Talk:Russell Targ/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Uri Geller

I would like to expand some of the article so it discusses Puthoff and Targ's experiments with Uri Geller at the SRI. As I understand it these were not all "remote viewing" experiments, so perhaps we should have another section on this. Here is a source I have found which discusses some of these experiments:

The observers were more appalled, however, than impressed. The SRI staffers (physicists Russell Targ and Harold Puthoff, who specialized in lasers) “already believed in E. S. P., and therefore their goal was to make Geller as comfortable as possible in order to make him produce it” said one of the independent experts, Ray Hyman. Hyman, a University of Oregon psychologist (and amateur magician), added that the think tank’s work was “incredibly sloppy”. Geller was not psychic but a very gifted conjurer, Hyman concluded, employing classic mentalist’s tricks that would and should have been exposed by more objective methods. Over the course of his six-week stint at SRI (for which he was paid 100$ a day and all expenses), Geller had not even been searched for magnets, something that any good researcher would have known to do to instantly identify a fake. A magnet taped to one’s leg could make a Geiger counter click wildly, this a feat Geller had performed before researchers at the University of London who had been hoodwinked by the man.

Source: Lawrence R. Samuel. (2011). Supernatural America: A Cultural History. Praeger. Page 101. Goblin Face (talk) 16:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Better in the SRI article I'd say, unless Targ was sole investigator. Guy (Help!) 19:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

There is a lot on Geller and Targ. Perhaps it can be added to the Geller article we don't want it to take over this entire article, but Robert L. Park in his book Superstition: Belief in the Age of Science. Princeton University Press. Page 68 says "Scientists who knew Russell Targ scoffed; Targ’s eyesight is so notoriously poor, they said, that he would be the last person they would trust to spot any slight-of-hand used by Geller." Also on page 69, Park describes Targ as a "remote-viewing crackpot physicist". I am listing these sources here because if I add them in there will probably be a controversy or edit-warring from Targ over them. Goblin Face (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

These sources can be added, albeit summarized and fully attributed. Cwobeel (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that the article can manage well enough without quoting Park's characterisation. This is supposed to be a biography, not a compendium of Everything Nasty said about Targ. Present the evidence - assessments of the validity of the science - and let readers decide for themselves whether Targ is 'crackpot' or not. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Right. We don't need everything, only enough to show that his work was considered to fall below accepted standards of rigour, and hence is not considered compelling. Guy (Help!) 08:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Cwobeel and Guy. Further content should be tightly paraphrased. Perhaps this material belongs more at the article on SRI? - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

There is also Paul Kurtz's (1985) chapter Spiritualists, Mediums and Psychics: Some Evidence of Fraud which has a section on Uri Geller and Targ on pages 209-217 in the book A Skeptic's Handbook of Parapsychology. Prometheus Books. The section is online [1]. This may be a useful reference. I may as well document this reference here just in case we add a section on Geller, but I will probably add it to the main Uri Geller article. Goblin Face (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I am no longer looking for sources, these are the last ones I could find and I have spent hours looking. Two articles in the New Scientist magazine that discuss Targ's experiments with Geller. [2], [3]. Also note a source that would be a goldmine for information about Targ is the chapter Targ: From Puthoff to Blue in the book The New Age: Notes of a Fringe Watcher by Martin Gardner. [4] Goblin Face (talk) 20:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Misconceived difference

In a recent edit, JzG reintroduces the term pseudoscience ('... known for his research in the pseudoscience of remote viewing'), on the grounds that 'the work he did was within the pseudoscience of RV, not the objective analysis of it', asking me if I see the difference. My response is that I can see that while in principle there is a difference, asserting a difference in the current context is to misunderstand the actual use of that term.

The difference between science and pseudoscience is connected with the standard of the work. Science, in its search for the truth, has by trial and error established procedures for reliability, which may differ from one field to another. The fact that some research in an area is bad enough to be characterised as pseudoscience does not make the area itself pseudoscience. This is best explained with regard to medical and especially drug research. At this time it is gradually being realised that much research in these areas is unreliable. For example, drug companies may publish just the tests that come out in favour of a drug and not those that do not come out in favour. This selective publication may suggest that the drug is working, whereas analysis of all the tests would cast doubt on the claims. That kind of research might well deserve to be called pseudoscience, and yet we do not call drug testing as such pseudoscience because it is possible to do valid research on the effectiveness of drugs. For the same reason, we cannot call RV a pseudoscience just because some research on it is of poor standard. You might put this simply: 'once there's 'objective analysis' in a field, that field is no longer pseudoscience'.

A corollary of all this is that saying someone is working in an area that is pseudoscience is ipso facto implying that his research in that area is of a poor standard. Targ says he has sent wikipedia a document (I don't know what he means by that) saying a number of things that attest to the standard of his work in this area, but I will not fill the space with that as that is not the main point -- the main point relates to the use of the term pseudoscience as I have explained above. This approval of the standard of Targ's RV work has, I know, been disputed by sceptics, but, as Mandy Rice-Davis would put it, they would say that, wouldn't they. --Brian Josephson (talk) 15:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of the merits of these views in the minds of Wikipedia editors, what you're having a hard time grasping is that it's not what is in the minds of Wikipedia editors that primarily determines content here. If there's a widespread view in reliable sources that RV is a pseudoscience, that's what the Wikipedia article will say about it. Now, as for what's in my own mind, my sense of all of this is that RV was perhaps initially properly considered a field of inquiry in which people attempted to apply standard scientific techniques -- but at this particular point in time it has become impossible (in light of subsequent research) to maintain a conventional scientific engagement with RV, because it has been definitively found wanting via scientific evaluation. Your point about the way things evolve is fine in general, but in the present RV is a pseudoscience. But again: the main issue is evaluating the secondary sources about this topic and conveying what they say. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, I think this is the moment to send you what Targ wrote to WP. Of course I don't for a moment imagine you will do anything other than continue to maintain that as far as WP is concerned RV is still a pseudoscience -- that's what happens in WP when the GS and their ilk are at work. But it will be a very interesting situation, in that it will be clear to anyone reading this discussion and the following statement, in conjunction with what the article says, that WP editors are very happy to have content that is clearly at variance with the facts, and many will be fascinated to learn of this. I can't imagine that editors of any other encyclopedia would be happy in the same way, but as you have all been keen to impress on me WP is merely a mechanism for regurgitating whatever may have appeared in the pages, true or false hardly matters, of a so-called reliable source.
And here is Targ's communication:

There are a number of reasons that editors at Wikipedia should not characterize remote viewing as pseudoscience, when it is not characterized that way by the informed scientific community.

