Talk:Russell Targ/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Article structure

Might as well bust open this can of worms. A recent edit has broken the format of the article. Currently "Remote viewing" "Reception" (of remote viewing) and "Further work on parapsychology" are subsections of "Laser and electro-optical research" this is obviously not correct. It has been suggested that chronological order be used but that creates the issue of "Laser research" and "Electro-optical research" are before and after Targ's main work on parapsychology. Then there is the "Further work on parapsychology" which is after his electro-optical work. I don't think his electro-optical work or further parapsychology work warrant main level sections. What structure that has some basis in policy will work? We could use prominence per due and go with parapsychology first with sub headers for RV and precog followed by laser with sub headers for work in early laser development and electro-optical. Proposal

1) Early life

2)Parapsychology

2.1)Remote viewing

(I don't think reception should be broken out but whatever)

2.2)Further work in parapsychology

3)Laser research

3.1)Early development of lasers

3.2)Lidar

4)Personal life

5)Works

5.1)Books authored

5.2)Books co-authored

5.3)Journal articles

If we include articles on lasers should the "Journal articles" section have topic subsections? I think straight chronological order for journal articles is preferable. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I prefer having lasers first a) because it is the chronological order; b) because his status as a mainstream physicist was presumably key in getting him the position at SRI - I don't think they were letting in any hippie with a crystal ball - and c) because most of the books and other reception are related to parapsychology so they should be close together. Whenever you have a gap between sections with similar content it ends up getting duplicated on either end of the gap. Wnt (talk) 06:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Wnt's very sensible comments on chronological order, i.e. the section laser research preceding that on parapsychology. --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Chronological order seems reasonable, as long as the section on lasers is in proportion to the coverage of this work in the biographical and review sources (i.e. it does not push the crank work "below the fold"). Guy (Help!) 11:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Whatever the final order is, I have been BOLD and restored the subsections about parapsychology that currently clearly are NOT about lasers to be subsections about parapsychology.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for 'boldly going', as that needed fixing. Except for the assertion 'There is no credible scientific evidence that remote viewing works', I think the article is not too unreasonable in its present form, though it is still distinctly biased in the direction of a sceptical PoV. --Brian Josephson (talk)

I think if we go with chronological we run into the issue of creating undue sections for Lidar and Further work on parapsychology. The lidar work was chronologically after the RV work and the precog work after that. I propose a main level section "Career" that gives a chronological explanation of Targ's work with each aspect covered as due (proportional representation of published sources that discuss Targ's work) in paragraphs without subsections followed by a main level section on remote viewing. Proposal:

1)Early life

2)Career

Lasers (proportional representation of sourced content)

Remote viewing (brief summary description only, but still proportional)

Lidar and further work in parapsych (as represented in published sources)

3)Remote viewing

3.1)Reception

4)Personal life

5)Works

5.1)Books authored

5.2)Books co-authored

5.3)Journal articles (in chronological order giving those discussed in secondary sources)

- - MrBill3 (talk) 14:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

MrBill3, I hadn't appreciated before that Targ's lidar work was subsequent to some of his RV work, as the Laser and electro-optical section of the article in fact makes clear (he was a senior staff scientist at the Lockheed Missiles and Space Company from 1986 to 1998). That blows out of the water Guy's suggestion that this is an article about a notable crank who coincidentally had an earlier career in legitimate science, since it was not only earlier that he had such a career. --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The problem is Targ's lidar work is even less significant than his early laser work. There may be some support for its significance, hopefully sources are forthcoming otherwise it barely warrants a mention. BTW it's still an article about a notable crank who coincidentally did some work in legitimate science. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm curious, is there an RS that uses the word 'crank' in this connection? Or is this a bit of OR on your part? --Brian Josephson (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Pure OR. I am not proposing it as content for the article. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Calling the subject a crank on your own behalf is not good BLP style, and it does indicate you still don't understand the topic. A "crank" is a lone oddball pursuing a scheme in his basement. When the world's top intelligence agencies hire heavy duty research companies like SRI and SAIC set up work on something, it can be totally wrong, or it could be a silly Roswell-style cover story for something different, but one thing it can't be is a "crank". Wnt (talk) 15:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Suggesting Targ's early laser work is not significant is another bit of OR, I fear. I've downloaded one of the IEEE Spectrum review articles someone listed and one of Targ's papers is included in the listing of a particular kind of laser. It would not have been included if the author did not think it significant. I might mention that IEEE Spectrum is not a journal but the Institute's magazine intended to keep members and other readers well informed on particular topics. Writers would have been chosen for their expertise on the relevant topics.
With all these ill-informed comments, apparently designed to minimise the impact of Targ's work, one senses that MrBill3 is having great difficulty maintaining the NPoV that w'pedia requires of editors. --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The suggestion isn't OR. If the work is significant it should be discussed in secondary sources stating it is significant if it is not called significant in sources it is not significant. The "someone" who posted the articles is yours truly. If you could be more clear about what the IEEE Spectrum' article says that would be helpful. I think your claim that I am having great difficulty in maintaining NPOV as an editor is belied by the fact that I have been doing extensive research attempting to find support for including Targ's laser work and describing its signficance/context/importance in the field. Whereas you have repeatedly ranted and refused to provide sources (except for one) to support the POV you are attempting to have inserted in the article at an undue level (perhaps the level of due can be achieved with some of the sources I have proposed above, perhaps not). I am willing to discuss the significance of Targ's laser work and have researched it. Still the proportion of published content on Targ as an parapsychologist vastly outweighs the published content on his laser work. So keep the actual wording of NPOV in mind when asserting your position and be mindful of baseless accusations. - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that chronology — both for the scientific work as well as the pseudo-scientific work — could be the best way to present Targ's work (sorry about my previous mess with the sections). That way we don't have to argue about what to put above the fold or below and it will make it more consistent with NPOV. Cwobeel (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

In general, the stricter we follow a chronological organization, the worse we violate NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 18:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Clarification needed. Chronological presentation of a career is the norm in reviews. --Brian Josephson (talk) 19:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

@Ronz: based on what policy, guideline, or practice are you making that assessment? Cwobeel (talk) 21:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

