Talk:John Hagelin/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

US Peace Government

The section "US Peace Government, Global Union of Scientists for Peace, Invincible America" includes general material that's better suited to the Global Country of World Peace article. Both United States Peace Government and US Peace Government redirect here. If I understand correctly, the USPG is a subsidiary affiliate of the GCWP. I propose that we move as much USPG-related material as possible to the GCWP article, and change the redirects. Any objections or suggestions?   Will Beback  talk  13:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable suggestion. --BwB (talk) 18:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Saying the same thing?

Do people fee the following sentence are saying the same thing? If so, perhaps we can combine or condense the material.

They wrote that Hagelin's equating consciousness with the unified field relies on a similarity between quantum mechanical properties of fields and consciousness, and that his arguments rely on ambiguity and and obscurity in characterizing these properties. They dismiss Hagelin's parallels between the Vedas and contemporary unified field theories as a reliance on ambiguity and vague analogy supported by constructing arbitrary similarities.

Thanks. --BwB (talk) 12:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, while I agree that it is a good idea for purposes of this article to focus the summary of F&M's critique as it relates specifically to Hagelin, I think that there are problems with this summary. The characterization of F&M's critique of Hagelin and the ME master theory, and of the response as a glib back and forth - "you're too vague...no, YOU'RE too vague" trivializes both sides of the debate. The relevant parts of F&M's article say:

• The theory receives low marks for meaningfulness. Key terms are undefined or only roughly characterized using other complex, undefined terms or metaphors."
• "Moreover, physicists examining purported links to MT find them highly dubious (e.g., Stenger 1990; Pagels 1986). Thus, although O88 give the impression that their assumptions are well-grounded, the soundness of MT’s quantum field connections is an open question at best."
• "Though more rigorous than the rest of the theory, the ME equation also has problems. First, no rationale is offered for its thresholds. The cut-offs of 100 are arbitrary, and the functional discontinuity they entail produces a rather awkward behavioral model. Second, why is the measurement unit number of people rather than, say, physical distance? The implication is paradoxical."
• Indeed, Hagelin (1987, 1989) argues first that the identification of the mental with the physical is plausible within the framework of quantum mechanics and, second, that this identification—and a fully worked-out theory of mind/matter that anticipates contemporary unified-field theories—is found in the oldest sacred Hindu texts, the Vedas....The problem is that, ignoring for now the ME, no sidhis are validated and so the far-fetched explanation lacks purpose.
• Hagelin’s (and O88’s) other pillars are equally shaky. ... his argument relies critically upon ambiguity and obscurity in the terms denoting these properties. For instance, he notes that "creativity of consciousness" describes intellectual inventiveness, whereas "creativity of matter" describes the quantum field’s capacity to generate particles. Both kinds of creativity share the characteristic of production, but Hagelin does nothing to show that these two kinds of production are the same, or even interestingly analogous. This is about as cogent as arguing that the mind is a sort of mirror because both reflect, but it does capture the essence of Hagelin’s approach.
• "To draw his parallels between the Vedas and contemporary unified-field theories, Hagelin relies on numerological and exegetic styles of reasoning. ...Hagelin’s interpretations of physical fields in terms of consciousness are supported by nothing more than the construction of arbitrary formal isomorphisms, metaphors, and a reliance upon ambiguity and vague analogy."
• "In sum, O88’s theory does not pass minimal criteria of meaningfulness and logical integrity. Even if it did, where the theory in question is that which is at best foreshadowed in Hagelin’s writings, and prior knowledge includes knowledge of physical laws, neurophysiology and the like, the probability of the MT in view of prior knowledge is very close to zero. "

I'm certainly not advocating that all of this go in here, but my purpose in setting it all out is to show why I don't think that the current text accurately reflects F&M's article. My own incination would be to either summarize or quote the last two sentences (the "In sum..." bit)Fladrif (talk) 14:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Flad. Happy to have you come up with a better version. I am not sure what is being said in the 2 sentences you are proposing as a summary. Is MT - Maharishi Technology, or should it read ME (Maharishi Effect)? Also part of the sentence "Even if it did, where the theory in question is that which is at best foreshadowed in Hagelin’s writings,.." is unclear. --BwB (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

BWB, MT is their shorthand for referring to Hagelin's connecting of consciousness with the unified field. Fladrif, Will suggested a couple times above that ME material go in the TM-Sidhi article and that this article focus on Hagelin. Hagelin's primary contribution was MT. I focused on the five paragraphs in which F&M directly critiqued MT. When the authors say O88, they are specifically critiquing David OJ's JCR paper, as you know. How about if, as a solution for now, we simply leave it the way it is but leave out the OJ rebuttal? I was skimming and this was the best I could find at the moment. I'll have to look at it again, but I agree that it might seem a bit silly the way it is. TimidGuy (talk) 16:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Falsification of Flipped SU(5) Model

In speaking recently with some major, published, active quantum physicists, I've learned that the Flipped SU(5) model has been falsified. I propose that this article be made to reflect this fact and that we establish a consensus via non-MUM.edu associated academics, esp. academic physicists.--Kala Bethere (talk) 14:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Anything added must be reliably and verifiably sourced. Consensus is gained by the editors working on the article. Kala you should be careful not to assume anything about any editor, to not attempt to out any editor, to in general assume good faith, and to deal with the edits and editing, not the editor.(olive (talk) 15:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC))

Flipped SU(5) has not been falsified. SU(5) was falsified. They are different models. Flipped SU(5) predicts a rate of proton decay that is too slow to be experimentally tested. I was just reading about this in Woit's book. It's a fascinating book, by the way. TimidGuy (talk) 12:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Handy coincidence! --BwB (talk) 12:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Woit characterized Hagelin as a kind of "crackpot" and felt this was a consensus in the field of modern physics. He also points out that because of potential problems with falsifiability, for Popperian reasons (possible lack of falsifiability), it could not be actually be considered "science". The problem, per my understanding, is that Flipped SU(5) is mathematically reliant on the SU(5) "SUSY fixer upper" portion of it's equation. Using even more speculative mathematics it tries to rescue a formula that already provides bad predictions. This crackpotiness of Hagelin along with his use of unscientific, unfalsifiable formulations would make him truly the ideal pseudoscientist proposing pseudoscience.--Kala Bethere (talk) 15:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps read the text in Woot's book on Hagelin if you haven't already done so. In actuality Woit applies the word crackpot to Hagelin and his work on the Unified Field, but not on the other 75 well cited papers. Nor is Woit applying the word to Flipped SU(5). At a minimum, Woit's use of the word does not apply to your discussion of Flipped SU(5), and at best is merely Woit's opinion. (olive (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC))

It was a while ago I read it Olive. There was a section after the Hagelin mention that segued into the idea of Popperian falsifiability. The reason you would segue into question of falsifiability is that String Theory in some cases is really "non-scientific" and more of a Neoplatonic dream than a scientific reality. The reason you would declare Hagelin a crackpot isn't because Woit said so, but because he and all his colleagues at high levels, who he had met also felt, palpably, the same way. In other words, he'd met a lot of similar people who felt the same way. After all Woit knew the young Hagelin, before his bizarre raja- and mad quantum consciousness persona was formed. Have you seen the latest videos of him in Raja Garb, communicating to the Governors? Very bizarre.--Kala Bethere (talk) 01:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

These are opinions. Thanks.(olive (talk) 01:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC))

Actually in reviewing the book, this is precisely what occurs. Yes, these would represent the professional opinions of leading world physicists, not the mere opinion of a bystander.--Kala Bethere (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Precisely "what" occurs? --BwB (talk) 15:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd guess KB means that opinions are an inherent part of book reviews.   Will Beback  talk  20:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

BWB wrote: "Precisely "what" occurs?". What occurs is probably like many other sciences: scientists of a certain caliber engage (conferences, paper-wise, web buddies, research etc.) and are always gauging how the other's are doing in their collective field. Discussions ensue and valuations occur, by peers. I'd call it "self peer-review". Checking the "ranks". Please keep in mind, although many pro-TM folks look at JH as a modern hero-figure, a quantum renaissance man, even though others disagree, you'll notice his private matters are kept private. And I feel these matters are personally private, as long as legal. Unfortunately, as a deliberately public persona, if TV and cable were involved, they'd report whatever attracted listeners. I don't go there. Certain things are private and JH's home life is his, not ours.--Kala Bethere (talk) 00:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:Pseudoscientists

I think Category:Pseudoscientists is suitable in this article. Will add if no objection is raised in talk page. --Defender of torch (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Neutering isn't making something neutral

I rewrote the section describing Hagelin's 1994 Ig Nobel Peace Prize. It appeared to have been edited by one or more parties intent on neutering the article in the guise of making it "neutral."

