This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Science and Academia C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance). An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. United States: Presidential elections Unassessed Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections. Dartmouth College C‑class (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dartmouth College, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Dartmouth CollegeWikipedia:WikiProject Dartmouth CollegeTemplate:WikiProject Dartmouth CollegeDartmouth College articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Physics: Biographies C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Biographies Taskforce.

I believe the final sentence referring to educational "posters" should be removed entirely. Considering the statement in its original form and a web search it appears to be a superfluous personal anecdote. --24.2.154.16 00:39, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

These beautifully illustrated posters are regarded as unique collector items by particle physicists and mathematicians in that they are full of mathematical equations which have correct "grammar" interposed with Transcendental Meditation.

This statement is a combination of POV with some assertions of (ahem) questionable veracity. I've spent plenty of time around physicists and mathematicians, and haven't heard of these posters. As to what "correct" grammar is, I have no idea.

However, it is generally acknowledged that the means by which he is attempting to demonstrate this connection are within the norms of the scientific method and that he has a competent background in particle physics, and as a result Hagelin's work within particle physics is well respected in the physics community.

I question the accuracy of this. The impression I've gotten from the few physicists I've talked with about Hagelin is that while his early work was respected, work he's done since he became a TM advocate is not. Perhaps I'm incorrect, but I don't want to leave this endorsement of his work unless someone can back it up. Isomorphic 23:44, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have some suggestions. Revise the entire section written by his proponents, claiming his works are some of the most cited - a look at the link for that shows it isn't true, leading merely to one single coauthored paper in a one year period. That whole section touting great achievements in research and pubs is totally exaggerated.

The paper mentioned in that article was, according to the article, cited 20 times in 1983 and 40 times in 1984. It's a matter of record that he coauthored scores of papers and that they have been influential in the development of unified field theories. TimidGuy 19:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia official policy this kind of name calling in biographies of living persons must be deleted. Should have caught this sooner.(olive 13:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Michael Tompkins or Vinton Tompkins (Vinton D. Tompkins)? I've seen it given both ways. Esquizombi 10:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current article says " After that he tried to link particle physics to Transcendental Meditation and failed to publish a single paper in an established journal. His last accepted contribution to physics is from 1994" This first is actually completely backward, but I don't know an easy way to correct the misconception. At the least, it is more accurate to say that once he started running for political office, he stopped publishing scientific papers. As for the second sentence, his last contribution was published in 1995, not 1994.

To show why the statement is completely wrong, you can examine the timeline of his professional work:

1981 PhD in Physics; 1982 published research affiliated with CERN 1983 published research affiliated with SLAC 1984 -1995 published research affliated with Maharishi University of Management (FKA MIU).

[1]

Hagelin produced a stream of research in callaboration with Ellis and Nanopoulos, most of it AFTER he went to work at the TM university. In fact, according to Hagelin, HE was the one to start the revision of Flipped SU(5) which made the reputation of all three researchers. By Hagelin's account, he spent some time with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (MMY) in Switzerland discussing what a western Theory of Everything would need to include to be compatible with MMY's interpretation of Vedic cosmology. After their talk, Hagelin returned to MUM/MIU and started examining various western theories. Flipped SU(5) seemed to be the easiest to modiy along the lines that MMY suggested, and after the initial modifications, Hagelin realized that they made flipped SU(5) a much stronger scientific theory. He faxed the original modifications to Ellis at CERN who then contacted Nanopoulos, the original author of flipped SU(5), and the three produced a slew of papers on the subject for the next several years, starting with this one in 1987.

I can't say whether or not Hagelin's co-authors have "distanced themselves from him," but it certainly isn't simply because he attempted to connect TM theory to superstring theory because that attempt is what led to the fame of all three in the Theoretical PHysics world.

Additionally, both Ellis and Nanopoulos have published papers attempting to link Quantum Mechanics and consciousness, so this also suggests that they are not completely distainful of Hagelin's theories. Sparaig 06:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read some recent press articles where the SU(5) Theory was discuss. Not that I completely understood the article, but I got the sense that there may be flaws with the theory and that experimental evidence did not support this theory. Can anyone comment on this? Bigweeboy 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Made the changes I said I would. Sparaig 16:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reformatted timeline and corrected a few factual errors about who did what where in DC study.Sparaig 03:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The crime rate statistic cited was for yearly rate. The study examined the crime rate week-by-week for a specific period. You can't use the rate averaged over a year's period to refute a claim made about the weekly rate for an 8-week period. I have no idea if the claims made are valid, but you have to address the claims made in order to refute them. Sparaig 02:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