This rant is spam/trolling which Targ has copied to a number of places, it has no relevance to improvement of this article

In order to publish our findings in the 1976 Proceedings of the IEEE, we had to meet with Robert W. Lucky, managing editor, and his board. The editor proposed to us that we show him how to conduct a remote viewing experiment. If it was successful, he would publish our paper. The editor was also head of electro-optics at Bell Telephone Laboratory. We gave a talk at his lab. He then chose some engineers to be the “psychics” for each of five days. Each day he hid himself at a randomly chosen location in the nearby town. After the agreed-upon five trials, the editor read the five transcripts and successfully matched each of the five correctly to his hiding places. This was significant at 0.008 (one in 5!, 5-factorial). As a result, he published our paper on “Information Transmission Over Kilometer Distances”. In our 23 year program for the government at SRI, we had to carry out “demonstration of ability” tasks for the Director of CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency, NASA, and Commanding General of the Army Intelligence Command. (The names are available upon request.) For the CIA we were able to accurately describe and draw a giant gantry crane rolling on eight wheels over a large building, and draw the 60 foot gores, “slices” of a sphere, under construction in northern Russia. The sphere was entirely accurate, although its existence was unknown at the time. The description was so accurate that it became the subject of a Congressional hearing of the House Committee on Intelligence. They were afraid of a security leak. No leak was found, and we were told to “press on.” Remote viewing is easily replicated and has been demonstrated all over the world. It has been the subject of several Ph.D. dissertations in the US and abroad. Princeton University had a 25 year program investigating remote viewing with more than 450 trials. Prof. Robert Jahn also published a lengthy and highly significant (p = 10-10 or 1 in ten billion) experimental investigation of remote viewing in the 1982 Proc. IEEE. The kind of tasks that kept us in business for twenty-three years include: SRI psychics found a downed Russian bomber in Africa; reported on the health of American hostages in Iran; described Soviet weapons factories in Siberia; located a kidnapped US general in Italy; and accurately forecasted the failure of a Chinese atomic-bomb test three days before it occurred, etc. When San Francisco heiress Patricia Hearst was abducted from her home in Berkeley, a psychic with the SRI team was the first to identify the kidnapper by name and then accurately describe and locate the kidnap car. I was at the Berkeley police station and witnessed this event. Jessica Utts is a statistics Professor at the University of California, Irvine, and is [president-elect] of the American Statistical Association. In writing for her part of a 1995 evaluation of our work for the CIA, she wrote: “Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well established. The statistical results of the studies examined are far beyond what is expected by chance. Arguments that these results could be due to methodological flaws in the experiments are soundly refuted.… Remote viewing has been conceptually replicated across a number of laboratories, by various experimenters, and in different cultures. This is a robust effect that, were it not such an unusual domain, would no longer be questioned by science as a real phenomenon. It is unlikely that methodological flaws could account for its remarkable consistency.” Whether you believe some, all, or none of the above, it should be clear that hundreds of people were involved in a 23 year, multi-million dollar operational program at SRI, the CIA, DIA and two dozen intelligence officers at the army base at Ft. Meade. Regardless of the personal opinion of a Wikipedia editor, it is not logically coherent to trivialize this whole remote viewing undertaking as some kind of “pseudoscience.” Besides me, there is a parade of Ph.D. physicists, psychologists, and heads of government agencies who think our work was valuable, though puzzling.

By the way, I (bdj) would dispute your assertion that what is in the minds of editors is irrelevant. Certain editors have made their views (using strong language to do so) very clear and, surprise, surprise, these are just the people who go round changing the article to make it seem unfavourable to the biographee. Another point to mull over: you seem to have no problem accusing people like myself of having a mental bias that is affecting what they write, but on the other hand people such as yourself claim to be completely immune from such influence. Remarkable! I'm afraid I don't believe it. --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The statement "WP is merely a mechanism for regurgitating whatever may have appeared in the pages, true or false hardly matters, of a so-called reliable source." bears a close similarity to the truth. Actually read WP:NPOV, "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Some editors may not like it but that is the core policy. Discussion of the reliability of particular sources is an important activity on WP, for issues not resolved on talk pages there is the Reliable sources/Noticeboard. No original reasearch is allowed on WP, again a core policy. If an editor has objections to the core policies, this talk page is not the place to argue them. Neither is this talk page the place to present original research. Either propose content in keeping with policy or go fight to change policy. A talk page is not a forum for discussing the topic of an article (or WP policy, or conspiracy theories). It is for discussion of improving the article. If there are not reliable sources that present a view it doesn't belong on WP. WP is not a soapbox nor a place to tendentiously strive to right great wrongs. This has been explained repeatedly. Follow policy here or go fight policy on the talk pages of the policies, stop disruptive editing. - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I think this a very clear situation: we are following WP guidelines and policies to the letter, in particular for a WP:BLP. The article as it stands now conforms to these policies. Any poorly sourced material will be summarily deleted, and any material that violates WP:NOR will go the same way. Cwobeel (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

It is Wikipedia policy to delete libelous material when it has been identified. (WP:Libel linked from WP:BLP). I don't feel that policy is being followed, for reasons that have been discussed. --Brian Josephson (talk) 07:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

You're just trying to game the system with that one. WP:BLP links to that in the section titled "Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced". Libel reasonably excludes "all information being referenced through the citation of reliable published sources, so as to maintain a standard of verifiability." Otherwise, we'd have to remove everything from the David Berkowitz article except his birth, early life, and conversion in prison[REDACTED]. None of the stuff identifying remote viewing (which is not Targ himself) as pseudoscience is poorly sourced or unsourced, unless you want to provide further proof that you're only tendentiously trying to censor the site. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