In 1994, Hagelin was selected for the Ig Nobel Prize for Peace, an annual parody award given for achievements that “first make people laugh and then make them think." The award was given for the experimental conclusions drawn from the Washington, D.C. study.

Based on this description that tries to hide the negative nature of Hagelin's award, Woody Allen, Tom Lehrer, and Krusty the Clown could be Ig Nobel laureates, because they "first make people laugh and then make them think." That's NOT what earns a person an "Iggy" and it is a misleading description. The founder of the award called it an "(un)coveted award for achievements that cannot or should not be reproduced," that is given "to "honor the world's largely overlooked scientists and other contributors to modern culture, who bring smiles and guffaws to others, whether intentional or not."[1] Ig Nobel prizes are given either to laugh with or to laugh at the recipient. The Ig Nobel Board shies away from stating which is which, because the awards usually speak for themselves, as in Hagelin's case.

Similarly, the neutered version said the award was "given for the experimental conclusions drawn from the Washington, DC study," obfuscating the Ig Nobel Prize Board's reason which specifically cites Hagelin's "experimental conclusion that 4,000 trained meditators caused an 18 percent decrease in violent crime in Washington, D.C."

Words can be written with a neutral point of view and still have balls. Often, we can detect an editor with a serious conflict of interest when he or she keeps sucking the meaning out of the language in order to hide inconvenient truths.--Askolnick (talk) 23:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Park and consistency

The contextual information on Park seems consistent with other contextual information added, on researchers, for example. Park is a proud and outspoken skeptic so I can't see that the information is biased or POV. Other contextual information is not sourced either, but is extrapolation. We should be consistent.(olive (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC))

Absolutely we need to be consistent. Thanks, Olive. It seems others add qualifying material on all the MUM connected researches, authors, faculty, etc. so it seem reasonable to be able to do the same for others where some context is required. --BwB (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this in reference to removing "professional skeptic"? If that's how he self-describes, or is commonly known, then it'd be OK. However I don't see that. Per the WP bio, Robert L. Park, he could be described as "Director of Public Information at the Washington office of the American Physical Society", but that's pretty wordy without showing that he has a long history as a scientist.   Will Beback  talk  21:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Self describes is not the criteria being used when referencing other researchers. Robert L. Park is a well known skeptic: [2],

[3], [4].

Just a few of many places where Park is unashamedly debunking. Not sure why there is an issue on this. First including information is consistent with what's been done before in the TM articles, and second Park is known for and extremely and deliberately public about his skeptical position.(olive (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC))

"Robert L. Park is professor of physics at the University of Maryland."[5]

"Robert L. (Bob) Park is professor of physics and former chair of the Department of Physics at the University of Maryland."[6]

"But author Robert L. Park, a physics professor at the University of Maryland,..."[7]

None of those identify him as a "professional skeptic".   Will Beback  talk  23:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

There are multiple sources describing Park as a debunker and he's proud of that. He is also a retired physicist. Both should be in the content we add. We have also set a precedent on these pages which we cannot ignore. You have not shown any good reason to not to add this information. (olive (talk) 23:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC))

A) what is the precedent?

B) What source calls him a "professional skeptic"?   Will Beback  talk  00:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not attached to the original wording. Some confusion. Lets go with something like, "Robert L. Park retired physicist and skeptic".(olive (talk) 01:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC))

He's a retired professor, but not necessarily a retired physicist. But otherwise that's fine.   Will Beback  talk  01:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why we cannot call a Prof. of Physics a physicist? But I am OK with "Robert L. Park retired professor and skeptic..." --BwB (talk) 10:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Robert L. Park is NOT a retired professor. He is a former chair of the Physics Department and is CURRENTLY a research professor at the University of Maryland's Physics Dept.[8] Also, it is blatantly biased editing to describe Park with language ("physicist and skeptic") meant to hide his credentials, WHILE describing his TM critic's credentials in full detail:

Maxwell Rainforth, Assistant Professor of Physiology and Health and Statistics at Maharishi University of Management and a coauthor of the Washington, D.C. study, characterized Park's criticisms of the study as "superficial, highly polemical" and "willfully misleading".

What I think may be "superficial, highly polemical" and "willfully misleading" is attempting to hide Dr. Park's academic credentials. "Physicist and skeptic" does NOT tell readers why he is an authority. It is a disservice to Wikipedia's readers.

So I'm adding Dr. Park's academic credentials, "research professor and former Chair of Physics at the University of Maryland." If there's an objection to this, then I'll argue for changing Maxwell Rainforth's credentials to read, "physiologist and believer" (facetiously speaking.) --Askolnick (talk) 23:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this Ask. However, there is no disputing that Park has a strong reputation as a skeptic and it is in this capacity that his criticisms of Hagelin's research is being used. The Wiki article on Park has a large section titled "Career as a skeptic", so it may be reasonable to classify him a "skeptic" as well as the UoM connection. --BwB (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Big, the large section in the article on Dr. Park explains much more accurately what his role as skeptical writer is. The trouble I think with slipping the single word "skeptic" into a person's id like this is that it often carries a negative connotation, since people often confuse "skeptical" with "cynical" -- which has a very different meaning. Nearly every authority on science will tell you scientists are supposed to be skeptical about every unproven claim. The burden of evidence falls solely on the claimant. He or she must provide compelling evidence that shows his or her claim is more likely correct than wrong -- while his or her colleagues are supposed to remain skeptical until the evidence becomes persuasive. I would see much less of a problem in describing Dr. Park as a "research professor and former Chair of Physics at the University of Maryland and well known skeptic of paranormal claims," because that would be more truthful. All good scientists are skeptics. Describing a scientist with the single word "skeptic" is misleading, because it implies this scientist is somehow different from other scientists since he is skeptical. Stating that Dr. Park is a well known skeptic of paranormal claims would be more accurate, more informative, and would not be an innuendo for "cynic."--Askolnick (talk) 05:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

OK Ask. I think your wording is a good way to present Park. --BwB (talk) 08:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

OK Big, will add those words.--Askolnick (talk) 17:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Global Union of Scientists for Peace

• Hagelin is also the International Director of the Global Union of Scientists for Peace (GUSP), an international organization of prominent scientists opposed to nuclear proliferation and war. GUSP was founded in July 2005 in response to the failure of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference held in New York that year. The mission of the Global Union of Scientists for Peace is "to stop the growing threat of nuclear proliferation and nuclear war; to resist the global rise of other weapons of mass destruction and; to promote the adoption of safe, scientifically proven technologies to ensure national security and global peace."

I can't find any independent references for this group. If it has never been mentioned in any third-party sources then we're probably devoting too much space to it. Even the "official" websites only mention a single brief cyber-conference four years ago. I suggest we keep the first sentence and drop the rest. Thoughts?   Will Beback  talk  21:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I found a single independent reference to it, which characterizes it, and the various other organizations listed on Hagelin's resume in the film, as organs of the TM Movement that no-one has ever heard of. The description of the organizaton in this article is somewhat misleading to someone reading the article cold, since (i) Hagelin founded it, (ii) the "prominent scientists" are all tied to the TM Movement. and (iii) the "safe, scientifically proven technologies" is the TM-Movement's "Invincible Defense Technology", i.e. cadres of meditators/siddhas/pandits. 22:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Google incorrectly reports that book as being published by "Constellation". The publisher is actually "The Disinformation Company".[9][10] Is there any reason to think that isn't a reliable source? Even if it is, the material we're including here seems to give undue weight to what appears to be an insignificant entity.   Will Beback  talk  23:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that inclusion of this content is borderline at best in terms of WP:Weight and significance in terms of sources, and have no concerns about either reducing it or removing it completely.(olive (talk) 23:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC))

I have no idea if it's a reliable source or not, it was the only source. It doesn't look like a vanity press. I agre that more important point is the weight one. This organization is mentioned both in the lede and in the body. There is zero independent press coverage, and I'm not certain that any more needs to be said than what's in the lede. Fladrif (talk) 23:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Leader of the Transcendental Meditation Movement

