Talk:John Hagelin/Archive 3

1982 and 1984 flipped SU(5) papers

Fladrif, I have the three physics papers in hand that we've been discussing, and I don't understand why you have written what you have. Deredinger 1984 doesn't mention flipped SU(5), so I don't understand why you've written that it describes flipped SU(5). And I don't understand the relationship between the 1982 and 1987 papers. Barr 1982 appears to focus on symmetry breaking and Hagelin 1987 looks to be describing a GUT model. I don't understand the sense in which it further describes flipped SU(5) presented in Barr 1982 and Deredinger 1984. TimidGuy (talk) 09:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering about that too, TimidGuy. Why would Discover make such a big deal of the work of Nanopoulos et al. if the theory had been published by someone else five years earlier? ChemistryProf (talk) 11:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

BLP/Noticeboard request for assistance

Discussion now archived at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive70 #Use of "crackpot" in John Hagelin

I've asked for assistance on the Reception Section in particular a request for feedback the use of the word "crackpot". [1]

The discussion on the WP:BLPN has been going on since September 3. When do we draw it to a close? --BwB (talk) 18:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

We have not received any new comments on the WP:BLPN discussion since September 8. When do we consider this issue closed? --BwB (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I see that this discussion is keeping us all up at night!! The topic is no longer in the index on the WP:BLPN page. Perhaps it is time to decide whether or not to remove the "crackpot" reference in the article? --BwB (talk) 15:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The discussion on BLP/N has been archived so feel free to restart the discussion here. :o) (olive (talk) 16:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC))

OK. What, if any, do editors feel were the outcomes from the BLP/N discussion. I cannot see any clear result myself. --BwB (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It's quite clear. Ignore what the involved editors say and just read what the uninvolved editors have written.

• The statement is a direct quote from a highly-regarded book, and I believe that it accurately reflects the views of the great majority of physicists. I don't see any undue weight issue here, as the section is currently written. Looie496 (talk) 21:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
• It follows directly from WP:NPOV that in cases of fringe scientists such as Hagelin we should seek out and include mainstream reactions to the work to document the fact that it really is fringe and describe the work neutrally. We shouldn't avoid doing so merely because it would hurt someone's feelings. And if we have a direct source saying that he's widely regarded as a crackpot, it would be a gross misrepresentation of that source (and therefore a violation of WP:NPOV) to water it down to "some scientists view his work as unscientific" or something more generic like that. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Those views are that the criticism is notable and should be included verbatim without paraphrasing.   Will Beback  talk  22:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Notice boards are places for uninvolved input and opinion. Those opinions are in no way binding. Unfortunately, only two uninvolved editors commented on the notice board while the discussion was overwhelmed with involved- editor comments. Two comments are insufficient to determine larger community position on the question we posted. The first comment, (Looie496), while highly applicable to Wikipedia articles in general does not take into account that BLP demands more than an ordinary article does such as "impartial tone" and "sensitivity".WP:BLP is a policy while WP: Reliable a guideline, and the demands of the policy must supercede the guideline.

The second comment, (Davis Epstein), is based on an inaccurate premise that Hagelin is a fringe scientist therefore we need to go out and look for fringe sources to support that idea. If the fundamental premise is incorrect, and it is-Hagelin published over 70 papers that according to Woit are still widely cited today, and only a few that were controversial-then how does the rest of the comment have any real applicability. David's concern is that the article will be watered down if we don't use the exact language of the source, while WP: BLP specifically ask for impartiality in tone. Do we have multiple sources that specifically call Hagelin a crackpot? Is crackpot an impartial encyclopedic term, or is it sensationalist and tabloid like? ChemProf made an important distinction in the BLP/N discussion; that our concern is that the WP article itself has an impartial tone, but our concern cannot be that the source itself is neutralized.

Will suggested at one point we rewrite parts of the controversial section. I'd include Woits comments in that rewrite to see if we can come up with something accurate and comprehensive, but impartial in tone, and so more encyclopedic than what we have now.(olive (talk) 22:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC))

It'd be inaccurate to re-write Woit's comment to make it more neutral. Our presentation needs to be neutral, but we shouldn't neutralize praise or criticism. I think it's safe to assume that the people who responded on BLPN are familir with BLP.   Will Beback  talk  23:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Summaries are accurate, and we use summary style all the time on Wikipedia. A summary style means we look at the overall sense of the source and write from there. Right now what we've done is select sensationalized comments from several different sources, then strung them together. This does not give the over acrhing sense of what is being said, and is not impartial in tone. On the contrary, what we have is a heightened partial tone because we've selected the most sensationalist comments from the sources and combined them to create something that is much more than any of the the parts.

I in no way am commenting on any edioter's knowledge of BLP, but was commenting on the applicability of the comments to our situation. if anything I said was taken to be a crticism of any editor I apologize . I am thankful for the comments, whether I feel they apply or not.(olive (talk) 23:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC))

I'm not sure how we would summarize "crackpot". A possible way would be to replace it with the dictionary definition: "one given to eccentric or lunatic notions".[2] I don't see that as being any improvement though.   Will Beback  talk  23:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

One would summarize towards an impartial tone rather than away from it as using the dictionary definition would do. And this definition is exactly why we can't use crackpot in this BLP, and to to characterize a scientist whose work is for the most part so highly cited.(olive (talk) 23:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC))

NPOV requires that we include all significant points of view. To report that he is "highly cited" without also reporting that he's viewed as a crackpot would be a violation of NPOV. There is no BLP violation in neutrally reporting views that appear in reliable sources and which are given appropriate weight.   Will Beback  talk  00:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

How many reliable sources specifically use the word crackpot? How many reliable secondary sources cite the importance of Hagelin's research? That Hagelin has research that is controversial is a given and needs to included ... That Hagelin is a crackpot can be traced to one reliable source that I've seen. Including crackpot is not only a violation of BLP since its tone is not impartial, but it violates NPOV and Weight... (olive (talk) 01:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC))

These arguments were made at the BLPN and didn't find agreement. So far as I know, one source calls Hagelin a crackpot. Are we proposing that every assertion in this article requires multiple sources? If so, the article will be much shorter.   Will Beback  talk  01:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

FWIW: "Zen and the art of political campaigning", no follower of genetically-modified fashion. The term is also used on various blogs and forums. For example, Hagelin on Consciousness, [3]. It isn't an extraordinary claim.   Will Beback  talk  02:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources: Intrepid media?... Blogs and forums?..

