewrite. Will in commenting on the rewrite suggested that the "sticking point " in this discussion was this one word. I then removed the word and replaced it with his suggested replacement with agreement of the other editors. Will did not comment on anything else in the rewrite, implying agreement, nor does anything he said in that post seem to indicate he had other concerns. However in case he wanted to add anything further, I notified him of the rewrite. He said he'd take a look over the "next day or two" . Its been five. How is this forum shopping?(olive (talk) 00:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC))

Consensus is about policy not numbers. Polls are "regarded as a structured discussion" WP:CONSENSUS. What I see are editors as a group attempting to bring a section more into line with BLP than what is in place now and all are compromising on their original positions. This is in line with collaborative discussion. Further, I assume you aren't speaking for Will since that would be Meatpuppetry. If you don't feel there is consensus on this rewrite I would suggest dispute resolution. (olive (talk) 00:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC))

I know there is not consensus on this issue. This falls directly within WP:CONLIMITED. I suggest you read it. Will is perfectly capable of speaking for himself. If I was speaking for him, I would say so. Whether or not I was speaking for him that wouldn't be Meatpuppetry. Meatpuppetry would be WP:CANVASSING TM-Org employees, anonymous IP editors from Fairfield, various other WP:SPAs and the like to weigh in on the side of edits you want to push through to attempt to create a false impression of concensus. You really need to actually read the rules and policies you cite before engaging in this kind of passive/aggressiveWP:Wikilawyering. And, not waiting for Will's comments on this question might be regarded by some a bad faith on your part. I'm not saying that I regard it as bad faith. But some people might. Its just a common courtesy on my part to point that out in case it hadn't occurred to you. Fladrif (talk) 22:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:CONLIMITED generally refers to editing policy/guideline pages where wider community input is requested because the wider community is affected. If you want wider community input feel free. I treated Will with respect and consideration for his input, and he didn't respond which is fine. I assumed he wasn't interested. If he is I'm sure he'll show up.(olive (talk) 22:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC))

I know Will has been very active with TM and TMM articles, so he has been around the last 4-5 days. Seems like this is enough time to wait for his comments. Again, Flad, maybe remember "Message, not the messenger". Thanks. --BwB (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Huh? What am I supposed to be commenting on?   Will Beback  talk  22:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, and thanks, KBob! Hope you don't mind that I replaced your requests for signature with a signature(olive (talk) 00:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)) OK, good, thanks for cleaning up.-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I am glad that olive has spent so much time on this section. It now is more in line with core WP policies and reads almost like an encyclopedia article. One part, though, still stands out as not really appropriate. The quote of Park's about Hagelin's published article on the study in DC represents an emotional insult, and is comparable to the insulting name calling that we have gone through pains to remove. It's this kind of non-argument that degrades this article to something closer to a news tabloid one might pick up at the checkout counter at Walmart or the grocery store. Other than that, however, the section now has the tone of a respectable reference book. ChemistryProf (talk) 03:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Fleshy

Markovsky and Fales seems a little too fleshy by comparison to the research section on the entirity of Hagelin's work. So the obvious choices are, reduce Markovsky and Fales or flesh out the other research. Further fleshing out could create a rather long article, but so be it.(olive (talk) 23:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC))

Fleshy? Is that the most accurate adjective for material in this article? I thought Hagelin was a vegetarian. ;)   Will Beback  talk  23:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess we could have fleshy vegetables :o)... Don't know if he is a vegetarian or not...(olive (talk) 00:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC))

I suggest we move the entire discussion of the ME studies to one article or another, such as Research studies on the applications of Transcendental Meditation or TM-Sidhi program. Otherwise we're going over the same material in multiple articles.   Will Beback  talk  04:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

New lead

John Hagelin (born June 9, 1954) is an American particle physicist, three-time candidate of the Natural Law Party for President of the United States, and head of the Transcendental Meditation movement in the US.

Hagelin was a researcher at the European Center for Particle Physics (CERN) and the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC), and is now Professor of Physics and Director of the Institute of Science, Technology and Public Policy at Maharishi University of Management. He has conducted research into the unified field theory and the Maharishi Effect.

He ran for U.S. President in 1992, 1996, and 2000 on the NLP ticket, appearing on the ballot in as many as 44 states and gaining up to 0.1% support.

Hagelin was appointed Raja of the Invincible America by the late Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and is also the President of the US Peace Government, two positions at the head of the TM movement in the US. He is Executive Director of the International Center for Invincible Defense, Executive Director of Global Financial Capital, Executive Director of the Center for Leadership Performance Director of the Board of Advisors for the David Lynch Foundation, and International Director of the Global Union of Scientists for Peace.