Hagelin has a lot of titles but is there a source that refers to him as 'leader of the TMM' as it states in the lead? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it says "a leader". If you don't think that being Raja of Invincible America and President of the US Peace Government qualify as leadership positions then we could put those job titles in the lead and let readers decide for themselves.   Will Beback  talk  21:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Woo, in the Los Angeles Times", says Hagelin is the "head of the Transcendental Meditation organization in the United States," and "the director of the TM organization in the United States".[11] On account of that clear source I'm going to modify the lead and add the cite.   Will Beback  talk  03:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Good, since the source uses both 'head' and 'director' I have revised to use 'director' which is more encyclopedic. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Please explain how "director" is more encyclopedic than "head" or "leader".   Will Beback  talk  20:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Congressional Prevention Coalition

I can't find any independent source that connects the subject to the Congressional Prevention Coalition. This press release on the founding of the coalition doesn't mention him.[12] Since it is a self-serving claim, we should have an indepedent, secondary source.   Will Beback  talk  23:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's one source.On The IssuesIn addition primary sources are have their place on Wikipedia and on BLP's. I have replaced the text and ask that you please avoid removing sourced text without first discussing it and gaining consensus on the talk page. Thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I have replaced the text you deleted. Primary sources are permitted on Wiki and there was also a secondary source in the paragraph you removed. Please do not remove sourced text without first having discussion and gaining consensus on the talk page. Thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

My apologies I found the above mentioned text in the Scientist and Academic section, possibly moved there by me in error. Since the information is now covered in the Politician section I am deleting from the Scientist and Academic section. Again my apologies for assuming it was deleted by WBB in a series of edits he made yesterday.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The material in issues2000.org does not appear to be based on independent research. Rather it looks like it was gathered from official candidate biographies. I'd view it as a reliable source for election-related info, but not for biographical background. Further, it only lists the coalition as part of his political experience - it doesn't describe his role there. Third, we have an official source - a press release, that doesn't mention the subject at all. This is a self-serving claim. The coalition does exist, and one would expect to be able to find some independent sources describing his role. (I have seen him in a photo of a coalition event, but he's not described as its founder or chief advisor). I'll put a "dubious" tag on it and lets take some time to see if we can find anything to support his claim.   Will Beback  talk  20:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I've searched both Proquest and Google news. They both have a dozen or two articles on the CPC, but not a single one that mentions Hagelin. The CPC held many seminars. I can't even find a mention of the June 3, 1999 event, though there are articles for event the week after, and for events in other years. The events seemed to have been focused on particular themes like tobacco use, oral health, or child abuse, and the June 3 event could have had the topic of stress, and it's quite possible that the subject chaired a panel at one of them or was even asked for advise. That's a fairly minor accomplishment for a "public policy expert". There seem to have been at least a dozen of these events - do we mention them in any of the other biographies, besides the chairs? If we can find an independent source for this I don't object, a quick mention, but it seems to be non-notable since it wasn't noted by anyone.   Will Beback  talk  06:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Awards

I have moved each of Hagelins awards to their appropriate sections. It seems they fit better there in terms of relevance and also chronology rather than at the end of the article. If there is a policy that requires that awards be taken out of context in the article and placed in a special section at the bottom, please cite it here so can discuss and adjust accordingly. Thank you! :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It's the practice followed in numerous biographies. See Nelson Mandela, Yo-Yo Ma, James Randi, Stephen Hawking, etc.   Will Beback  talk  20:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The awards section has been separate since August 2009. Separate award sections are typical in biographies. I'm going to restore it to the previous arrangement unless there's discussion and consensus here for a change.   Will Beback  talk  01:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone explain why the names of the company and political party that Hagelin founded keep getting removed from the headings? Aside from running as the NLP candidate, Hagelin has no other political career, and aside from starting EAD he has no other entrepreneurial career.   Will Beback  talk  21:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Army

• According to Hagelin's, Institute of Science, Technology and Public Policy, a public policy think tank..., he has met with officials at the White House, the National Security Council, the Department of State, the Department of Defense, the Army, the House, and the Senate on the issue of terrorism.
  • Institute of Science and Public Technology, Hagelin Bio [13][14]

I don't see any mention of the Army and several other claims in the listed sources. From where are we getting those? I deleted this once but it's been restored.   Will Beback  talk  21:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Expert and endorsements

• He is considered by some to be a "public policy expert" and was endorsed by members of congress such as Kara Anastasio, Dennis Kucinich and Jeffrey E. Graham.
  • Our Campaigns, Hagelin Bio [15]
  • Shift In Action, Hagelin Bio, [16]
  • International Conference bio, [17]
  • LA Yoga, Interview with Bob Belinoff, Feb 2006, [18]</ref>

By whom is he considered a "public policy expert"? And who endorsed who? Did Hagelin run for the OH - District 07 - Nov 02, 2004? also, the bios published at two of the listed references are identical, so it appears that they are akin to press releases or official bios. The quality of sources seems to be deteriorating.   Will Beback  talk  21:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This appears to the be the original official bio that the other websites are copying: [19].   Will Beback  talk  21:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I can change the text to 'some web sites' if you like. RE: sources, I feel they are multiple sources OK for this text. At the same time you are entitled to your opinion. If you feel strongly about it, we can take the issue to the RS noticeboard and see what others think. I'm happy to do that if you like.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Which websites say this? It appears that the ourcampaigns.com site simply copied an official Hagelin bio.[20] This is the exact same problem we had last year, when you used another copy of a Hagelin official bio as a source. As for the endorsements, I believe those are endorsements made by Hagelin, not of Hagelin.   Will Beback  talk  01:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The text reflects what the sources say. I accept that it is your personal opinion that the information on these three web sites was copied from Hagelin's bio and is therefore invalid. But Wiki is based on reliable sources not on the opinions of individual editors. If you feel the sources are not reliable based on WP:RS then we can go to the noticeboard and see what others think since you and I have agreed to disagree. In these one-on-one situations it is best to obtain input from other un-involved editors and avoid personal conflicts. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You say that my assertion that the material is copied is just an opinion. Are you saying you have a different opinion? Do you think that all these different websites published identical text by coincidence? Since you claim to "stand by your edits", please explain your reasoning.   Will Beback  talk  02:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I have placed the issue on WP:RSN for resolution. Thanks for participating in the discussion. [21]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's keep ISPP in the Politics section

The text on ISPP discusses political activities conducted by Hagelin. The fact that it is a subsidiary of MUM is a technicality that should not determine the location of the text. Let's please keep in in the Politics section where it belongs. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

"Where it belongs", according to whom? Also, please see above my question about the material in that section that you restored which isn't in the source.   Will Beback  talk  01:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Good point, 'where it belongs' does not clearly explain my position, so I'll try again. It is my opinion that we should place text (any text) in the section of the article that is most relevant to the content of that text. Since the text we are discussing is almost completely political in nature it belongs in the Politics section. At the same time I accept your point that ISPP was formed as part of MUM, an academic organization. So, as a compromise I suggest we create a sentence in the Academics section that says that Haglein founded the ISPP as a subsidiary organization of MUM and keep the remaining text that discusses Haglins interactions with Congress and political activities on Capitol Hill in his Political career section since it is clearly not academic activity. Are you OK with this compromise?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that most of the interactions with government officials have been either "expert" (i.e. academic) commentary or lobbying. I'm not sure that I'd call those "politics", but if it's important to you then I'll go along with it to keep the peace.   Will Beback  talk  02:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Added content on academic literature

It became clear to me as I worked through this article that reception to Hagelin's research was one sided and was not NPOV. Hagelin is above all a scientist despite his short term adventures into running for president, but the article did not give that sense. I've added content to create balance and made a few changes in page organization, making sure response to the DC study is clearly apparent and that cites to Hagelin's work in academic literature is represented.(olive (talk) 20:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC))

Remove coatrack content

I've removed extended explanations both positive and negative which do not relate directly to Hagelin. Because this is a BLP we need an even more careful use of content than in any other kind of article, but even so this content is OR and coat rack content and is out of place in any Wikipedia article.(olive (talk) 17:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC))

parked sources

I'm not finding these sources after a fairly extensive search... I'll keep looking but for now per BLP parking here.(olive (talk) 18:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC))

Executive Director of the Global Financial Capital of New York, Executive Director of the Center for Leadership Performance,

Seems like there are primary sources for it [22]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Primary sources are probably fine for this kind of content. I don't think the content itself is very useful so don't care one way or the other if its included but can add it back in with primary sources if there's agreement.(olive (talk) 19:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC))