Crackpot is not significant in terms of reliable sources. Its a BLP so we have to take care with what we say ....We can't say crackpot equals, in terms of weight, Hagelin's cited research reputation... And we could be violating NPOV and Weight... Well, that's enough to go on.(olive (talk) 02:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC))

Just mentioning them to show it's not a unique view. Anyway, you can take it to BLPN again if you want.   Will Beback  talk  03:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

NIce. Thanks for your... kind comment. I'll try and rewrite it to see if I can create a version that satisfies everyone.(olive (talk) 03:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC))

I suggest you post your draft here first. Any text that waters down Woit's assertion is probably not going to find a consensus.   Will Beback  talk  05:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a bad joke, right? Olive takes this to BLPN and gets shot down. So now she wants to (i) ignore the input from the uninvolved editors and (ii) argue that they didn't know what they were talking about. Nice. Face the ugly facts. Hagelin is absolutely a "fringe" scientist. It's called quantum mysticism for a reason. His "research" on that theory isn't cited by anyone outside the tiny circle of TM true believers and TM-sponsored publications. Mainstream physicists, when they aren't condemning it as utter nonsense, are utterly ignoring it. The editors proceeding from a fundamental misunderstanding are those who have convinced themselves that this nonsense is mainstream science. It isn't; and trying to cast it as such is a direct and deliberate violation of Wikipedia policy on fringe science and scientists. "Crackpot" is a term that has been applied to Hagelin and his beliefs again and again by numerous mainstream, reliable sources. But even if it had only been by Woit alone, which it is not, it would still be absolutely notable and from reliable sources. Will is exactly right - any attempt to whitewash that fact is going to be vigorously opposed. Fladrif (talk) 13:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Lets clarify: To begin with, the content in the section we are talking about is not there by consensus. Despite that, I'm perfectly willing to post the rewrite here and ask for consensus as Will has suggested.

Notice boards as I said above are places to ask for input, and opinions given there are just that and are not in anyway binding. I didn't agree with the two editors who posted nor does such non agreement construe a lack of respect for those editors ... Its simple. I don't feel they addressed the problem from a BLP standpoint.

No one is casting the studies in question as mainstream science, nor should assumptions be made about how the editors view the studies. Further the article isn't about the studies its about the scientist, and whether he's in anyone one's opinion a so called fringe scientist or not the article must be written with scrupulous detail to BLP. This is not just another article this is an article which describes another living human being. I have no desire to harm that person in anyway by what i would consider to be my own agendas on his life and work. Wikipedia is very clear about the tone and quality of BLP articles so that harm is not caused. What I am concerned about, and I can't speak for anyone else, is that this article and specifically this section adhere to BLP.

If you have reliable sources that specifically use the term "crackpot", I would be happy to see them, so that I can take them into account as I do the rewrite. I haven't seen any but that doesn't mean there aren't any.(olive (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC))

How does one conclude this discussion? The BLPN had some folks who felt the quote should remain, others disagreed. Can we thrash it out here, or are we all immovable entrenched in our viewpoint? If we are immovable, then there is no place to go. To me, the "crackpot" quote is chosen specifically to try to discredit Hagelin. Yes, he has done research in some unchartered waters, but the connection between matter and mind, physics and consciousness has been a topic of discussion for hundred of years. The fact that mainstream science does not consider Hagelin's work in the area to be significant does not necessarily make him a "crackpot". Perhaps the article can reflected in a balance, neutral way, that this area of research that Hagelin has spent his time is considered fringe, non-accepted, and radical without the characterization of "crackpot". --BwB (talk) 00:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Find a source which says that and we can add it too.   Will Beback  talk  01:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting how little there is in reliable sources on this negative view of Hagelin. Weight must definitely be a consideration.(olive (talk) 01:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC))

We devote one sentence to it.   Will Beback  talk  01:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I understand.(olive (talk) 01:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC))

Woit's comment receive very little weight already. I'm not sure what criteria is being suggested for deciding how much weight to devote to various views and matters.   Will Beback  talk  02:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I was actually referring to the entire section. Right now the controversy section that refers to a few papers is equal in length to the section on Hagelin's major body of research-73 studies and numerous cites. That's a weighty controversial section.(olive (talk) 02:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC))

Well, it's a bit arbitrary to assign some views to "controversy", then to decide that there's too much space devoted to them. We can fix that by moving the views into other parts of the article.   Will Beback  talk  02:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

A rose is a rose is a rose....Negative material to the subject is negative material however its organized, and weight must be considered wherever the material is placed.(olive (talk) 03:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC))

Negative and positive material should both be included with weight proportional to their prominence. Some of the topics covered in the article may have excess weight, such as the "Enlightened Audio Designs" section, which doesn't seem to have any 3rd-party sources at all. The presidential campaigns may not have enough weight. I don't see why the section in question represents ndue weight. Are you contending that there is no controversy concerning Hagelin, his research, or his views?   Will Beback  talk  04:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