source: http://www.nhne.com/misc/hagelin.html

"John Hagelin did begin his career in physics with great promise. He now claims, however, to be the primary author of one of quantum physic's hottest theories. Superstring theory seeks to explain all physical laws in terms of one, neat system. Rather than being primary author, however, Hagelin was the second or third author on the foundational superstring papers, behind John Ellis, director of the eminently prestigious CERN, and others. (Authors on scholarly papers are traditionally listed in order of their contribution to the paper's contents.) And as you can read below, his co-authors and other noted scientists now distance themselves from -- and sometimes outright ridicule -- Hagelin's current theories linking Transcendental Meditation and the Maharishi's teachings with quantum physics. Meanwhile, his publications have gradually dwindled -- with no new publications since 1994."

"Hagelin & Quantum Theory: Holding on by a Superstring, (http://www.trancenet.org/nlp/physics/superstring.shtml ) from Nature, Vol. 359, Christopher Anderson, Sept. 10, 1992. In this article from one of the most prestigious journals in science, physicist Hagelin is accused of distorting science to fit his guru's ideas. Hagelin's former colleagues in superstring theory disown his theories of consciousness and politics."

source: http://minet.org/TM-EX/Fall-92

"Not surprisingly, the linkage of SU(5) with TM infuriates his former collaborators. It is hard enough, they complain, to win scientific support for any type of unified theory. ``A lot of people [Hagelin] has collaborated with in the past are very upset about this, says Jorge Lopez, a Texas A&M University physicist. ``It's absolutely ludicrous to say that TM has anything to do with flipped SU(5)."

"John Ellis, director of CERN's theoretical physics dept., has asked Hagelin to stop mixing TM and SU(5). ``I was worried about guilt by association, Ellis explains. ``I was afraid that people might regard [Hagelin's assertions] as rather flaky, and that might rub off on the theory or on us."

Therefore, I removed the following unsourced paragraph:

"1986

After a series of discussions with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi on the potential relationship between Physics and Vedic Cosmology, Hagelin made some preliminary modifications in Flipped SU(5) Superstring Theory to make it more in-tune with Vedic philosophy, which coincidentally also made the theory more robust from a Western scientific perspective. He contacted John Ellis of CERN with this information who then contacted Dimitri Nanopoulos and the three published many papers on the subject over the next several years."

I do not dispute that Hagelin wrote a paper about Superstringtheory, but I consider "make it more in-tune with Vedic philosophy, which coincidentally also made the theory more robust from a Western scientific perspective" TM-folklore. -- mkrohn 13:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The info is from a lecture Hagelin gave many years ago. I don't have a date for the lecture, but it is a reasonable paraphrase of what Hagelin claims. I'm putting it back in with the ole revert button, if I canfigure out how to do it, or with copy/paste if I can't. Sparaig 17:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, your source's comment, "Rather than being primary author, however, Hagelin was the second or third author on the foundational superstring papers, behind John Ellis, director of the eminently prestigious CERN, and others. (Authors on scholarly papers are traditionally listed in order of their contribution to the paper's contents)" is quite wrong:

In scientific papers, traditional the principle authors are listed in alphabetical order, and minor contributors' names are tacked on at the end. If your source was correct, the fact that Dimitri Nanopolous is always listed AFTER Hagelin in the citation would mean that Hagelin was more important than Nanopolous. You can't have it both ways. Either Hagelin is in fact a more important author than Nanonpolous (as your source's comment would insist is the case), or Ellis, Hagelin and Nanonpolous are co-equal in their authorship of the 50 or so papers that have all of their names on them, ALWAYS in alphabetical order. Sparaig 17:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having published myself on hep-th I agree with you. It is almost always in alphabetical order (there are exceptions). Nevertheless, you should either revert your edit or make very clear that the part "to make it more in-tune with Vedic philosophy, which coincidentally also made the theory more robust from a Western scientific perspective" is the view of Hagelin only. -- mkrohn 18:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which part is unclear? According to Hagelin, he made his initial modifications to Flipped SU(5) in order to maket them more "Vedic." By his estimation they also made them more scientifically useful, and apparently Ellis and Nanopolis agreed with him on this latter point because all three were co-authors of about 40 papers on the subject, AFTER Hagelin made the initial modifications. Only Hagelin can say why he made the initial modifications, and he has (or such is my recollection --I've asked his secretary to verify the details and timeline of what I said--just got off the phone with her literally 5 minutes ago). Sparaig 18:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at the DC statistics for the heck of it, and I can't say they back up the claim of the text "In actuality, there was no decrease in crime that year, during which Washington DC recorded the third highest number of murders in its history". 1993, number of murders 454, 1994 number of murders 399, 1995 number of murders 360. And actually, that year DC had the 6th highest number of murders in its history. The text is rather dismissive and misleading for something that is not so clear after all.