NPOV. A chronological order by it's nature ignores prominence of events. --Ronz (talk) 02:27, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I dont agree with that assessment as an absolute truism. the prominence of the events is mostly determined by the volume of coverage and how much detail is given. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

however, the reason I lumped his pre- and post- parapsychology work together was because calling out the post- work in its own section would have been UNDUE (and also generally bad formatting of a section consisting solely of a single paragraph.)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I think MrBill3's suggestion above would bring the article to looks something like https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russell_Targ&oldid=610624583 has a lot of potential. We do an overview of the whole career and then a deep dive into the area where he spent most of his time and has had major impact. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

That may work, but the current layout is not bad either. There are other articles in WP to work on :), so not sure I am inclined to spend more time here. Cwobeel (talk) 17:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Separate chronological order only WITHIN major research areas was the way it was treated before...and it is the best solution for any brief "biography" as the alternative makes for a confusing mess. There should only be ONE section for his "physics" related work as it was all within the same rough area....lidar IS within the realm of laser and electro-optic applications. But just my two cents. Please feel free to come to an uninformed opinion. Juan Riley (talk) 23:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the benefit to describing remote viewing in two places, as part of his career and then again as its own section. I think it would be better to have, as Juan has proposed, chronological order within separate career sections on Physics and Remote viewing. The Montel Williams page has a similar structure and he's had a somewhat similarly varied career. This is my structure proposal:

1)Early life

2)Physics careers (I'd love to see one Career section with Physics and Remote viewing as subsections to it but I suspect that would be too many section levels)

2.1)Lasers

2.2)Lidar

3)Remote viewing career (I'm not convinced that a separate Reception heading is not necessary but I don't have strong feelings on the issue)

4)Personal life

5)Selected publications (I'm not sure whether to organized these by subject or publication type)

5.1)Books

5.2)Journal articles

- Ca2james (talk) 03:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

@Brian Josephson: You dispute the statement that "There is no credible scientific evidence that remote viewing works". Do you prefer "There is no remotely credible evidence that remote viewing works" or "There is no plausible reason to believe remote viewing should work, and no remotely credible evidence that it does"? I prefer the first, but if you think it's not emphatic enough I'd be happy with either of the others. Guy (Help!) 19:22, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

• Per NPOV the prominence due Targ's laser research is vastly less than that due his parapsychology work. The section on laser work should be below the section on parapsychology. NPOV takes precedence over chronological order and there are issues with laser work being before and after parapsychology that makes chronological order problematic. Per NPOV the due weight of a bibliographic list of Targ's laser publications does not warrant a separate main section. A bibliographic list should include only notable items and I think a chronological list of journal articles is appropriate per policies on bibliographies and would establish any needed chronology. - - MrBill3 (talk) 21:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

You are pulling that argument out of thin air. Show me a policy, guideline or editing practice in WP that supports it. Cwobeel (talk) 22:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Thin air my ass. I cited the policy. Here is the direct quote "Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." This is direct support for my argument on prominence of placement.

Also, "Pay attention to headers, footnotes, or other formatting elements that might unduly favor one point of view, and watch out for structural or stylistic aspects that make it difficult for a reader to fairly and equally assess the credibility of all relevant and related viewpoints." So asserting the viewpoint that Targ's notability as a laser researcher is of more weight than his notability as a parapsychology researcher by using structural aspects is a violation of NPOV.

This is one of the three core policies, editors should be familiar with them and when cited they should make an effort to read them before commenting. Pardon my tone but my frustration rises when it comes to following the three core policies. - - MrBill3 (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

See also the WP Manual of Style at WP:Layout#Works or Publications or Bibliography. - - MrBill3 (talk) 23:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

That's a very good point. I suggest amending my proposal to swap the placement of the RV and Physics sections in order to show appropriate weight to eachgive. Ca2james (talk) 23:32, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it helps to do that, there are sound reasons for presenting events in chronological order as long as we don't pad out the early work to the point that the relative significance and prominence is lost. It's obvious that there are virtually no sources that discuss the significance of this work, we are relying almost exclusively on citations in journals (which is skirting the edges of WP:SYN). There are, however, a lot of discussions of Targ's role in the pseudoscience of remote viewing. Guy (Help!) 15:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. I see your point, too. After mulling this over, I think that having the physics section before the RV section (or whatever it will be called) will be OK, and that the same order can be used when listing Targ's most notable works. My reasoning is that as long as the RV section and RV works section are larger - as they should be, given that they're what he's primarily known for - then it will be clear that RV has the greater weight. I think we'd only need to worry about giving the physics section undue weight if both it and the RV sections were of similar size and notability (which they're not) and they were ordered non-chronologically, with RV coming first; in that case, the RV section would be more heavily weighted because of its position and this would be undue. --Ca2james (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

This argument against chronology is still out of thin air. There is no policy to guideline that asserts that following a chronology in a biography is not compliant with WP:NPOV or WP:UNDUE. You may need to re-read these policies again. Cwobeel (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

You have it backwards. BLP and NPOV should not be compromised by organizational strategies. --Ronz (talk) 23:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

NPOV is quite clear about due weight and discusses prominence of placement. I provided a direct quote from the policy with bolding for emphasis. Compliance with NPOV requires prominence of placement as due. This is core policy and very clear. The assertion that using chronology to give undue prominence of placement is not in violation of policy is untrue and disingenuous. Cited quoted policy is not thin air. Thin air seems to be the source for asserting chronology should be followed with no regard for due weight. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that chronological order necessarily goes against NPOV and due weight. Even if putting his early physics career first (in chronological order) gives it prominence of placement, the RV section is (or should be) so much larger than the Physics section that it's clear that the weight is on RV where it should be. There is also precedence for the chronological approach in the James H. Hyslop and Robert G. Jahn articles. --Ca2james (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Your argument self contradicts, if chronological order gives his early physics career prominence of placement how does that not go against NPOV by giving it undue weight? Prominence of placement is specifically discussed in the NPOV policy as a way in which undue weight can be given to content. The discussion includes a number of way undue weight can be given to content, it does not say prominence of placement is not giving undue weight if there is a difference in quantity of text. What it says is, "Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." While undue weight may not be given in this article by quantity of text, it is given by prominence of placement. The policy does not state prominence of placement does not constitute undue weight if there is due quantity of text. I disagree with your contention that quantity of text eliminates the issue of undue weight given by prominence of placement.