And what you are doing, Ian, is to dream up non-existent law in an attempt to defend your misconceived position; take a look at http://nationalparalegal.edu/public_documents/courseware_asp_files/torts2/Defamation/GeneralPrinciplesOfDefamation1.asp to become better informed (see the section on republishing). And, in addition, you are trying to curtail legitimate discussion by means of threats.
What reputable organisations normally do in such situations is to remove the offending material if asked to do so by the person concerned, as Targ has done in this case. I trust you will do this now (i.e. remove the word pseudoscience from the statement that Targ is best known for his work in the pseudoscience of RV).--Brian Josephson (talk) 16:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Bull. You're just dancing on the line of legal threats again. And as we've explained before, we're merely repeating what any scientific source would say. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

There are many differences with the Berkowitz case which you cite in an attempt to bolster your misconceived situation. For example, the article is concerned primarily with facts, while it is purely an opinion, disputed by a number of people, that RV is pseudoscience. The fact that the statement is high profile being at the beginning of a profile makes it more serious than the original sources, none of which link Targ so directly with pseudoscience. Besides this, a legal factor is the question of whether the text at risk damages the reputation of the person concerned. In the case of Berkowitz it can well be argued that his reputation based on his history is such that it could not be damaged further by repetition of the facts. This is not so in the case of Targ.
I see people have been bringing up the 'no legal threats' in great number. What absolute nonsense -- no one is threatening anyone with legal action, and this is purely a further attempt to stop me drawing attention to well-defined WP policy in regard to BLPs. Surely no-one can be so intellectually challenged to think that because I mention the law I am making a legal threat? Perhaps some are! --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I thought you had stated you were going to stay away from tossing around the legal bits as part of your unblock? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, it isn't a matter of opinion. Remote viewing is a pseudoscience, according to everyone who didn't make a career out of futily trying to find it, and those who did who weren't lying to themselves or doing a terrible job of research. This is according to every mainstream scientific source that comes close to discussing it. That you keep failing to get that is more proof you don't belong here. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Relationships issue

I added the fact that Targ's first wife was Bobby Fischer's sister, which seems to me quite an interesting piece of information, worthy of inclusion in the personal section of a biography. I have learned that there have been objections to such inclusion in the past, and in this context it is worth noting that the article on Paul Dirac includes the information

Dirac married Margit Wigner (Eugene Wigner's sister).

It is hard to see why including such information should be OK in Dirac's case but not in that of Targ. Of course, if the brother concerned were not a notable person there'd be a case for considering inclusion irrelevant, but Bobby Fischer can hardly be considered not notable. --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Is who someone's wife's brother is encyclopedic? What is done in another article is irrelevant, what is relevant is policy. Is there a reliable source that when writing about Targ has considered this important enough to include? Bobby Fischer may be notable, Joan Targ is notable enough to have her own article but how is it notable that Targ's wife's brother was Fischer? Our standard is what the reliable sources say. What do the other editors here think? It's not a big issue to me. Whatever the consensus leans towards is fine with me. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

i dont see how it is relevant - is there any indication that Fischer influenced Targ or vice versa? otherwise its just bringing in shoe string "relatives" (to garner "fame by association"?) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Lighten up, Doom -- it is not put in for 'fame by association', how ridiculous! It is absolutely absurd to even to consider that the fact that Targ married Fischer's sister might have enhanced his reputation, and the very fact that to try to boost your case you have made this absurd suggestion ('I'm related to a famous chess player, and that means people will think I'm a great person, yeah, sucks to all you ordinary people who have PhDs from Harvard but don't have famous relatives!') really destroys your credibility. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Assert mainstream scientific consensus

There is no reason to say "generally" considered pseudoscience. WP asserts the mainstream scientific consensus as due. If there is a significant minority opinion otherwise, supported by reliable sources, that can be presented as due. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

It is not appropriate to re-add material without consensus. No controversy exists, provide sources for fringe idea and it can possibly included as due. What source says generally? The sources I read state it is pseudoscience unequivocally. Read WP:FRINGE, WP:ASSERT and WP:DUE. Editors with a conflict of interest should propose changes on the talk page rather than directly edit articles they have an association with. - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The issue is that the subject and Brian Josephson reject the statement that it is or is considered pseudoscience, both advocate either omitting it or saying it is considered pseudoscience by some scientists. In fact, as the sources establish, it is generally considered pseudoscience. It's clear that people like Brian don't consider it that. We have good sources for it being considered that, few dissenters, but saying it's generally considered pseudoscience is properly neutral and not synthesis, as the existence of even a single dissenter means we can't assert it as unambiguous fact. Guy (Help!) 13:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

So according to WP the Earth is generally considered not to be flat? It is considered pseudoscience and that should be asserted. Is there any "serious dispute"? WP:FRINGE theories should be presented as fringe and other published reliable sources that represent a significant minority opinion can be presented as WP:DUE. These policies seem clear. Even if Targ and Josephson reject a statement it is what reliable sources say and that should be presented in proportion to it's prominence. - - MrBill3 (talk) 13:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

There are not many people like Brian. When it comes to Nobellists who'll passionately believe in any and (more importantly) every kind of absurd nonsense, he's pretty much always in a minority of one. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

And what do you know about the statistics? That is pure speculation and I happen to know that you are wrong. --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:01, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I think we should constrain discussion to improving the article. That said there has been at least some effort by the subject and others to engage in talk and work with policy. This should be encouraged. WP benefits from a wide variety of input if policy is adhered to, articles are improved. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

MrBill3: The earth is not flat. This has been conclusively demonstrated by measurement and observation. That remote viewing is pseudoscience, is a philosophical point of view. It is possible to recognise it as nonsense without subscribing to the view that is it pseudoscience, and some people do not recognise it as nonsense, a view which is generally agreed to be completely wrong, but science is not in the business of proving negatives. Guy (Help!) 17:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