And, I would point out that half of the "controversy" section is stuff the MUM crowd added to "refute" the criticisms. So the "negative" bits are half of what you contend. I have seen this "weight" argument again and again in these TM Pages. It is a complete misinterpretation and misrepresentation of what the policy actually is. And, as I pointed out at the BLPN discussion, Woit is not alone in saying that the scientific and academic community, to say nothing of the public at large as soon as they understand what he claims, regards Hagelin and his theories as "crackpot":

• Even Dennis Roark, the former dean of faculty and chairman of the department of physics at Maharishi University of Management (MUM), speaks of the university’s “crackpot science” protocols, it’s meritless claims concerning the relationship between physics and consciousness, and the suppression of negative data in movement-sponsored research that is widely quoted as “scientific” proof of the benefits of TM. .
• The accreditation [of MUM] itself has been questioned. "It's a crying shame," said John W. Patterson, a professor of material science and mechanical engineering at Iowa State University. The North Central Association, he said, "does nothing more than to lend credibility to these crackpots.
• One of the Maharishi's attractive analogies——in which he equates the solar system with the structure of the atom——is not only crackpot science; it is very bad crackpot.
• Hagelin needs to break through the crackpot labels and legitimize himself to voters and the media.

See also Frauds: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases; "What the #$*! do they know? (Movie Review) Skeptical Inquirer(Sepember 1, 2004); "Don't believe it; Faithful of all stripes take hit in Sagan book" Chicago Sun-Times (April 1, 1996) But, as I said above, even if it was Woit alone, it would be notable and the article as written gives it appropriate weight. Fladrif (talk) 14:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

"Are you contending that there is no controversy concerning Hagelin, his research, or his views?"

Nothing I've said at any time supports asking such a question. Please feel free to check the discussion here and BLPN archived discussion should you have any real concerns since I clearly state there that the controversy surrounding these few papers is significant, interesting and needs to be included. I am arguing that Wikipedia policy be adhered to. I am unclear as to what you are arguing for, but feel as if such questions are meant to bait . Hopefully I'm wrong on that. (olive (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC))

Flad, we are talking about the use of the "crackpot" quote in this article about Hagelin. We all agree that the physics/consciousness research is controversial and H. has received criticisms for it. No problem. But we do not necessarily have to include the "crackpot" quote. Let's stick to material sources that is relevant to Hagelin. --BwB (talk) 15:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes,we do. It is the whole point of this discussion. Hagelin is viewed as a crackpot by real scientists and real academics. You cannot water that down, whitewash it, or "neutralize" it (to use ChemProf's term) by trying to eliminate it from the article or to substutute some other term that you think is more palatable. As I pointed out at BLPN, still stronger terms might be used, as they are reflected in reliable sources, like "grade-A nut job" and "cult leader". Crackpot is hardly the harshest term that might be selected. "Crackpot" is mild by comparison. And I repeat that this absurd forum shopping - "I couldn't get agreement here, so I took it to BLPN, but I didn't get support for my position from the uninvolved editors at BLPN, so I want to try again here, where the MUM faculty and TM Org affiliated editors outnumber the other editors" is completely improper and evidences an utter unwillingness to abide by the fundamental priciples of WIkipedia. I don't care that TimidGuy wrote the TM article at the behest of MUM and its PR and legal departments - you guys (and gals) don't own this article. Fladrif (talk) 15:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I've discussed these points before. You are suggesting guilt by association, even assigning guilt to The Higher Learning Commission, and that's a stretch. Your comment about TG is not only an attempt to out TG but is false. Check the TM archives for who created the TM article. The editors on this article have never ganged up on other editors to reach a consensus on content and you'll note that seldom do any group of editors all agree. On the most recent discussion on mantras all editors but one agreed, even Will Beback. (olive (talk) 17:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC))

No, I'm not suggesting guilt by association; I'm quoting reliable sources. It's hardly guilt by association when the former chairman of Hagelin's own department at MUM to call the protocols of his own department and university "crackpot science" and Hagelin's theories "meritless". I have checked the TM archives for who wrote the TM article. I suggest you do the same. TimidGuy specifically said that he was requested to write it and had it posted through another editor. You seem to think that I just make this stuff up; that may be the protocol in beautiful downtown Fairfield, but not with me.Fladrif (talk) 18:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

We are talking about John Hagelin, and one word and its context.... lets stick to that.(olive (talk) 18:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC))

Olice, you've said, I believe, that Woit's view doesn't merit much (any?) weight because it is just one view. To the extent that it is held by nmore than one person (Woit says he's representing the view of most physicists, IIRC), then that adds weight to his comments.   Will Beback  talk  19:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Fladrif, you are indeed making this stuff up. I didn't write the TM article at the behest of MUM and the legal department. Roark was chairman of physics for a short time --two years or less in the 1970s. Hagelin was still in school then. (Plus, when you have two physics teachers at a small college, it hardly means much to be chairman of a department.) And your applying Roark's statement to 30 years of research that postdate it is the same sort of stretch that you've made before when adding content to the TM article. Will, that's precisely one of the things that bothers me about this quote. He says virtually every physicist in the world thinks Hagelin is a crackpot. The fact is that most of the physicists in the world haven't heard of John Hagelin. This is one small sub-discipline among many. BLP says to avoid overstatement. TimidGuy (talk) 10:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion rewrite research /controversy section

• Rewrite (as discussed) here: [4]

I'll leave this here for a few days, then if there are no objections I'll move this version into mainspace.(olive (talk) 02:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC))

What did you change? Also, concerning the one line we've been discussing: Woit specifiucally asserts that other physicist think he's a "crackpot". Something like "Woit asserts that most physicists think Hagelin is a crackpot" would be closer. But I have a suggestion. The "sticking point here seems to be that Hagelin is being called a "crackpot". But Woit also says that his views are seen nonsense. Would it be more acceptable to say that "Woit asserts that most physicists think Hagelin's views are nonsense." ?   Will Beback  talk  02:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Is it really significant that one person makes the rather astounding claim that "most physicists..." Its just one opinion of one person.... do physicists working in other fields even know anything about Hagelin. This is a rather presumptuous blanket statement. Don't know....(olive (talk) 03:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC))