Short version: Not having one form of undue weight does not justify having another form of undue weight.

Core policy is much more important than precedent. Regardless of other articles the primary guidance for this article must be to follow core policy. - - MrBill3 (talk) 16:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

There is also still the problem with attempting to use chronological order. We would have 1)Laser 2)Parapsychology 3)Lidar. This would create a section that doesn't have the weight to carry a section and would be a one sentence section (Lidar). Of note we are not currently using chronological order as the current Laser section contains "After his work at SRI..." So our current structure is based on subject of section not chronological order. - - MrBill3 (talk) 16:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I do see that we can't violate NPOV. One reason I brought up similar articles is that they've dealt with a similar problem: people in parapsychology who had a previous career. Those articles dealt with the problem by putting together early life and career, which puts things chronologically and avoids the undue section weight problem.

Just because the article currently says "After his work at SRI" doesn't mean that this phrase has to stay there. Also, it isn't like Targ just stopped working in parapsychology after SRI; at that point he appeared to work in both areas and he wrote his memoirs.

What if we had an Early life and career section (including his early physics work), followed by a Parapsychology section, followed by a section discussing his post-SRI work? --Ca2james (talk) 19:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

That could work. Give it a go and see if it sticks Cwobeel (talk) 19:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Will do, a little later. The change is a bit much to do on a phone. Done. --Ca2james (talk) 21:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC) --Ca2james (talk) 00:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Y @Ca2james: Looks good. Thank you. Cwobeel (talk) 00:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Targ's involvement with Fischer, what's due

The following content was deleted:

Joan Fischer Targ was the sister of former world chess champion Bobby Fischer. In 2004 Targ assisted Fischer, who had been a fugitive in the United States since violating a trade embargo with his 1992 victory over Boris Spassky in Yugoslavia. Russell Targ came up with the idea that Fischer, whose passport had been revoked by U.S. authorities and was facing immediate deportation to the U.S., could claim German citizenship through his father Hans Gerhardt Fischer. Though he had been estranged from Fischer after a separation from his wife in 1992, Targ acquired five different documents from Hans Fischer's relatives and hospitals in Germany. He told the Los Angeles Times "Bobby has said a number of really disgraceful anti-Semitic, un-American things ... But nobody else involved in that chess match has been punished. As a lifetime member of the American Civil Liberties Union, I don't think he should be in prison for playing chess."

References

While I agree that the size and detail of this content was undue, does some mention belong in the article? It was notable enough for substantial coverage that discusses Targ's role fairly extensively. The self description as a "lifetime member of the ACLU" might also be considered notable. It is not a huge issue to me, but this topic has been promoted for inclusion in the article a number of times and I think we should have some consensus for its removal/paring down. There was previously some consensus for inclusion of all of this content. - - MrBill3 (talk) 23:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

This is the biography of Targ, not of his late wife. That material does not belong here. Cwobeel (talk) 00:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

You could add that material to Bobby Fischer instead. Cwobeel (talk) 00:59, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

But MrBill3 might have worked so very hard on those references. Juan Riley (talk) 01:03, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Nothing is lost, he can add it to Bobby Fischer. Cwobeel (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

It's no worries for me. A big part of what I do on WP is research. When someone wants to include something or make a statement I look for sources. I am open to other editors evaluation of the relevance, weight etc. of sources and related content. As I said my opinion is that the content removed was excessive in relation to the subject of the article. As to if it warrants a mention or not frankly IDK but several editors (Targ and Brian Josephson) have been vociferous in insisting upon its inclusion. I am not an expert on BLP content guidelines so let those who are decide. I don't mind if references I have come up with are cut. I enjoy the learning I get in finding them. In general I post suggested refs to talk pages so they are preserved if needed or useful. I am a staunch advocate for verifiability but prefer readability not to be lost to overcite. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

My viewpoint has been stated clearly: the material does not belong here. As for the ACLU comment, if there are secondary sources that describes this association as relevant, we can add it, otherwise we can't include it based on a self-published source. Cwobeel (talk) 01:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the constructive suggestion to add it to the Fischer article but that article long enough and in good article status so I wouldn't mess with it myself. I hear, understand and largely agree with your viewpoint. As a note the ACLU comment was not self published it was in the LA Times article. I don't know if it can be considered notable/relevant enough for inclusion here. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:29, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom: As per the discussion above, this material is not suitable for this article. Can you provide any arguments to the contrary? Cwobeel (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I dont see that the consensus has changed since Talk:Russell_Targ#Personal_life_section. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

That is not an argument... Look forward to hear yours. Cwobeel (talk) 19:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course the fact that there recently was a consensus to include and there is not now evidence that the prior consensus has changed is a valid argument.

Targ's impact on the Fischer broohaha seems significant and worthy of mention, here in this article. and while the details take up a lot of space, i dont see how much of them can be reduced without impacting the reader's understanding of a complicated situation. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I should add that I didn't exactly scour the literature for every mention of Targ and Fischer together, but just picked the very lowest hanging fruit. It would easily be able to make this section longer with some work, and it would be worth doing. Despite the rhetoric of people who brandish "UNDUE" in three different ways it was never meant to be used, the policy is not meant to allow an editor to take a part of the article with poor coverage and say that "no other part can be any longer than this part, so you all have to work on whatever I say you should work on". This is particularly true when there seems to be no real interest in expanding the allegedly underfilled part, or indeed when the editor seems to think that the person just isn't very important, so we shouldn't do a very good job covering any part of what is known about him. Wnt (talk) 00:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this material belongs in the article because it's a minor event in Targ's life. If it does end up in the article, it needs to be much, much shorter as right now it's too much weight for such a minor event. How about this instead:

Joan Fischer Targ was the sister of former world chess champion Bobby Fischer. In 2004 Targ assisted Fischer, who had been a fugitive in the United States since violating a trade embargo with his 1992 victory over Boris Spassky in Yugoslavia, by finding a way for Fischer to avoid deportation to the United States. Targ suggested Fischer claim German citizenship through his father, Hans Gerhardt Fischer, and acquired five different documents from Hans Fischer's relatives and hospitals in Germany.