If the "philosophical point of view" that RV is pseudoscience is presented in multiple reliable sources that is what should be represented on WP. I think however that Alcock 1988 presents a scientific analysis of the Targ-Puthoff studies that clearly characterizes them as something presented as science which is not. Fatally flawed studies are not scientific, presenting them as science is pseudoscience. Multiple RS has presented and agreed with the interpretation of RV as pseudoscience. Science does discard pseudoscience thus the standard for fringe, a lack of serious debate in the academic community. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

More disruption from Russell Targ

Targ has been blocked for a week for disruptive editing but he has now posted on the Society for Psychical Research facebook page telling his psychic friends to come over and tell Wikipedia what they think. [5], also here [6] which includes comments from other banned Wikipedia users. Because of this advertising the article should remain locked for a bit longer maybe but please keep it open to autoconfirmed users. Goblin Face (talk) 17:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm starting to wonder if we could/should get an edit filter set up before the protection goes off. Maybe any non-confirmed user removing the word "pseudoscience" in the intro sets it off and is flagged as a sock/meatpuppet of a COI POV-pusher. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll be semiprotecting the article when full protection wears off or is removed, and will leave it on until offsite canvassing calms down. Easier than setting up an editfilter. Kevin Gorman (talk)

• I've dropped the protection level down to semi, and will leave it as such until the offsite canvassing calms down a bit. Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
• And once again the fact that he is best known for RV has been removed from the first sentence, and once again I have put it back because that is what he is known for. Guy (Help!) 11:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

To repeat, I have not objected to the assertion that Targ is 'best known for RV' and I don't believe Targ does either. And the potentially defamatory statement I referred to and said should be removed has not (so far at least) been restored; thank you all for your consideration in that respect. --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

It is not defamatory to identify that he is best known for his contribution to the pseudoscience around RV. As I said, his work is specifically cited as having been part of this pseudoscience. Whether we include it in those terms or not is editorial judgment, but it is amply justified and well supported and not in any way defamatory just because he doesn't like it. Guy (Help!) 15:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

If someone can unambiguously provide these sources then, as you say, it becomes a matter of editorial judgement whether to repeat the claims in the article. I'd prefer to avoid terms like "defamatory" here as I am not a lawyer. We use WP:BLP here to determine what is and isn't acceptable. Our over-riding concern should be to "do no harm" to the subjects of our articles. I do not think personally that Targ is in the same category as say Andrew Wakefield, who is predominantly notable in the real world as a charlatan and was disbarred from practising as a doctor for his misdeeds. I would rather see the article describe Targ's work neutrally and dispassionately, without shying away from recording the specific concerns reviewers have had with the quality of his work. These concerns do need to relate specifically to the subject, i.e. mention him by name and specifically use this language in relation to the subject. I am still concerned that the wording on the article may fall foul of WP:SYNTH. --John (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

No, "do no harm" is not the appropriate test: if someone is best known for a criminal conviction, say, then "do no harm" would indicate that we omit that fact. What we should be is fair and accurate. Which the article is, I thin. Obviously the failure by early editors to unearth Targ's former career as a balnace ot his career in pseudoscience, is presented by him as a conspiracy, but I think we all know better than that. Guy (Help!) 22:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Is Targ best known for a criminal conviction? --John (talk) 06:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps a glance at WP:HARM will help avert further unhelpful distraction. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

That's an interesting essay. I prefer "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion... Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively ... Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[3] The burden of evidence for any edit rests with the person who adds or restores material" (my emphasis). --John (talk) 06:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

" Delphi became notable for its success in psychically forecasting changes in the price of silver commodity futures in 1982, as described in the Wall Street Journal, October 22, 1984"

The above [7] was added by User:Torgownik, who I think we've established is Targ himself. Needless to say, it has been reverted, presumably per WP:COI if for no other reason. It appears the the WSJ archives don't go back to 1984, but it should be possible to access the journal somehow. I'll see if I can track the article down, and we can then decide how to proceed - though I very much doubt that we will be stating in Wikipedia's voice that 'psychically forecasting' took place... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Link for WSJ article

If someone wants to buy, read and possibly cite the WSJ article "Did Psychic Powers Give Firm a Killing In the Silver Market?" by Erik Larson October 22, 1984 in the Wall Street Journal. Here's a link ProQuest Archiver link to purchase "Did Psychic Powers Give Firm a Killing In the Silver Market?" - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Having tracked the article down online (I'll not provide a link, as I suspect it may be a copyright violation), I can confirm that the WSJ does not state that "Delphi became notable for its success in psychically forecasting changes in the price of silver commodity futures", or anything approximating that. Their 'psychic' seems to have guessed right a few times, but failed to replicate the results. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I have had a little chat with Targ about this on his talk-page. Unfortunately, it's a lot more complicated then Targ has written. Firstly regarding this alleged silver market 1982 psychic predication thing where allegedly $120,000 was obtained from "paranormal" ability this was from the psychic Keith "Blue Harary" but there has been some skepticism about this (even from Keith himself?) as there was no replication and a dispute over the interpretation of the event. This is not a reliable source but it's useful for some background information. Harary, K. (1992). The goose that laid the silver eggs: A criticism of psi and silver futures forecasting. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 86, 375–409 which asserts "that all such interpretations are based on flawed logic and misinformation about the nature and results of the original effort." [8]. The magician Henry Gordon was skeptical about this event (and is briefly cited on the article already). Martin Gardner also has covered this and has written some interesting things, he asserts that Harary believed he could telepathically communicate with his cat, if that's not nutty enough according to Gardner he later fell out with Targ and tried to sue him. I do not have the Gardner source right now, so I cannot be of help here. I am pretty sure Gardner mentions the event in his book The New Age: Notes of a Fringe-Watcher which has an entire chapter about Targ's life with skeptical commentary. We can only cover this if reliable secondary sources can be located. I think the Gardner source would be a good starting point. Goblin Face (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Termination of the SRI program