I thought the experiment was to demonstrate the reduction in crime during a specific period of 1993, namely June and July? Did violent crime go down in these months? Bigweeboy 5/13/09

the vitae says he published his last paper in 1995, and the little hostile blurb says he published his last paper in 1994. Additinally, he conected TM theory with FLipped SU(5) 10 years prior to his last publication, so the little hostile blurb is obviously wrong ther also, and yet people persist in keeping it in...Sparaig 10:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the claim that the Ig Nobel awards are "for genuine achievements"; they gave a prize to Social Text for the Sokal Affair, so this is clearly not true. I think the wikilink to the Ig Nobel article alone is enough to clarify what the prize is. --Craig Stuntz 19:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That quote is from the website. The website explicitly says that aside from several awards given (and hey mention the year and it ain't he year Hagelin got oen), they are all for "genuine achievements. Your OWN POV is showing. Sparaig 19:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. THought you said you were putting back in the original POV text, rather than taking something out. My bad. Sparaig 19:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now it says: 1994: Awarded an Ig Nobel Prize. In his case the prize was awarded for his experimental conclusion that 4,000 practicitioners of the TM-Sidhi program who gathered in Washington, D.C. for the Summer, caused a 23.3 percent decrease in crime in that city during an 8 week period in the Summer. As predicted, the full effect only lasted during the research period and gradually declined thereafter. This in accord with other research on the crime reducing effect of TM-Sidhi practice in groups and provides additional support for the connection between the effect and the presence of the group of meditators. The probability that this result was due to chance was less than 2 in 1 billion (p < .000000002). When a longer baseline was used (1988–1993 data), the maximum decrease was 24.6% during this period (p < .00003). The research was published in the peer-reviewed Social Indicators Research, 47, 153–201 (1999) (For a summary, see[2]).

specific offending lines: the first in bold - most 3rd party sources point to this episode as a hoax, you'd think there would be some dispute concerning what the effects of this if any there were, which should reflect here- not a whole hearted adulation of some supposed achievement; this makes it sound like he did something great and was awarded a prize, where as the Ig-Nobel prize is obviously a joke, or the antithesis of the nobel prize (ie. razzi:oscar, etc). And the second line is a bit more transparent. None of this is backed up at all, the only supporting link here is to his website, I suggest that the bulk of this be removed and it reflect the actual nature of the Ig-Nobel prize, and be relevant. Anyone agree? oZwald

The link to the web site is simply a convenience link. The real source for this is the peer-reviwed study that appeared in Social Indicators Research. All the information in that paragraph is from this peer-reviewed study. If the Ig Nobel prize wants to make a joke of this study, that's their prerogative. But one would hope that any critics of the study would examine it, rather than just making a joke of it because it's counterintuitive. TimidGuy 12:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need the two fact links in the article? --Richrobison 23:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I already said, Hagelin made the claim about how and why and when he made the initial revision to Flipped SU(5) in a lecture he gave 20 years ago. I saw the lecture. I have it on videotape. -Sparaig 07:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Err, that doesn't even satisfy WP:RS. It comes nowhere near satisfying the requirements of the Pseudoscience ArbCom decision for scientific topics. --Philosophus ^T 07:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about the scientific validity of Hagelin's research but about what he says about WHY he did the scientific research. Would you object to someone paraphrasing Kekulé about his own dream? True, the dream didn't prompt him to make other claims about the importance of snakes to chemistry, but that doesn't really matter. -Sparaig 07:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the cleanup request, I have rearranged the existing material in the lead and have added some material from other parts of the article to put this lead more in line with model Wikipedia biographical articles on living academics. Because this action does not add material not already included or referenced in the article, it seemed appropriate to go ahead and substitute it for the previous lead. ChemistryProf 04:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing with the clean-up of this article, I have rearranged the information previously included in this section to reduce redundancy and to make it more readable. I also have corrected some misinformation concerning the founding of the NLP in the US. (The source material for the new information is in delivery and will be cited and referenced when the detailed source information is in hand.) Some other source information is still needed. ChemistryProf 20:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing with clean-up of article:

• removed personal information not pertinent to biography as per Wikipedia guidelines ie: complete info. on date of birth can jeopardize privacy and security of the person noted.
• removed personal information that has no bearing on scholastic life, accomplishments in science and candidacy for public office.