References

-Ca2james (talk) 00:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I like the quote - I always like to hear the voice of an article's subject - and it's certainly interesting to picture him calling around Germany hunting for documents. The name of Fischer's father admittedly could go. The separation from his wife definitely belongs in the article but admittedly this was a really weird place to introduce it. So I don't want it cut that far, but I suppose I can do something. Wnt (talk) 04:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I can live with the shortened version suggested above. Cwobeel (talk) 04:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

As the content has gone back in it's previously supported entirety and there have been a several suggestions that it should be more brief. I'd like to propose a shortened version that includes some (IMO) pertinent facts. Those being he was estranged from his wife at the time and his quote. I think it says something about a person if despite differences they act in support of family. My opinion isn't injected just the fact. I think his self identification as lifetime ACLU'er and his statement provide insight into him as a person. Again the conclusions/meaning/interpretation is left to the reader if we simply provide factual content. I propose:

In 2004 Targ assisted former world chess champion Bobby Fischer, brother of his estranged wife Joan Fischer Targ, in fighting extradition to the United States. Fischer had violated a US trade embargo with his participation in a 1992 chess match with Boris Spassky in Yugoslavia. While Fischer was detained in Japan with extradition pending Targ worked to support a claim of German citizenship for Fischer. Targ told the LA Times, "As a lifetime member of the American Civil Liberties Union, I don't think he should be in prison for playing chess."

- - MrBill3 (talk) 04:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I think the ACLU quote belongs in the Fischer article, not here, but if the majority want it here I won't argue. Aside from that, I like this shortened version.-Ca2james (talk) 13:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Seems undue, and the quote grossly so as well as being simply unencyclopedic. It's a complicated bit of information to add so it could take some work trimming it down to something of appropriate size. --Ronz (talk) 15:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for trimming that section. On a related note, I can't find anything in the references to support the statement that Targ came up with the idea for Fischer to claim German citizenship. It isn't stated in the LA Times article, which is supposed to be the reference for that statement, or in the part of the Washington Times article I can see (it's behind a paywall and I'm not giving them my credit card info), but a search revealed this Salon article, which says the latest brainstorm, contributed by a member of Fischer’s support group, involves him claiming German citizenship, based on Regina’s marriage to a German at the time of Bobby’s conception. Targ may have been part of that support group but he's not named as one. Can someone with access to the Washington Times article check whether Targ is mentioned by name as the one who came up with the German citizenship idea? Thanks! --Ca2james (talk) 03:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The Washington Times article does not state nor support the assertion that it was Targ's idea for Fischer to attempt to get a German passport. I have not found that in any of the sources I read. You will note the content I proposed above does not contain that assertion. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the confirmation. I removed that sentence and replaced it with yours, MrBill. I hope that's OK. --Ca2james (talk) 03:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Interesting seemingly notable article about Targ's complaints on wikipedia

Just came across this article.[1] The article discusses about Russell Targ's complaints on wikipedia. (Please excuse me if it was already discussed).

It seems verifiable. I'm boldly putting it into the article. Feel free to edit, discuss or remove. Caseeart (talk) 05:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Hope I understood the article correctly. Caseeart (talk) 06:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Not so much. First the content you added, "Targ among other researchers, voiced various complaints against Wikipedia, some of which Wikipedians deny. These include that Wikipedia contains junk, and particularly that they call his work “pseudoscience” - a valid complaint." contains an assertion that calling his work pseudoscience is a valid complaint. WP does not validate complaints. The article concludes, "while Targ has a possibly legitimate beef" not exactly the kind of statement to assert the validity of a complaint on. "Among other researchers" really this makes it sound like the article was discussing the complaints of some broadly encompassed body of "researchers" it actually says, "a string of researchers on questionable topics". "Various complaints" this is just too vague. Your phrasing implies that "Wikipedia contains junk..." is a complaint of "Targ among other researchers" when the article attributes that to "his advocates".

"Wikipedians deny" oh my. Who can speak for "Wikipedians" in such broad terms? Not Hill or Gerbic that's for sure, in fact no one can this is way to broad a generalization. Then there is the issue of accurately reflecting the source. The content you added was far from that. Finally what is the due weight of this? It is this final issue that will likely result in removal entirely, until then I changed it to a short quote that accurately reflects the source (lines up with the title pretty well, doesn't it?). - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• I am not complaining about your changes.
• However while I still don't understand the details of that article, most of your complaints against me don't seem valid. I tried to summarize the article and changed wording to avoid plagiarism. For example:

The title writes "The latest fringe researcher" I wrote ""Targ among other researchers".

The article listed a few complaints, I summarized "voiced various complaints against Wikipedia".

I specified about "Junk" because that seemed concrete. (Sorry this may have been mistaken).

I wrote about "and particularly that they call his work “pseudoscience”" Because this is relevant to this article.

The article writes "So, his complaint about the pseudoscience label is a fair one". I wrote "A valid complaint". (WP is not OR - this is what the article wrote).

The article stated details how a Wikipedian denies part of Targ's allegations. I worte "Wikipedians deny". Sorry I should have written "some wikipedians deny".

• On the other hand I could complain that you just created WP:OR since it is not written in any secondary article that "In 2014 Sharon Hill wrote in a Doubtful News article that Targ was, "the latest in a string of researchers on questionable topics to air a gripe about their own Wikipedia page."".
• I am happy with the way you changed it, and would even more be happy if you would simply make the change and briefly write that your change is more accurate :). In either case the latest change you made is written more clear than how I wrote it. Let us see what other users say. Caseeart (talk) 07:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you not see how there is a clear change in the implication of "the latest fringe researcher" to "among other researchers"? A fringe researcher is specific, among other researchers implies a general body of researchers. "Various complaints against Wikipedia" is vague to excess. Are these complaints about WP as a concept? about its execution? Just as a suggestion you could give a couple of complaints and then follow with "and similar complaints". "Junk" was concrete in the article, "Regardless, Targ does not understand how Wikipedia works and his advocates in the comments just make things worse. In the comments, they say not only is Wikipedia berated as full of junk, they allege..." "his advocates in the comments" followed in the next sentence by "In the comments, they say" pretty clearly talking about his advocates in the comments not Targ among other researchers. While the article does contain, "So, his complaint about the pseudoscience label is a fair one" it concludes with, "a possibly legitimate beef". It is misrepresentation to present a piece of the discussion in an article and not the conclusion of the article. Regardless one can't assert in WP's voice that it is a valid complaint. "Some Wikipedians deny" is still awfully vague, on WP we attribute statements, claims, allegations and denials to those actually making them. Bringing me to a final point.