I added a long paragraph here responding to concerns about the termination of the SRI program. My comments are gone from this page.? Our program was supported for 23 years, which is an extremely long time in aerospace. It is absurd to criticize the program because it was eventually terminated, as CIA management changed. You are criticizing the longest running program I have ever heard of, for being terminated. Torgownik (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)Russell

It doesn't look like you've edited the talk page here for several days. Perhaps you didn't save your post? Please feel free to write again. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Nothing of any significance has been deleted from this page. Are you sure you didn't post it into the article by mistake? This post [9] in the article was deleted because it was clearly misplaced - though frankly, I doubt that it would have achieved much if it had been posted in the correct place. Insulting contributors is unlikely to help... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• He entered it in an old unrelated section of my talk page [10]. I'm not sure how he ended up editing that section by accident (might be an accessibility thing) but for God's sake please have some understanding for some mistakes since, as the article says, Russell Targ is legally blind. The text is as follows:

"I worked as a research scientist in aerospace and other government supported programs from 1956 to 1998. In that 42 year period I never heard of any government supported program that ran for anything remotely like the 23 years that the SRI program had support. At Lockheed where I was saving aircraft from wind-shear and air turbulence, we had to fight to get one year extensions. And though NASA loved the program, they simply didn't support any outside research past five years. I propose you drop the idea that that we were supported for "only" 23 yeas, shows a defect in the research. That's an absurd proposition. Knowledgeable people are stunned that the CIA supported is for two decades. Torgownik (talk) 17:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)Russell <russ at Targ.co>"

Wnt (talk) 19:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I think Carl Sagan summed this up well:

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.

— Carl Sagan

These days we have a name for it: cognitive dissonance. Unfortunately, anything that requires belief to replicate, is to a very high degree of certainty, baloney, hence the general view that RV is peudoscience. Perhaps you prefer Huxley:

The great tragedy of science – the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact

— T. H. Huxley

The result is the same. Guy (Help!) 20:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

This article lacks NPOV

As a long-time Wikipedia editor I am greatly disappointed at the lack of balance shown by some editors of this article. I appeal to other editors who apparently don't have a stake in one particular outcome or another to intervene here. Mark Turner (talk) 20:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I am filing a mediation request. Mark Turner (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Presumably you would have to clarify the issues you have? Juan Riley (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

−

Let's start with the sentence in the first paragraph: "remote viewing is regarded as pseudoscience." This is factually incorrect. Just looking at this talk page shows there is not consensus. To definitively state this without qualifying it is wrong, and to revert my very reasonable correction of "some" sure looks to me like a problem with NPOV. Like everyone here I want the best possible article. So if we can't agree on this it will be up to the mediators. Mark Turner (talk) 21:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Mark you have posted your name so there's no WP:OUTING here, an internet search for you and "remote viewing" reveals websites where you are endorsing remote viewing and other psychic claims. You also appear to have a connection to Targ. Are you really going to pretend to be neutral? Did Targ invite you to edit his article? I find it interesting that you have taken no interest in his article until now. But explain why you believe the article lacks NPOV? Goblin Face (talk) 20:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

If you read WP:OUTING you'll see that it rules out the tactic of looking up someone's name and trying to dig up dirt to discredit his point of view. I mean, if you looked him up and it said he was a janitor or a truck driver you could say he doesn't know science, etc. But "Goblin Face", well, we all have to trust Goblin Face because we can't look him up. Doesn't work like that - an editor isn't supposed to be at a disadvantage because you can look up who he is. Wnt (talk) 21:00, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

If an editor has a conflict of interest, then he should disclose it. It's entirely reasonable (and surely desirable) to note a situation where this apparently hasn't happened. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

From what I see, this is a person local to Raleigh-Durham who attended a nearby talk on remote viewing and wrote it up on his blog. It reveals interest, yes, but it most definitely doesn't give him a serious COI. There's more "COI" when a Democrat (or a Republican) edits the Barack Obama article. Wnt (talk) 21:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

What I personally think is irrelevant. What MrBill3 personally thinks is also irrelevant. What matters is including facts, correcting issues where they are identified, and nothing when there is lack of consensus on a point. Anything else is a disservice to an article. Mark Turner (talk) 22:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Moreover User:Jmturner has not yet clarified what he finds lacking in NPOV. Give him a chance. Note how N I am trying to be. Juan Riley (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Wnt, if that were true then we would be prohibited from identifying any undeclared conflict of interest. It's a silly argument. Guy (Help!) 21:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

If a question of COI comes up the editor should be notified on their talk page with a pointer to the policy. Extended discussion here is only appropriate to deal with controversial edits or problematic comments neither of which I see. Let's focus on improving the article. Without specifics an NPOV assertion is useless. What content reflects a lack of balance? I have made several requests that RS documenting and supporting a significant minority view be presented. The current content has been thoroughly discussed and is well sourced. - - MrBill3 (talk) 21:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• :Well said. Juan Riley (talk) 21:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to Cwobeel for the recent edit. This sentence is now factually correct. Mark Turner (talk) 22:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

SRI remote viewing 1982-1995

I've started trying to put some organization into the parapsychology section, which confronted me with two statements: one that the program was found to have yielded no results and abandoned in 1982 (or "mid-80s") when Targ left, and one that says it was discontinued in 1995. I'd appreciate some input from the skeptics about what happened 1982-1995. My assumption is that Targ left under good circumstances and the program was not cancelled until 1995, and so I've deleted the first date of "no results" determination per BLP, pending clarification. Wnt (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

From what I understand, Targ left SRI in 1982 per the New Scientist article. Government funding for the investigation of PSI (Stargate Project) was discontinued in 1995, this meant that funding for SRI from the gov't did not continue past 1995. Some examination of the refs is needed to determine what the funding status of SRI's program was leading up to 1995. Some of the refs in the Remote viewing article may shed some light. I hope your restructuring edits improve the article, with luck there will be some constructive collaboration. You are certainly being bold. I wonder if it might be a better idea to compose your rewrite in a sandbox then open it to comment. - - MrBill3 (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Bold? Are you kidding me? I remember doing more radical surgery than this on a live TFA, though admittedly I can't for the life of me remember which one it was now. I really haven't changed much, aside from a few redundancies, order, and headings. Wnt (talk) 21:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