The current intro is too short for the article. I propose the above text. It's only a little longer, but it better summarizes the key points of the article and the subject's notability. I'm note sure that we need the last sentence to be in the lead. It's just a list of title and we could move it down to the end of the article somewhere.   Will Beback  talk  10:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Will. Think we can remover the sentence "He ran for U.S. President in 1992, 1996, and 2000 on the NLP ticket, appearing on the ballot in as many as 44 states and gaining up to 0.1% support." and put it in the body of the article under the NLP section. it adds little to the lede. --BwB (talk) 12:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Running for president, and getting on the ballot in so many states, is a notable accomplishment by itself. If Hagelin had done nothing else that would have been sufficient cause for an article. Can you suggest another sentence or two that better summarizes his campaigns?   Will Beback  talk  22:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I' would like to see sources for the "head of the TM movement" additions, but besides that, Will's version would be fine as a lede.(olive (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC))

With his roles as Raja of Invincible American, and President of the US Peace Government, he holds the top jobs in both hierarchies in the US. That alone is a significant achievement. I'll go ahead and add the edited version.   Will Beback  talk  23:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I may tweak it a bit, but generally agree with the points made here. -- — Kbob • Talk • 19:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Journal of Scientific Exploration

The Journal of Scientific Exploration is cited here. A discussion of that citation is underway at Talk:TM-Sidhi program#Input from editors requested: Journal of Scientific Exploration. Any input concerning its use as a source should be added there.   Will Beback  talk  23:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Can we really say this?

• Hagelin stated in a press release announcing the project that 1,730 yogic flyers were required for the demonstration to work., a level which the Assembly has exceeded nearly every day in the afternoon group meditation session.

Regarding the text above taken from the article ie the section in bold. The source does not specify when the threshold of 1730 yogic flyers was reached, on what days, for how long etc. Is it fair for us to make a conclusion about the raw data? Also, the sentence contains the weasel word "nearly" and further qualifies with "afternoon" sessions. Is it encyclopedic to have so many qualifiers (nearly, afternoon only) to make the point or are we stretching it a bit? When I go to the primary source cited I see that the attendance numbers were as low as 1483 in at least one morning session and 1512 in at least one afternoon session but higher of course on other days. Did Hagelin say that only the afternoon session had to be over a certain number to create effect? Hagelin made the statement about 1730 in 2007. Has the attendance been over 1730 in all sessions since then? For how many consecutive days? What do others think?-- — Kbob • Talk • 23:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how qualifiers alone are a problem. They usually make material more accurate or precise. We could use the vague term like "often" instead, but I'm not sure that's an improvement.   Will Beback  talk  23:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You are right it wouldn't be an improvement. Qualifiers are good because they are honestly reflect that the sentence is unsure of itself. Like this one: "It is nearly always sunny in London on rain-free afternoons." I question whether it is appropriate for us to be making subjective statements about raw data which is so inconsistent that it could be interpreted loosely with qualifiers in any way an editor(s) chose.-- — Kbob • Talk • 12:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

All careful authors qualify their writing. Journalists say that "it's reported" or "sources say". Scientists use qualifiers too, limiting the scope of their findings. Precision is a good thing, so long as it doesn't sacrifice accuracy.

In preparation for a visit to Northern England I was advised that it would rain and the sun would shine, everyday. No matter the season, at least a little of both every day. I can vouch that that was true, mostly. I believe that those few days when I never saw both sun and rain I missed it by being indoors or asleep during their possibly fleeting appearances.

So, shall we use "often" instead?   Will Beback  talk  13:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Good one Will, I appreciate your sense of humor. Hope you had a good sleep in England, ha! Anyway the real point that you haven't responded to is that the sentence/text draws conclusions from primary source, raw data and is in my opinion OR. Any thoughts in that direction?-- — Kbob • Talk • 20:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