You really need to read the OR policy, attribution is not OR. To call Targ a fringe researcher and characterize his complaints as gripes would not be appropriate to do in WP's voice, so I clearly attributed it to the source both author and publication. This is completely within policy. Oh and if you would be happier without discussion perhaps you shouldn't discuss so much... - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

There's something weirdly meta about including the subject's reaction to a Wikipedia article in their article. While I see the argument for including this I'm not completely convinced by it and wish there was policy addressing this situation. That said, if this is going to stay in, I strongly prefer MrBill's version as it is more encyclopaedic. --Ca2james (talk) 13:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

We can't use the blog http://doubtfulnews.com/ as a source. It is not a WP:RS. Cwobeel (talk) 15:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

And WP:SELFREF and a dozen other reasons. DN does fact-check, but it's not a professional news-gathering organisation; it references most material back to an original source but in this case the article is not a summary of an independent article, it's original content at DN. (Note: I am cited as a source by Sharon, I did say that Targ is right that we call RV pseudoscience, I did not say that this is a legitimate complaint, because it's not: RV is pseudoscience, his complaints on this score are querulous and meritless in my view). So: knowing the provenance of this article, it definitely cannot be included. I know some Wikipedians have had their opinions fact-washed in this way, I'm not up for that at all and I think it is wrong to try to plant your views in some receptive ear in order to then have them inserted in Wikipedia as "fact". No names no pack drill, but I would argue against inclusion of this article even if it were written by a Pulitzer prizewinner, because it closely reflects the views of a small group of interested parties to this very debate. Guy (Help!) 15:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:SUBJECT (a section of WP:SELFREF), says

If publicity regarding an article is significant enough to be included in Wikipedia, that information would not be included in the article, unless it is relevant to the topic of the article itself. For example, a discussion of Stephen Colbert's call for vandalism of the Elephant article might be appropriate for the article on The Colbert Report, but not for the article on elephants—the incident had nothing to do with the actual animal.

To me, the DN material seems similar to the Colbert situation described on that page; therefore, if this DN material belongs on WP at all (and I'm not totally convinced that it does), wouldn't it be better placed on the Remote viewing article? --Ca2james (talk) 15:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

last time i looked, this article was neither Sharon Hill nor Doubtful News . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Targ's opinion about his work being called "pseudoscience" belongs in his article. (Assuming the source is reliable). Once we state other sources that call it "pseudoscience" then we need to state Targ's disagreement as well. Caseeart (talk) 05:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

This is a Wikipedia encyclopedia article, not a "he said / she said" meta discussion with Targ. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

It does not belong anywhere in WP because it does not pass the WP:RS threshold. Cwobeel (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I am both amused at the prospect of its inclusion...and sadly...in agreement with Cwobeel that the source does not pass some smell test.Now if it were the NYT....:) Juan Riley (talk) 22:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Cwobeel does not meet RS. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• @Cwobeel Some of the material of that article is non disputable. There is no dispute that Targ was complaining about Wikipedia and the way his article is written. This could be easily verified on his Facebook page, edit history and these talk pages. Per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS we therefore don't need such a high quality source as the NYT.
• I think it also boils down to the reliability of Sharon A. Hill the author of this article and founder of doubtful news - who also writes for the Huffington Post blogs.
• I am not asserting that this article or website is or isn't reliable, but could you clarify your comment and specify what aspect of WP:RS makes this so unreliable for this non disputed material? Caseeart (talk) 05:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

We can't use a source such as this as a viable method for a living person to air grievances about Wikipedia. If the source was the NYT, that would be a different story as it would make the airing of the grievances something notable to report in his bio. Cwobeel (talk) 14:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Cwobeel. The assertion of "non disputable" is not in line with policy. Verification by original research is not what policy is about. The content is challenged. To support the inclusion of challenged content a reliable source must be provided. A collection of blog, facebook and talk page posts does not constitute a reliable source. Should Targ's grievances with WP be reported on by a reliable source as notable that would make it potentially appropriate encyclopedic content. An encyclopedic article contains the notable and significant information on a topic. The two ideas central to my point are verifiability not truth and encyclopedic content. - - MrBill3 (talk) 16:13, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Marks & Kammann

I notice that the section discussing Marks and Kammann no longer included the rather important detail of why they asserted the work to be wrong. As a bald statement, "The psychologists David Marks and Richard Kammann attempted to replicate Targ and Puthoff’s remote viewing experiments and disputed the claims that the experiments were successful" seems to assert parity of validity between their work and Targ's. However, when you include the fact that the transcripts contained sufficient cues to identify the targets, this is exposed as false balance: Marks and Kammann were not rejecting the claims on some philosophical grounds tied to rejection of paranormal claims, but on the entirely practical basis that the transcripts showed quite clearly that the targets were given away by the investigators. It should not be necessary to page down into the references to find out this important and significant fact, so I have restored it. Guy (Help!) 07:40, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Notes section

I'm curious about exactly what the point of the Notes section is in this article. I'm a scientist, and consider all this parapsychology a lot of senseless BS, but the article seems to go beyond the sort of "this person is notable and its interesting to see what silly stuff the government spent money on during the cold war" treatment that one would expect to see in an encyclopedia article and gets into what looks almost like a deliberate effort to ridicule. Can someone explain why this level of piling on is necessary? Thanks Formerly 98 (talk) 01:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

What can we do but to report what sources say about his work? The notes are useful to support the assessments and assertions made in the article by those that wrote about his work and provide useful context to our readers. Cwobeel (talk) 02:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