My characterization as bold was probably not the best. I agree that so far your edits have been mostly structure and basic. I was more talking about jumping in and making changes on an article that is being so feverishly discussed without proposing and discussing them here first. I am a fan of bold editing and don't mean to stand in your way. I'd like to let you get some work done and then see what the consensus is (and add my 2 cents). - - MrBill3 (talk) 21:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for being amused. I knew exactly what MrBill was alluding to with his use of the word "bold". Kinda like standing and watching the "Light Brigade" charging in and hoping User:Wnt doesn't step on any landmines.Juan Riley (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, to be clear -- my opinion is that whenever you start seeing things repeated in an article, it indicates bad organization. And when you organize an article well, defects in balance (like the lack of any initial detail sympathetic to the author from the IEEE article) stand out. And, I hope, the section boundaries can act as firebreaks to limit the spread of conflicts to small and easier to evaluate bits of text. Wnt (talk) 21:22, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Sympathy aint the point is it. Though I do agree with you the subject's refereed physics publications are appropriate to such a biographical article and should be treated with respect. Note, however, that as a physics professional I know that "conference proceedings" are typically NOT refereed. So some of them should be eliminated..my opinion...but I would not be so BOLD.Juan Riley (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Can one boldly edit the physics articles citations?

The point being that some of them are so vague as to be meaningless. E.g., "Laser Focus, 1978". Not only an unrefereed trade journal but also no specific volume etc.. Currently I would just replace such assertion cites with . There are more issues. Perhaps more later when I see the feathers fly on this suggestions. Juan Riley (talk) 21:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with ti, but experience indicates that the subject and his friends are very determined to maximise coverage of his legitimate work while promoting the idea that the work for which he is best (and probably only) known is of peerless value. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Not sure how to handle that stuff. I added the content and refs based entirely on posts to this talk page. To my knowledge there has been no verification. I was hoping when I added the refs with full citation needed tags someone would complete the ref and verification could be done. It was my good faith effort to respect the input of those who sought to include Targ's laser work. His laser papers are pretty highly cited, indicating at least some notability. One of his papers was with Gould a pioneer in lasers one of the scientists with a claim to the invention of lasers. There seems some substance to the assertion Targ was a notable laser physicist. Some of his later papers on lidar/windshear are fairly highly cited also. - - MrBill3 (talk) 23:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

After being CORRECTLY corrected on one of my seemingly innocuous citation edits I am taking this slowly. Would really prefer a consensus on these issues. Should non-refereed trade journal citations be used to establish scientific credentials? And I certainly do NOT deny that within the realm of laser/optical physics the subject has such credentials. And I have had professional dealings with some of the subject's co-authors on wind measuring lidar. Perhaps what bugs me the most is in the listing in On precognition of an AIP Conference Proceedings reference. The AIP allows (or allowed in those days) ANY dues paying member to present at its annual conferences. Thus there are well known "crackpot" sessions. In short, an AIP Conference Proceeding citation means nothing.Juan Riley (talk) 23:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The AIP cite can be cut as undue.

Regarding establishing standing based on trade journal articles, I'd like to get a look at the sources and evaluate them. If the trade press discusses his standing in the field I don't have strong objection, clearly a reputable journal would be a better source. As I said the content is based on what an editor posted to this talk page not my actual reading of the source so it really needs verification. Somebody got volume, issue, page number? The "first" status claimed for two papers also needs secondary support. I'd think this would be notable enough that some article would discuss it. - - MrBill3 (talk) 23:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I do understand your point. Not even sure if I would delete the AIP ref myself. Ah well maybe I would. Juan Riley (talk) 23:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

On just the narrow and neutrally scoped issue with citations on Targ's laser work: after having a few minutes to review the article some of the citation issues can be answered by the ref's given in the Journal Articles On lasers section. To be consistent with the way the lidar wind sensing refs are used (purely as reflist items) I would prefer to make these all just references..and eliminate the section Journal Articles On lasers. Object soon or I will carry this out. Juan Riley (talk) 22:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay and now I going to edit boldly. Since no one has seen the need to perform verification of assertions in the original text of his laser physics...I will tone them down...recognizing that others may bring forward citations making my edits wrong. Juan Riley (talk) 23:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Personal life section

I think the section needs refs tag can be removed. I have added cites for most facts. The only facts not supported are his son's professions and his second marriage. All the content on Fischer is in the refs given.

Speaking of the Fischer content, is it more lengthy and detailed than due? I think it is important content but should it be condensed? It is certainly notable enough for inclusion, there was quite a bit of coverage. - - MrBill3 (talk) 23:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

its longer than i had expected, but there is a lot of context that pretty much needs to be there.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Certainly relevant. Juan Riley (talk) 00:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't get the idea of dividing into "Biography" and "Personal life". To begin with, of course, "biography" is what the whole article is, so it's not a great title. But the contents of the section are more like what I'd call personal life, early life, etc. In any case I don't see the point of physically separating them - all his researches/writings/career should be together (it could even be under a top level heading as Career or something) Wnt (talk) 05:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

This page is about a person who is notable because of his work on remote viewing. Personal details are secondary and as in many other biographies, the personal section is usually posted at the end of the article. Cwobeel (talk) 14:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Re Targ's 2nd marriage, in the UK marriage information is normally public domain and can be accessed easily through organisations such as Ancestry.com. I assume the situation in the US is similar, and in view of this a confirmatory source is hardly needed. Have I already said made this point? I'm getting a sense of déjà vu --Brian Josephson (talk) 15:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

That's not the way WP:BLP works. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

As you wish, Nomo -- it's not something I'm going to lose sleep over. --Brian Josephson (talk) 15:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