I realize these are judgment calls on my part. (olive 19:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

It is evident that this award was a great mistake and therefore gives a misleading impression. The selection criterion for the Ig Nobel Prize is "achievements that cannot or should not be reproduced" (What is Ig). However, the research finding that rendered Hagelin the price has been reproduced (replicated) in dozens of peer reviewed studies published in leading scientific papers. A great strength of this research is that it is based on public data that cannot be faked. Moreover, the study was supervised by a 27 member group from Washington DC, including leading scientists, representatives of the Police and of the Mayors office. This independent group confirmed that the research was correctly made in every possible way. The finding was that a group of 4000 practitioners of the advanced Transcendental Meditation-based technique, TM-Sidhis, caused a 24% drop in criminality in Washington DC during 6 weeks. The probability that the effect was due to chance was 2 on 1 billion (p<0,000000002). For a summary, see Washington demostration project. For a summary of other research confirming this so called "Maharishi effect", see Research on the Maharishi effect. Actually few if any other sociological phenomena have been confirmed so strongly. --Võitkutõde 06:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether the award was "a great mistake", the award was given and should be included. If it's true that this study "has been reproduced (replicated) in dozens of peer reviewed studies published in leading scientific papers", then perhaps it might be best to note that by mentioning those studies and the "leading scientific papers" in which they were published.Marcello09 04:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Marcello09 According to Wikipedia standards I believe this would be the correct way to deal with this . This does make more interesting reading - noting that the award although given was given in error since the study had been replicated .(olive 14:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for your input, Olive. I've re-instated the mention of the IgNobel prize, although I changed the phrase "rigorous scientific study" to "study". "Rigorous scientific" is very POV. I'd welcome any additional information about any additional studies that replicate or refute the findings of Hagelin's study. Marcello09 03:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous editor has added a reference to Park's criticism of the DC study. It might be a good idea to balance that with the rebuttal of Park's criticism that also appeared in the Skeptical Inquirer. However, we then face the extended point-counterpoint that already exists in the article on the TM-Sidhi program. What to do? Since this article is about Hagelin and not the DC study, maybe we should simply direct readers to the TM-Sidhi article and include a summary comment. TimidGuy 11:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the suggestion of TimidGuy that a link from the DC study to the point-counterpoint that already exists in the article on the TM-Sidhi program would be a good way to handle this. However, I also want to state my intention to insert two paragraphs summarizing Haglin's research, creating a new section that I had intended to call simply "Research." Part of the reason for this addition is the correct mention by previous editors that CVs are not normally found in encyclopedia entries, even biographical ones such as this. Research sections are often included for academics, particularly for scientists, so that appears to be a good way to deal with some of the newsworthy information in the CV. The two paragraphs I will insert also incorporate something from the Kilby award. This fits well in the research section. Based on the above discussion, it seems that the Ig Nobel prize info could be added in this section as well. In fact, it could follow immediately after the end of my second paragraph, which ends with mention of the DC study that resulted in this award. Now that I think about it, the section might even be titled "Research and Awards," because two awards would be mentioned there. Because this new section also contains the information presently in the section entitled "Impact of Scientific Publications," the new section will simply replace that one. ChemistryProf 04:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really like the material you added. Good work. I think that as soon as we've finished replacing the CV material, then we can move the cleanup tag at the top that Philosophus added. TimidGuy 11:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great addition to the article, and really "fleshes" it out. As you mentioned this will help to solve the CV problem as well . Thank you for excellent work.(olive 15:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Will begin moving other CV material into the body of the article so we can soon delete the CV.(olive 16:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Am I missing something here? "Although noted as an award that can’t or shouldn’t be replicated, Hagelin’s study was in fact a replication of several such studies, suggesting that the study did not meet the criteria for the award." What studies did it replicate, or what studies replicated it? The citation that follows links to a page that doesn't even mention the study, or Hagelin. Marcello09 23:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Marcello. I've added a link to a fairly comprehensive list of studies done on the Maharishi Effect. Some are conference presentations, some are self-published in The Collected Papers, but quite a few have also been published in peer-reviewed journals, such as Social Indicators Research, Journal of Mind and Behavior, Social Science Perspectives Journal, Journal of Conflict Resolution (based at Yale University), Journal of Crime and Justice, and Psychology, Crime and Law. According to David Orme-Johnson, there have been 51 studies.[2] That page summarizes the published studies and gives an overview of the research. TimidGuy 10:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's my fault actually.... the link I provided was for the paraphrase from the award about "replication". I inserted this at the end of the line as per Wikipedia advice to not interrupt the flow of a sentence with links. I went back and forth in my mind trying to decide where to put the links but all in all the whole thing reads better now. The studies had to be added, and I hadn't had time to do that-probably should have done it before putting the section up. Once the studies link was added it especially doesn't make sense to add all of the links at the end of the sentence.Thanks Timid Guy and Marcello for dealing with this. I had neglected it.(olive 15:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