OK. I've readded and sourced one of these parked sources . I also added another position Hagelin holds which I'm seeing cited in more instances than Executive Director of the Center for Leadership Performance. The paragraph is becoming long and a bit unwieldy . Hagelin holds and has held many positions. We can't and shouldn't list them all in a lead. I've also, as suggested, gone to using primary sources. I'm not attached to any of this so if there are objections just let me know.(olive (talk) 16:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC))

Oops: removed repeated content.(olive (talk) 17:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC))

WP:LEAD says the lead should summarize. That means we avoid details like a laundry list of titles. We should say he is a physicist, professor etc and say he holds many positions in the fields of XYZ. Something like that. Shouldn't be a list of titles in the lead.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree, Kbob, that is one way of looking at this. The other way is that each title could be expanded into an explanation of the position, so that the title itself is a summary of the position. Unless we plan to expand the titles and add another section on the many positions Hagelin holds, mention of those positions as titles is fine in the lead. I'm not attached to either way of doing it. Any thoughts?(olive (talk) 21:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC))

Sorry for not following up on this sooner. I think you make some good points. Titles are in some sense a summary as long as they are expanded on in the body. However, if here are honorary or titles for which there are not proper explanations and corresponding activities would be better left for the body to maintain the summary style of the lead. So I think we need to look at them on a case by case basis to see if any should be removed. I'll look later and see if there are any that could be considered for movement to the body only. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The current lead gives 3-4 titles which are informative, reader friendly and give an overview of his career in a summary fashion. Good work.

"John Samuel Hagelin (born June 9, 1954) is an American particle physicist, three-time candidate of the Natural Law Party for President of the United States (1992, 1996, and 2000), and the director of the Transcendental Meditation movement for the US."

But this 3rd paragraph, which consists solely of titles, may be too much detail for the lead and may be taking up space that would be better used for summarizing other parts of this BLP. Thoughts?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I think I brought that up before or meant to. :o) It is too much detail in my opinion and I would like to trim it.(olive (talk) 21:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC))

I think the titles that are not supported by substantial text (ie explanation and activities associated with the title) should be moved to the body of the article IMO but I'll leave it to you to edit it and then look at it after and comment.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I made the change actually with out seeing your comment but as it turns out I left in place the more substantially supported titles ad them moved the whole paragraph to its own section.(olive (talk) 01:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC))

You've done a nice job of including many titles but doing it in a way that makes sense and informs the reader without being overwhelming. Nice work. The lead also does a nice job of summarizing the article but its on the brief side and could be fleshed out a bit and might include a sentence about his education/early life. I'll look at that sometime when I have a chance. Meanwhile, thanks for moving this article along in a positive direction.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Date NLP disbanded national org

Moved to talk until and if source is located:

"In April 2004, the U.S. Natural Law Party officially disbanded its national organization."

Good idea. --BwB (talk) 02:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

This should be put back in the article per this: "The national headquarters of the Natural Law Party have closed effective on April 30, 2004." [23]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Put it in then. --BwB (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Additional info: The NLP in the United States was largely disbanded in 2004. However, some state affiliates, such as Michigan, have kept their ballot positions and have allied with other small parties.[24] Ballot Access.org, Jan 3 2011, Michigan Natural Law Party Keeps Qualified Status for 2012-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Kbob. I've been looking at secondary sources and didn't see anything. A primary source is fine for this I'd assume. I'd also seen that Individual states kept their status but I don't think its appropriate to add any more information on the NLP in this article. I felt it was too much and coat racking in information. My thoughts anyway.(olive (talk) 03:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC))

If you think its off topic, that's a different thing but it should'nt be removed for lack of sourcing. I haven't looked at the context but if Hagelin was the party leader than its dissolution date might be appropriate. Other info about NLP like other states being active is not relevant unless Hagelin is directly involved. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The content was removed, per BLP, as unsourced. BLP does not compromise on unsourced content. I was looking for a source and looking in secondary sources rather than primary sources and didn't turn up anything at the time. Now that I have a primary source which I think is acceptable on this case, I agree the content can be readded. Thanks for the reminder that primary sources can be acceptable sources to self define .(olive (talk) 16:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC))

Yes good points about unsourced content on a BLP. Thanks for your vigilance and for walking through the process with me. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:OR

This content below does not reference the DC study, and so I've removed it and parked it here for now pending any discussion. I seem to remember discussion on this in the past, but not sure. What I'd like to do is add more content on the controversy, although I'm not seeing anything more that deals specifically with the study. At any rate we can't just chuck in OR to Wikipedia articles especially BLPs and we do have a sizable criticism section on Hagelin's connection of UF theory to consciousness. I've moved the criticism of the study into close proximity of the info on the study so the reader gets a better sense of the controversy.(olive (talk) 01:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC))

During the eight weeks of the study, the overall level of violent crime (homicides, rapes, and assaults) decreased by 23%, with rapes declining by 58%. Homicides averaged 10 a week during the study—the same as in the weeks preceding and following the study. For most of the eight weeks of the study the homicide rate declined, but gang fighting resulted in ten murders in a 36 hour period.

Were there any citations? If not, it would seem to be more like editorializing than OR. Claims like this need good sourcing and if they were un-cited then parking the text here is the right move.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The text is not on the DC study, but are statistics and unrelated, and which are being used to draw a connection to the DC study... and to make some kind of point- a form of OR. So there can't be citations which reference this topic.(olive (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC))

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:John Hagelin/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: GreatOrangePumpkin (talk · contribs) 09:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Parked content per BLP/ pending source

I so far don't see a source for this so have moved it for now. Its not critical content in anyway as far as I can tell.(olive (talk) 16:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC))

Hagelin was invited to be a plenary speaker at the 2007 Quantum Mind conference in Salzburg, Austria, organized by Stuart Hameroff (University of Arizona) and Gustav Bernroider (University of Salzburg).

---

• "Hagelin was a researcher at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) and the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC), and is now Professor of Physics and Director of the Institute of Science, Technology and Public Policy at Maharishi University of Management (MUM). " - suggest "A researcher at the... Hagelin is"
• "Non academic positions" - add hyphen between the first two words
• "University of Management,[3][4]" - should the comma be a period?
• Ok, references layout and reliability are serious problems here. In short:
• Many footnotes are missing accessdates, publishers, authors
• Many dead references
• "Craig Ridgley, Safire Internet Solutions, http://safire.net+(June" - just "Craig Ridgley"
• Make sure you don't use all-capital titles as it is discouraged
• It would be better and more accessible if you create a "Bibliography" sub-section and use short footnotes, such as {{sfn}}
• Ref 7: Nov 4, 2000 should be November 4, 2000
• Questionable sources: "TV Guide", "Tv.msn.com".
• Ref 85-87: Odd "ƒá", please correct
• Avoid writing urls into the publisher parameters (the work is mainly the website itself), eg "Uspeacegovernment.org" - "US Peace Government"
• Use a consistent style
• In the title parameters, use only the title, no dates or pages. There are separate parameters for those.--Tomcat (7) 10:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Track progress for GA clean up

•  Hagelin was a researcher at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) and the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC), and is now Professor of Physics and Director of the Institute of Science, Technology and Public Policy at Maharishi University of Management (MUM). " - suggest "A researcher at the... Hagelin is

Not sure what is meant here, but made the change I though was suggested.(olive (talk) 19:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC))

•  "Non academic positions" - add hyphen between the first two words Yes, fixed.(olive (talk) 19:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC))
•  University of Management,[3][4]" - should the comma be a period? Yes, fixed.(olive (talk) 19:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC))

Ok, references layout and reliability are serious problems here. In short:

• Many footnotes are missing accessdates, publishers, authors
• Many dead references
•  "Craig Ridgley, Safire Internet Solutions, http://safire.net+(June" - just "Craig Ridgley"... removed name as he is not author
•  Done Make sure you don't use all-capital titles as it is discouraged
• It would be better and more accessible if you create a "Bibliography" sub-section and use short footnotes, such as {{sfn}}

• I prefer the style used in Nixon or Dostoyevsky.--Tomcat (7) 20:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• Ok. Thanks. That's a nice style. I've never used the style before so have to figure out how to do it.(olive (talk) 20:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC))

•  Ref 7: Nov 4, 2000 should be November 4, 2000 (olive (talk) 19:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC))
• Questionable sources: "TV Guide", "Tv.msn.com".
•  Ref 85-87: Odd "ƒá", please correct.(olive (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC))
• Avoid writing urls into the publisher parameters (the work is mainly the website itself), eg "Uspeacegovernment.org" - "US Peace Government"
• Use a consistent style
• In the title parameters, use only the title, no dates or pages. There are separate parameters for those.--

I copied Tom Cat's points here to chart progress. Forgot to mention it.(olive (talk) 02:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC))

Re: Reformatting refs

I thought it might be a good idea to document the steps each editor is taking in reformatting refs so we don't duplicate the work. (olive (talk) 02:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC))

• From my talk page:

-From Timid Guy. I'm working on the bibliography for Hagelin GA. At this point I'm just capturing the refs from the text, and trying to do it in a way that will expedite creating a proper listing using the cite template. It looks like it'll take an hour or so. I did a little now and will work on it in the morning, hopefully.