BLP compliance

• Are there sources saying that remote viewing, as studied by Targ, is pseudoscience? That part of the lead seems to push BLP for me. If all we have is "Targ studied remote viewing" and "Remote viewing is a pseudoscience" then we are not allowed to meld the two to make a statement, especially on an article on a living person. I am also deeply uncomfortable with the There is no credible scientific evidence that remote viewing works, and the continued study of remote viewing is regarded as pseudoscience. for similar reasons. Are there sources that explicitly make that link, in the context of the living subject of this article? Finally I am deeply unchuffed at the bad faith shown to the subject of this article and by repeated efforts to have him topic-banned from his own article. Shades of WP:DOLT. --John (talk) 23:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

yes, there are: {{cite book|last=Gardner|first=Martin|title=Did Adam and Eve Have Navels?: Debunking Pseudoscience|publisher=W. W. Norton & Company|isbn=0393322386|page=60-67|pages=352}} Cwobeel (talk) 23:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Added that cite, and an extra one for good measure. Cwobeel (talk) 23:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't have the book to hand and the Amazon Look Inside feature won't let me view most of the relevant pages. Is there an actual quote where Targ's work on remote viewing is called pseudoscience? --John (talk) 23:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

These two books are books on Pseudoscience, with many pages dedicated to Targ and Puthoff's work on remote viewing. There is an entire chapter just on this. We don't need a quote that says "Remote viewing is pseudoscience", as what we are asserting in the lede is that Targ's work on remote viewing has been characterized as such. Cwobeel (talk) 00:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

If you read pages 59-60 of David Marks Psychology of the Psychic (2000, edition) he included a section called "Papering over the cracks" which discusses how science separates itself from pseudoscience. He explains how Targ's behavior over the remote viewing experiments was pseudoscientific i.e. denying other researchers access to data from the experiments amongst other things. Terence Hines book Pseudoscience and the Paranormal also covers flaws in Targ's experiments. It is accurate from the sources to describe those experiments as "pseudoscience", it is not original research. Goblin Face (talk) 00:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

If you want to look further, there are 684 books in Google Books that mention Targ's experiments in the context of pseudoscience. You can find additional quotes there. [11] Cwobeel (talk) 00:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Then you have this: TED pulls TEDxWestHollywood license over issue of "pseudoscience”

Critics last year had already begun leveling charges that TED was promoting "pseudoscience" at both official and TEDx events by giving a voice to people whose work did not have strong credibility in scientific circles. The issue came to a head last year after a TEDx event in Spain that included talks on topics such as "Egyptian psychoaromatherapy." The controversy prompted TED to issue a public letter to TEDx organizers that included more thorough guidelines for considering talks that touched on scientific issues or used scientific language. But TED, in that letter, notes the challenge facing lay people in identifying bad and dubious scientific claims: "There is no bright and shining line between pseudoscience and real science, and purveyors of false wisdom typically share their theories with as much sincerity and earnestness as legitimate researchers."

In the case of TEDxWestHollywood, TED officials seemed to have concerns about a handful of speakers, including Russell Targ, whose talk will be on "The Reality of ESP: A Physicist's Proof of Psychic Abilities." […] "We feel that the pseudoscience struggle is an important one. TED and TEDx cannot be platforms that give undo legitimacy to false evidence and selective logic — regardless of brilliant packaging," TED officials wrote in an email to Taylor.

Cwobeel (talk) 01:02, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I totally forgot Targ's ESP talk and TED. As I understand it Targ later claimed they banned his talk but this is not quite true. I think this should be mentioned on the article if we have other references, it is notable. Goblin Face (talk) 01:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Nice quote, and this is reaching towards what you would need to keep the material. It is somewhat undermined by TED officials did not cite specific speakers as being problematic. To be clear, what we need to label Targ a pseudoscientist in this BLP would be multiple reliable sources explicitly saying "Targ is a pseudoscientist". Wikipedia editors imputing guilt by association totally will not cut it. --John (talk) 08:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• My response to Brian Josephson is very simple: Wikipedia is quoting reliable independent sources that identify Targ's work, specifically, as being part of the pseudoscience around remote viewing, with robust arguments to support that identification. Targ dislikes the fact that it's generally viewed as pseudoscience, that is not our problem to fix. It is not defamatory to point out that the work is considered to be pseudoscience and of very poor methodological quality, nor is it a violation of Wikipedia's policies. He known, more than anything else, for his contributions to the pseudoscience surrounding RV - a field of pseudoscientific investigation for which he and his associates are, in fact, almost totally responsible. Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of cherished beliefs. Guy (Help!) 12:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

If that were true I would not be asking these questions. Once again, what we need here, to carry the sort of content that editors here want, are multiple sources specifically calling Targ a pseudoscientist. Show me this and I will be satisfied. Until then I am not convinced. --John (talk) 16:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

No, there is no scientific sources calling Targ himself a pseudoscientist, but as shown by many scientific sources (James Alcock, Martin Gardner, Terence Hines, David Marks etc) his "remote viewing" experiments and work with "psychics" contained flaws and were pseudoscientific. As far as I know only the philosopher Robert Todd Carroll has referred to Targ as a "famed pseudoscientist whose specialty is remote viewing". [12] but we are not using Carroll as a source. Targ has published some early scientific laser work, nobody is denying this. He reminds me of William Crookes or Hans Driesch - a scientist who has published some science early in his career but later abandoned science for parapsychology. I agree that the category "pseudoscientist" should be removed, but describing his paranormal experiments as pseudoscience is entirely accurate from what the sources say. Goblin Face (talk) 20:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Precisely correct. And in fact he is best known for his work on this pseudoscience. I have enormous sympathy: it cannot be easy to have devoted a large chunk of your career to something which is considered ridiculous by a peer community whose approval you very much want. Guy (Help!) 20:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I am still not sure and this conversation is making my BLP whiskers and my SYNTH whiskers tremble. See my longer post below. --John (talk) 21:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

John you are being tendentious. Above is Carroll, using precisely the wording you are objecting to. Gardner in a book subtitled Debunking Pseudoscience and at least a half a dozen other sources. - - MrBill3 (talk) 21:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