If someone makes a noted prediction, such as "the price of corn will go up if it rains", then I don't think it's OR to report that it has rained. We're not here to prove the prediction came true or didn't, but we can offer brief information from reliable sources so that the readers can decide for themselves. Omitting that information, and giving the impression that the prediction came true or was never tested, would be misleading. I'd have to look around to find it again, but I recall seeing somewhere an assertion that America had achieved invincibility, and if so we should report that too.   Will Beback  talk  20:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I see the point your are trying to make, Bobb. We have the web page with the title "2009 Superradiance Tally by Date and Location ". If we have a Wiki editior reading these "raw" numbers and then writing something in a Wiki article that reports the data, is that OR? Or if the text extrapolates on the data, is that OR? Or if the editor makes inferences about the data, is that OR? Where dose OR begin and end? --BwB (talk) 21:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes exactly, we are not talking about one day, did it rain or not. We are talking about years of tallies and the data is for twice daily. So the sentence refers to which data? On what days and in what years? It does not specify. And why is a Wiki editor allowed to comment on part of the data ie discount the morning data and the data on days when it was less than 1730 by using weasel like, qualifying adjectives such as "nearly", "afternoons only" etc.? To me its such a blatant case of OR, I'm flummoxed (to quote an old friend) that its not obvious to everyone that its inappropriate.  :-) -- — Kbob • Talk • 22:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Here were go:

• Today is the 5th day of the third month of US national consciousness rising to invincibility, as indicated by the following press reports, which continue to reveal the dramatic, 180-degree turnaround in the fortunes of the nation:
  • Invincibility update - breaking records by Global Good News staff writer 29 September 2006

So we can use something like that to say that invincible America has been achieved, a fulfillment of Hagelin's prediction.   Will Beback  talk  22:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's another:

The dramatic decline in the number of hurricanes and tropical storms this season is not an anomaly. The decrease is the direct—and publicly predicted—result of the increased coherence in national consciousness created by the large group of 1400 advanced Transcendental Meditation programme experts who are practicing Yogic Flying together in Washington, D.C., and Iowa.

This is the assessment of world-renowned quantum physicist Dr John Hagelin, who is the leading expert in the application of the Vedic science and technology of consciousness for the betterment of society.

Dr Hagelin is directing the world's largest—and longest—research project demonstrating the profound positive effects of group Yogic Flying practice on economic, social, and environmental trends in the nation. The project, entitled the 'Invincible America Course,' is now entering its eighth week.

In this press release it's said that 1400 Yogic Flyers are enough to dramatically reduce the number of storms.   Will Beback  talk  22:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Or this, in which Hagelin explains the numbers better:

• Dr Hagelin explained that the number of Yogic Flyers required to produce this coherent effect for the United States is 1730. However, he said, the initial group of 1200 experts is more than enough to create a calming, stabilising effect in national consciousness. 'As the number of Yogic Flyers rises to 2000 in the coming days, the world press will be reporting better and better economic and social news. We are transforming the nation before the eyes of the world. I urge the press to watch what happens tomorrow,' Dr Hagelin said.
  • "More good news from first week of Invincible America Course"2 August 2006

So it might be a quibble over whether the number of Yogic Flyers was 1695 or 1750, since 1200 is sufficient to have an effect.   Will Beback  talk  22:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's another one, that specifically addresses the issue of morning and afternoon sessions:

Speaking recently on Maharishi Global Family Chat, Raja Robert Wynne, Mayor of Maharishi Vedic City and Raja of Invincible New Zealand, Armenia, Kenya, Pakistan, Iraq, Vanuatu, Liberia, and Burundi for the Global Country of World Peace, reported rising numbers at the Invincible America Assembly in Fairfield, Iowa.

In this last week, he reported, 200 more Maharishi Vedic Pandits arrived to the Maharishi University of Management (M.U.M.) campus and to nearby Maharishi Vedic City. With these new Vedic Pandits, as well as M.U.M. students returning to campus after a short vacation, the number of Yogic Flyers, both morning and afternoon on Monday, 2 June, exceeded the 1,730 necessary to bring invincibility to America.

In fact, Raja Wynne continued, it was the very first time that the morning group, which reached 1,788 on Monday, surpassed the 1,730 level, and the first time the afternoon group, 2,039 on Monday, exceeded the 2,000 mark. Raja Wynne emphasized that, despite the currently large numbers in the Invincible America Assembly, the additional Pandits will be needed to ensure that the group of Yogic Flyers remains at or above the 1,730 level. The numbers in the Golden Domes* drop noticeably during holidays, said Raja Wynne, since not all members of the assembly are receiving grants from the Howard and Alice Settle Foundation for full-time participation.

'We're excited to maintain this high number of Yogic Flyers,' said Raja Wynne, 'so that the US becomes beneficial to all people and countries throughout the world.'