-From TG's talk page: Hi TG. I'm going to abandon my sandbox and begin to work in yours. Hope you don't mind me playing in your sand box, :O) otherwise I think we'd be duplicating efforts. I see that you are capturing the refs so I'll come along behind and check them in reference to a citation template to make sure we have everything in place. Thanks for doing this TG.(olive (talk) 20:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC))

• As soon as you do this TG I'll alphabetize the refs.
• Then I can use the template top create the shortened citations.

Status of review?

What's the current status of this review? It's been over a month since this page has been updated. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

We've been hard at work on this article. Changing all the refs to use the convention suggested by the reviewer is a big job. We've created a bibliography and are now gradually converting refs to the sfn template. Thanks for your interest. TimidGuy (talk) 11:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The sfn templates are useful if there are several similar references. You can just keep those which appear only one time. A format like in Otis Redding would be nice. However, you don't need to reorganize the references. They just require a small clean-up. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 12:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

For example, if there is one source you frequently use, and which has pages, it is useful to use short footnotes. Small journals with a few pages can be kept as is.--Tomcat (7) 12:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks yes, too late we've converted the whole thing, but is been a good learning exercise for me at least since I hadn't used this format before. I had to be out of town for a few days with not much computer time but will get back to it soon. I think the job could be done next week sometime. Thanks for your input.(olive (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC))

Has the conversion been completed? Wizardman 14:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for checking in. The conversion has been delayed. I have to step back for editing since I've developed some potentially serious overuse injuries. I left a note for the reviewer here.[25] TimidGuy says he will continue to work on the refs. I hope to be back in a couple of weeks and will finish anything left to do then.(olive (talk) 18:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC))

• Ref 43 in "Politician" does not support the fact that he appeared in Inside Politics, CNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, and C-SPAN's Washington Journal.--Tomcat (7) 13:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

This has now been fixed. A source was found for two of the items, and the third has been removed. The conversion is pretty much done now, except for reorganizing the bibliography, which I hope to do in the next couple days. TimidGuy (talk) 15:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

BLP issue with statement from Dallas Observer

This information in the article is self-evidently incorrect:

Dallas Observer political reporter Jonathan Fox wrote that "Once considered a top scientist, Hagelin's former academic peers ostracized him after the candidate attempted to shoehorn Eastern metaphysical musings into the realm of quantum physics.

Hagelin began connecting quantum physics and Eastern thought as early as the late 1970s, according to Woit. He joined Maharishi U faculty in 1984. His major publication on consciousness and the unified field was in 1987. During all this time he continued to collaborate with his academic peers. And in fact did so, as his record of publication attests, until 1994. So during the entire period of his collaboration he was also speaking publicly on his ideas on consciousness and the unified field. His colleagues did not ostracize him -- they continued to collaborate with him. The article in Discover magazine makes this clear, noting his affiliation with MUM, yet describing in detail the ongoing collaborative research with Ellis and others. I think this sentence should be deleted, per BLP. The facts show that the assertion that his colleagues ostracized him after he connected quantum physics with Eastern thought is simply wrong. It's a serious accusation, and per BLP it should be deleted. TimidGuy (talk) 11:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Because other sources indicate this is incorrect information, because the content isn't informative, and because this is a BLP, I'd say this content can be deleted with out losing NPOV or robbing the article of information on this aspect of Hagelin's life.(olive (talk) 22:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC))

To the contrary, it is TimidGuy's WP:OR, unsupported by any reliable secondary source, that Hagelin was not ostracized by his former colleagues. The statement in the text that he continued to work with mainstream physicists is cited to a series of papers, but there is no indication whatsoever when they were written, as opposed to when they were published, which are two very different things. There are multiple, reliable, secondary sources that clearly support that after Hagelin abruptly left Stanford in the midst of personal problems stemming from a messy divorce to turn up in Fairfield [26][27], his ridiculous theories on quantum consciousness and the like caused his former colleagues to disavow him. See Woit and Anderson, among others. What should be removed from the article is not reliably sourced material confirmed by multiple sources, but the original research unsupported by sources that TimidGuy added to try to offer a rebuttal to conclusions that he simply doesn't like. This strikes me as an obvious and blatant violation of the TMArbCom by editors who should know better having been repeatedly sanctioned for precisely this kind of misconduct in the past. Fladrif (talk) 21:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

OR refers to content added to an article which is generally synthesized from several sources. Checking sources to make sure we get our facts straight is research and is what editors do and is not OR. Of the sources you cite the second says nothing about a divorce, and sources indicate (see article) that Hagelin's marriage ended in 1993. The JH article clearly indicates the position Hagelin held with his peers both the criticism and their support. TG is suggesting this particular sentence is inaccurate, and I 'd suggest it adds very little to what we already have. Perhaps its as clearly inaccurate as the divorce information. However, I have no concern with leaving the content in place. And if you feel there is a blatant ARBCOM violation I suggest you take this discussion there.(olive (talk) 23:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC))

Please note: The content you are referring to was added by Hickory Bark not TimidGuy.(olive (talk) 16:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC))

The Iowa Source as a source

A noticeboard discussion[28] regarding an article about Hagelin in the Iowa Source as a source for some content in this article concluded that it's an acceptable source, with the following caveat:

It looks adequate to support the non-controversial biographical material for which it's cited. It may be a bit over-used, but that's a question for the article talk page. Tom Harrison Talk 13:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it's a bit over-used, and I've sometimes felt that several of the details were too flattering or personal for an encyclopedia article. I propose removing the following information from the article:

• As a child, he played sports, and was also an accomplished piano student.[6]
• where he received a perfect score of 165 on a school-administered IQ test.
• According to an article in The Iowa Source, he "(...) was also a dare-devil".[6] In 1970

The paragraph without the above information would read:

"John Samuel Hagelin was born June 9, 1954, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.[5] He won a scholarship to Taft School for boys, and while he was a student there he was involved in a motorcycle crash that led to hospitalization and a full body cast. During this time he was introduced to quantum mechanics, and the Transcendental Meditation technique (TM), both of which had a major impact on his life.[6][7]"

I also wonder about using "john Samuel Hagelin." Seems like we should just say "Hagelin."

I'd like to cut down some of the info in the following paragraph:

"Hagelin attended Dartmouth College on a scholarship and after his freshman year, a continued interest in Transcendental Meditation led him to Vittel, France, where he become a qualified teacher of the TM technique. While at Dartmouth, he earned an undergraduate degree in physics in three years with highest honors (summa cum laude), and had also co-authored and published a paper in physics research. On graduation from Dartmouth, Hagelin won a fellowship to study physics at Harvard, where he worked under the noted physicist Howard Georgi. He received a Master's degree from Harvard in 1976, and a Ph.D. from Harvard in 1981.[6][8]"

So that it reads:

"Hagelin attended Dartmouth College, and after his freshman year, a continued interest in Transcendental Meditation led him to Vittel, France, where he become a qualified teacher of the TM technique. He earned an undergraduate degree in physics with highest honors (summa cum laude) from Dartmouth and also co-authored a published paper. He studied physics at Harvard under physicist Howard Georgi, earning a Master's degree in 1976, and PhD in 1981.[6][8]"

In the following paragraph, I think we could remove some info:

"In 1984, Hagelin shifted his appointment from SLAC to Maharishi International University (now called Maharishi University of Management), where he continued his research in physics.[10] Hagelin's move to MIU surprised and puzzled his colleagues.[6] Howard Georgi and John Ellis tried to talk him out of it, but, according to Georgi, Hagelin "continued to do good physics anyway."[6] Nobel Laureate, Sheldon Glashow was quoted in a 1992 article as saying, "His papers are outstanding. We read them before he went to MIU and we read them now."[6] Hagelin remained in contact with colleagues from Harvard, Stanford, and CERN, and continued to collaborate with them. While at MIU, his contributions to the field of theoretical physics were supported by funding from the National Science Foundation.[6]"