Thanks, Will, for exploring alternatives. I really appreciate it. Regardless of what we decide about "most," it seems like "nonsense" is more in accord with the BLP advice on being sensitive than "crackpot." TimidGuy (talk) 10:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that 'nonsense' is a better word instead of an inflammatory, name calling, word like 'crackpot'. This kind of intelligent change is more in accord with BLP policies and the tone we should be adopting in cases like this.-- — Kbob • Talk • 11:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we are moving toward consensus. I think Will's suggestion is good. --BwB (talk) 18:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

No, we're not. I object to this rewrite in the strongest terms possible. Among other things, it is a complete and total violation of Wiki policy for editors here to "decide" that (i) Woit can't possibly know what "most physicists" think, so you want to misrepresent the article as reflecting his viewpoint, instead of reporting the viewpoint of the wider scientific community; (ii) that because Lopez didn't collaborate with Hagelin (an assertion that I take to be original research, since I've seen no citation to a reliable source saying that), he can't possibly know what Hagelin's former colleagues think of him, so you want to delete that, notwithstanding that reliable sources show that Lopez works closely with Hagelin's former colleagues, and he is reported as relating their views. He is certainly in a position to know what Hagelin's former colleagues think about him. You don't get to argue with reliable sources based on your own views and original research. That's just for starters. Fladrif (talk) 13:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Another thing, I assume that in saying that Woit calls Hagelin's research "wishful thinking" you are referencing the sentence where Woit poses the question: How does one separate what is "legitimately science" from "irrational wishful thinking". If you're going to call it "wishful thinking", you need to call it irrational as well, if you're going to accurately reflect the criticism. There will be more.Fladrif (talk) 15:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Consensus means as I understand that a majority of editors are in agreement. A majority of editors are in agreement that this rewrite is acceptable at least for the most part. Editors are discussing one specific phrase at this point as Will has outlined above.

There is no violation of policy . In fact the violation has been in efforts to select and combine the strongest possible negative language from the sources we are using, then tacking them together to create a section that trashes another human being . That is a clear violation of BLP's "impartial tone". We are expected to use more of a summary style on Wikipedis. In doing so we attempt to give an overview of a source rather than quote it directly and or cherry pick information to create a particular point of view. Faldrif you have quite clearly indicated in other posts what you think of Hagelin. Do I think Hagelin is a crackpot? No, not unless you want to classify all physicists who deal in new ideas as crackpots . But I did include crackpot in this rewrite as a taste of what Woit is suggesting . Wiot in no way can say with any kind of verifiablity that "most physicists" anything ... that is an extraordinary claim and his opinion. There are multiple fields in physics and many in those fields have not even heard of Hagelin. Using the word crackpot is name calling pure and simple and is Woit's word/explanation ... That's fine but we don't need to use everything Woit says. We need to give a flavour. We aren' writing a book here just a paragraph. Woit also places Hagelin in a very clear context ... the context of the chapter, the context of the theme of the book, and in context of Hagelins own career. Our section needs to give a sense of that.

In terms of the Anderson source, we again don't need to include every negative comment made. I already include a rather large dose of quotes. Investigating the studies to see If Lopez ever collaborated with Hagelin is not OR ...WP:OR refers to what goes into an article not the research an editor does. All editors research to some extent. Does Lopez know what Hagelin's collaborators think ... I have no idea and neither does anyone else here, because the article doesn't say that . The article suggests Lopez was a collaborator. He wasn't. If Lopez was the only quote we had I could see using him. We have other quotes.

Since you feel strongly and have made some suggestions about this rewrite, I would suggest you go to the sand box paste in the rewrite there and adjust it to suit how you think it should be written. Its clear that the majority of editors have concerns with what is in place now.(olive (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC))

Consensus doesn't mean, as I understand it, that a handful of editors in the employ of an organization agree to whitewash and water down criticism of the organization or one of it's prominent members, who may or may not be their boss and/or bestest buddy. You completely misrepresent statements made by reliable sources and exclude others because of your own POV and original research which you claim is some twisted an unrecognizable corrolary to WP:V which has no basis whatsoever in Wiki policy. This "rewrite" is an abomination, which, to borrow Woit's title and the reference is not merely wrong, it is not merely completely wrong, it is so wrong as to be not even wrong.Fladrif (talk) 17:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

How do you explain Will Beback's position.(olive (talk) 20:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC))

By what stretch of a tortured imagination do you construe Will's comment as supportive of your draft or approach? I'll leave Will to speak for himself, but I don't interpret his comment as supportive; it suggest to me that Will agrees with me, and disagrees with you on the point that Woit isn't merely giving solely his own opinion when he says that virtually every physicist regards Hagelin's theories as nonsense and the work of a crackpot. So, I can hardly view Will's comment above as supporting your position or any "consensus" position.Fladrif (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Flad, as I have requesed before - "the message, not the messenger". Many thanks. --BwB (talk) 18:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

And I suggested you make your own changes, yet you prefer to attack the editors here. Why would you suggest these editors are all in agreement when they so obviously are not agreeing on the text I suggested.(olive (talk) 20:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC))

I'm not attacking the editors. I'm pointing out that an agreement between you, TG, BWB, CP, KBob, and other TM Org affiliated editors does not establish a consensus position. I have specifically commented on the draft and how it is inaccurate and inappropriate. I think the current version of this particular section of the article is accurate, reliably-sourced, encyclopedic, and appropriately balanced. I have said so repeatedly. It does not need to be rewritten. So why would I want to edit a rewrite that I consider to be entirely out-of-bounds and improper. Which part of my position on this question is unclear to you?Fladrif (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Rewrite