— "US: Invincible America Assembly achieves record-breaking numbers" 5 June 2008

Interestingly, this indicates that pandits count towards the total.   Will Beback  talk  23:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

And another that specifies the threshold has been met:

• Dr Morris said that in these few months 'since he took the mantle of Invincible America,** Raja Hagelin has brought about a very dramatic transformation'—particularly at this time, when the required number of Yogic Flyers participating in the Invincible America Assembly at M.U.M. in Fairfield and Maharishi Vedic City to create invincibility for the United States, has been achieved for the first time in both the morning and afternoon sessions.
  • "Maharishi's expressions of praise for the invincible leadership of Invincible America - Part II" 25 June 2008

So we can summarize these by saying something like "Press releases announced that the threshold level had been surpassed in June 2008."   Will Beback  talk  23:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Here are reports in reliable secondary sources:

• This odd group of meditators has promised that despite the recent woes on Wall Street, the Dow Jones Industrial Average will end the year above the 17,000 mark. The group's leader, John Hagelin, has compared the Assembly's use of transcendental meditation to the invention of electricity and other advances. "This is not wishful thinking," he says. "This is hard science." "Prior to the Invincible America Assembly, since January 1, 2000, the Dow decreased on average about 0.02pc per week. However, immediately following the beginning of the Assembly on July 23, 2006, there was a statistically significant shift to a rapid, positive average rate of growth of 0.5pc per week. The probability of observing a change this large in the Dow's rate of growth purely by chance is less than 0.014."
  • "WALL STREET LIFE We're picking up God vibrations, it's giving the Dow excitations" DAVID LITTERICK. The Daily Telegraph. London (UK): Aug 4, 2007. pg. 033

• U.S. stock markets have been suffering of late, but a group of meditators promise their good vibrations will send the Dow Jones Industrial Average past 17,000 within a year. A group called the Invincible America Assembly says they have prosperity under control and their positive vibes will bring fewer hurricanes and better U.S.- North Korean relations.
  • "Breath, relax . . . profit?" The Vancouver Sun. Vancouver, B.C.: Aug 3, 2007. pg. D.1

• A wealthy businessman has put up millions of dollars to support Sidhi TM practitioners like Olsen and his wife, Mary Cathryn, with a monthly stipend of $600 each. The Olsens say the Invincible America Assembly numbers about 1,500, and when it approaches 2,000, the nation will be positioned for invincibility, even from terrorist attacks. Olsen credits the Maharishi Effect for the New York Stock Exchange's current strong performance, the 2006 lull in tropical storm activity and the speedy end to the July 2006 Lebanon War. He insists the number of wars is decreasing globally, and any pockets of strife are the result of pent-up stress working it's way out of society as the world moves toward it's new order. But Olsen says that war is a relatively small one and will cease once the Invincible America Assembly reaches critical mass.
  • "Return of the Sidhi" Carl E. Feather. McClatchy - Tribune Business News. Washington: Jun 20, 2007. pg. 1

Make of those what you will.   Will Beback  talk  23:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the research and citations Will. These are good and we should use them in accordance with the guidelines for primary sources and also note the temporal and varying nature of each of the reports. For example, Raja Wynn says the threshold has been reached but he only specifies that one day and says he/they intend to keep the number over the threshold. However, we can see from these reports, that the threshold 'needed" seems to vary ( I guess due to changes in US population) and the number of participants also varies from day to day, month to month etc. What I object to is an editor creating text based on his conclusions drawn from raw data. I am however, in favor of text that accurately reflects specific sources in accordance with RS guidelines. So any movement in that direction would be good.-- — Kbob • Talk • 22:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks Will for you research. I agree with Kbobb, the text needs to reflect sources and not text created by editors from the raw data of IAC participants. --BwB (talk) 12:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem with using press releases for sources is that there are so many of them. For that and many other reasons it's best to avoid too much reliance on them or the raw attendance records. But combined, they do tend to support the idea that the ideal of Invincible America has been achieved, if only for limited periods. This may not be the best article talk page to thrash this out in full. For here, it's only necessary to cover topics directly related to Hagelin.   Will Beback  talk  13:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It's actually a very simple discussion about an editor drawing a conclusion from raw data and writing text for the article based on his/her conclusion which, as you know, is OR. BWB has now come in and said the he agrees. So I think we have consensus for removal of the half sentence in question. If you would like to write some text from any of the sources that you cited above, which conform with Wiki reliable source guidelines, that would be fine. But to allow OR text to stand in the meantime does not seem appropriate.-- — Kbob • Talk • 12:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Sourced Text

Hi Will, You removed this sourced text. Could you explain the thinking behind this deletion? thanks,-- — Kbob • Talk • 13:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Kbob, it is moved to a different spot in the article. Check out the "Maharishi Effect Research" section. --BwB (talk) 13:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for that clarification, that solves the mystery! -- — Kbob • Talk • 15:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

In its current state the following text seems totally out of place in the Maharishi Effect section. Can we amend this somehow?