No offence, User:MrBill3 but it really isn't important to me whether you think I am being "tendentious" or whether you even know what the word means. What we need are multiple reliable sources for the negative material on this BLP. Not hand-waving, not one blog post which isn't even being used as a source. I already asked you for the quote from Debunking Pseudoscience. Maybe now is a good time for you to give the quote. Then you may feel free to post the other "half a dozen" sources; just make sure they actually identify Targ by name as a "pseudoscientist" or whatever it is you want the article to call him, and it isn't more hand-waving. In closing, be aware that I am not here to make friends with people; I came here because of the frivolous thread at AN/I which was recently closed without action. I am here as an uninvolved admin calling for conformance with core policy. I only ask a few times; when no answer is forthcoming I take that as an admission that there is no answer. I very much hope to get through this without blocking anybody, but blocks will be handed out if need be, if people want to play games with BLP, something I have absolutely no sense of humour about. You have been warned. --John (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Offense taken. The statement, "whether you even know what the word means" is patently offensive. Threats of blocking without citing specific edits which you feel are violations of policy are offensive and inappropriate behavior as an admin.

The Gardner book is a work on debunking pseudoscience. That is the thesis of the book and it's content is specifically to debunk pseudoscience a description of Targ's work that debunks it as pseudoscience can be found on page 61, "Most of the work of Puthoff and Targ at SRI..." Gardner then proceeds to debunk this work as pseudoscience. Thus the statement Targ's work has been characterized as pseudoscience is supported. The Hines book is a work on the paranormal and pseudoscience. Again the thesis of the book is that specific paranormal research can be characterized as pseudoscience. On page 126 in support of this thesis Hines states, "Further, the results of the tests were incorrectly reported in Targ and Puthoff's Nature paper." Is it your contention that stating something has been characterized as pseudoscience when it is discussed in books about pseudoscience is synth? Books do not restate their thesis when describing every example, these two books make their thesis clear in their titles. If you read the sources you will find the theses explained in the introductory chapters. Two authors in published works on the topic of pseudoscience have specifically described the pseudoscientific nature of Targ's work. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The "pseudoscientist" category on the article was removed. No sources are calling Targ a "pseudoscientist" and that is not on the article anywhere, just his psychic experiments (remote viewing) have been characterized as pseudoscience. You can read about that in Terence Hines book Pseudoscience and the Paranormal pp. 133-136. It is too long to quote here but you can find the book online for free (I can't paste the link due to copyright issues). Another source that may be of use here is Grove, J. W. (1985), "Rationality at Risk: Science against Pseudoscience," Minerva 23: 216-240. I have not read it yet I am in the process of doing this. Goblin Face (talk) 15:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I am still concerned that the sentence Targ's work on remote viewing has been characterized as pseudoscience,[2][3] and criticized for lack of rigor.[4][5][n 1] needs to be rigorously sourced before it can be included in the article. I am not sure from your response that it has been. --John (talk) 15:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Have you checked the sources and the footnotes? It is all there. Cwobeel (talk) 15:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

@John:: If you are here as an admin you should not be making threats about blocking editors or getting involved in a content dispute. I am a BLP/N patroller and came here from a report on that board, so I don't have any agendas beyond improving this article and ensuring compliance with WP:BLP. Cwobeel (talk) 15:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not getting involved in a content dispute, I am pointing out that BLP must be, and will be, enforced. And I am not making threats, I am pointing out a possible outcome for anybody playing daft games with our core policies. --John (talk) 15:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

If you are not making threats, kindly refactor your post above in which you said: I very much hope to get through this without blocking anybody, but blocks will be handed out if need be. That's a threat and I don't find it appropriate coming from ad admin, who should know that blocking is not punitive. Cwobeel (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Is there any chance this section can be moved to the bottom of the talk-page? Goblin Face (talk) 15:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

See also Williams, William F. (2013). "Randi, James". Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience: From Alien Abductions to Zone Therapy. Routledge. p. 296. ISBN 9781135955229. Where Williams describes Randi's ruthless debunking of what he sees as pseudoscience then gives the example of Targ & Puthoff and then cites public support of Randi's conclusions by prominent scientists. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Randi, is a skeptic and not a scientist. But there are enough sources besides Randi that supports a characterization of Targ;'s work on remote viewing as pseudoscience.Cwobeel (talk) 15:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Note that Randi's conclusions were publicly supported by prominent scientists. - - MrBill3 (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Randi is, however, a noted authority on the pseudoscience of psychic phenomena. Truth to tell, most scientists completely ignore pseudosciences. Guy (Help!) 06:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

There is Clegg, Brian (2013). Extra Sensory: The Science and Pseudoscience of Telepathy and Other Powers of the Mind. St. Martin's Press. ISBN 9781250019066. which discusses Targ's work in several places, it is using Targ's work as examples of the pseudoscience part not the science part, also there is discussion of "Puthoff's paper" of which Targ was coauthor. - - MrBill3 (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• John expresses concern that the sources don't support the content. Cwobeel asks whether John has checked the sources; I'd like to add my voice to that question. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Martin Bridgstock back in please

A heck load of references have been removed. I am not too bothered because many of those references are on the remote viewing article so no information has been lost, but please put this one back in "Martin Bridgstock wrote in Beyond Belief: Skepticism, Science and the Paranormal, "The explanation used by Marks and Kammann clearly involves the use of Occam's razor. Marks and Kammann argued that the 'cues' - clues to the order in which sites had been visited - provided sufficient information for the results, without any recourse to extrasensory perception. Indeed Marks himself was able to achieve 100 per cent accuracy in allocating some transcripts to sites without visiting any of the sites himself, purely on the ground basis of the cues. From Occam's razor, it follows that if a straightforward natural explanation exists, there is no need for the spectacular paranormal explanation: Targ and Puthoff's claims are not justified." Thanks. Goblin Face (talk) 19:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Also put Marks and Kammann criticisms back in. But in brief if possible, i.e. use the Bridgstock source. Goblin Face (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

You can do it... Cwobeel (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)