So that it reads:

"In 1984, Hagelin shifted his appointment from SLAC to Maharishi International University (now called Maharishi University of Management), where he continued his collaboration with colleagues from Harvard, Stanford, and CERN.[10] While at MIU, his contributions to the field of theoretical physics were supported by funding from the National Science Foundation.[6]"

I wonder if we need the comments from Georgi and Glashow. It may be enough to say that his colleagues continued to collaborate with him. And we could also use the Discover magazine article as a source for that. This would cut the amount of material from the Iowa Source by perhaps tw0-thirds, and would remove details that may not be appropriate for an encyclopedia. TimidGuy (talk) 11:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with the changes you suggest TG, they seem like a good way to compromise given Fladrif's concerns and the feedback from the RS notice board, and they make the article more succinct, so I'd say go ahead.(olive (talk) 15:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC))

I think your proposals are good. Regarding the last paragraph under discussion I think these sentences below are awkward and confusing. However a neutral, one sentence summary of what they say would be better than removing them altogether.

Howard Georgi and John Ellis tried to talk him out of it, but, according to Georgi, Hagelin "continued to do good physics anyway."[6] Nobel Laureate, Sheldon Glashow was quoted in a 1992 article as saying, "His papers are outstanding. We read them before he went to MIU and we read them now."

-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's what the article in Discover magazine says: "Nanopoulos tried for several years to wrestle all of physics into a workable theory, collaborating with John Ellis at CERN and with John Hagelin, who was then at Stanford but who has since (to Nanopoulos's and Ellis's discomfort) joined Maharishi International University in Fairfield, Iowa." The article goes on to describe their continued collaboration, including a crucial weeklong meeting in the spring of 1990 in which the team worked out some of the most important details of their research. So maybe we could say something like this: "Hagelin collaborators Dmitri Nanopolous and John Ellis were uncomfortable with Hagelin's move from Stanford to MIU but continued to work closely with him." This says somewhat the same thing, but is less flattering and relies on the Discover article rather than the Iowa Source. TimidGuy (talk) 11:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

"worked closely" maybe a bit of a judgment call. How about if we say "continued to collaborate with him" instead?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

If you read the Discover article, I think "worked closely" is an accurate summary. It narrates an anecdote that resulted when a new paper was published in 1989 that offered a formulation that challenged their theoretical work. The four collaborators convened an emergency session at CERN for a weeklong meeting in the spring of 1990. The Discover article describes them locking themselves in a room, with Hagelin at the blackboard, grinding out the equations and resolving a number of issues with their theory. TimidGuy (talk) 11:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not able to find the Discover article (Freedman, David H., "The new theory of everything", Discover, 1991, pp 54–61) online. Do you have a URL for it? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I lose track of the open threads. I'd like to finish this up. Send me an email, and I'll send you a pdf of the article. TimidGuy (talk) 16:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Will do.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks for sending the PDF and sorry for the delay the holidays have me sidetracked. Having read the Discover article I remove my objection to the phrase "worked closely". I see now that there was intimate collaboration with Ellis and Nanopolous. Thanks for walking me through it.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Have made the change. I believe that resolves this thread. All the fixes have been made, and RSN feedback implemented. TimidGuy (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

A Reason To Vote by Bob Roth

This book as bio data on JH on pages 142-143. Here is a portion of it (below): *Hagelin was born on June 9, 1954, in Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, and grew up in Fairfield, Connecticut. He was at the top of his class at the Taft School for Boys and tallied the highest possible score on the schools IQ test—a genius 165. His success at Taft propelled him to Dartmouth College and launce him into a life of a research scientist. After just three years he graduated with highest honors in physics and coauthored and published a highly praised independent study in physics. He won a fellowship for graduate study at Harvard, where he received a Ph.D. in particle physics.

• -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a reliable source. However, the question that may remain is whether this,"tallied the highest possible score on the schools IQ test—a genius 165." is necessary in an encyclopedic article or is it too flattering. It seems fine to me given what I see in many other articles. As well at the RS Notice Board the concern was not that content was too flattering but that The Source had possibly been overused. I'm fine with either using this content with the Bob Roth source or not if others feel it is too flattering. I don't think the IQ content is critical to the article, but it does add interest.(olive (talk) 15:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC))

TG and I are redoing the refs per the reviewer's request. So as not to confuse myself further :O), I'll leave the Dickie source in place until the refs are done then if there's agreement I can add the Roth source.(olive (talk) 23:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC))

Either way (leave it in or take it out) is fine with me too.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

List of major TV network appearances

In the process of changing the ref conventions I found a couple anomalies in the list of major network TV shows that Hagelin appeared on during the 2000 campaign. There were refs for appearances that weren't noted in the text. I've fixed those. But the sentence ends with three appearances for which there is apparently no ref: " Inside Politics, CNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, and C-SPAN's Washington Journal.[43]"

Ref 43 takes one to a page that doesn't seem to say anything about these three appearances. I'll format the ref, in case there's something I missed, but will put a citation needed tag. TimidGuy (talk) 15:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I found a source that verifies two of them. But can't find anything to support the CNBC Hardball assertion. Also my cites seen here may need to be reformatted. Good luck with your review.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the source. TimidGuy (talk) 15:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Parking unsourced text here

I'm putting the Hardball text here until a source can be found.

CNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews

TimidGuy (talk) 15:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Please don't edit bibliography, as I reorganize in a sandbox

I think the easiest way to reorganize the bibliography is to do it in my sandbox.[29] Perhaps avoid editing the bibliography in this article until I finish with that. Or make the edits to the version in my sandbox. TimidGuy (talk) 15:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Washington slept here

I'm wondering about the validity of the American Bank Note Company Building photo in the article. It does not comply with MOS:IMAGE which says photos should fit within their section and have a succinct caption. It seems like a coatrack photo to me and that's why the caption is so long winded. It take a long time to make the case that its relevant to the BLP. The building was bought by the Global Country of World Peace in 2004 and "John Hagelin, a board member at Global Country of World Peace" ...."sometimes used" "One of the luxury apartments inside the building" but then it was sold in 2010. Is this really notable information for this BLP? Should we have photos of other buildings he has slept in? Or photos of buildings owned by the various organizations he is an executive of? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to remove the photo, does anyone object? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Theoretical physics research

Article looks really good. But am wondering about the wording in one sentence in the section, Theoretical physics research:

"In a 2012 interview in Science Watch, this study was mentioned by physicist Keith Olive as being among the work that has given him the greatest sense of accomplishment."

It isn't obvious why Olive would feel a sense of accomplishment about this, until you read the reference, all the way to the end, and see that he was a co-author.

Perhaps, "In a 2012 interview in Science Watch, this study was mentioned by physicist Keith Olive, who collaborated on it with Hagelin, as being among the work that has given him the greatest sense of accomplishment." ?? EMP (talk 20:49, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I'll make that change. TimidGuy (talk) 12:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Fringe Theories NB

An editor has posted a comment about this article on the Fringe theories NB here [30].(olive (talk) 01:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC))

Noetic Advanced Studies Institute should be removed

The section Noetic Advanced Studies Institute should be removed. It adds no information about the subject of the article. The Institute is of doubtful significance; it is apparently itself not covered by a Wikipedia article. The section only states a claim made by an organization of unknown notability concerning the writings of Dr. Hagelin. David Spector (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Peremptory deletion of sourced content

Wolfie. I'm wondering how you expect the reader to understand the controversial nature of Hagelin's research if there is no content in the article on that topic. You have once again deleted a massive amount of soured content in the face of the Arbitration guidelines while adjusting the weight of the article in favour of Hagelin's mainstream work and down playing the controversial work. Makes no sense.(olive (talk) 16:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC))

As has been pointed out to you, the arbitration guidelines do not say what you think they say. If you want to make an arbcom clarification request: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment. Let's no exaggerate the size of what I removed, 950 bytes of non-independent self-published primary sourced content which were used to make points not in secondary sources, see Wikipedia:FRINGE#Independent_sources. What is of interest to the independent sources is that Hagelin attempted to make the "identification of a unified field of consciousness with a unified field of superstring theory", the specifics of him publishing in the Maharishi's journal is irrelevant, they don't give weight to that and the rest is already in the section I did not remove. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Please leave your tone at the door.