• Hagelin was invited to be a plenary speaker at the 2007 Quantum Mind conference in Salzburg, Austria, organized by Stuart Hameroff (University of Arizona) and Gustav Bernroider (University of Salzburg). Hagelin was a featured scientist in the popular movies, What the Bleep Do We Know!? and The Secret.-- — Kbob • Talk • 16:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've now moved it to the "Reception" section, since we're not using those appearances as sources for anything.  Will Beback  talk  21:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

That's probably better, thanks.-- — Kbob • Talk • 22:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense

• Woit also thinks that superstring theory itself is nonsense.
  • Woit, Peter, Not even wrong: The failure of string theory and the search for unity in physical law Basic Books (2006) ISBN 0465092756

I see where Woit calls certain papers nonsense, but could someone show where he says the entire theory is nonsense? Page number? I'm not even sure this is relevant here since this isn't an article on superstring theory.   Will Beback  talk  21:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

This seem to be an extrapolation from the premise of the book itself, the failure of suoerstring theory. I would consider it OR and it should be removed, in my opinion anyway.(olive (talk) 21:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC))

I wanted it in because it provides context, namely by showing the heated controversies inherent in physics itself, particularly as it tries to grapple with fundamental issues. This seems especially relevant, since we are including the Woit quote because it gives some sense of how Hagelin is regarded. So it is important to understand that the heat comes with the territory of exploring fundamental reality. The title of Woit's book, Not Even Wrong, derives from Wolfgang Pauli and, more fundamentally, from verification theory, according to which a statement which can't be verified or falsified is nonsense.

Here's a readily accessible reference from a review by John Cornwell in the London Times:"String theory, avers, has become a form of science fiction. Hence his book’s title, Not Even Wrong: an epithet created by Wolfgang Pauli, an irascible early 20th-century German physicist. Pauli had three escalating levels of insult for colleagues he deemed to be talking nonsense: “Wrong!”, “Completely wrong!” and finally 'Not even wrong!'. By which he meant that a proposal was so completely outside the scientific ballpark as not to merit the least consideration."

From Peter Woit's blog, in characterizing some ideas of Ellis, Mavromatos and Nanopoulos as "complete nonsense." In this blog, Woit ridicules a Mavromatos and Nanopoulos article in which "Mavromatos and Nanopoulos also believe that string theory is responsible for the way that our brains work." And here's something else from Woit's blog in which he reviews a book chapter on ways to test string theory. Woit concludes, "This is really egregious nonsense." These are my reasons for noting Woit's liberality in attributing nonsense. It's very relevant in the present context. If he's willing to refer to Hagelin's ideas as nonsense, who else's views is he calling nonsense? Hickorybark (talk) 18:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The comments you're hanging your hat on are from Woit's blog (i) dismissing a popular media account and (ii) reviewing the book "The Complete Idiot's Guide to String Theory" on the testability of string theory. Anyone who actually bothers to read the sources you've cited would readily see that you have completely misrepresented what Woit wrote. This is starting to be a disturbing pattern in your edits. Fladrif (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a bad idea, when editing Misplaced Pages, to add what one knows to be true and then try to find sources to back it up. The better approach is to start with the sources and simply summarize what they say.

This article isn't about string theory in general. This is primarily a biography, and we should avoid adding material that is not directly connected to the subject. Woit's views on matter other than Hagelin belong elsewhere, such as Peter Woit, and interested readers can follow that link if they wish to learn more about him.   Will Beback  talk  22:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

What's not directly connected to the subject about the fact that Woit is liberal in his attribution of nonsense? It is directly relevant to the weight that should be given to his assessment. Also, what he means by the term "nonsense" is important information for the reader. You haven't made the case for deleting that information, as far as I can see. Hickorybark (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