Note: Made change as per group agreement (Rewrite in sandbox here) [5]

Since no further comments have been added in the last day or so I'd like to see where the editors involved in this discussion stand on this rewrite, whether in agreement to adding it and replacing what is in place now or not. Please add comments below. (olive (talk) 16:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC))

Note: I've added a bullet point to comments that are either specifically agreeing or disagreeing with the rewrites so we can get a clear vision of how things stand. I hope that's ok with everyone.(olive (talk) 21:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC))

I'll give this a few days but will assume those who don't respond don't care one way or the other.(olive (talk) 01:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC))

Comments

• I oppose this rewrite. It amounts to the deletion of reliably-sourced material, accurately and neutrally presented, and the misprepresentation of other reliably-sourced material, based solely on the POV of certain editors that the sources are wrong or unduly harsh in their assessments of Hagelin, his theories and his "research". Olive and others have been quite candid that they question the source material not based on any reliable sources of their own, but on their own "original research", a misinterpretation of WP:V. It is driven entirely by pushing their own POV rather than accurately representing reliable, verifiable sources, and is an effort to "neutralize" the source material, rather than an effort to present it neutrally. . The version that is in the article right now is appropriate; the redraft being proposed is not. Fladrif (talk) 14:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• I think the rewrite better conforms to Wikipedia policies. The current version has too much quoted material (hence the template on that section). It violates the core policy WP:NPOV. which says "Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." It violates WP:UNDUE in that it's about twice as long as the material that presents Hagelin's two papers and his single research study related to his hypothesis. It's not in accord with the excellent advice in WP:QUOTE, which says to avoid quoting when "the quotation is being used to substitute rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias." And it's redundant. Plus, the material is in some cases taken out of context, as in the case of Anderson, in which summary is needed to clarify what he means when he says Hagelin is linking SU(5) with TM. (The first part of the article clarifies what he means.) I think if no one else comes up with a version that reasonably addresses these issues, we can go ahead and put this in this rewrite. TimidGuy (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

All editors engage in so called original research as they look for sources .This should not be confused with WP:OR which refers to what and how content is added to the article itself. The onus is on the editor to write an accurate article. If a source as the Anderson source does misrepresents information and if there is also information in the same source that is accurate , then the editor who chooses to use the inaccurate information contributes to weakening the article and the encyclopedia. As well, in the rewrite I used all quoted material from Anderson that was there before except the Lopez comment. Wikipedia suggests a summary style and is not ion the business of completely paraphrasing the sources it cites. Leaving out one quote by a researcher who is misrepresented in the source can hardly be construed as not accurately representing the source. (olive (talk) 16:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC))

Except, you're not looking for sources at all, you're simply asserting without support that you don't like what has been written in reliable sources about Hagelin. Anderson didn't misrepresent anything, and TimidGuy's claim that Hagelin never wrote about SU(5) and never wrote about it in the context of linking it to consciousness was absolutely false, because Hagelin did precisely that in his paper in the inaugural issue of JMSVS. There cannot be any question that TimidGuy knew for a fact that he was asserting something that was demonstrably false when he made that claim here. So, take care where you're pointing fingers here. I utterly reject the rationale being advanced above in favor of this rewrite. Fladrif (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is. I am citing the sources that were in the article. And you are making assumptions; that I didn't look at other sources and I don't like what was written about Hagelin. I am attempting to help write an encyclopedic article in line with the policies. How is see that is different than how you see it. That's fine. There is no definitive article.

Hagelin's research was in flipped SU(5)...as a matter of fact flipped refers in part to the four researchers who worked on the theory. The argument that he mentioned SU(5) at some point is a red herring . The reference is to his research, and his research was not in (SU)5.(olive (talk) 18:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC))

No, the red herring is the argument which you and TG advanced that Anderson is not a reliable source, based upon a knowing falsehood regarding what Hagelin wrote about in his papers idnetifying the unified field in physics and consciousness.Fladrif (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Lets be accurate here and not toss out false information. What has been noted is that parts of Anderson are not verifiable and are inaccurate. Anderson conflates SU(5) and flipped SU(5) in this article and there are some inaccuracies such as alluding to Lopez as if Hagelin had collaborated with him. In spite of those concerns with the article I used parts of the article that are verifiable and so reliable, and with one exception I used just what was in the the section in the first place. No one has argued that the content of the research is on consciousness and unified field theory...nor that it should be included and is significant. No one has argued that this is not controversial material. The issue is how to present this material. Its that simple.(olive (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC))

Exactly my point. So, stop with the inaccuracy and perpetuating false information, which is exactly what you and TimidGuy have been doing throughout the discussions on this article. And, on top of that, you continue to engage in the most absurd Wikilawyering when you try to claim that Anderson isn't verifiable. . Anderson's statements are absolutely verifiable. You can read the article in the original publication or online. That is what verifiable means. Do you even bother to read the policies you claim to be relying upon? I really doubt that you do, because there is nothing whatsoever in WP:V to support your claims on this point. Anderson does not confuse or conflate SU(5) and flipped SU(5); that is absolute nonsense perpetrated by TimidGuy which has no basis in fact whatsoever. Anderson does not claim, assert or imply that Lopez is one of Hagelin's former collaborators. You claim that he isn't, which is original research. What Anderson does is quote Lopez, who says that Hagelin's former collaborators are furious with him. Lopez is, of course, perfectly well situated to know what Hagelin's former collaborators think about him because, unlike Hagelin, Lopez continues to work with those people.Fladrif (talk) 20:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Fladrif. Since we have been over these points multiple times, and since its obvious we are no closer in agreement, I won't comment further. You have a right to your opinions and interpretation of policy as do I. You are misconstruing what I am saying, and that's fine too. (olive (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC))