No, its overkill and its more about being right and than it is about writing an encyclopedia. Its a sad thing, but not one I have the time and effort to put into straightening out. Formerly 98 (talk) 04:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The notes provide the material from the sources that has been summarized into content. It is because of repeated challenges to the content that the notes have been provided so the sources used to support the content are explicitly present. The notes consist of what is stated in the sources. There have also been repeated assertions that Targ's laser work has a level of notability comparable to his work in parapsychology, so again the number, extent, nature and content of sources on the work he is primarily notable for have had to be provided. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I think if we get the article fairly stable a discussion of trimming/cutting the notes section may be possible/appropriate. In general we don't need to put in the content of the sources, just paraphrase it and provide a reference. That is what the reference list is for. I think the article is getting to a consensus supported state that may be fairly stable. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

It's pretty pure POV. I complained about it regarding Rupert Sheldrake and so some folks thought it was such a great idea they should bring it here. I can tolerate technical notes about the references, which belong with the references, not showcased in their own section; but those notes should be to observe things like when sources don't agree or appear to have errors or have a published correction or to highlight what material is available - their purpose isn't to showcase critical quotes when they don't actually provide much more insight than the main text (and if they _do_ provide more insight, why are they in a note?) Wnt (talk) 16:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course is pure POV: it is the POV of sources that discuss Targ's work, and readers can follow the sources and check Google Books for themselves instead of having these here for consultation. Having said that I would not oppose trimming down the notes to a more manageable size. Cwobeel (talk) 16:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of cutting out all the refn's. I'm not saying we shouldn't include some of this stuff, but don't act like putting it under "notes" is different from having it in the article. Often it is closely repetitive of the text section. Work the stuff in by normal editing where needed, or cut it. (Initial "refn|group=n|" deleted for sanity)

Notes

Marks & Kammann (1986), "Remote viewing exposed": "Examination of the few actual transcripts published by Targ and Puthoff show that just such clues were present. To find out if the unpublished transcripts contained cues, Marks and Kammann wrote to Targ and Puthoff requesting copies. It is almost unheard of for a scientist to refuse to provide his data for independent examination when asked, but Targ and Puthoff consistently refused to allow Marks and Kammann to see copies of the transcripts. Marks and Kammann were, however, able to obtain copies of the transcripts from the judge who used them. The transcripts were found to contain a wealth of cues."}} name="Eval of RV"|Mumford, Rose & Goslin (1995), An Evaluation of Remote Viewing: Research and Applications: "remote viewings have never provided an adequate basis for ‘actionable’ intelligence operations-that is, information sufficiently valuable or compelling so that action was taken as a result […] a large amount of irrelevant, erroneous information is provided and little agreement is observed among viewers' reports. […] remote viewers and project managers reported that remote viewing reports were changed to make them consistent with know background cues […] Also, it raises some doubts about some well-publicized cases of dramatic hits, which, if taken at face value, could not easily be attributed to background cues. In at least some of these cases, there is reason to suspect, based on both subsequent investigations and the viewers' statement that reports had been "changed" by previous program managers, that substantially more background information was available than one might at first assume."}} Mumford, Rose & Goslin (1995): "The foregoing observations provide a compelling argument against continuation of the program within the intelligence community. Even though a statistically significant effect has been observed in the laboratory, it remains unclear whether the existence of a paranormal phenomenon, remote viewing, has been demonstrated. The laboratory studies do not provide evidence regarding the origins or nature of the phenomenon, assuming it exists, nor do they address an important methodological issue of inter-judge reliability. Further, even if it could be demonstrated unequivocally that a paranormal phenomenon occurs under the conditions present in the laboratory paradigm, these conditions have limited applicability and utility for intelligence gathering operations. For example, the nature of the remote viewing targets are vastly dissimilar, as are the specific tasks required of the remote viewers. Most importantly, the information provided by remote viewing is vague and ambiguous, making it difficult, if not impossible, for the technique to yield information of sufficient quality and accuracy of information for actionable intelligence. Thus, we conclude that continued use of remote viewing in intelligence gathering operations is not warranted."}} name="Eval of RV"}} Terence Hines (2003), p. 126: "Geller turned out to be nothing more than a magician using sleight of hand and considerable personal charm to fool his admirers. The tests at SRI turned out to have been run under conditions that can best be described as chaotic. Few limits were placed on Geller’s behavior, and he was more or less in control of the procedures used to test him. Further, the results of the tests were incorrectly reported in Targ and Puthoff’s Nature paper."}} Terence Hines (2003), Pseudoscience and the Paranormal p. 136: "The remote-viewing controversy lasted more than a decade. It is a sobering example of how sloppy experiments and the conclusions based on them can be accepted as evidence of parapsychology. It further demonstrates the great amount of hard work it takes to put such erroneous conclusion to rest."}}

Think about it - these quotes were being showcased while people were saying it was undue even to mention that his father published The Godfather or his brother-in-law (I think) was Bobby Fischer. Wnt (talk) 16:53, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. While it may be reasonable to include this material in discussions in the Talk page if necessary to make a point, these quotes and to some extent the entire article even at this point has the tone of a cruel public shaming. There's all kinds of people in the world who say all kinds of silly things, and I definitely agree this "research" is nonsense. But I don't think its wikipedia's role to provide a public shaming for everyone who make ridiculous claims.

The quotes and some of the material remaining in this article are not just cruel to the subject, they are so heavy handed in pushing a point of view as to be insulting to the intelligence of the reader. As the guidance states, in an article about Hitler its fine and appropriate to talk about the murder of the Jews, the wars started, the execution of dissidents, and all the other things he did. What you don't need to do is bring in a dozen 3rd party quotes to point out to the reader that Hitler was evil. That just insults the intelligence of the reader. They can figure that out for themselves if you just give them the facts of the story. Formerly 98 (talk) 17:05, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Okay, I just went through the notes and put back parts of two. The first one is pretty damning, and I don't think I blunted it too much by truncating it a bit. The one about Uri Geller was fairly repetitive of the other material, but I put back the part about letting him have so much control over the testing. But the last one strikes me as showcasing an editorial, so I would keep it out entirely.