What reliable source says that Woit is liberal in his use of the term "nonsense"?   Will Beback  talk  23:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Czech physicist Lubos Motl (formerly at Harvard) complains that "Peter Woit is not a scientist in any sense; he is just an activist." Motl's Amazon review says that Woit's blog "is designed to misinterpret and obscure virtually every event in physics and transform it into poison - and to invent his own fantasies to hurt science. This makes Woit's blog highly popular among the crackpots...." Leonard Susskind, in this radio interview, also has a pointed explanation for Woit's "grumpiness" as resulting from his failure as a physicist. My point for us as Misplaced Pages editors is that we need to be conservative about citing references to justify calling people "crackpots" or their theories "nonsense". It's too easy to call people names, and I prefer to keep our writing out of that as much as possible. If we absolutely feel its necessary, in order to illustrate the controversy, then at least we need to provide some information about the source of the namecalling--in this case Woit.Hickorybark (talk) 03:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that such contextual information is considered by Misplaced Pages to be OR. We just aren't supposed to add content from sources that do not directly reference the topic of the article. We have to remember this is an encyclopedia and that measn we are creating a context for sourced information, but not in anyway extrapolating from that information. Sure Woit sounds like he is not quite the expert he appears to be, but the way we deal with that is to add content from sources that present multiple views, creating a balanced overall look at the topic of the article. This creates a "neutral" article, NPOV(olive (talk) 03:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC))

Lengthy discussion of Maharishi Effect research

• Hagelin's linkage of quantum mechanics and unified field theory with consciousness, and with the "Maharishi Effect", was critically reviewed by Fales and Markovsky in the journal Social Forces. According to their review, "The investigators predicted and found that meditation group size correlated negatively with crime rates, automobile accidents, and fires in Jerusalem; positively with stock market prices and a national mood indicator in Israel; and negatively with war intensity and war fatalities in Lebanon." Moreover, they said that "the most compelling" presentation of this data "showed superimposed graphs" of the number of assembled meditators and a composite quality of life index (derived from the variables indicated above). However, they went on to object that the theory is vague, relies on specious analysis, is silent about key processes linking causes to alleged effects, and "does not pass minimal criteria of meaningfulness and logical integrity." They further said that the Maharishi Effect predictions cannot be derived from the master theory because of a lack of causal connection, and an inability to specify time lags between meditation and the observed societal effects. Further, they maintained that the model that can be derived from the formal component of the theory to make specific Maharishi Effect predictions is ignored by its researchers. They concluded that there are serious problems with the theory. It does not fit well and conflicts with other strongly confirmed theories and their supporting evidence, and the evidence offered by the researchers, as support for the Maharishi Effect, "cannot significantly enhance confidence in the veracity" of the theory, primarily because "in view of prior knowledge" its likelihood of being true "is very close to zero."

  David Orme-Johnson and MUM Public Affairs officer Robert Oates later provided a point-by-point reply to this review in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, a journal devoted to paranormal phenomenon. They countered that"the Maharishi Effect has clearly defined, operationalizable terms and that it makes specific predictions, which have been repeatedly tested using objective, public data sources, with hypotheses being lodged in advance with independent observers." Morevoer, they cited published reviews of their work that found the level of theoretical vagueness/precision to be consistent with norms in sociological research. They further argued that any supposed vagueness in the theory "does not prohibit a clear decisive experimental decision about the hypothesis in question, which is, simply, did the war and other social indicators co-vary with the meditation groups?" While acknowledging that the causal mechanisms relating meditators' practice to the observed societal effects have not yet been worked out in detail, Orme-Johnson and Oates argued that "there is no systematic theory of consciousness available in any academic discipline," and that this "should be kept in mind as the reviewers emphasize that the theory behind the Maharishi Effect is improbable ...." Orme-Johsnon and Oates emphasized that the quality of life index, derived from governmental and public sources, correlated so closely on a daily basis with the varying number of assembled meditators that this evidence is too striking to ignore. Finally, the authors discussed the alternative explanations, suggested by Fales and Markovsky, some of which had already been considered in the original study, and found that they could not explain the phenomenon and that there is as yet no explanation other than the one hypothesized by the study.

There's one thing missing from all of this text: Hagelin. We should move all of this to the TM-Sidhi article and leave a one or two-sentence summary that focuses on Hagelin's involvement.   Will Beback  talk  02:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

In particular, the Orme-Johnson and Oates paper only mentions Hagelin in the text once, and it cites papers by other authors more often than those of Hagelin. OTOH, the Fales and Markovsky paper discusses Hagelin repeatedly. Further, one is published in reputable journal while the other is in a fringe science journal. So they are not equal sources that deserve equal weight. Whatever we have in this article needs to be directly related to Hagelin.   Will Beback  talk  03:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your reasons for moving the text, but not with your designations "reputable journal" versus "fringe science journal." These designations are part of the controversy.Hickorybark (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hickorybark. Would you mind explaining further what you mean.(olive (talk) 17:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC))