I feel things are getting way overblown here. The rewrite seems very reasonable and balanced. It presents the criticisms of Hagelin. The word "crackpot" is not used. It is necessary to use it? --BwB (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

and BWB. Could you clearly state for us whether you support or do not support the rewrite with its change in place ... refer to sand box for the adjusted version.(olive (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC))

Hi BWB. I included "crackpot" in the original rewrite I did but Will Beback suggested an alternative. I removed crackpot and put in Will's suggested alternative based on a general consensus from other editors. I personally did not support the change but a majority of others did.(olive (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC))

• I have not been involved in every twist and turn of this issue but I will say this. It is my understanding that BLP's have a special status on Wiki and that while varying points of view should be included, we are also encouraged to use extra care, to summarize and use a conservative tone. I think Olive's rewrite accomplishes that. For example, Will's suggestion that we replace the work

'crackpot' with another word used by the source ie. 'nonsense' is a good decision. This need to use a conservative tone is a view I have expressed on other BLP discussion pages where I am an active editor, such as George W. Bush and Sara Palin. So I am encouraging the same kind of tone in the BLP here.-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

OK I see the thinking now, especially from the BLP perspective. I am OK with the proposed version of the rewrite. --BwB (talk) 01:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's be even more precise here when discussing physical science. Hagelin absolutely did not relate TM to SU(5) as Anderson incorrectly states. He did not even relate TM to flipped SU(5) as others here have stated. Hagelin's important contribution to physics was his "flipped SU(5) heterotic superstring theory". To people unfamiliar with high energy particle physics (the vast majority of people, even of physicists), this distinction may seem trivial, but in fact it is the basis of the most successful and cited of the GUTs (grand unified theories). The breakthrough was in his reconciliation of flipped SU(5) with heterotic superstring theory, and it is a major breakthrough, and includes unique proton decay predictions and a significantly smaller number of SO(10) gauge groups. Further, Hagelin also interpreted flipped SU(5) heterotic superstring into supersymmetry (and its required symmetry breaking), which garnered him the Kilby award. So he made two major advances of flipped SU(5), highly regarded and well cited, and which is still among the most successful of GUTs. So Anderson clearly does not understand even the physics of Hagelin's (et al) work. And then he further makes the erroneous statement that Hagelin relates his breakthrough theories to the mental practice of TM. In fact, not unlike many physicists before him who have written of the relationship to understanding the paradoxical world of high energy particle physics with "eastern philosophy", Hagelin in fact credits his highly regarded theoretic proposal (of "flipped SU(5) heterotic superstring theory") to his reading and understanding of the eastern philosophical texts called the vedas. Not to TM, a mental technique for reducing stress in the physiology, which also happens to have its roots in the vedas, but to the vedic descriptions of ultimate reality (which is also the province of high energy particle physics). So people who are ignorant of both high energy particle physics as well as of the vedas and eastern philosophy will likely miss all of the substantially significant differences, but that ignorance then leaves them erroneous in their statements about both subjects and therefore about Hagelin's work.

Further for reference, some of the "many physicists" who drew physics insights from vedic philosophy include Robert Oppenheimer who referenced the vedic text the bhagavad gita, as one of the most influential texts which shaped his world view. Many other prominent physicists including a number physics nobel laureates such as Eugene Wigner, Hannes Alfvén, Werner Heisenberg and Brian Josephsen have as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.102.9.66 (talk) 08:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Since no one has addressed the violations of policies that I listed, I guess we can go ahead and put in the rewrite. And regarding the specific point about Anderson, it's clear from the context that "linking SU(5) with TM" is a shorthand way of referring to Hagelin's public lectures in which he extends grand unified field theories to human consciousness and includes discussion of TM (actually the TM-Sidhi program). That context is accurate. The shorthand description without context is not — and the rewrite resolves this. It is also in better accord with policy and guidelines.

As an aside (and in accord with my habit of quibbling), Fladrif, you misrepresent what I have said. I didn't that Hagelin "never wrote about it in the context of linking it to consciousness." I said that Hagelin has never linked TM and SU(5). I would almost agree with your more generalized twisting of what I said. Hagelin has indeed often spoken and written about unified field theories and their relationship to consciousness. And Olive's rewrite resolves this. TimidGuy (talk) 11:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Since Will Beback has been a major contributor to this discussion, I've posted a note on his page notifying him of the discussion should he want to comment on his position one way or the other. I'll wait a few days to give him time to post. Thanks.(olive (talk) 14:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC))

Thanks for the considerate note. I've been preoccupied elsewhere, but I'll look over the draft today or tomorrow and amke some remarks.   Will Beback  talk  19:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

As I just now noted in Olive's sandbox, I think the two paragraphs on Woit's and Anderson's views are much improved, and I like the sentence suggested by Will as a major step toward lowering the emotional tone of this BLP, in accord with WP policies and guidelines. I also made a suggestion concerning the first revised paragraph, the one dealing with Park's comments. Anyone interested can check that out in olive's sandbox. ChemistryProf (talk) 04:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Reducing number of quotes, improving the tone

As pointed out on the noticeboard (see previous), the tone of parts of the Hagelin BLP is not appropriate for WP articles in general, much less for a BLP. Also, under the section on Reception of Hagelin's comparison of..., someone has asked for a reduction of quotes and a proper use of the quotes. I have rewritten the second paragraph of that section to better reflect these goals (see below). If we can agree that this rewrite captures the meaning of the previous version without the use of quotes and with a more dispassionate tone, then let's make the substitution. This will remove much of the fuss over this section.