• I'm sorry Wolfie but you are mistaken in your understanding of the arbitration.
• Hagelin's discussion of the connection he makes to the UF and consciousness must be contained in the article simply to make sense. Sources can self define. In this case Hagelin has written on the topic and that is what we must use to begin a discussion of this topic. That's just good standard writing practice and is appropriate per Wikipedia. You are confusing fringe sourcing in which fringe content is not mainstream to the topic of the article with this situation. In this case Hagelin took a sharp turn in a brilliant mainstream career to look at this area. This is highly significant and must be outlined clearly in an article on the man's life and professional career. To not include the appropriate content is a violation of weight. And if you think the content you deleted is too long I'm sure it can be tightened up and shortened. Not a problem.(olive (talk) 17:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC))

If that is your intention, that sounds a lot like original research from primary sources on your part. The sources don't give significance to this and the rest of the section highlights the pertinent part of what Hagelin did; attempting to make a connection between the two disparate areas. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• In discussing a scientist's research its necessary and in fact critical to include information on the work itself. The expert on John Hagelin's work is John Hagelin. For the reader to understand what critics and supporters of Hagelin's work are talking about we have to first give them information on that work. You've deleted that content.

• Hagelin's 1987 paper on consciousness and the unified field has been cited 175 times. This is significant in terms of this article. [31]

• Hagelin' s work is not being used to support a theory, it is being used to describe Hagelin's work in an article about Hagelin and about his work. This is appropriate and acceptable per Wikipedia. The sources are simply references for the reader wanting more information.

• There is no policy that supports this kind of removal. This is an arbcom guideline that does not support the deletion:

"10) Peremptory reversion or removal of material referenced to reliable sources and added in good faith by others, is considered disruptive when done to excess. This is particularly true of controversial topics where it may be perceived as confrontational."   And the link: [32](olive (talk) 21:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC))

Please do not misrepresent what Arbcom has said. I've asked you to stop referring to it in discussing as it merely provides a chilling effect. Arbcom is merely listing current practice, not special guidelines. Most of those "175 cites" on google scholar are not independent academic citations, in fact a great many are in fringe journals and the web. There is plenty of context already in the article as I have outlined, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Wolfie. The TM arbitration has specific guides which you chose to ignore. There is no chilling effect when citing a guide for editing. If you chose to ignore that guide that is your choice. You are not understanding me. You deleted with out discussion and with no policy support pertinent content to this article which weakens the article. Further you misunderstand and misuse fringe. Nor have you outlined content that describes Hagelin's research. Your ownership, tone and arguments for deleting content on this article are not acceptable per Wikipedia. Please reconsider my points.(olive (talk) 23:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC))

Nope you are wrong about what "Principles" means in that Arbitration page. I have already cited the P&G based reason for the removal Wikipedia:FRINGE#Independent_sources, you have chosen to ignore that and advance non-policy based rationale. If something is important to note, a secondary source will undoubtedly have noted it. What we don't do is create paragraphs based purely on primary sources to act as fringe promotion. If you recall, the article was delisted precisely because the sources were of low quality and that there was "an over-reliance on the inclusion of much Fringe Theory information". IRWolfie- (talk) 23:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

• If possible, could one of you provide a diff or outline of the specific material being disputed? Apologies if I've missed it. MastCell ^Talk 05:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

[33]. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Continued removal of RS content

I note that you continue to remove RS content with out discussion or agreement. You are dealing this way with a BLP and another human being's life and do so to satisfy some notion you have of what fringe means. I have been willing from the beginning of the GA process to collaborate with those willing to make this article better. This is not a game Wolfie, this is a man's life. If you had concerns discuss them, collaborate, but leaching out content based on false premises is unconscionable.(olive (talk) 04:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC))

While I'm quite sensitive Wikipedia's potential to harm its article subjects, I think you're substantially over-reacting here. It's completely fair to ask IRWolfie to discuss his edits, but your inflammatory and emotionally manipulative language pretty much guarantees that any subsequent discussion is going to be unproductive. As you know, appropriate sourcing is necessary but not sufficient for inclusion; we remove "RS content" all the time when it's given undue weight, or used to advance original synthesis. MastCell ^Talk 04:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The only sources I removed where 1. primary sources which were being used for OR and 2. those sources highlighted by the GA as being unreliable, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The article must describe the controversial turn a brilliant scientist took in his career as outlined by the sources both by noting the controversy and noting in the most accurate way possible what that controversial research is. This does not constitute so called WP: Fringe sourcing, but is content that describes a relatively mainstream career which included a controversial change. Your comments above: considering the tone in Wolfie's opening comment, his peremptory and continued removal of content on an article that falls under the TM arbitration and your implied support of that removal, Wolfie's clear misuse of WP:Fringe, his misuse of WP OR, and his intractable and ownership style evident both in continuing to remove content and when I attempted to explain and to compromise, coupled with your ongoing attempts across Wikipedia to discredit a group of editors inform clearly of what I am facing here. (olive (talk) 15:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC))

Can you please cease the mudslinging. It won't get us anywhere. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I have noted for the record, my concerns here. Nothing in your comments indicate collaboration, nor in MC's support of your behaviour so I leave you two to this article. I have no further need to input here. Thanks.(olive (talk) 16:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC))

Olive, stop attacking me. It won't get us anywhere, how can we collaborate when every comment I make you reply with an attack? We can't have a rationale discourse if you attack me for everything I say. Discuss the edits, not me. You've made claims against me, but you have failed to highlight any specific issue. The article already does cover his change from physics to TM work, and the controversy that it caused, and it uses independent secondary sources to do it. Now, what I removed here: [34] in the edit you objected to was two things, firstly there was the OR as the IP in the section below noted. Then I added a more faithful cover of the Shermer source, which was previously being used to imply something a lot more positive than the source indicates. Thirdly, I removed some of the hyberbole about the Kilby award and an incorrect summary of why he was given the award, and added more secondary sources about him being nominated for the award by a TM practitioner. Fourthly, I removed the Positions held which lists a lot of TM titles, most of these are already covered in the article elsewhere and they are all primary sourced (TM people seem to love giving lots of titles, he appears to have about 10). Fifthly, I then removed the primary sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• My response was to Mastcell and had nothing to do with you. I apologize if placing my comment in sequence created misunderstanding.(olive (talk) 16:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC))

WP:OR

However, Hagelin's collaboration with researchers at CERN and others continued for years after he first introduced his hypotheses regarding physics and consciousness. According to Woit, Hagelin began connecting consciousness and the unified field in the late 1970s as a Ph.D. student at Harvard. Hagelin's collaborative work in particle physics continued until 1994.

This text and the associated footnote seem to be original research intended to contradict a source. -- 92.2.70.41 (talk) 23:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the OR and broken the SYNTH. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

This may be, as is written marginally WP:OR. However, in fact the references we have clearly indicate one source (Anderson) itself is not accurate. We will have to adjust the text to be accurate, and per BLP we would not to want to in anyway slant content to create false information on a living person.

We have a couple of choices here. We can remove the content and source that is clearly incorrect or we can fairly present both pieces of information. However, why we would deliberately and knowingly include content that is false is a question we should deal with as well.(olive (talk) 19:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC))

What is false and what you are talking about is not clear. Can you clarify? IRWolfie- (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure: The Observer article says Hagelin was ostracized by his peers. However, this is clearly not accurate since the list of papers and another source , Woit, indicate Hagelin continued to collaborate after the introduction of his hypothesis connecting UF to consciousness. We have no mandate on Wikipedia to knowingly include false information. There are several ways of correcting this: One we can remove the at fault source, or two I can re add the deleted content in a way that it is not OR, and also delete the at-fault source. The source is at fault on a other point as well-that of Hagelin's divorce coinciding with his time at Stanford which was not the case. In general I'd say the observer source is poor given its clear inaccuracies. From what I can see the content you removed was added in an attempt to correct the inaccuracy with out removing the inaccurate source. (I mistakenly added Anderson as the source above which may have caused confusion).(olive (talk) 19:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC))

We have no idea of the dynamics behind the scenes, so why you say it is false I don't know. There are many reasons why he could have still produced papers but have been mostly excluded in one way by his former peers. Even the most ostracised person can still freely publish papers and attend conferences. That is surely original research, IRWolfie- (talk) 20:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Look at the papers published and note who Hagelin was collaborating with- his former peers including Ellis. The sources contradict each other, and we do have the accurate information. We cannot knowingly add false information and especially on a BLP.(olive (talk) 20:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC))

I'm still not following the logic. This does not mean he was not ostracised by his peers. Those papers are from the 80s and 90s and the article was written in 2005. Ellis and Hagelin appears to have stopped after 1992 for example. We aren't given a specific time frame or whatever. So why you are certain it is wrong puzzles me and there certainly isn't enough information to provide a basis for why you think it is wrong. Most certainly looking Hagelin's publications is the wrong way to go about it. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

According to our own article, Hagelin began the connection of conscoiuness to phyisics in the 70's. He went to MIU in 1984. Our own article and sources states he continued to collaborate until 1994. Ostracized by definition means there would have been no collaboration. Clearly there was collaboration.