Fales and Markovsky initially attempted to publish their critique in Journal of Conflict Resolution, but it was turned down. Evidently the editors didn't want to host a lengthy debate between Fales & Markovsky and Orme-Johnson. Here is Markovsky's account.After Fales and Markovsky published in Social Forces, I would guess that Orme-Johnson and Oates tried to publish their rebuttal in Social Forces as well, but were denied permission. Indeed Fales and Markovsky were adressing their critique to journal editors to provide philosophy of science justification for shutting off debate from "fringe scientists." This is exactly why their Bayesian Confirmation Theory is controversial in the philosophy of science. It denies that scientific method is a straightforward, objective relationship between the scientist and the evidence, as in traditional philosophy of science. Bayesianism shifts the emphasis to the concept of "prior knowledge," which puts a greater burden of proof on the defenders of an unorthodox theory, because it has a low "prior probability" in light of prior knowledge. Debunkers like this idea because it gives them a weapon against "pseudoscience" as having a low "prior probability," and frees them from having to debate evidence. It's controversial, because it raises a host of subjective issues about who is to decide if a theory is "fringe," if it really has a low prior probability in comparison to well-established alternatives, and whether the theory's defenders have indeed supplied the extra level of evidence called for. Orme-Johnson made all of these points in their rebuttal, arguing in particular that there is no well-established, orthodox consensus about consciousness in the way Fales and Markovsky assume. Anyway, I realize that Misplaced Pages cannot go very deeply into these issues, but if we dumb down the discussion too much, it just has the flavor of a shouting match between the opposing sides. And this is why I object to Will's characterizations of the journals, because the debate has shifted from debating evidence to debating prior credibility, and I don't think Will is doing justice to the depth of the underlying issues involved in these characterizations, particularly when it pertains to the theory of consciousness.Hickorybark (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

That's all very interesting. We have had a thorough discussion of the JSE on talk:TM-Sidhi program, and no one was able to find evidence that it is considered a reputable journal. Judging their overall contents, I think it's correct to say that they focus on hypotheses and data that are on the fringes of science, such as UFO and telekinesis. In contrast, here's how Social Forces is described on Project MUSE: "Founded in 1922, Social Forces is a renowned journal of sociological research ..." Anyway, this has only slight bearing on Hagelin's biography, so I propose that we discuss Fales & Markovsky and Orme-Johnson & Oates over there, and leave this page for discussing matter more directly connected to Hagelin's biography.   Will Beback  talk  20:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I've moved this long version to TM-Sidhi#General views of Maharishi Effect and restored the shorter version that was here before.   Will Beback  talk  03:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

By the same token, most of the Social Forces article isn't related to Hagelin. It's a critique of the JCR study. Only five paragraphs directly address Hagelin's theory. I think this could be more balanced. TimidGuy (talk) 12:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's keep the coverage of details of the concept and research of the ME to a minimum and cover that fully in the TM-Sidhi article. We have an article on Flipped SU(5), and an article on the TM concept, etc. This article should stay focused on events of the subject's life.   Will Beback  talk  13:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

As I wrote above, both sides of this issue can be handled in a couple of sentences, with little weight on OJ who mentions Hagelin only once.   Will Beback  talk  13:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You have done a good job in reorganizing this section, Will. I like your idea to move most of the ME discussion to the TM-Sidhi article, just leving a brief summary of it here as it pertains to Hagelin. --BwB (talk) 14:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

i agree that we need to keep ME to a minimum. I noted that much of the Fales and Markovsky critique that was included here was critiquing the JCR paper, not Hagelin's theory of a relationship between consciousness and the unified field. So I trimmed it. We need to make sure that what's included here is only the section where they directly address Hagelin's theory per se. Of course, Fladrif will likely revert my edits. TimidGuy (talk) 12:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think your trimmed version is a definite improvement.Hickorybark (talk) 15:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Dallas Observer