Suggested substitute paragraph: "In a 1992 news article responding to Hagelin’s entry into politics as the presidential candidate of the newly formed Natural Law Party in the US, the author recognized Hagelin as a gifted researcher well known and respected by his colleagues and a co-developer of one of the better-accepted unified field theories, the Flipped SU(5) model. The article cautions, however, that some of Hagelin’s investigations seeking to extend grand unified theories into the realm of human consciousness, in particular using these theories as possible explanations of how practice of the Transcendental Meditation techniques might influence world events, had not been received well by some of his colleagues. The article includes quotes from Jorge Lopez, a Texas A&M University physicist and sometime collaborator of Hagelin, denouncing this venture, indicating that he and other collaborators were upset over this direction of the research. The news article also quotes another collaborator, John Ellis, then director of CERN, as saying "I was afraid that people might regard [Hagelin's assertions] as rather flaky, and that might rub off on the theory or on us."[25]" ChemistryProf (talk) 19:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Its better if a little long...Lopez was never a collaborator so that should come out and Lopez can't speak for other collaborators as well. This would work there:

The article includes quotes from Jorge Lopez, a Texas A&M University physicist who denounces this venture, indicating that he and other scientists were upset over the direction of the research

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleolive oil (talk • contribs) 20:11, September 4, 2009

• Current text:
  • According to a 1992 news article in Nature by Christopher Anderson, Hagelin, co-developer of one of the "better-accepted" unified field theories known as the Flipped SU(5) model, "is by all accounts a gifted researcher well known and respected by his colleagues". According to Anderson, though, Hagelin's investigations into how the extension of grand unified theories of physics to human consciousness could explain how Transcendental Meditation allegedly influences world events "disturbs many researchers" and "infuriates his former collaborators". "A lot of people [Hagelin] has collaborated with in the past are very upset about this," says Jorge Lopez, a Texas A&M University physicist. "It's absolutely ludicrous to say that TM has anything to do with flipped SU(5)." Anderson says that John Ellis, director of CERN, was worried about guilt by association. Anderson quotes Ellis as saying "I was afraid that people might regard [Hagelin's assertions] as rather flaky, and that might rub off on the theory or on us."

The editor who added the "quotefarm" template was TimidGuy.[6] I'm not sure that there are an excess number of quotes in the current section. Here's the relevant guideline Wikipedia:Quotations   Will Beback  talk  20:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I like Will's sentence better. Concerning the reasons for removing some of the quotes, my intention was not just to reduce the number but to change the tone. The following guideline from WP:Quotations was my main reason: Quotes are not appropriate when

the quotation is being used to substitute rhetorical language in place of the more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias. This can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided.

The paragraph as revised now has a more informative context in the beginning and has a more dispassionate tone, but without losing the essential meaning. Will's version of the Lopez sentence will be used. ChemistryProf (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I think its fine.(olive (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC))

Sorry Chem that was my text on Lopez which I think is fine... I forgot to sign...(olive (talk) 21:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC))

I haven't suggested any text.   Will Beback  talk  21:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Why does the proposal omit the name and publication of the 1992 article? Is "not well received by" the same as "infuriated"? It sounds much milder than the quote. Also, the laudatory material is still quoted, just with no quotation marks. That's poor scholarship.   Will Beback  talk  21:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Anderson and article name should be used as context. My sense is that this is a more summary style and gives some background and context which I thought was good, but I didn't check specifically the quoted section. I'll let Chem deal with that. Are you saying the wording does not accurately describe the tone... infuriated for example. (olive (talk) 21:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC))

Yes, I don't think that CP's draft reflects the source. I don't see the problem with quoting Anderson and the others. A few partial quotations does not make a "quote farm".   Will Beback  talk  21:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

... but one more pig has to stop somewhere, and paring back the quotes has to start somewhere, too.(olive (talk) 22:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)0

Actually, When I first read the source I was surprised by the general tone which was much milder than our own article was portraying. Including the density of negative quotes and the way in which they are strung together as a reflection of what the article is saying, I think, is actually misleading.(olive (talk) 22:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC))

Of course the final will cite the source at the end of the first sentence and repeat it after other sentences if necessary. WP has no rule saying author and place of publication have to be specifically named in the text of the article. That would be strange. It would sound as if someone is trying to use this information as a special sign of legitimacy, when it is not. Fact is, it's a news article and is not written by some heavyweight like Walter Cronkite whose name might be important enough to mention. As for the number of quotes used in this paragraph, it has more than any paragraph of comparable length in any other WP article I have read, and certainly more than in any other encyclopedia article I ever read. But it's not the number that's most important, it's the tone. The WP rule mentioned in WP:QUOTATIONS, WP:BETTER, and elsewhere is clear. WP articles should strive to sound like an encyclopedia, not like a yellow journalism piece. The current version is clearly an attempt to trash John Hagelin and this BLP article, apparently by someone who dislikes TM. That non-neutral tone needs to be removed, and the suggested revision does that without losing any of the information originally conveyed in the paragraph. Here is a new revised version that uses Olive's sentence and corrects the other problems mentioned.