• Which leaves the two about Mumford. Now the thing about these is that Targ has pointed out that there was a complete report from AIR with one pro and one anti remote viewing, with substantial favorable quotes from the one. It's not fair to cherry pick some of that voluminous 1995 report and not the rest. I tried adding what I felt was a neutral summary before, but it was taken out; the neutral summary is that we don't _know_ the significant results obtained were from psychic means. Now the thing is, the statement that reports were changed, background information is available, that's extremely interesting, but if we want to cover it we should cover it right. To start with, I see nothing in that quote that shows that Targ was involved in changing reports, or that it happened before he left in 1982. So I'm thinking this is something best pushed to the Stargate Project article where it can be addressed without having to necessarily nail down whether Targ was involved in that or not. Wnt (talk) 17:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

There is still at least one more in the middle of the article that should go, someone calling him "for the most part, a sorry study in the range of human credulity." What does that add. I'm sure if we look long enough, we can find a quote where someone calls him a shithead. Should we include that too just because someone said it and we have a reliable source? Its just mean spirited. Formerly 98 (talk) 17:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not looking to ban all notable pointed remarks - I just think it's inappropriate to pretend that the Notes section is a safe haven from the "weight" calculations some people editing this article love to make. I do, however, agree that as presented that sentence is all quote and no context - it's not clear why (or if) it's important that that person said that. More to the point, if we're going to agree that it's legitimate to present a quote from a broadcaster criticizing Targ, then we should agree that it's also legitimate to present a quote from a broadcaster praising him or his work. Wnt (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I made a few edits, including reverting the unexplained reversion of some moderately positive remarks about the man's father and deleting the "sorry state" quote and replacing it with an inoffensive paraphrase. I think the article as it is does a fine job of pointing out that this is scientific BS. There is no need to go beyond that and strip the article of every minor point that is the least bit complementary of his family, or to include direct quotes of personal insults. Formerly 98 (talk) 19:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I took that out in one of those edits because I don't see a lot of support for the premise. The Skeptical Inquirer said that Targ might have been introduced to the paranormal by his father, but the assertion is very weak. And the way that sentence reads, in the absence of the part I added before that had been taken out that his father had published The Godfather, for example, makes it sound like he ran a purely paranormal publishing house. Now Targ himself is watching this, and I would be glad to hear what he has to say, but in the meanwhile we should try to get some more neutral sourcing about his family. Wnt (talk) 19:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Targ's father is William Targ and apparently he really did publish The_Godfather_(novel) while editor-in-chief at a publishing company, and his WP page says he's notable for publishing this novel. He published paranormal works under his own publishing company, not Putnam. Anyways, because his father is mentioned in this article primarily in the context of introducing Targ to the paranormal, I'm not sure that his having published this novel is relevant here except as a curiosity or interesting fact. If we wiki link his father's name then people would still have access to this information. --Ca2james (talk) 22:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

the publishing of The Godfather is completely irrel to this article. Targ did not grow up to become a Sicilian gangster, a fiction author nor an agent shopping the rights of books that became iconic major motion pictures . the publishing of fringe theorists is relevant to the this article because 1) Targ did grow up to espouse fringe theories and 2) third parties have noted the connection. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ca2james: William Targ published Chariots of the Gods at Putnam, not elsewhere - that's what Gardner himself says. [2] But Gardner's assertion that William Targ's interest in the paranormal "trickled down" is way, way short of what I would call evidence; I don't feel comfortable that this is a verifiable reason why Russell Targ got interested in remote viewing. And to paraphrase someone above, Russell Targ got interested in remote viewing, not ancient astronauts, so it seems like nothing more than a curiosity or an interesting fact. Wnt (talk) 16:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

My apologies - he did publish them at Putnam. I've struck the incorrect part of my statement above. The one source says that his father's bookstore (I think the books mentioned were published after Targ started his RV work) was how he got interested in RV but I also don't know if that's true. I tried to find a reason for the switch from lasers to RV at SRI but I can't find anything. --Ca2james (talk) 16:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Once again on laser research references

I hate to start this again. (1)As I have argued before, the very fact of Targ's working in these mainstream science research areas is adequately documented by primary references from reputable publications. No secondary references are needed because no WP notability is claimed for his laser research. His having credentials in mainstream science research IS relevant to the article only as a contrast to his work in parapsycology. (2)Despite this, MrBill3 added "secondary" references for Targ's laser work. To be polite, almost all of the secondary references are misquided. Some (not all) are effectively self-citations. E.g., we have a Harris&McDuff ('65) and a Harris ('66) as presumably secondary references because they cite a Harris&Targ ('64) paper. Think about it. More generally, a citation or two or more for that matter of ones publications is NOT a secondary reference. Perhaps at some level of citation number it may be so considered--that is a debate for google scholar etc.... Now at least one of MrBill3's addition is P.W. Smith ('70). This is an invited review subject article and is indeed a GOOD secondary reference of Targ's involvement in early work on mode-locking--if it is deemed that such is needed for this article. (3)Regardless, I am still of the opinion, that the primary physics related references be turned back into inline references (as I did weeks ago). Targ's laser research is not WP notable and to include an incomplete bibliography of such is misleading. Juan Riley (talk) 23:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

And I hate to start this again, but you do know WP:Notability is a guideline for articles, not where you put references, right? It says so, after all. The common sense thing is to have all Targ's cited works in one place and one format. Wnt (talk) 00:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Your contentions Wnt are suitably ignored. The best I can politely put it is that you have no idea what I am talking about. Juan Riley (talk) 00:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Nope, that was neither polite nor correct. Decisions are made at Wikipedia by consensus. Telling another editor that their suggestions are best ignored is a violation of one of the basic pillars here, and you really shouldn't go there. Formerly 98 (talk) 01:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh my if you say so sir. Juan Riley (talk) 01:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Another reference is to a book which cites the Tiffany, Targ and Foster paper as a milestone in early laser research. Also although there is some element of self citation in the Harris papers they do contain factual statements of certain advances in laser research as being first demonstrated by Targ et al. as well as an attribution of coining the term "super mode". There are probably enough pixels in WP for an extra reference or two, especially in an article that is so contentious. Although an argument is presented for including Targ's laser research "as a contrast to his work in parapsychology" it should be noted this article is a biography and should cover the significant aspects of the subjects life. What Targ did as a laser researcher is a part of the biography of the person. There is actually some level of notability to his accomplishments in laser research, not such notability that would justify an article without his psi work but notable enough to include some detail and mention of specifics that RS has found notable enough to discuss. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Family background

The publishing of the Godfather does not directly relate to the main thrust of the article, but there is all kinds of precedent for giving details of family background in articles, irrespective of their apparent "relevance" to the later details of the subject's life. Particularly if these family members did things of significance.

• George Patton's bio mentions that that his maternal grandfather was mayor of LA and that mount Wilson is named after him
• Kurt Vonnegut's bio discusses the relatively non-notable careers of his father, grandfather, and great-grandfather
• Bill Clinton's bio extensively describes aspects of his mother's life that, while bringing color to the story, do not directly bear on Clinton's political career.
• Lyndon Johnson's bio mentions discusses the activities of an ancestor whose relationship to Johnson isn't even clearly defined. Formerly 98

This seems pretty much like the norm, and I see no reason why this one should be different. (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I would argue that there is a huge difference. The people you mention are public figures, Targ is not. Cwobeel (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

As public figures there is always an abundance of sources that describes their family background and other tidbits. Here, we are basically resorting to original research to add that content, as there are no third party sources that describe notability of these relationships. Cwobeel (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

If Targ isn't a public figure, why are we writing an article about him?

The Wikipedia article on George Patton doesn't quote any sources or discuss the notability of his relationship with his maternal grandfather, they simply note that he had a notable grandfather and what was notable about him.

Similarly the article on Kurt Vonnegut doesn't offer any detailed discussion of how his father's and grandfather's occupations affected his later life and work. They simply note it as background color.

Certainly Lyndon Johnson had no significant relationship with this ancestor who the editors of that article couldn't even figure out the exact biological relationship for. Its just background color.

Including a few sentences about Targ's highly notable father is well in line with Wikipedia practice and precedent. And its not original research, there are sources about the father including the NYTimes.

William Targ has his own article here and it is substantial. But in this article, he is simply described as having "worked at Putnam and become editor in chief", which is a little like describing Kurt Vonnegut as someone who "wrote some books". The resistance of this group to allow anything that is even potentially regarded as positive about the subject or his familty in the article seems very extreme to me. Formerly 98 (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

We have many articles in Wikipedia about living people that are not public figures. Targ is not a public figure, he is notable in the domain of laser research and parapsychology. Cwobeel (talk) 19:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I have no interest or intent in belittling Targ, or any other living person in Wikipedia for that matter. The issue is unrelated to wanting to suppress "positive information". Why would you assume that this is the motivation? Please assume good faith. Cwobeel (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

This is absurd. There's no such classification scheme of articles we do a good job on and articles where we cut out interesting, well-sourced content haphazardly because the person is only kind of notable. If we're going to have an article it should incorporate all this information. Wnt (talk) 00:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

That is a red herring. If a person is notable and there are secondary sources that refer to aspects of this person by all means add it to an article. But this is not the case here. Actually will be be dabbing on original research if we try to connect dots and bring material into this article that refers to a family member when there are no secondary sources that make that connection. On public figures it is almost the case that secondary sources made that connection and thus we have no problems in adding the material. Capisce? Cwobeel (talk) 00:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Greetings Formerly 98 and welcome to WP and to a lively and contentious discussion. I think you bring a valuable viewpoint which if I may be so bold to summarize your position, the article should not be a coatrack on which to hang criticism of RV research but a biography of the subject.

That said some of the content you seek to include (IMO) is not appropriate. The discussions of the family of subject's of other articles is supported by RS who have found the details significant enough to write about. We would need secondary sources that discuss Targ's father in relationship to him. Then a paraphrase of such discussion could be included. The only source we have now is Gardner's article. I agree that Gardner's assertion of the influence of the books in his father's bookstore is a bit stretched, but it is a secondary source making such an assertion (perhaps it should be attributed directly). Is there any secondary source that has stated Targ's father's publication of The Godfather had any influence on Targ? Background color can be included not as original research but only as present in the sources. Please present suggested content based on sources. I have suggested that Targ's self characterization as a life long ACLU member might be included as it was published in a reliable source. I hope that you and other concerned editors can find such sources and improve this article to present a more complete, contextualized and nuanced portrayal of the subject.

Targ's laser research should be in the article for one, possibly two reasons. First a biography should provide a reasonably complete presentation of the subject and multiple sources have referred to his being a laser physicist. Second there is some contention that his contributions to laser research were significant. I leave this second point to the assessment of more knowledgeable editors based on available sources. I think an argument can be made for including some of Targ's laser publications in the bibliography (within the subsection of journal articles). An early paper in his career coauthored with Gould at the inception of lasers, several papers with significant research accomplishments and the coining of a term in widespread use in the field. His lidar work, not so much, it belongs in the reference list. I also think the bibliography should be headed "Publications".

As for excessive notes I tend to agree, we should paraphrase the significant content with concise quotes when appropriate.

Concerning his doctoral degree, I hope a source can be found that supports this if it is a fact.

Short version: Follow the sources. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Since this is an article on Russell Targ and not the Targ family, discussing William Targ's publishing career is heading into WP:COATRACK territory. To me there's nothing positive or negative about William Targ having published The Godfather, but since RS haven't indicated that it directly relates to Russell Targ it doesn't belong in the article. I also think that the other paranormal books that were mentioned in this article have no place in it as no RS have said that his father's publishing career had an impact on him, and so I support their removal. Just because something is a fact doesn't mean it must go in an article. It's not like the information is being suppressed, either, because William Targ's publishing information is available at the wikilinked page. --Ca2james (talk) 03:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The Gardner article does provide support for the influence of exposure to the paranormal books. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

That's the Skeptical Inquirer article, right? I'm not sure that it actually says that the influence was from the books. It says Russell inherited his psi beliefs from his father, William Targ, followed by the author's description of the Chicago bookstore and a brief discussion of William Targ's publishing background, followed by William Targ’s beliefs in the paranormal trickled down to his son Russell (and then goes on to discuss Elisabeth Targ). To me that says that William Targ believed in the paranormal, as shown by the large paranormal section in the bookstore and some of the books he published, and that his paranormal beliefs influenced Russell Targ; by my reading, it doesn't say that the exposure to paranormal books influenced Russell Targ. --Ca2james (talk) 14:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm fairly flexible here. I think Gardner's assertion is fairly weakly supported. Your argument certainly has merit regarding how we interpret what Gardner wrote. Let's see what others have to say. - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)