Talk:Hieronymus machine

Mysterious references

What is a reference like "Hieronymus, pg. A-7" supposed to mean? Which book is being referred to? Cardamon (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The Notes section of a Wiki article lists the references associated with the superscript numbers in the text. Below that on the page is the References section, and in a well-done article the Notes refer to specific References. So, for example, the Note for "Lauire (2009), pg 103" refers to the book by Laurie published in 2009, as listed in the References section (which happens to be the book titled "The Secret Art".) This is standard endnote style, to refer to the book simply by author and publication date, which then refers to the Reference section, instead of repeating the title of the book over and over again for each Note.

For the Notes referenced to Hieronymus, they refer to the "Eloptic Directory" book that's listed in the References section, and the page numbers in that publication were broken down by Sections (e.g. "A") and page number of that Section ("A-7"). So "A-7" refers to Section A, page 7 (on the bottom of the pages in that book, it actually says "A-7" or "C-22", etc, so I continued that convention.) I'll go back and add the publication dates, which is proper. I hope this clears it up. JMax555 (talk) 22:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps. It looks as the "Eloptic Directory" may be self-published. Do you agree? If it is, there are limits on how it can be used. Cardamon (talk) 01:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It is self-published in the sense it was the original operation manual and documentation for the Hieronymus Eloptic Analyzer, which has been reprinted (as page scans) by a current builder of reproduction Hieronymus Machines. I'm not sure what the verifiability level of a technical device's operating manual is under Wiki guidelines. I'd think that original tech manuals for a machine are considered the main authority on what a machine is supposed to do and how it supposedly does it. I don't think the material is unduly self-serving (except in the sense it's an operating manual); we can assume there had to be operating documentation for these machines so there's no reason to doubt it's authentic, it's directly related to the subject and not about third parties, and the article is not based primarily on that one source. Perhaps it should be noted in the references that it was an operating manual?JMax555 (talk) 02:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I changed the first ref note to link to the US Patent record instead of the Hieronymus documentation, so the article is even less based on that material. JMax555 (talk) 11:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes , I think it should be noted that it is an operating manual. An operating manual is clearly a primary source; if the company was very small it could also be self-published. Cardamon (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Easy enough to do. As the article stands now, the only references to the manual are concerned with how a Hieronymus machine is operated, so I think it's proper to refer to the documentation published by the company that originally built them. I added a postscript to the 'publisher' line, but if you can think of a more elegant place to insert it, please go ahead and change it. JMax555 (talk) 06:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: primary sources - since the references to the Eloptic Directory in the article are specifically how about the mechanics of operating the machine, and a description of the sub-types of machines produced by Hieronymus, I don't think those are interpretive in any way. The interpretative material in the article (mostly in the last section) is based in turn on interpretations from secondary sources (Laurie and Astounding). So I'm pretty sure it's all within guideline policy so far. JMax555 (talk) 08:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to nitpick, but:

"The theory of operation on which Hieronymus Machines are based is that all matter emits a kind of "radiation" that is not electromagnetic..." And later in the same paragraph: "Eloptic emanations have never been detected by instruments designed to measure electromagnetic energies, so the theory is considered pseudoscientific and is not accepted by mainstream science." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.41.137.170 (talk) 03:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I removed the sentence, “The theory on which it is based is considered pseudoscientific and has no widespread acceptance.” on the grounds that it is unreferenced, and such a stigmatizing label as 'pseudoscience' should never be slapped upon something without adequate referencing. Also, calling something pseudoscientific merely because it cannot be explained my extant scientific theory (such as Edward Jenner's discovery that cowpox prevents smallpox), or goes against mainstream scientific opinion (such as Galileo's heliocentrism); is dogmatistic and blatantly unscientific. Likewise, I removed Category:Pseudoscience and the link to List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. Okay?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 05:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Hieronymus Machine.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Hieronymus Machine.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Hieronymus Machine.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Doctorate

Hieronymus himself admitted (Analog, January 1977) that his doctorate was only honorary. Even so, what idiotic body would award one to such an obvious confidence-trickster? The 'Dr' should be deleted until it is proved that the awarding body was legitimate and not some fake alternative-health university. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.219.153 (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The PhD was awarded by the Society of Pathometrists in 1935, a professional organization of doctors - long now defunct - that used electronic medical devices in their practice (such as diathermy, which is still used today by medical doctors - ever get a wart burned off?) Not really an "idiotic body" or a "fake alternative-health university", as you put it. The diploma is repo'ed in "The Story of Eloptic Energy" book, page 118. But since Hieronymus himself didn't really care if he used the title or not, go ahead and delete the three characters if it's bothering you so much. JMax555 (talk) 23:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Since when does a society issue honorary doctorates? An honorary degree is generally awarded by a degree-awarding body, aka university Philip Machanick (talk) 06:48, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Fringe tag

I've added a fringe theories tag to this article because I don't believe it properly separates fact from fiction, occasionally hinting that the content might be nonsense, but never really addressing it. I don't have the time to do the research necessary to address the issue unfortunately. Sam Walton (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)