This isn't saying as of 2000. It's simply saying that once Hagelin began making the link between physics and consciousness, he was ostracized. So this needs to be balanced by the fact that he continued collaborating after he began making the link. Fox uses simple past tense. If he were associating it with the time of writing, he would have said, "have now ostracized." TimidGuy (talk) 12:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I took out the Jonathan Fox quote because it is contradicted by more reliably sourced material above. Obviously Hagelin had not been ostracized by his former peers, since they continued to collaborate with him. Also, note Glashow's remark. It's an embarrassment to Misplaced Pages to be dredging up inaccurate quotes solely for their "gotcha" effect. We can document the controversies, including some of the hostile responses, from more primary sources, such as John Ellis and Peter Woit. But why include a political reporter's uninformed and mistaken beliefs about how Hagelin's former peers regarded him?Hickorybark (talk) 17:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. What we have is you deleting reliably-sourced material based on your own original research. That's not how Misplaced Pages works. Please read WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:V before you do this again. Fladrif (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense to you. It's not original research and a political writer is not a reliable reference on attitudes of physicists. If this stays in it will reduce Misplaced Pages's credibility.Hickorybark (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You are so wrong on this issue as to be not even wrong. Fladrif (talk) 19:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. Hickorybark (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems Hickorybark, TG and Flad all make important points.

In any article the deletion of large chunks of reliably sourced content can be problematic. These TM articles are highly contentious so such deletions are even more of a concern. So Hickory might want to rethink the deletions.

Our final goal on Misplaced Pages must be accuracy that is verifiable, not truth, but accuracy. An encyclopedia that is not accurate is of no use to anyone, and that accuracy is the underlying agenda of this or any encyclopedia To have information in the article that is misleading does not serve that end whether sourced or not. In a situation where editors were able to go to another level of accuracy , to investigate and have knowledge of physics as Hickorybark seems to have could improve and increase the accuracy of the article. I agree that the comment by a political journalist is not reliable on this level of editing, but it is reliable on a more supeficial level of editing. We can choose to include everything we find... or.... we can choose the best in terms of reliability. NPOV creates accuracy.

To have information that shows Hagelin was not always supported by his peers is accurate and reliable, but to exclude further information that indicates that he continued to collaborate with notable physicists creates an inaccuracy.

Right now some editors are working at cross purposes. Hickory is a new editor so may not be aware that his deletions were not going to go over very well in this environment. Flad is noting the deletions. But, lets assume Hickory is knowledgeable and his deletions were meant to improve, and lets get past the deletions and see if he has something to say that will improve the article .TG 's point supports the idea of accuracy. I realize I'm a bit long winded here , but it seems we are in a position to take this article to another level if we use the expertise of the editors involved. Any chance of reviewing the discussion and points made here here and possibly strengthening the article.(olive (talk) 00:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC))

References

1. Weldon, John, "Transcendental Meditation in the New Millenium (Part Two)", Christian Research Journal, Vol 27 No 6 (2004)
2. DePalma, Anthony, "University's Degree Comes with a heavy dose of meditation (and skepticism)", New York Times (April 29, 1992)
3. Randi, James An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural St. Martin's Griffin ISBN-10: 0312151195 ISBN-13: 978-0312151195 (1997)
4. York, Anthony, "Zen and the art of political campaigning", Salon (July 19, 2000)
5. Frauds: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases ICON Group International (1997)
6. Anderson, Christopher, "Hagelin & Quantum Theory: Holding on by a superstring", Nature Vol 359 (September 10, 1992)
7. Draper, Heather (October 30, 2008). "Om, om . . . are the markets better?". San Antonio Express-News. San Antonio, Texas. p. E.1.
8. Hagelin, John, ed. (April 12, 2008). 8 Great Reasons to Meditate (PDF).
9. List of DLF Directors and Advisors
10. "Global Union of Scientists for Peace Inaugural Conference". New Delhi, India. January 21, 2006. Retrieved December 1, 2009.
11. [http://invincibleamerica.org/press/2006_07_25.html "Meditators Fly for Peace" Press Release (July 25, 2007)
12. 2009 Superradiance Tally by Date and Location" Invincible America Assembly
13. Review of movie
14. Cast List
15. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article672464.ece
16. http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=591
17. http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=1198
18. http://lubos.motl.googlepages.com/crackpot-not-even-wrong.html
19. http://www.amazon.com/review/R3PGUGKCPHDI39
20. http://kqed02.streamguys.us/anon.kqed/radio/forum/2006/07/2006-07-31b-forum.mp3
21. http://minet.org/markovsky-critique

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class biography articles
• C-Class biography (science and academia) articles
• Low-importance biography (science and academia) articles
• Science and academia work group articles
• Science and academia work group articles needing infoboxes
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs of scientists and academics
• Biography articles without infoboxes
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs of people
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Unassessed United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• Unassessed United States articles of Low-importance
• Unassessed United States presidential elections articles
• Unknown-importance United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• C-Class physics articles
• Low-importance physics articles
• C-Class physics articles of Low-importance
• C-Class physics biographies articles
• Physics biographies articles