Hagelin collaborators Dmitri Nanopolous and John Ellis were uncomfortable with Hagelin's move from Stanford to MIU but continued to work with him.[16] While at MIU, he received funding from the National Science Foundation.[6] (olive (talk) 17:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC))

Kilby award

In 1992, Hagelin was given a Kilby International Award, an award from the North Dallas Chamber of Commerce. The nomination was from a fellow TM practitioner who was also in the Kilby selection committee. The award was given for his work in particle physics leading to the development of supersymmetric grand unified field theories.

• This is not in the source given "...an award from the North Dallas Chamber of Commerce."

• If we are going to include content about the award lets be accurate and inclusive. This pretty clearly attempts to denigrate and is not a neutral explanation of the award since it excludes most if not all of the information on the web site information: "The nomination was from a fellow TM practitioner who was also in the Kilby selection committee."

(olive (talk) 19:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC))

The Dallas chamber of commerce information is in the Nature source. On your next point, "the website information"? Can you clarify what you mean? IRWolfie- (talk) 20:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting the source. I refer to the Kilby award web site which is an excellent source about the foundation itself, and the award. This article clearly does not line up with the information on the web site and denigrates the award, those who have supported the foundation, and those who have won awards.

For example if we are going to describe the award why is this kind of information (below) ignored in favour of "chamber of commerce" which I don't see anywhere on the website by the way?

• Patrons: [35]

• International council:[36]
• Jury:

The Kilby Awards Jury is chaired by Sir Brian Heap, Master of St. Edmund's College at Cambridge University. A distinguished committee meets annually with Sir Brian Heap to consider candidates submitted by nominators throughout the United States and abroad. These Laureates are chosen from international candidates and celebrated in an Awards Ceremony.

The Kilby Awards Foundation annually recognizes five to seven individuals who make extraordinary contributions to society through science, technology, innovation, invention and education. --olive (talk) 20:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

It looks like we're choosing to prioritize third-party reliable sources over the awarding organization's website. Which is in keeping with my understanding of this site's sourcing guidelines and policies. MastCell ^Talk 22:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see that any chice has been made here except that an editor has chosen to add content which alone creates a inaccurate impression of this award. As well sources are reliable and verifiable specific to the content they support, and sources can be reliable per content about themselves. The definitive source on the Kilby award is the foundation website . Do you doubt its authenticity. That said I am suggesting that the content as is, in the article, deprecates the award and that we can satisfy NPOV by citing either more about the award so that it is fairly represented or remove content that by itself creates a pejorative impression.(olive (talk) 22:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC))

The questions you're asking lead me to believe that you haven't understood my point. I don't doubt the authenticity of the website. I disagree with you about "definitive" sourcing. According to this site's guidelines, our content should be based on "reliable, third-party published sources" (emphasis mine). Thus, our coverage prioritizes a third-party source (the Nature article) over the award's own website. The requirement for third-party sources is all the more important when the award in question is described as somewhat dubious: according to Nature, "Few have even heard of [the Kirby Award], perhaps because it was created three years ago by the Dallas Chamber of Commerce to draw attention to the area." MastCell ^Talk 22:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I understand your point perfectly. I did not say definitive sourcing (a WP standard), I said the definitive source on the Kilby award is the foundation website, which it is. The first standard on Wikipedia most especially in a BLP is to present content accurately which means that the policies, NPOV, including WP:Weight, and Verifiability must be adhered to. This article does not present accurate neutral content on the Kilby award; at present the content has been based on one source, and the argument for that is that the few words is that source trump the information on the website itself. Further the Kilby foundation website is not presented at all and a link to another Wikipedia article is not a source for this article. Second, the NPOV policy trumps the WP:RS guideline. We cannot use a RS or RS argument to present content in a non neutral manner which is what is happening here. Then, per weight an aspect of the NPOV policy, if there are differing views on content those views must be presented. The definitive information for the content on this award is acceptable as a RS, for content about itself. It may be a primary source, but primatry sources are appropriate and are RS as they self define. We self define the Kilby award nost accurately by looking at its website. We can define how others view that award by applying other RSs. Both in this case must be present. Finally, we can represent the award accurately either by removing any definitions of the award or if we want to continue to include explanations of the award as is in place now, we must per weight and NPOV include the content from the foundation site, since it is available, is verifiable, and which defines the award as the foundation defines it. I'm happy to do either one or the other, but the article and its content must be fair and neutral.(olive (talk) 03:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC))

I'm afraid I didn't quite follow that. It seems much less complicated than you're making it out to be. WP:BLP and WP:NPOV demand the use of high-quality third-party reliable sources. Nature is a high-quality third-party reliable source. Nature describes the award as obscure and a bit dubious. We convey that. I don't understand your argument that we need to water down the third-party reliable sources in this particular instance, and I don't see anything in WP:BLP or WP:NPOV to support your argument. MastCell ^Talk 05:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Reliable source as defined on Wikipedia does not exclude sources which self define. A third party source is being used as a reason to include the disparaging content but to exclude another verifiable source. Inclusion of a source does not exclude other sources. Oddly that source being excluded casts a somewhat more positive light on the award. Why is including a more positive view "watering down" the other source unless the object here is to present the most pejorative view possible.

Sources do not somehow magically achieve status on their own. They achieve importance per the content they reference. If we are describing something like this award we must first describe it as accurately as possible and where do we go for that kind of information? Priority of sources is per the exactitude with which they reference the content given they are both reliable and verifiable. Nothing in our policies designates priority sources at the exclusion of other reliable sources. While I am willing to include both pejorative and more positive content showing different views and satisfying NPOV you and Wolfie are not. Why is that? (olive (talk) 07:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC))

Olive, it's really a simple issue and I'm not sure what the issue is here. You are trying to use a non-independent primary source from the award website about an award to make the article appear more positive in spite of the less than positive reception the award gets in independent secondary sources. This is exactly what we shouldn't be doing per WP:NPOV and WP:SECONDARY. As policy indicates, this is rather standard: "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." It should also be self-evident that any dubious award is going go to read more positively on its own website! Using a primary source in this way to contrast against the coverage by secondary sources is original research, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

For the record: on novel understanding of policy

I will withdraw from this discussion now, given this discussion is not progressing. I note the misuse and or misunderstanding of policy in the thread above and in a BLP. Wolfie: This is not a correct understanding of WP:OR. In no way is using the foundation site an analysis or evaluation of the the content in the source, and is not OR per Wikipedia. Your assumption that using the website to describe its own award is pretty standard way of defining something, and has nothing to do with "trying to make the article more positive" That you think this is the case and that coupled with your recent deep revert is a clear POV, and violates NPOV. And yes NPOV is simple when adhered to.

Mastcell: You suggest that one source trumps another despite that fact that the sources in the discussion above, the Nature source and the Kilby award foundation website, are being used to support two different pieces of content. There is no such policy, and such a reading of sourcing is illogical since it would remove masses of content and sources for Wikipedia articles as editors removed content based on a personal priority system(olive (talk) 17:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC))

If the secondary sources are overwhelmingly negative about an award, and you use the awards own website to make it seem more positive, at a minimum that violates WP:NPOV. My edits are neutral because they conform to the independent secondary sources, IRWolfie- (talk) 17:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Wow! We have one source with a few words, Nature. Use of the foundation website to set the standard for how the foundation sees its own award is a standard in editing. Identifying a source as reliable in no way establishes or predicts neutral content.(olive (talk) 17:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC))

Yes we have Nature perhaps one of if not the most reliable sources to use. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)