In a 1992 news article responding to Hagelin’s entry into politics as the presidential candidate of the newly formed Natural Law Party in the US, the author recognized Hagelin as a gifted researcher well respected by his colleagues and a co-developer of a notable unified field theory known as the "Flipped SU(5)."[ref] The article cautions, however, that some of Hagelin’s investigations seeking to extend grand unified theories into the realm of human consciousness, in particular using these theories as possible explanations of how practice of the Transcendental Meditation techniques might influence world events, had not been received well by some of his colleagues. The article includes quotes from Jorge Lopez, a Texas A&M University physicist who denounces this venture, indicating that he and other scientists were upset over the direction of the research. The news article also quotes another collaborator, John Ellis, then director of CERN, as saying "I was afraid that people might regard [Hagelin's assertions] as rather flaky, and that might rub off on the theory or on us."[ref]

This revised version adheres to WP guidelines, whereas the paragraph as it stands does not. ChemistryProf (talk) 10:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this revision is better encyclopedia style. It's bad style to have sections, as here and in the TM article, that are basically listing quotes. I agree with Will that the paraphrase could be stronger -- it could say that most physicists reject these ideas. And I agree with him that if we revise this we could consider omitting the praise. I'd suggest condensing this a bit. Seems like there are really just two points in Anderson: most physicists reject his connections between physics and consciousness and his former collaborator wishes he wouldn't because it gives a bad impression of their research. We really do need to address this. The article simply uses too many quotes -- and it's not appropriate to neutral tone to constantly be using them for rhetorical effect. TimidGuy (talk) 11:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

NO. The current version accurately and in an appropriately neutral manner, represents the actual content of the source material. These proposals are neither neutral nor encyclopedic. The guidelines of WP:BLP require that the source material be accurately represented with neither overstatement nor understatement. These proposals, by grossly understating the source material, misprepresent and distort it. "Neutralizing" an article, to use CP's term, is a very different thing from an article being neutral. It is improper for an editor, by "neutralizing" either positive or negative material about a subject, to misrepresent an misconstrue the source references. I am also deeply disturbed that, after this matter was taken to the BLP Noticeboard and the uninvolved editors commented that the current text is perfectly appropriate, that this group of editors has decided that they will simply ignore that input.Fladrif (talk) 13:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

We have several opinions here as to what will make this section neutral, and we all have a right to those opinions. No one is right or wrong and to make this work we could go to a consensus, or to a compromise.

The BLP/N is dealing with one word, "crackpot" not the whole section or even a paragraph, and is again opinion. The notice board is still open for comments , no definitive position is apparent, and the editors here are dealing with a larger issue rather than the one word issue of the BLP/N.(olive (talk) 15:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC))

Here is a new iteration of the paragraph we have been discussing in this thread.

In a 1992 Nature news article entitled “Physicist running for president is accused of distorting science to fit guru’s ideas,” author Christopher Anderson describes Hagelin as a gifted researcher well respected by his colleagues.[ref] However, he goes on to emphasize that some of those colleagues take issue with Hagelin’s use of physics theories to explain effects of human consciousness on world events.[ref] He quotes heated testimony from Jorge Lopez, a Texas A&M University physicist, who attested that Hagelin’s attempt to relate unified field theories to human consciousness is not accepted by the majority of his colleagues. The article also quotes a Hagelin collaborator, John Ellis, then director of CERN, as saying "I was afraid that people might regard [Hagelin's assertions] as rather flaky, and that might rub off on the theory or on us."[ref]

This version adheres to the core guidelines about remaining dispassionate and sounding encyclopedic, including alluding to the emotional tone of the Lopez testimony. The way it is written here is what is meant by an encyclopedic, dispassionate tone. ChemistryProf (talk) 04:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It misrepresents the source material on multiple levels. "Some of those colleagues take issue"? It says it infuruates his former collegeages. "Heated"? Now, here's your POV exposed. You're going to characterize the tone of Lopez's comments? And what's with the use of legalese? "Testimony?" "Attested". What courtroom are we talking about here? "not acceepted by the majority of his colleagues" It says that his theories are "absolutely ludicrous". This is a perfect example of trying to "neutralize" the source rather than being neutral. The current text neutrally presents the actual source material in an accurate manner. Your version does not.Fladrif (talk) 12:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I feel that CProf's version does neutralize the source, but that the "crackpot" phrase is going too far in the other direction. Perhaps something in between could work. I also feel that criticism of Hagelin's work in the relationship of UF theories and consciousness is not necessarily a bad thing. The topic has enjoyed some heated debate in the past and will, I believe, continue for some time. --BwB (talk) 15:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Please see the section on impartial tone — "Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." WP:NPOV is a core policy, and the way quotations are used in this article violates this core policy, as TimidGuy mentioned earlier. We need to summarize and present these quotes in an IMPARTIAL TONE, which is exactly what was done in the above alternate version. Besides this core policy, similar guidelines, such as found in WP:Quote and WP:Better, make the point from different angles. The point here is not whether the SOURCE is neutralized but TO MAKE SURE THE WP ARTICLE ITSELF HAS AN IMPARTIAL TONE AND IS PRESENTED FROM A NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW. This means in this case that we strive not to quote one man's heated words in a manner that "substitutes rhetorical language in place of the more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias" WP:Quote. Please tell me, Fladrif, if there is any way I can make this point any more clearly. ChemistryProf (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

No comments for a month so I assume this thread is dead. -- — Kbob • Talk • 23:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

Orthography

Invicible American Assembly?? 62.57.50.138 (talk) 13:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

This spelling error was corrected on 9/5/09. -- — Kbob • Talk • 01:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

WP:NPOV says to avoid using quotes and to summarize

Please see the section on impartial tone — "Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." NPOV is a core policy, and I think that the way quotations are used in this article violates this core policy. We need to summarize and present in an impartial tone. TimidGuy (talk) 10:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

OK - go for it! --BwB (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Its apparent I've been in agreement with this reading of the situation all along, but other editors have not so I suggest we'd need some kind of agreement/ consensus/ compromise situation before we go ahead.(olive (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC))

How do you suggest we reach this compromise? --BwB (talk) 18:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The core principle is repeated in different forms under various headings and is quite clear. The best way to proceed is probably to place suggested alternative wording here for feedback. If people are serious about improving this article, we will soon have a version acceptable to everyone. ChemistryProf (talk) 03:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No comments for a month so I'm assuming this thread is dead.-- — Kbob • Talk • 23:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

The Secret and What the Bleep

Added references to Hagelin's participation in these projects. --BwB (talk) 16:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved