Talk:John Hagelin/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Raja of Invincible America

• In addition to his role as President of the US Peace Government, Dr. Hagelin currently serves as ... Raja of Invincible America. [3]

• Raja John Hagelin, Raja of Invincible America [4][5]

• At the national level, I was recently blessed by Maharishi with the privilege of serving as the Raja of Invincible America. [6]

• Maharishi Honours Dr John Hagelin as the Raja of Invincible America [7]

I'm not sure what the "Raja of Invincible America" is, but it's apparently important and itt's how Hagelin signs his name. It should be included in the article.   Will Beback  talk  06:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It could be listed as one of his titles or awards maybe right after the last sentence which mentions Maharishi. The sources you have found so far seem to be primary. Are there some third party sources for this like news articles etc? --Kbob (talk) 16:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I am quite new at this but I have been reading the discussion concerning this article and I must say it is really fascinating. I have one question though, why is there a section called "Raja of Invincible America” in the discussion page, but nothing has been added to the article beyond July 2007? If this is a verifiable event shouldn’t it be included? Luke Warmater101 (talk) 04:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Luke, I think the reason we haven't added anything about Raja of America is because we don't have any third party sources ie books, magazine or newspaper articles on this topic. If you find any let us know and then we can add something.--Kbob (talk) 11:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Kbob, just to see I've searched for some time. I must admit there isn't much by way of a third party source, only small things like what I found on a website http://tricycleblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/06/maharishi-passes/ that at one point says: "...Dr. Hagelin, who also serves as the Raja of Invincible America...", but not much else, at least not yet --Luke Warmater101 (talk) 23:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate this rigorous standard, but is it appropriate for everything in the article? Much of the article appears unsourced, and some parts are sourced to MUM. Are we planning to go to an all-secondary source standard?   Will Beback  talk  23:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I am just trying to be consistent with our work on the TM article where we have that kind of high standard. Anyway, it seems Luke (above) has found a third party reference. --Kbob (talk) 01:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

My quesiton was about whether we are being consistent within the article itself. For example, "Minister of Science and Technology of the Global Country of World ". Is that in a 3rd party source?   Will Beback  talk  01:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Good point it probably should be removed. I'll spend some time going through the article and try to tighten it up the refs. --Kbob (talk) 01:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

OK it looks like Luke made some changes to Hagelins titles using the article he found as a third part ref. Its seems Ok to me. Are you good with it, Will? --Kbob (talk) 15:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Blogs aren't reliable sources. This seems like a step backwards, including the deletion of:

• ...Minister of Science and Technology of the Global Country of World Peace, a non-profit organization with the stated goals of worldwide peace and prosperity.

If he no longer holds that title then we should say he is a ...former Minister of ... rather than deleting it.   Will Beback  talk  04:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Will, we can't use a blog. It is appropriate however, for an article to contain some self definition, and in the case of a WP:BLP to use a personal website. In this case I believe it would be compliant to say something to the effect that," Hagelin's titles include...." and reference Hagelin's own website. If no one has objections I can add that information later on today. Website is here: [8]

I don't know if we took a step backwards since the original title was unsourced but Olive brings up a good point that for biographies of living persons, Wiki is most concerned with accuracy to avoid legal entanglements. For this reason Wiki accepts self published web sites as references as long as they are not "unduly self serving" WP:SELFPUB. So we can proceed in that direction. --Kbob (talk) 00:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I've added sources for some of Dr.Hagelin's titles, but still no compliant source of any kind for the Raja title. I tend to be ultra conservative about sources on any article, but especially connected to TM, because they are generally contentious. So, I would remove the entry on the Raja title until or unless we can find a Wikipedia compliant source.(olive (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC))

Self-published sources are allowed for information about the author, so long as it isn't self-serving. Does anyone here contend that Hagelin did not receive the title?   Will Beback  talk  19:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Any of the sources above would be fine as self defining, I would think. (olive (talk) 19:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC))

Looking over the sources Will has included I would be inclined to use the first source (olive (talk) 19:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC))

Here are four official, self published web sites. Unfortunately, I can't find any mention of the title; Raja of Invincible America. I have no problem including that title in the article as long as its sourced. Please check these sites, maybe I missed something.

[9] [10] [11] [12] Kbob --Kbob (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I checked the links that Will had provided at the top of this discussion and this one [13] seems most appropriate to me as a self published source. --Kbob (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Also it seems that we could put back this phrase ".Minister of Science and Technology of the Global Country of World Peace, a non-profit organization with the stated goals of worldwide peace and prosperity." and use this [14] as a source. Yes? --Kbob (talk) 20:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes that's the ref the one I think is the strongest as well. I would be fine with putting back in that phrase.(olive (talk) 22:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC))

I looked at the sources Kbob mentioned and I think you are both right, I also looked for more third party references but I cannot find anything that is not a personal blog. Having reviewed WP:BLP I must agree with both of you, this is the way to go. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 15:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Removal of External Links

Today I removed several External Links which I felt did not adhere to Wiki guidelines WP:EL I am listing them below in case any editors disagree and would like to present a different point of view. Next to each link I give my impression of each link and why it is acceptable or not.

• Official site---Good, his official site, allowed by Wiki
• Global Country of World Peace Official Site--Removed dead link to a largely irrelevant web site.
• Podcast on physics and consciousness--Inappropriate link to MUM web site and article on Physics and Consciousness.
• Kilby Award--Good, this is significant to the article topic and valid to me, do others agree?
• MUM Faculty--Again OK in my opinion, same as above sentence
• EAD--An audio review that is not central to the article topic
• Garfield--A physics article not central to John Hagelin
• SLAC--This is a dead link, but the link was to Stanford Univ and could be recreated if some feel it is relevant and meets Wiki guidelines.
• Kilby Award past laureates, including John Hagelin--This link is largely a duplicate of the Kilby link above so I removed this one.
• Washington Study--Link to MUM web site and article on the Maharishi Effect, I could go either way on this one as Hagelin is primary author of the project and study but even so to me its one too many links since Wiki says they should be minimal.
• SYNCD.org John Hagelin in the Bleep I--Again I'm OK with this, but open to disagreement. Its a brief non-promotional interview with Hagelin and gives a nutshell of his central theme as a physicist and student of consciousness. What do others think?

All the Best, --Kbob (talk) 14:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I just removed this link: *SYNCD.org John Hagelin in the Bleep I my computer would not open the web page saying that it was an "Attack" page ie virus etc. If anyone wants to repair and replace the web link, please feel free to do so. --Kbob (talk) 17:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Kilby Awards, it appears you chose to keep the generic link to their main page, which doesn't mention the subject, and removed the link to the page which does mention him. But relaly neither are necessary since the site is already linked as a source. I'm going to remove it.   Will Beback  talk  19:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Will, it was a valid link back when, but if its not up to snuff now, good to delete. thanks, --Kbob (talk) 11:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

US Peace Government

Since we have a section assigned to Hagelin's professional career I'd like to add the information on his position with the Peace Government as a subsection to that section. Allowing this content to occupy a section on its own seem somewhat weighty in terms of the rest of his extensive and notable professional career.(olive (talk) 14:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC))

I don't care much either way, but I don't understand why it would be a subsection of the professional career section. It seems more related to the Natural Law section. As for weight, despite the grand name I'm not sure how important the Peace Government is in the scheme of things. It sounds important, but it may be nothing more than a website. If enough sources can be found then it might be split off into its own article.   Will Beback  talk  14:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

This letter on the Natural Law website explains the connections betwen it and the USPG.[15]   Will Beback  talk  15:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Therefore, we see the US Peace Government as carrying forward the work of the Natural Law Party and establishing all our ideals, our principles, and our programs on a higher and more widespread level. .... Given these ongoing challenges and the inspiring rise of the US Peace Government, the NLP Executive Committee has now decided to suspend the operations of the national party offices.

That statement makes it appear that the USPG is the successor to the NLP.   Will Beback  talk  15:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Apology ... I didn't notice I'd deleted that content in the Peace Gov't subsection without replacing it in the new place. Thanks for restoring it.(olive (talk) 15:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC))

Actually, I think the Natural Law Party could be a subsection of professional life as well, otherwise we get sections that don't relate to each other. NLP was a short segment in his professional career, why not add it as a subsection? Then Peace Government as a subsection after that with a comment that connects the two.(olive (talk) 15:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC))

His professional career was as a physicist, wasn't it? His political career was in the NLP. His current job of USPG president appears directly related to the latter, and unrelated to his career as a professor or a scientist, so far as I can tell.  Will Beback  talk  15:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Right now the professional career section has content on Hagelin's run for the presidency... so I think its fair to add NLP to professional career as well as US PG presidency . Alternately we could start a section on political career, but that may be misleading since US PG is not part of the standard political system in the US. I think if we define all of these aspects of his life as professional we will be most accurate.(olive (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC))

So perhaps we should have a heading: "Profesional career". Under that have equal, separate sections for academic career, NLP career, and USPG career. Would that make sense?   Will Beback  talk  19:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This sounds fine but I think we should right from the beginning determine weight or relative importance of each. I'm not sure each section should be equal. Hagelin's academic career was prestigious and is ongoing. His run for president although noteworthy, short lived, and his recent appointment has just begun so difficult to judge anything at this point.(olive (talk) 21:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

I'm not aware of any basis we would have for judging the relative weight, except the number of sources which would determine the relative size of the sections, not their hierarchy. I'm going to move the USPG material back to the end, since that's chronological, and make the sections equal snce they are more or less separate.   Will Beback  talk  23:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Well yes, exactly. The sources would indicate the weight, some aspects of it at least, and would give us a sense of the size of each subsection in terms of amount of content, and so also subsequent amount of space given to each subsection. Chronological order seems a good and legitimate way to organize the section.(olive (talk) 01:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

I like the idea of having professional work in one section with perhaps separate subsections, but still united under the professional career main heading, it makes a lot of sense. Chronological order seems logical too. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 22:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I also like Will's idea of a Professional section with three subsections in chronological order. :o) --Kbob (talk) 00:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Will , Luke and Kbobb. Let's have a "Professional" section with the 3 sub-divisions. While the NLP career was short lived, I'm sure there is much written about this, so it would probably be a much largert section than the Peace Gov part. Bigweeboy (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Sheesh!

Information added today and hidden in the reference is so obviously an attempt to discredit, its mind blowing. There is not only an attempt to discredit Hagelin, but the Kilby award itself. I might add that nominations for anything can be made by all kinds of people, but a nomination means nothing especially with an award like this if the person nominated isn't worthy. I won't even delete it at this point. Pure nonneutral editing.(olive (talk) 15:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC))

Could the editor quote the text he's summarizing? I'm having trouble finding the article. As for the award, I've never heard of it and it's hard to tell how significant it is. Maybe we should move it out of the intro.   Will Beback  talk  20:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The information on the award is linked in the lede. The text I am referring to is in the recent edit here.[16][17](olive (talk) 21:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC))

Information on the award:

The Kilby International Awards, created to honor unsung heroes and heroines who make significant contributions to Society through Science, Technology, Innovation, Invention, and Education, were selected recently as one of the top 116 Awards in the world by the International Congress of Distinguished Awards.

What I mean is that there is no independent description of the award in general or Hagelin's nomination. The award is not notable enough, apparently, to have a Wikipedia article. If it did then some of the background information added by the editor would probably be more appropriate there. Nature is a highly reliable source, but it's not clear what the context of this is - did it come from an editorial, or a reviewed article or a letter to the editor or what. That's why I asked for more information.   Will Beback  talk  21:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to show what a tnagled web this is, I see that one of the directors of the International Congress of Distinguished Awards is Victoria Downing, founder of the Kilby Awards.[18] Ms. Downing is reported to meditate.[19] That's why I'd like to see some reliable, secondary sources that talk about this award. In a quick search on Google all I see are listings and press releases.   Will Beback  talk  21:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Not tangled at all. This is not Transcendental Meditation.If she's a Catholic too will we check to see if any of the "awardees" are Catholic. I don't see the logic of your point, and find it strange actually that a connection is being made, a web is being woven because someone meditates.

Because the award does not have a Wikipeida article does not mean its not notable. It means the award doesn't have a Wikipedia article. that's all. I'm familair with information not in Wikipedia that is notable. Its a big world ... lots of knowledge out there, many people

If you are asking for more sources, please clarify that.

If its not enough to link to the site itself as proof he was given the award, please clarify that too.

WP:Notability refers to creation of an article not to the internal information of the article.

All of this deflects the original concern. POV editing in the lede and excessive specific information in a lede. I note this as I delete the information since that seems to be the only fair, just and NPOV thing to do.

If you feel the award itself should be removed, that's another discussion.(olive (talk) 22:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC))

There is nothing in this discussion that indicated agreement to move the award. In the middle of a discussion you make a unilateral decision to make this change. Not good. I am asking you for discussion and so will revert so that discussion and an agreement can take place. If I'm wrong in my understanding please as I asked above, clarify(olive (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC))

Olive, you "unilaterally" deleted sourced info, so I don't know why you're on my case. The award is a detail, and details belong in the body of the text. I suggest that, as a compromise, we add back the deleted information, keep the bulk of it in the body of the article, and place a short sentence in the lead listing the awards he's received. How does that sound?   Will Beback  talk  22:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I will support you moving the award out of the lede as too specific for a lede, that's fair in my mind, and a more general list of awards is appropriate for the lede. I can't and won't support POV editing. The edit in question discredits Hagelin and the award both. If more information is needed about the award and Hagelin , then well rounded neutral content can be added, but I won't support the addition added this morning. This is a BLP and although this is supposedly sourced ... I haven't seen the source itself... I think a fair view of Hagelin is preferred over the deliberate implied suggestion that both the award and Hagelin are somehow lacking.(olive (talk) 23:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC))

NPOV means including all points of view. If there are legitimate questions about the nature of this award then we shouldn't ignore them and imply that it is prestigious and non-controversial. We include a description of the "Ig Nobel" awards, so it isn't unprecedented to include information about an award. Since it appears we have agreement, I'll move the long description of the Kilby Award to the same place as before, and add a list of awards to the lead. Let's see what the other editor says about the Nature article, or other sources for this award.   Will Beback  talk  23:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

NPOV means including multiple views dependent on minority and/or majority sources. Fringe viewpoints may not necessarily be included at all. Outfitting this article with point of view that comes from one source and may not be repeated anywhere else in not NPOV, and the amount of information added may create a further POV violation as Wp:Weight is violated.(olive (talk) 23:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC))

The only source we have for the Kirby Award is the Kirby Award Foundation, so I'm not sure how your theory of single-sourced views applies to it. However I disagree that a view is fringe simply because it only appears in one source, or that we can say a view is held by the majority simply because it appears in many sources. As for this information, I don't think we can judge fully until we get more of the context, but there's no reason to think that Nature is promoting fringe viewpoints. If we can find more sources on the Kirby awards then we should probalby create an article on that topic.   Will Beback  talk  05:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Citing the Kirby award site is source-based research necessary in an encyclopedia to verify text, isn't OR, and isn't the same as referencing an opinion or view. In order to include an opinion or viewpoint especially in a BLP, we should be careful that the opinion is widely held or at least significant, and we should have the sources that say it is. Nature may not publish fringe theory, or research on the fringe of science. This is a different kind of "fringe" than including a few lines that give an opinion. The opinion itself may be on the fringe of significant viewpoints or opinions about that person. A BLP should be conservative in how it describes. Its not our job to discredit or harm the person we are writing about.(olive (talk) 02:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC))

We should neither harm nor help the subject, but simply summarize what is found in relisble sources.   Will Beback  talk  04:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

And I do apologize if I was "on your case"(olive (talk) 00:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC))

Thanks. Cheerfully accepted.   Will Beback  talk  05:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The lede is conspicuously missing a general reference to Hagelin's science background which I've added, and will ref right away. Its a ref from his own site which should be acceptable as self defining. If there's a problem with this addition delete it and we can discuss it. I won't revert (olive (talk) 01:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC))

Good addition.   Will Beback  talk  05:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the lede looks good and has been improved as a result of this discussion (above) and your edits. Well done, both of you!--Kbob^chat 14:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Ooops, I notice that the last sentence in the lede is without citation and really needs one. I've put a citation needed tag on it.--Kbob^chat 14:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Nature, and Other Citations

"and has infuriated his former fellow collaborators and other scientists who insist that SU(5) has nothing to do with TM.[18]" The citation for this sentence is deficient. Can someone fix it? Otherwise the text could be challenged and/or removed in accordance with BLP guidelines. Thanks!--Kbob^chat 14:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I found something in the diffs and have place what I think is the proper ref into the article.--Kbob^chat 15:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The sentence above, recently added by Fladrif is rather strongly worded. I was wanting to check the source to verify it however I can't find the source through an Internet sources.

Fladrif would you mind giving us the exact quote from Nature that you used to create your text for this article? Thank you so much.--Kbob^chat 15:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Nobody knows how to use a library anymore? Sheesh. Here's the whole article. If Nature sues me for copyright infringement, I'm sending them to your door. The parts I cited are in bold. "Infuriates" is the word used in the article. So, my insertion is no more strongly worded than the source. Also, I object to taking the part out about the Kilby award being an invention of the North Dallas COC and Hagelin being nominated by TM devotee. I am very skeptical of the bald claim that this is a "prestigeous" award. It appears from its own website that it ran only for a decade or so, and hasn't issued any awards in 6 years. There is very little mention of it in Google news, and most of those mentions are in connection with Hagelin. It sure looks like more than a little puffery to tout this award as being particularly significant. Fladrif (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for providing that. For some of us, getting to a library that carries Nature is a major expedition.   Will Beback  talk  18:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Fladrif.-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Nature article

To those who want science to play a larger role in politics, John Hagelin is a reminder that such a development may be a mixed blessing.

Hagelin, a quantum physicist trained at Harvard University, is running for U.S. president as the candidate of the Natural Law Party, whose motto is "bringing the light of science into politics." He and a supporting cast of local candidates will appear on the ballot in at least 35 states. (More than 300 people ran unsuccessfully under the party's banner in the British parliamentary election in June.)

He is by all accounts a gifted scientist, well-known and respected by his colleagues. He is a co-developer of one of the better-accepted unified field theories, known as the flipped SU(5) model. In May, he received an award for young innovators named after Jack Kilby, inventor of the integrated circuit. And his political platform is eminently sensible: practise only those social and economic policies that are supported by scientific data.

However, there is another side of Hagelin that disturbs many researchers. Hagelin is a follower of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, best known as the guru who taught the Beatles about transcendental meditation (TM), and is on sabbatical from Maharishi International University in Fairfield, Iowa, where students practise mass meditation as a way to ease many of the world's ills, from crime to stress. The home of the Natural Law Party is near the university and most of its members embrace the Maharishi's teachings.

Hagelin has been investigating a scientific mechanism to explain how TM can influence world events. The answer, he believes, lies in extending the grand unified theories of physics to human consciousness.

In the past several years, Hagelin has worked on integrating the SU(5) model, which does not include gravity, into the four-dimensional heterotic superstring model, which is currently considered one of the better prospects for a grand unified `theory of everything.' Everything, in this case, may even include human consciousness. Two-page advertisements, with row after row of partial differential equations, appear regularly in U.S. newspapers describing how the theoretical physics work of Hagelin and others explains the impact of TM on distant events. Hagelin often lectures on SU(5) and other unified field theories to both scientific and nonscientific audiences, mixed in with a lengthy discussion of TM.

Not surprisingly, the linkage of SU(5) with TM infuriates his former collaborators. It is hard enough, they complain, to win scientific support for any type of unified theory. "A lot of people [Hagelin] 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)."

John Ellis, director of CERN's theoretical physics dept., has asked Hagelin to stop mixing TM and SU(5). "I was worried about guilt by association," Ellis explains. "I was afraid that people might regard [Hagelin's assertions] as rather flaky, and that might rub off on the theory or on us." Physicists are not the only scientists to take issue with Hagelin's mix of science and politics. One plank of his party platform calls on presidential candidates to undergo an electroencephalogram (EEG) brain scan that would purport to reveal their neurophysiological qualifications to hold office.

EEG scans, in use since the 1930's, "show the orderliness of the brain," he explains. "Science correlates that to intelligence, creativity, moral stability and broad comprehension." He says that he has had his own brain scanned (he claims an exceedingly orderly brain, in the top 1 per cent of those tested) and will release the results when his competitors do. EEGs, he says, "give us a look under a candidate's hood."

Jonathan Pincus, chairman of the neurology dept. at Georgetown University, says that researchers once hoped the results of EEG tests might somehow correlate to intellectual qualities. Although EEGs have remained an important tool for spotting neurological disorder, he says, ``they have nothing whatsoever to say about a person's moral fibre.

Hagelin himself cites work by E. Roy John, director of the Brain Research Lab at the NYU Medical Center, to back his claims. But John says that Hagelin is ``overselling the technique. EEG brain scans have been shown to correlate to ``a large number of subtle malfunctions, from senility to substance abuse, he says, ``but qualities like moral stability and intelligence are simply not measured.

Even the Kilby award is a bit of a mystery. Few have heard of it, perhaps because it was created 3 years ago by the N. Dallas Chamber of Commerce to draw attention to the area. Truman Cook, a chemical engineer who is a member of the selection committee, says that a member of the selection committee who practises TM proposed Hagelin for the award.

---

I have removed: "New England Prep School, Choate Rosemary Hall" from the Early life section as they do not conform to the source and I cannot find any others to support them.--Kbob^chat 14:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal Ig Nobel from lede

I apologize for saying I was ok with this. The Ig Nobel prize is a joke actually and not significant enough in a lede. It is, as well pejorative and should not be in a place that summarizes the article especially in a BLP .... the lede should not present a POV.(olive (talk) 05:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC))

These two awards are not equal and don't deserve the same treatment. I've removed both pending discussion.(olive (talk) 05:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC))

As an aside: Ig Nobel wasn't sourced... and sourced or not it was pejorative and creates a POV so should have been deleted immediately per WP:BLP I believe we were both wrong on this.(olive (talk) 05:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC))

The Ig Nobel awards are much more famous than the Kilby awards. We're not here to favor the subject by highlighting the favorable aspects while burying the less favorable - or are we? I'm fine with leaving them both out of the lead, but I'd object to unequal treatment.   Will Beback  talk  05:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess I would ask, "more famous" to who? The Ig Nobel prize is described as a "spoof". On the other hand the references I see to the Kirby award describes it as prestigious. The PBS source describes the Kilby award as one which "recognizes scientists who have made major contributions to society..." These awards are not comparable. We're not burying anything. We are simply citing the general most significant points in a life in compliance with Wikipedia. Placing material in a lede, on the other hand, that creates a POV , that clearly attempts to discredit because it has been given significance when there is very little ,is very non neutral. This is a BLP and especially here POV doesn't fly. I guess I wonder why attempts are being made to bury the Kilby award. The guy won the award. Why discredit him, or alternately, not give credit where credit is due.(olive (talk) 14:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC))

Regarding your first question, I checked the Proquest newspaper archive. I got 9 hits for the Kilby award, and 426 hits for the Ig Nobel award.   Will Beback  talk  04:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Since the lede is somewhat neutral, I'm willing to compromise on this and leave the Kirby award out of the lede for now.I do think its a mistake, and I don't agree with or support the reasons for removing it as presented here, but there are probably more important discussions to deal with.(olive (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC))

That makes no sense. Why would we even compare or equate these two awards. One is prestigious the other is a parody, a joke. A BLP is about what is significant in a life. Is it significant to receive an award that is described as prestigious and benefiting mankind or is a parody and a spoof significant. Surely you are aware of WP:BLP as it describes the sensitivity we should have towards the subject of an article. This isn't about popularity its about significance relative to the life of the person. (olive (talk) 04:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to answer the question,though.(olive (talk) 05:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC))

Who says it's prestigious? Looks to me like its a defunct local chamber of commerce award which was not really much of a big deal.Fladrif (talk) 14:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Where do you get off deleting reliably-sourced accurate material? You seem to be of the impression that BLP prohibits the article including anything critical of the subject. That simply isn't true. Fladrif (talk) 16:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Criticism and praise

Further information: Wikipedia:Coatrack

Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral; in particular, subsection headings should reflect important areas to the subject's notability.

Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

The quote above very clearly does not support your addition.

This is an obvious attempt to denigrate the award and so implying the award doesn't mean anything, and by association denigrates Hagelin's achievement in winning the award. This is a form of guilt by association. See guilt by association. I don't have the source for the statement but it looks like a synthesis, another concern. See WP:Synthesis. As well, this article isn't about the Kilby Award so off hand comments about the award itself don't belong here in this article. See your own quote above and "should be about the subject of the article specifically". Finally, the fact that you add information about the award and associate it with content on Hagelin is another form of WP:OR. This is a WP:BLP. Information added does not seem to be compliant (it looks like several policies are are being transgressed). Until we can deal with that concern I should as the BLP policy suggests, remove the material immediately.(olive (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC))

We should probalby create an article on the awards, and place the material about it there. It doesn't matter whther the material on it is promotional or denigrating - either way it's off-topic. At the same time, we should avoid implying that the award is more prestigious than it is.   Will Beback  talk  18:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

However it may be relevant to say something like, "Chris Anderson(?) questioned the value of the award in an opinion piece about Hagelin published in Nature (journal)." To the extent that it's directly relevant to Hagelin, and clearly identified as an opinion with an attribution, that is legitimate and appropriate. There are other assertions in that piece which may be even more relevant to this topic.   Will Beback  talk  18:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems that that must be the same Chris Anderson. The Christopher Anderson who worked as a reporter at Nature in the early 1990's went by "G. Christopher Anderson" for a while, but eventually dropped the "G" from his byline, and previously wrote for The Scientist And, yes, there is quite a bit of useful information in the Nature article. I see it was discussed above [[20]] but all mention of it got deleted by User:Sparaig. Fladrif (talk) 19:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not denigrating the award, I'm describing it. No one has heard of it, and so it's absolutly necessary to say in this article what it is. This isn't a Nobel Prize. It was something cooked up by the North Dallas Chamber of Commerce, and they gave it out for about a dozen years to a wide variety of people before stopping. Frankly, I have some concern as to whether it should be mentioned at all. It doesn't appear to be a noteable award whatsoever, and it seems to be extremely misleading to suggest that it is. I doubt that the awards are notable enough to merit their own WIki article. Fladrif (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a relevant comment and insert from an earlier discussion of this award (see Kilby Award talk half-way down the talk contents above). Hope it helps. ChemistryProf (talk) 05:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Glashow Comments

I have a couple of major problems with this addition. First, it is clearly meant to offset the reliable sources which say, in extraordinarily strong language, that the science community nearly universally rejects Hagelin's confluence of physics and TM. But does Glashow's quote have anything to do with those criticisms? Gashow's comments are in no way an endorsement of Hagelin's views - just that he read Hagelins papers. Which ones? Glashow is a significant critic of string theory - he even left Harvard in a dispute over it, and so Glashow would not have agreed even with Hagelin's earlier work. Second, we have no idea when this was said, if it was said. Clearly, it was prior to the Feb 92 article, but we have no idea how much prior to that. It appears to be in the context of Hagelin's 1984 move to MIU, so it may have been back then, which would have been prior to Hagelin beginning to publish the work which has garnered this criticism. Nothing in the article says that Glashow read any of Hagelin's work on consciousness, and it is extraordinarily misleading to try to juxtapose this quote against specific criticisms of the consciousness research. Finally, the source for all this this is a puff piece about Hagelin in a TM-Org publication, and there is no mention of the writer's source for this supposed quote. Fladrif (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

We can include the date and modify the placement of the sentence. But it is a reliably sourced quote from a notable person and has the right to be in the article.-- — Kbob • Talk • 01:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is the sentence being discussed:

• Harvard’s Sheldon Glashow, says about Hagelin, “His papers are outstanding. We read them before he went to MIU and we read them now.” -- — Kbob • Talk • 01:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You've convinced me that the material should be included in the article, but not where you want to put it. The particular place you wanted this creates a false and misleading juxtaposition unsupported by the source. Glashow's comments are not in any sense a "rebuttal" to the conclusions that Hagelin's theories on consciousness are universally regarded as nonsense and an embarassment to other theoretical physicists working on unifield field theory. Where it does belong, together with the other comments cited in the source, in the context where the source presents it - Hagelin's move to MIU in 1984. That's where I put it back in. 14:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Fladrif ([[User

talk:Fladrif|talk]]) 14:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC).

Thanks for puttin it back in the article.-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

One other observation. I understand from elsewhere on the web that the author of this bio article, Neil Dickie is a flack weasel...I mean PR guy...for the TM Org. Not that I have anything against flack weasels; some of my best friends are flack weasels. And, I infer from his posting an Amazon book review from Boone NC that he's one of those TM Jedi Knight Purushas on top of it. Not that that's a bad thing. I just wouldn't put much more weight on this bio as a source given its provenance.Fladrif (talk) 20:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a debate so at no time are rebuttals appropriate. I am concerned by the systematic adding of some negative comment to each statement that gives Hagelin legitimacy. This as a BLP, and should describe the significant aspects of a life notable enough for Wikipedia inclusion. John Hagelin is most notable as a scientist, and maybe after that depending on how you want to look at it as a presidential candidate. Its ludicrous to juxtapose one comment opposite the research history of a scientist of this calibre, and as if this information is somehow important. Anyone pioneering anything deals with criticism, and the criticism Hagelin encountered is worth mentioning in a neutral manner but never used as a weapon to discredit. More appropriate would be a separate section in which the criticism he faced is noted and addressed.

A BLP must be written differently than other articles. The article should not feel negative towards the person written about, and material must not be added to discredit, otherwise Wikipedia can face some legal problems itself. This article is sliding towards a sensibility that is a concern and we need to address and fix that right away.(olive (talk) 17:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC))

I hardly think that the article is unbalanced as it presently sits. It is overwhelmingly positive, and there are three or four sentences, reliably sourced, which accurately describe, in a tone identical to the sources, the mainstream view of Hagelin's theories and research. It is clear from the discussions above from several years ago that people other than myself have been concerned that this article improperly suggested in its earlier incarnations that Hagelin's theories and research were part of scientific mainstream, which they are most certainly not. BLP does not require,as you seem to be advocating, that articles on living persons be written with rose-colored glasses, avoiding any mention of criticism of the subject. That is a misinterpretation of BLP. Fladrif (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You completely mischaracterized what I said. I am advocating creating a section for the criticism Hagelin has received. Comments by single scientists cannot in any be described as the mainstream view by Wikipedia standards which is all I care about here. Do you really want to take apart each of Hagelin's 70 plus studies and attempt to show they are some how fringe. Best look at those studies and the research of the man before such hugely blanket statements are made.(olive (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC))

I apologize if I misunderstood you. A separate section on criticisms is fine. But, as you said above, it should not turn into a debate like so many of the TM-related articles, ie. X did a study. Y said it wasn't very good. Z said, it's not merely good, it's great! Ad infinitum.Fladrif (talk) 17:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It takes two "sides" to debate. As long as POV is perceived there will be debates. We can just get used to it. (Or that could be fries and coleslaw much nicer)(olive (talk) 02:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC))

Tell that to KBob.diffFladrif (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes Kbob likes french fries too!-- — Kbob • Talk • 20:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Attribution

Are we adding attribution for all of the papers, studies, and comments. If not we shouldn't be adding any. Consistency is important. If we are interested in connections and background we could begin to look at the other researchers /writers like Markovsky for example. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.(olive (talk) 01:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC))

You are one of the editors who has repeatedly insisted on attribution of nearly everything in the text of the TM-related articles on top of identification of sources in the footnotes. As I have pointed out repeatedly before in discussions on the Talk pages of other articles, it is a practice that I do not see in any other articles, and that I think is silly when we're talking about reportage rather than opinion. But, as you say what's good for the goose....Fladrif (talk) 13:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

If we are citing an opinion then attribution is a correct way to inform the reader that what is being cited is an opinion not a fact. This is especially important when the opinion is a hugely generalized statement and is being presented by one person. On the other hand noting who did what research in this instance is an on going effort (see TM article) to discredit the research unless we insist that every research paper consistently cite the researchers. I don't think we need to beat around the bush on this(olive (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC))

Sourcing and footnotes

I've reverted KBob's couple of changes, including (i) changing the tense of words to make things sourced as of 1992 sound like they're curent as of today and (ii) adding tags to individual sentences when there is a footnote to the paragraph, all of which is from the same page on the same source. I've got no problem if the tense is changed to present tense as KBob proposes if and only if a source is added to confirm that the collaboration with Harvard and CERN is ongoing currently. As for the citation tags, it's just silly to footnote every sentence in a paragraph when the material in the article is a paraphrase from a single paagraph in a single source. I'd suggest that, before these kinds of edits are made, editors actually read the referenced material. Fladrif (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Kbob's addition is likely OR. The point being raised, though, may be important. Does Hagelin himself ever equate quantum mechanics and SU(5)theory with consciousness and TM. And equate is the operative word. In that case our wording even if citing sources has to be very careful to not imply that he does. We don't have the misplaced luxury here of misrepresenting his research. (olive (talk) 15:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC))

Yes he does. Repeatedly and persistently, as reported in multiple secondary sources and as can be readily found in multiple primary sources. And, I frankly suspect that you know this already. The TM-Cabal trying to exclude information from articles by second-guessing reliable sources without any supporting evidence, inventing new hurdles for other editors to jump over, and then when other editors indulge this foolishness by jumping over them, claiming that its all original research is a game that I refuse to play any longer. If you want to claim that the article, and the people it quotes have falsely accused Hagelin of conflating SU(5) and TM, the burden is on you to find reliable, third party sources to back it up, not on everybody else to prove the negative. Fladrif (talk) 17:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Read my post carefully. I am talking about equaling not conflating as you put it. Hagelin's own web page uses the term "apply". I am suggesting we take care in our wording. There is a big difference between equate and apply in the science world. I can't follow what you are saying above at all, but I'll remind you that what i am trying to do here is make very sure this article conforms to WP:BLP. No one gets to play games here because on a WP:BLP libel is always a possibility.(olive (talk) 17:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC))

Libel? LIBEL? LIBEL? Accustomed though I may be to your Wikilawyering, I spewed water all over my screen and keyboard at that one. Congratulations.Fladrif (talk) 17:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh Fladrif... I am simply noting the WP:BLP guidelines and the seriousness of creating a WP:BLP. Well, I think its serious I guess.(olive (talk) 17:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC))

"Equate" is not the operative word. No where is that term used in the article as written. The article accurately reflects the sources cited. If one wanted to show that Hagelin equates SU(5)/string theory/quantum mechanics/unified field theory/unified field of consciousness/consciousness/TM/Maharishi Effect, it wouldn't be hard to do with his own words. But that is unnecessary to the article or this discussion. Fladrif (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Fladrif, you say that Hagelin repeatedly and persistently, in the words of Anderson, suggests a "linkage of SU(5) with TM." It would be helpful if you could find a source in which Hagelin does this. Otherwise this may be a factual error in the source. If so, it's something we need to consider regarding this source. TimidGuy (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I refuse to play this game. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the source whatsoever. Go reread WP:RSFladrif (talk) 18:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

"Equate" can be implied and that is my concern.(olive (talk) 18:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC))

"Linkage" (2x), "mixing" and "attempts to identify" are the words used in the article. They accurately reflect, in proper and very precise context, the source material. The objections which are quoted or paraphrased are much stronger, and have nothing to do with "equating" anything. Mainstream scientists say SU(5) and TM have nothing to do with one another whatsoever - don't put them in the same county, let alone the same room. Your concern is misplaced and unfounded. Fladrif (talk) 19:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It really would help if you could find an example. I did a quick Google and nothing turned up. It's a serious charge that Anderson is making -- that Hagelin linked SU(5) to TM. If there's a factual error, then given WP:BLP, it might not be appropriate to use this source. In a non-BLP article this could be glossed over -- a source is a source. But BLP articles adhere to a higher standard. TimidGuy (talk) 19:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

No. I am not going to play this game. Your position is absolutely nonsensical. It is not Anderson who says Hagelin is mixing/linking the two, it is Ellis and Lopez whom he quotes. As I said above, if you want to claim that Ellis and Lopez are mistaken about what Hagelin is doing, go find reliable, third party sources that say so and bring them here. It's not incumbent on me to prove that a reliable source has it right. The burden is on you. Fladrif (talk) 19:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The reason I was hoping you'd find a source is because I'm thinking of taking this to the BLP Noticeboard. It's a serious matter, and a problematic source. There are a number of errors. Hagelin has never ever spoken about SU(5). He hasn't researched SU(5). He has researched a similarly named but different theory. Anderson's piece implies that Lopez was a collaborator with Hagelin. In fact, the two never collaborated. We don't actually know what Ellis is referring to, since there's an editorial interpolation that interrupts his quote. And certainly Ellis knows that Hagelin hasn't mixed TM and SU(5), since neither of them researched SU(5). And Ellis certainly doesn't sound "furious" in his quote. In short, there's no evidence here that any former collaborator is "furious" along with an extreme carelessness with facts. Physicists can rightly take issue with Hagelin's postulated identity between the unified field theory in physics and a unified field of consciousness. And probably a number of them have. That may be what Ellis is referring to here. We don't know. In any case, if someone wants to think it's a nutty postulate, that's fine. But Hagelin is in good company, since Nobel laureates such as Albert Einstein and Eugene Wigner have suggested the same thing.

To tell you the truth, I'd compromise. I'd be fine if it were worded something like this: Physicists don't generally agree with Hagelin's position that there may be a relationship between the theory of a unified field as described by physics and a unified field of consciousness as described by the Vedic literature. TimidGuy (talk) 16:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Because this is a BLP we have to careful we are not just citing a source but that the information is accurate. If this information isn't, it should be pulled out of the article immediately as WP:BLP indicates. Hagelin has obviously stepped into an area of controversy in these particular research studies so that controversy should be noted if we can find a source that accurately states what the controversy is.(olive (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC))

You go right ahead and take it to the BLP Noticeboard. I'm not going to engage in this game with you. Particularly when you assert as facts, without supporting references, things that are patently false, and which you know to be patently false. Hagelin has never spoken about SU(5)? Hagelin has never researched SU(5)? [21] Fladrif (talk) 17:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Supersymetric Flipped SU(5) theory is not the same as SU(5) theory... I'm no physicist but I'd suggest close isn't good enough except in grenades, and in checking Hagelin's own bio I don't see that he talks about SU(5), Flipped or otherwise. Rather than thinking this is game playing you might think of this a search for accuracy because a living human being is being discussed. We don't have the right to paint this person in any way but in a way that is completely accurate and truthful. Personally I find the fact that Dr. Hagelin encountered criticism interesting and positive since he was definitely in uncharted territory, and probably even he would might have expected he would face criticism from less adventurous types. I think the article needs this information. However we need to find the right and accurate source, don't we?(olive (talk) 18:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC))

To clarify: I'm not saying Hagelin didn't work on a flipped SU(5) theory only that he doesn't explciteley mention it on his site. So again we need some good sources.(olive (talk) 18:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC))

Fladrif's link and ref above does have a quote from Hagelin about his work on Flipped SU(5) so that part of the book could be used i would think if needed, although later on the author does go on to say SU(5) not the same thing, as I understand it.(olive (talk) 18:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC))

Example

I suggest that we look at the biography that is the featured article today. Featured articles have been vetted by the "community" as a good example of how an article in this case a biography should be written . Noteworthy is that the article is not a BLP but still dignity and sensitivity has been maintained in regards to the subject.(olive (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC))

You mean Harry Murray? What does he have in common with the subject of this article?   Will Beback  talk  17:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Its an FA biography... and a example of how this community sees good articles especially biographies...with the actual subject of this article, why nothing of course.(olive (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC))

But not terribly instructive where there a bio subject is controversial. Wesley Clark is more instructive for this article. It is also a FA biography, and shows quite vividly that the kinds of objections that you are making here to the inclusion of information unflattering to Hagelin, or more precisely and how that information is being included, are not well-taken. It could be worse. Look at the articles on the Cold Fusion guys, Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons.Fladrif (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I think its worth our while to see how other BLPs and biographies are handled. I'd suggest articles with or that have had FA status.(olive (talk) 02:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC))

Collaborators?

In what sense are Orme-Johnson and Oates collaborators of Hagelin? Not sure why this was added. Oates has never coauthored anything with him, has never collaborated with him. Orme-Johnson is a coauthor on the DC study, but he's not in any way a collaborator with Hagelin on his theory of consciousness as a unified field. TimidGuy (talk) 16:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I see Will has readded the authers I removed. His was probably a better way of dealing with incorrect aspect of the infpo per BLP. However, the attribution question remains. This is being used as a means to discredit the rebuttal and by extension, again, Hagelin. What's going on here? (olive (talk) 16:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC))

Aren't the authors important? We include the name of the publication. This seems to be one of those issues where MUM staff are involved.   Will Beback  talk  17:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said above if you want to add authors do so, but be consistent. Your comment is an ad hominem and not appropriate. We've been here before. These particular were added authors to discredit. We don't need to pretend otherwise.(olive (talk) 17:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC))

Will's comment is absolutely appropriate, and your tired claims of being attacked are nonsense. This is an instance where identifying the authors is absolutely appropriate - they're not even defending Hagelin's work so much as trying to defend their Maharishi Effect study in the Middle East, which is what 90% of their article is about. To claim that identifying the authours is an attempt to discredit seems to me to be simply paranoid at the deepest and most disturbing level. I assume that you and the rest of the MUM current and former faculty view DO-J and Oates as impeccible sources with stellar reputations in the science community. How could identifying them as the authors be anything other than adding to the weight and credibility of their article?Fladrif (talk) 17:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Fladrif the constant reference to the TM /Cabal/ Community is ad hominem. And you miss the point. Be consistent. Cite them cite the others. And no I don't have to accept ad hominem comments ever, no matter how consistent. Finally, Hagelin's research and reception to it is what is being discussed, I thought. I have been dealing for quite awhile with effort to discredit the TM research because it was done by people associated somehow with TM .... So this is paranoid?

Park

Seems like if we include Park's criticism, we should also include Rainforth's rebuttal that appeared in the Skeptical Inquirer. Remember what WP:NPOV says (in bold, no less): "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic, each must be presented fairly." Also, we can use the study itself to address Park's claim regarding murder rate. TimidGuy (talk) 19:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, this is a stupid exercise that has gotten completely out of hand on the TM-related articles. There are two sides, not three, to these arguments about studies: (1) Study A concludes X; (2) A critic says Study A doesn't support X. Insisting that the original researchers or their cronies should get the last word by including in the article their reply to the critic isn't balance, particularly where we're talking about fringe theories like TME.Fladrif (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't see any reason why Rainforth's rebuttal shouldn't be included.(olive (talk) 23:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC))

Fladrif, I don't think NPOV supports your point of view. By the way, science is like that -- a dialog. We have to represent the dialog, not just the original study and the criticism of it. Note that this "fringe theory" has been published in major peer reviewed journals, including Yale's Journal of Conflict Resolution. If this theory has to be covered in Wikipedia, then we need to represent the dialog. TimidGuy (talk) 15:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The Journal of Conflict Resolution is hardly a scientific journal, and as you know, the editor and one of the reviewers felt compelled to publish what amounted to an apology for letting this get past peer review and to publication.Fladrif (talk) 17:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Fladrif, I agree with olive and TimidGuy that to maintain balance, the rebuttal should also be included. And if you have an acceptable reference that says The Journal of Conflict Resolution is not a scientific journal, then put that in as well. ChemistryProf (talk) 05:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I'd characterize it as an apology. It was a sort of preface, essentially saying, I know this is weird, but we can't find a technical fault with the study. They even had extra peer reviewers look at it. Sorry to engage in pointless quibbling. TimidGuy (talk) 10:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Peter Woit

We have the sentence:

"Peter Woit says in his book, Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory And The Search For Unity In Physical Law, that when Hagelin began promoting the idea of fighting terrorism with a new defense technology based on the unified field in 1992 as part of his Natural Law Party platform, virtually every theoretical physicist in the world rejected it as utter nonsense and the work of a crackpot."

Yet we have no reference or source to tell us which physicists. How may are "every theoretical physicist in the world"? Did Woit contact them all and ask their opinion? Did they all express their opinion in some journal or publication? How did Mr Woit come to this conclusion? --BwB (talk) 19:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

How should we know? All we're here to do is verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. If a news report says that "a blue car hit a red car", we don't inquire how they could have learned that information. Unless you're saying that Woit is an unreliable source, or that he is presenting an insignificant POV, or that we're summarizing him incorrectly, then I can't see why this would be a problem. It's presented here with clear attribution as Woit's view, not given as a fact.   Will Beback  talk  19:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I was utterly puzzled by your comment, until I saw that KBob had rewritten this section, buried in one of his typical blizzards of edits to a page, and without any discussion I've changed it back, because KBob'edits completely misrepresent what Woit is saying. After listing (i) the linkage of unified field theory and consciousness (ii) Hagelin stopping writing physics papers (iii) running for president and (iv) the NLP national defense through NLP's bunny hopping platform, "all of this" is rejected by virtualy every physicist, he never says that the reaction was as a result of the NLP platform, which is the implication of KBob's edit.

To your paricular point, I agree with Will. This is the same game that Timidguy is trying to play with the Nature article. These are reliable sources. We don't have to defend what they say or research that they are accurate. You do not get to claim that unless everthing is independently verified in some other source that the material cant' go in. That is not how Wikipedia works. If you want to claim that something here is inaccurate, it is incumbent on you to go find an independent third party reliable source to support your assertion, and then that can go in as "the other side", again with a neutral reportage of what the source actually says. Fladrif (talk) 19:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

In fact Kbob'd edits don't misrepresent what Woit is saying and neither do yours. The syntax of this section of the book makes it unclear what is being said, so I figure you and kbob can work that one out, but lets assume that Kbob read it one way and you another.

The Anderson article makes some rather serious factual errors, and while some of those errors can be referenced to the source as opinion, others should looked at seriously and possible the source questioned as TG is doing . Hagelin did not deal with SU(5)theory as the article states and SU(5) is not Flipped SU(5) theory. That's a big mistake for the source to make. Shouldn't he be able to get the research right, and so yes I question the source at that point. So why can't another more reliable source be used?(olive (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC))

Just checking on the article and the number of times SU(5) is mentioned. Those sentences have to go. Hagelin's research can't be about some opinion. Accuracy is at stake and Jimbo Wales has been very clear on that"Zero information is preferable to misleading or false information".(olive (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC))

ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!!!Fladrif (talk) 20:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

We should probably get outside help, then. This is a tricky area since verifiability and reliability are intersecting with accuracy in a BLP. The notice boards are there to help in this kind of unclear situation so we should make use of them if we need to.(olive (talk) 20:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC))

I told Timidguy to go right ahead and take it to BLPN. But, Anderson doesn't have it wrong. He specifically mentions flipped SU(5) at the outset, and quotes Lopez specifically about flipped SU(5): "A lot of people [Hagelin] 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)." To suggest that the source and material is somehow inaccurate and be yanked because he also uses the term SU(5) without the term "flipped" in another sentence is nonsensical and hypertechnical. Fladrif (talk) 21:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been following this SU(5) matter closely, but I don't understand the objection to Anderson. He is a notable writer writing in a reliable publication. If we have another source that disputes his assertions then we could add that, and if the article has been withdrawn by the publisher then we should remove it. However if a bunch of Wikipeia editors think he has then science wrong then that does not appear sufficient reason to delete it.   Will Beback  talk  21:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

We should probably untangle two issues . One is what's in our article and the other is the source. I question the source since there are some errors in the source and maybe that reflects on the writer, but I'm not saying we should "yank" the source. If there's a concern/ question in an editor's mind about the source then maybe outside help would be useful. I support any editor's right to make sure the source satisfies him/her/them. I am saying we need to change, remove or adjust the material in the article, now, since its incorrect. Flipping one kind of research for another ... pun intended... is not hyper technical its just accurate writing. We need to fix the article. Please read the difference between these two areas of research ... Flipped is not just an adjective.(olive (talk) 21:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC))

Who is saying there are errors in Anderson's article? A Wikipedia editor?   Will Beback  talk  22:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Any editor has the right to question the source, right? I support that. And I personally support reading the source and noting a major discrepancy. I think it can be fixed. I'll see what I can do later.(olive (talk) 22:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC))

I'm not sure what you mean by "the right to question the source". First, editors have no rights, except the right to leave. Second, editors can make pretty much any comment they like so long as it isn't disruptive or grossly off-topic. Third, we judge sources depending on the criteria at WP:RS. Fourth, we care about verifiability, not truth. It is verifiable that Anderson said what he said. Whether what he said is true or not is mostly beyond our ability to judge. Of course if he misspells a name or something similar then we might deal with that. But we can't say that we're going to delete his comment simply because we think he's wrong. What sort of fix are you proposing?   Will Beback  talk  22:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't have time right now but tomorrow I will transcribe the section from the source and post it here so everyone can see it clearly and we can decide together what the source is actually saying and then represent it properly in the article. My aim is to properly represent the source. The sentence currently in the article is OR in my opinion.-- — Kbob • Talk • 03:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of Source: Peter Woit

Exact quote from Peter Woit's book. No skipped words or skipped sentences. This is the exact text:

• [In recent years, Hagelin has stopped writing physics papers and has achieved notoriety as the presidential candidate of the “Natural Law Party”, most recently promoting the idea of fighting terrorism with a “new Invincible Defense Technology based on the discovery of the unified field.” Virtually every theoretical physicist in the world rejects all of this as utter nonsense and the work of a crackpot, but Hagelins’ case shows that crackpots can have PhDs from the Harvard Physics Department and a large number of frequently cited papers published in the best peer-reviewed journals in theoretical physics.]

Please note that there is no mention of 'superstring' or 'Maharishi' or the "unified field of consciousness" all of which are highlighted in the current sentence in the article which Fladrif has inserted and re-inserted, despite my attempts to edit it. Fladrifs current sentence is as follows:

• Peter Woit says in his book, Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory And The Search For Unity In Physical Law', that "Virtually every theoretical physicist in the world" rejects Hagelin's attempt to identify the "unified field" of superstring theory with the Maharishi's "unified field of consciousness" as "utter nonsense, and the work of a crackpot".

This sentence is OR and a clear misrepresentation of the source and needs to be changed to accurately reflect the source.-- — Kbob • Talk • 12:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Good analysis. Thanks for pointing this out. --BwB (talk) 15:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it's a very bad and intellectually dishonest analysis. You omitted the rest of the preceding paragraph from which you selectively quoted only the last sentence. "from the mid-1980's on, Hagelin was identifying the 'unified field' of superstring theory with the Maharishi's 'unified field of consciousness'"; MUM required all its students to take a class in "'the conceptual foundation of unified field theories',in which presumably the connection between superstring theory and consciusness was explained in detail". Real physicists don't just think that "Invincible Defense Technology" is nuts, they think the whole unified field = consciousness idea is nuts, which even Hagelin would says is "all of a piece". Your change completely misrepresents the meaning of Woit's words. And, if you have any doubt about it, check Woit's blog as well, also called "Not Even Wrong". Fladrif (talk) 16:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yea Fladrif and I also 'omitted' the rest of the book too. Did you want me to type that out for you as well? I have taken the time to transcribe the entire 'crackpot' sentence and the prior sentence to which it refers. You, on the other hand, have cherry picked a couple of 2-3 word phrases from prior paragraphs and taken them out of context to fortify your position. Either way your version of the Woit text completely skips over the Inv Defense Tech topic which is the main point of the entire previous sentence and to which the crackpot sentence obviously refers.-- — Kbob • Talk • 19:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I haven't cherry picked anything, and you know it. The crackpot sentence refers to "all of this", which clearly refers to all of the prior paragraph, and not just of the last sentence. It is you who is cherry picking a single sentence in order to avoid the entire point. Fladrif (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite paragraph:Hagelin

As an alternative to taking this to BLP/N, I've rewrittien the paragraph to see if we could come closer to what is correct information as well as being verifiable:

I am including the context that Anderson clearly includes, and that throws Hagelin’s less accepted work in sharp contrast to his history. I am summarizing as per the source (Anderson), the real concern, that is the investigations (the research) that attempt to explain TM as an influence on world events. I excluded the Lopez quote since the line is as a non sequitur, badly written, and creates false information. Anderson is talking in these lines about collaborators, but Hagelin never collaborated with Lopez. (Check the studies to confirm ).For balance I include Ellis. As a director of CERN Ellis’s, statement carries a lot of weight.

I am adding the rewrite directly to the article. If editors disagree with it, they can revert, and add to the talk page for discussion. I will revert only once.(olive (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC))

Aside from the contents of the edit, you left out the wikilinks and there's a problem with the references.   Will Beback  talk  18:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The ref problem isn't with my edit. I've added internal links. What are your concerns with the content.(olive (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC))

Thanks much, Olive. It's perfectly accurate and perfectly in accord with BLP. It still makes the point, cites the source, yet does it accurately. TimidGuy (talk) 19:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Olive, you lost the link to Anderson. I suggest you consult the text you replaced. Same with the reference, which was a named ref used again later. Lastly, let's not mix quotation marks. Better to use straight quote amrks (") for consistency.   Will Beback  talk  19:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I clipped the old ref and so later added a new one different format not realizing the ref to nature had been used twice. Thanks for your comments.(olive (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC))

I still had to fix it myself. In the future maybe it'd be better if you posted you proposed text here first, in order to get consensus and so that it can be cleaned up. Aside from Timidguy, we still haven't even gotten into the contents yet. Since I haven't read the article, I can't comment on that.   Will Beback  talk  19:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The procedure to put content here and then discuss seems to have been tossed out long ago. I was a strict supporter of that procedure but many weren't. I'm now going with what others before me have done with the added caveat that I won't revert after one. That seems very fair.(olive (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC))

No offense, but my comment was directed more at the problems you were having with formatting, links, and the reference. As an experienced Wikipedia editor, I'd have thought you knew how to handle those mundane details.   Will Beback  talk  20:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

THis all proceed from the BS argument that Hagelin never said or wrote anything about SU(5) and TM. Hagelin specifically writes about SU(5) - not "flipped" SU(5) SU(5) in his first paper in Journal of Modern Science and Vedic Science where he makes the claim that the unified field and consciousness are one and the same: [22] - p56, middle of the page:

There are many other phenomenological predictions from the superstring, limited only by our calculational ability to unfold its detailed dynamics. As a consequence of the com-pactification from 10 dimensions to 4, the E8 symmetry associated with the visible sector is broken at the Planck scale to a smaller grand unified symmetry known as E6, or possibly to a subgroup of E6. E6 is one of the few generalizations of SU(5) that is known to provide a realistic grand unified theory. At the same time, the extra 6 dimensions of space which undergo compactification form a compact geometric manifold that has its own states of vibration. The massless vibrational modes associated with this manifold give rise to the appearance at low energies of several generations of matter fields, which provide natural candidates for the quarks and leptons along with their supersymmetric partners. According to the underlying E6 symmetry, each generation contains twenty-seven matter fields as opposed to the fifteen quarks and leptons associated with each generation in the standard low-energy theory (Table l).9 The extra twelve fields represent new particles predicted by the super-string, which include an extra charge - 1/3 quark and a pair of Higgs doublets that can be used to break the weak interaction symmetry.

And people wonder why their good faith gets questioned.Fladrif (talk) 21:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

We're talking about research here. Hagelin's research was in flipped SU(5)theory not the SU(5) model.(olive (talk) 21:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC))

What? Hagelin's papers in JMSVS aren't part of his "research"? You and timidguy tried to claim, apparently with straght faces, that Anderson couldn't be relied upon as a reliable source because he talked about SU(5) as well as flipped SU(5) and that somehow he has the science all wrong and doesn't know what he's talking about and we can't trust anything he says in the article. And, according to you and timidguy, Hagelin has never written about, never spoken about SU(5) in any context whatsoever. But. lo and behold, in the very first article Hagelin writes equating unified field with the Maharishi' unified field of consciousness, there he is explaing how aspects of SU(5) provided a realistio grand unified theory. Don't piss on my shoes and try to tell me its raining. Fladrif (talk) 22:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Your addition of Lopez, who by the way, never collaborated with Hagelin as the article suggests, weights the paragraph. What was added was completely accurate and made the points in a neutral manner. Your addition seems non-neutral.(olive (talk) 21:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC))

What's the problem with Lopez? May only co-authors comment on Hagelin? If the problem is that implies he was a co-author then a small wording change could fix that, though I don't see that implication myself.   Will Beback  talk  21:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The article syntax implies collaboration as I said. I guess there'a a big push to put in Lopez neutral edit or not, whether the information is verified or not. Too bad.(olive (talk) 21:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC))

There's not problem at all with it. And, my changes do not improperly weight the paragraph. It is you who tried to take an article brutally critical of Hagelin and try to turn it into an attaboy. Lopez is critical to an understanding of what Anderson is saying and about Hagelin's reception because it is Lopez who says that Hagelin's collaborators are upset with him. Lopez may not have worked with Hagelin directly, but he has worked and continues to work directly with many of Hagelin's former collaborators and is perfectly positioned to know what their reaction to him is.Fladrif (talk) 22:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The "neutral point of view" doens't mean that we only include neutral statements. It measn that we include viewpoints but we present them in a neutral point of view. We don't say, "The Beattes are the greatest band". Instead we say, "Critics, such as Joe Smith, have called the Beatles the "greatest band ever'". I don't see how the text describing Lopez's comments fails NPOV.   Will Beback  talk  22:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

No Fladrif. I was clearly talking about Hagelin's research however you want to see that. My rewrite very clearly indicated the criticism the science community lobbed at Hagelin, and did so in a manner that took into account that section of the article. You're right I didn't cherry pick the worst comment I could find, I summarized the overall tone of the article, using the comment from the most notable critic in the article and took out the comment by a non collaborator when in fact the article implies incorrectly he was a collaborator. We don't need quotes from multiple scietists unless someone is trying to prove something. One comment from someone in a high powered position summarizes that aspect of the situation quite well. Lopez by the way is not positioned for much of anything.[23]. I consider your edits clearly non neutral and unacceptable in an article that is a BLP.(olive (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC))

Nature thought that Lopez was a relevent scientist to comment on Hagelin. Are we saying we have better judgment than the editors of that prestigious scientific journal?   Will Beback  talk  22:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The bottom line is NPOV. The paragraph was neutral now its not . We don't have to add everything Nature said. When I chose one of two quotes I chose the one that was most reliable, and the speaker carries the most prestige and impact. The comparison is of one quote Ellis, to the other Lopez. If I use both I'm loading the paragraph and its no longer neutral. Is Nature reliable in this article ... absolutely not, but that isn't the discussion. If I want to have that discussion I would go to BLP/N. My preference was to work things out here.(olive (talk) 23:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC))

• Is Nature reliable in this article ... absolutely not, but that isn't the discussion.

Come again? Nature is a highly relaible source, and the author has a good reputation. I don't see how you could call it an unreliable source, and if that was the issue then WP:RSN would be the correct venue. The only conceivable argument that I could see agaisnt the Lopez material is undue weight, but even that would be a difficult argument considering how short the proposed quotation is. Again, I don't have the article in front of me. If it is evenly divided between postive and negative views then we should try to mirror that. On the other hand, if it is 50% critical and 10% laudatory, then it would be undue weight to give equal treatment to positive and negative views.   Will Beback  talk  23:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, on Wikipedia Nature is considered a reliable source, but there are mistakes. No source is infallible. I have requested editors here look at and consider using more reliable parts of the Nature article. That isn't happening. Instead the paragraph has been jammed with as much negative material as can be stuffed into it. That's not NPOV. This paragraph violates WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP, and in the end yes that all adds up to a violation of WP:Weight. The paragraph I wrote represents fairly the section of the article that criticizes Hagelin for his research. What is in place now is not fair, is not compliant by Wikipedia standards especially for a BLP, and is unfortunate by any standards, but especially, that this non neutrality affects another human being. That's not right. I'll have to think about what to do next, but I can't see any sense in further discussing this.(olive (talk) 00:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC))

No, there aren't mistakes in the article. The "mistakes" that you and timidguy were claiming turn out not to be mistakes at all, but completely accurate. This is a reliable source, relating the content of that source in the manner we have done is entirely neutral and has proper weight, and is completly compliant with BLP. If you continue to be dissatisfied with that, you are perfectly free to do what timidguy wanted to do several days ago - take it to BLPN and see if you get any more sympathetic reception to your position. Fladrif (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Fladrif, there's a big difference between mentioning SU(5) once in a long paper and its being a focus of his research. He mentions many many facets of the history of the research regarding the unification of forces and the development of this area of physics. SU(5) is just one tiny piece. And it was disconfirmed. The culminating theory of Ellis and Hagelin and others is flipped SU(5). It is, as I understand it, a cornerstone of string theory. Which is a major contender for a unified field theory. And apparently the large Hadron collider may be able to confirm or disconfirm this theory when it finally comes online (if it doesn't first eat up the world in a black hole.) Anderson carelessly conflates the two theories. That's a mistake. He implies that Lopez is a collaborator. That's a problem. And since Lopez wasn't a collaborator, that means that we're reporting hearsay in the article. That's a problem. But probably the worst problem is that this current version violates the BLP policy in regard to understatement. It's crappy to find the most damning quotes you can find and put them in the article. That's not understatement. That's trashing someone. There's no direct evidence that any collaborator was furious -- just hearsay and a statement from Ellis that doesn't sound furious and that's interpolated so that we don't even know exactly what he's disagreeing with. That's a serious problem. And we damn well know that he wasn't talking about SU(5), as Anderson says, since it wasn't the focus of their research. Do a quick search on Hagelin and Ellis in Google Scholar. Include SU(5) in the search string. What you'll see is flipped SU(5). This article has mistakes and poor evidence, and the way it's represented here is a clear violation of BLP. Olive's version fixed these problems. TimidGuy (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's go through this point by point:

Hagelin writes about SU(5) in the very paper that touched off the controversy, in which he attempts to equate the unified field in physics with consciousness. He does not write about flipped SU(5) in that paper. He doesn't mention either in the second paper. You said that Hagelin NEVER wrote about SU(5) and that's why, when Anderson wrote that other scientists were furious that he was mixing up SU(5) with TM, he had it all wrong and couldn't be relied upon. But, in fact Hagelin did mix SU(5) and consciousness in that paper, so Anderson is not being careless at all. The claim that Hagelin didn't write about SU(5) in connection with consciousness was false, and I cannot believe that you, who are so familiar with this research that you even posted on the TM talk page that you had read the DO-J and Oates reply to Fales and Markovsky prior to it being published, did not know that it was false when you made that claim.

Complaining about Lopez not being one of Hagelin's collaborators is nonsense. He works with many of Hagelin's former collaborators; unlike Hagelin, who hasn't done any real physics in at least 15 years, Lopez still works with Hagelins' collaborators. He is perfectly positioned to know and to relate to a reporter what Hagelin's former collaborators think about his theories.

Anderson is a prominent, respected writer and reporter on scientific topics, and Nature is a prominent and respected mainstream source. To complain about "hearsay" in a Wikipedia article is not only bad Wikilawyering, it's utter nonsense. Hearsay is a legal concept used in the courtroom; it is not a Wiki policy. To the contrary, WP:RS and WP:V require that every source used on Wikipedia be "hearsay". It could not be otherwise. If all "hearsay" was excluded from Wikipedia, that only source that would be permitted would be the personal knowledge of individual editors

Olive's version did not balance the article. It deliberatedly obfuscated the point of the criticisms of this particular aspect of Hagelin's theories. The article very prominently features the regard and esteem in which his earlier work is held..Fladrif (talk) 15:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Will, the text of the Nature article is posted in the Nature thread above. TimidGuy (talk) 16:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Fladrif, I would just point out that the reason flipped SU(5) wasn't covered in Hagelin's 2007 paper was that the CERN group was only just starting to develop flipped SU(5) in 2007. Most of the major work on it has been done after that. You say that he doesn't mention flipped SU(5) in his 1989 paper. See Appendix C, in which he derives it. And yes, Anderson is being careless because he conflates SU(5) and flipped SU(5). They are different theories. I guess we don't know precisely what Anderson means by "linkage" of TM and SU(5). He wasn't clear. But I sure doubt that many people would interpret it the way that you are in your point about the 2007 paper. I guess we can agree to disagree about using hearsay. And anyway, the main point is that the article should be written using understatement and summary style. That's policy. TimidGuy (talk) 15:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You mean 1987, not 2007, right? You're completely wrong about understatement. BLP specifically says both understatment and overstatement are to be avoided in a BLP article.Fladrif (talk) 17:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. I meant 1987. Why am I wrong about understatement? Using quotes to trash Hagelin isn't understatement. And if there are quotes praising him, those should be fixed too. TimidGuy (talk) 11:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong about understatement because you assert, wrongly, that an article "should be written using understatement". That is contrary to WP:BLP which states The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves. The writing style should be neutral and factual, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. [Emphasis Added] Fladrif (talk) 19:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Link to Stephen M. Barr

The link to Stephen M. Barr in this article just goes to a page titled "Modern Physics and Ancient Faith", a book by Barr. Perhaps the link should be removed? --BwB (talk) 15:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The ref says: [S. M. Barr, Phys. Lett. B112 (1982) 219] I think that means page 219. Maybe check that page of the book. -- — Kbob • Talk • 16:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

No. Not the footnote. BWB means that the internal link for Barr is to the Wiki article on his book. There's a Wiki article for Barr's book, but not for Barr himself. The book article has a little info on Barr. I'm six of one, half-dozen of the other as to whether the internal link stays or goes. Wouldn't pain me either way.Fladrif (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'll take it out then. --BwB (talk) 19:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

flipped SU(5)

Fladrif, your rewrite makes it sound like research on this stopped in 1987. Hagelin subsequently coauthored a number of papers on it. And note that Stenger, like Anderson, conflates SU(5) with flipped SU(5). TimidGuy (talk) 16:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I did not mean to suggest that work on flipped SU(5) stopped in 1987. I was just trying to deal with the initial development of it. If I understand the sources correctly, flipped SU(5) was first proposed by Barr in his 1982 paper, followed swiftly by a number of papers in the next couple of years with Nanoupolis the lead author on most of those, and Hagelin participating in several. I'm not so interested in debates people have about the relative contribution that this researcher or that researcher had in any paricular paper, but I was trying to clarify that there were at least a couple of papers on flipped SU(5) before the first papers in which Hagelin was a co-author, which looked to be 1984 and 87. If there is a good fix to the implication that things ground to a halt in '87, I'm amenable to it. But, there is already an article on flipped SU(5) and I would think that is the place for any extended discussion. Fladrif (talk) 17:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I think a fix would be to add the subsequent papers. And to somehow acknowledge that the flipped SU(5) of Ellis, Hagelin, and later collaborators is substantially different from the earlier work. This is not Stenger's area of research. He doesn't seem to have any understanding of this theory or how it developed. And, as I noted, he conflates flipped SU(5) with SU(5). TimidGuy (talk) 11:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

You can use Google Scholar to determine the relative contribution to flipped SU(5). It uses, in part, a citation index to weight the search results. The 1987 paper is the top result. Hagelin's name is on three of the top five results. If you use a regular citation index, you'll see that there's no comparison, that the earlier work on flipped SU(5) is hardly referenced compared to the work starting with the 1987 paper. And you shouldn't mention the earlier developers in the Wikipedia article on flipped SU(5), since that article isn't describing their work. TimidGuy (talk) 11:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, those sentences should just be deleted. They're not relevant to this article. The point is that Hagelin was a major developer of flipped SU(5), which is amply evident by the fact that the papers he coauthored on it are the most cited. A history of flipped SU(5) can go in the article on flipped SU(5), but you'd need to find a better source than Stenger. TimidGuy (talk) 15:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Say what? On what basis to you claim that the Ellis/Hagelin/Nanoupolis work on flipped SU(5) is "substantially different" from the earlier work on flipped SU(5)? Your say-so? And, Stenger wouldnt' know any better because it isn't his area and he's mixed up SU(5) and flipped SU(50)? Again, based on what evidence other than your say-so? Who are you to know better? And the invention of flipped SU(5) shouldn't be mentioned in the developers bios (per your deletion here, and in Nanoupolis's artiele), but it also shouldn't be mentioned in the flipped SU(5) article either? Your arguments make no sense, and are completely inconsistent.Fladrif (talk) 16:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps read the article in the Iowa Source that's referenced here.

Until then, a successful Grand Unified Theory had eluded the best minds in physics, including his mentors at Harvard. An early version of Flipped SU(5) had been considered years before by Hagelin’s longtime collaborator, Texas Accelerator Center physicist Dimitri Nanopoulos. But Nanopoulos’s approach could not fully explain key details of the world as known by physicists. But Hagelin, with the help of John Ellis in working out the final details, originated an astonishingly simple set of formulas. They appeared to solve all the major problems plaguing earlier grand unified theories.

He faxed the new formulation to Dimitri Nanopoulos. “Isn’t this the prettiest GUT you’ve ever seen?” he gleefully penned at the top.

What most caught the attention of the physics community was Flipped SU(5)’s elegant solution to the long-standing “gauge hierarchy problem.” This puzzle had "baffled physicists for the last 10 years," according to Harvard's Dr. Ben Grinstein. Previous GUT’s could not explain how electrons, protons, and other basic particles of measurable size arise from the infinitely small distance scales found at the unified level of creation. But Hagelin’s theory satisfactorily explained how tangible matter emerges from the intangible unified field. Hagelin’s solution is “very impressive,” said Dr. Grinstein.

Over the next four years, Hagelin, with collaborators Ellis, Nanopoulos, and Ignatios Antoniadis of Ecole Polytechnique in Paris, published over a dozen papers. Gathering at CERN for several marathon meetings, the four verified in detail the validity of Flipped SU(5) in the context of a simpler form of Superstring theory known as the 4-D String. By the spring of 1990, Hagelin felt confident they had developed the world’s most viable framework for a Theory of Everything.

The story is reported in detail in the August 1991 cover story of one of North America’s largest science magazines, Discover. The article poses the possibility that the four’s work may be worthy of a Nobel Prize.

I'm suggesting the 1987 model of flipped SU(5) is substantially different partly on what's said here, partly on Google Scholar, partly on the article in Discover. The 1987 model was, as I understand it, derived from String Theory, unlike earlier versions. Also, Hagelin originated a new set of formulas that solved problems that had been intractable. On the other hand, I don't think your source says Barr invented it. (I have the book on order, so don't have it in hand.) I believe it simply says that the first appearance of the term THAT HE COULD find was 1982. I just don't see what relevance your sentences have to an article on John Hagelin. What's the point of saying that someone else worked on a model with the same name? Do you propose to name every person who's worked on flipped SU(5)? The point is that Hagelin and his collaborators came up with a model that is widely recognized as being the most important contribution in this area. Google Scholar alone verifies this, given that this is the most cited paper on flipped SU(5). TimidGuy (talk) 21:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Given that the Iowa Source article was written by a MUM PR Guy and published in a TM-Org publication, I'm inclined to belive that we've come to the limits of its usefulness when it comes to self-serving statements about Hagelin, and particularly about characterizing the work of others. And, I'm amused that you complain that Stenger is unqualified, but a MUM flack weasel apparently is qualified? And, nothing in this article says that the 1987 version of flipped SU(5) is "substantially different than the earlier version. Fladrif (talk) 21:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the sources are equally weak. I wouldn't use Neil Dickie's article to make a claim. But neither would I use Stenger's chapter. And it's obvious that Dickie spent more time looking into this than Stenger did. But there's also the evidence in Google Scholar and in Discover, which you don't address. Plus, you haven't said why the paragraphs are relevant. And you haven't addressed my points about what I believe is a misrepresentation of what Stenger says. This is no big thing, really. But I feel like these sentences aren't relevant to the article, don't accurately represent the source, and are quite likely misleading. Why are you so attached to these sentences? The article doesn't claim that Hagelin and collaborators were the first. It simply states that fact that it's the most cited. TimidGuy (talk) 21:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Given that the sources you cite corroborate, albiet without detail, that Hagelin's work on flipped SU(5) involved a theory that had been proposed several years earlier, I am mystified at your position that it is "irrelevant" to the article to say that his most-cited-article-on-the-subject involved further work on something written about beginning in 1982. The only explanation that I can come up with is that it is the PR position of Hagelin and the TM Org that he be portrayed as the "inventor" of flipped SU(5), and you are trying desperately to excise from Wikipedia any mention, whether in this article, in the Nanoupolis article, or in the flipped SU(5) article, of the initial papers proposing the theory. This is made all the more laughable by the fact that apparently Hagelin, in his Maharishi Central University website, is now talking about E8xE8, which predated his flipped SU(5) paper.Fladrif (talk) 14:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The issue is technical. What you are doing is the same as if we went o the section on Hageli's early life found he had maybe played basketball and then added information about basketball. This is a form of WP:OR, because we are making a connection between Hagelin and basketball that is not in the source on basketball. By the way The Fairfield Source is privately owned.(olive (talk) 16:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC))

Clarify: I am referring to these lines only, "Flipped SU(5) was first described by Stephen M. Barr in a paper published in 1982, and further described in a 1984 paper by J. P. Deredinger, J. E. Kim and Nanopoulos.".(olive (talk) 17:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC))

Fladrif, please remember WP:AGF. In fact, I have no such motive. Your sentences didn't make sense. They weren't relevant to the article, for the reasons I described. You must have agreed with me, since you made an attempt to rewrite. Your rewrite is better logically but still is filled with problems. Did you use a citation index to determine how many citations for the 1987 paper? The figure of over 500 that had already been in the article is referring to a different paper. I think you are still misusing your source. All Stenger says is that the earliest reference to flipped SU(5) is in 1982. We don't know from what Stenger says that Barr described a model of flipped SU(5), as you say. And your sentences are misleading because we know that Barr and the subsequent paper didn't derive flipped SU(5) from the superstring, which is what the 1987 paper did. It's a fundamentally different model than anything earlier. One simply need look at the papers to see this. Also, I'm not sure that the Discover article mentions specifically this paper. I'd have to check. It mainly described string theory. But it's relevant, because it highlights the team who did the 1987 and later papers, and not those associated with the earlier papers, again suggesting that the superstring theory and the derivation of flipped SU(5) from it is of major significance, not the earlier work. Also, I don't think that a grand unified theory is the same as a theory of everything, which also includes gravity, so that's an error. But the main problem is that you're making it seem like Barr and the second paper characterized the same model as the 1987 paper. Obviously they didn't. In fact, I searched through the first 100 Google Scholar results and never did encounter Barr's 1982 paper. if it were in the same class, it would have more citations. It doesn't. Stenger's assertion was lame, and you're making it worse by extending what he said. All he says is that flipped SU(5) was mentioned earlier. TimidGuy (talk) 17:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Since, among other things, you wrote patently false things about Hagelin and his linkage of SU(5) and consciousness, things that you clearly knew were false when you wrote them, I am under no continuing obligation whatsoever to assume good faith with respect to your edits.

This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence.

Fladrif (talk) 17:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure it's correct to say the his flipped SU(5) papers are his most cited papers, since it was the 1984 paper that was getting so many citations. What I had written was, based on Google Scholar, that his 1987 paper was the most cited paper on flipped SU(5). And we'd need to double check that, since Google Scholar is an imperfect citation index. TimidGuy (talk) 17:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Now that is original research if that's what you did, and it should come out of the article. And, I seriously doubt that "Google Scholar" is a reliable source for purposes of a Wikipedia article. Oh, and it is an entertaining aside that Discover went bust immediately after publishing the String Theory cover story. Later bought by Disney. Fladrif (talk) 17:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The claimed linkage was between TM and SU(5) or flipped SU(5). As I noted, it all depends on your definition of "linkage." "Link" means a relationship between two things. What's the relationship between TM and SU(5)? I didn't see Hagelin saying anything about this relationship in his 2007 MSVS paper nor anywhere else. Will you be correcting the errors I noted? I agree that we should check a citation index to confirm what Google Scholar says. Will do that. I don't mind leaving in place the 1982 and 1984 papers, once corrected. We can simply add material that shows why the 1987 paper is fundamentally different. I'll get the studies. TimidGuy (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Manifest station

Why are we using "The Manifest-Station" as a source? It's hosting an anonymously written biography of Hagelin, wihch may or may not be written by Hagelin himself. The bio makes a number of assertions that would be self-serving if it's written by him, and if it's not writen by him then it shouldn't be used at all. Also, the cited text here seems to have been copied from that site with little change. I deleted one sentence that was copied verbatim. That's plagiarism and sloppy writing. Let's make sure that all sources and writing for this article are of the highest standards.   Will Beback  talk  21:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

My sense was that it wasn't written by Hagelin either but that may be difficult to tell. As I understand Policy even if the bio was written by Hagelin they are assertions, even if not self serving, not directly connected to Hagelin and so not a good source for that information. A bit of a tricky area probably. I agree we need another source if the information is to be included.(olive (talk) 22:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC))

It looks like it's the same bio as here: [24]. And I see more material copied straight from it.   Will Beback  talk  22:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I've always found Kbob to be very careful and ready to learn so I'll assume good faith here and suggest these were mistakes. Yes, this is another site that may be controversial in terms of a bio. I would think that the bio here was probably written by or at least "okeyed" by Hagelin since he is the director of the organization.

Not sure about the reliability of the site. My suggestion which is probably obvious, is that we use the two sites under discussion as sources only for information about themselves, and go to Hagelin's own site for information on Hagelin that is needed to self define. Then, other information such as the info you deleted should come from a reliable source.(olive (talk) 23:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC))

And under no circumstances should we simply copy and paste text from Hagelin's possible autobiography, or any other source that we didn't write ourselves.   Will Beback  talk  05:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a given.(olive (talk) 10:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC))

Good points from both of you. Sorry, having a lot of Internet connect issues recently and I got sidetracked and forgot to edit the text from sources to create original content. Thanks for the help with the clean up. I'll see if I can find some additional sources to replace the Manifest Station since it is a questionable reference.-- — Kbob • Talk • 19:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)