In did remove the birth date again from this article since the Wikipedia guidelines suggest not giving this kind of info because of the amount of identity fraud these days. We do use Hagelin's full name in the Early life so it seems redundant in the intro, but its your call. I'd like to leave out the birth date though, as that only seems fair to Hagelin himself. (olive 13:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Olive - I have noticed a lot of the positive contributions you have made to various wiki articles and am worried that this may sound like I am being "difficult but :-)

All, "real" encyclopedic biographical entry's contain the subjects date of Birth - and indeed death when relevant. Removing it on the basis of identity theft - although well intended - is simply illogical and would go against the criteria of normal encyclopedic enters. Someone as well known as Haglins DOB is is easily found anyway - see the latest edition of Who's Who" for example. Indeed, I believe it is even found on his own website. thoughts? :-)Crowleys Aunt 00:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reading this I can't help but feel that it doesn't give enough analysis to the criticisms made by the scientific community regarding Hagelin "merging" his theories of consciousness - especially those related to Vedic and perhaps more specifically TM - with Flipped SU(5) Superstring Theory.

Lets be honest, it has been noted elsewhere that many of his former peers have distanced themselves not only from his "merging" of these theories but also, in some respects, from Hagelin himself due to this. It is frustrating for me to see him presented at various TM meetings (see http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2200642823213458442&q=david+lynch+duration%3Along&total=35&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0 For example) which make much of his, qualifications, research and rewards in physics and for him to then seem to use this "authority" while discussing what are essentially religious views on the nature of consciousness. It's this sort of thing that gives what seems like, "scientific" authority to the pseudoscience and general misuse of Quantum physics in "documentaries such as "What the bleep".

I think this is not helped by the exclusion of criticisms of the DC study.

Lets be honest, there will be people perhaps new to Haglin who on seeing some of his "claims" will look to WIKI for criticisms. Surely some discussion of these criticisms should be included in some form? Thoughts? Crowleys Aunt 01:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Crowleys, for your input. The article says almost nothing about his merger of consciousness and the Unified Field. If it were to present a critique, then it would also have to present his argument. Which would be very challenging to do in the context of this bio. This material could end up being longer than the bio itself. If you're familiar with published critiques of either or both of his seminal papers on this topic, it would be great if you could share the bibliographical info. We could maybe figure out a way to work in a reference.

Regarding the DC study, some of the controversy is presented in the article on the TM-Sidhi program. One very simple solution to the latter issue would be to insert the word "controversial" as a modifier in front of the mention of the DC study, and then wiki link to the article on the TM-Sidhi program. TimidGuy 15:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for feedback Timid. Firstly, I like your notion of adding "controversial" to the DC study - this seems to not damge it's importance while clarifying the difficulties attached to it.

Regarding criticisms of his "seminal papers" I shall look but I think that it should be mentioned that this have never been published in a peer reviewed publication. They have both appeared in something that sounds like it is - "Journal of Modern Science and Vedic Science" until you realize that this is published by MUM which is the University of the religion known as TM.(http://www.mum.edu/) In the publications own overview it states:

"It draws upon a new technology for investigating the Unified Field that combines the approaches of modern science and Vedic Science as brought to light by Maharishi Mahesh. It continues The Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi programs, by drawing upon the most powerful level of Nature, offer the means for unfolding enlightenment in individual life, and to create balance, peace, and coherence in the world as well as unprecedented progress and prosperity for mankind. Over six hundred scientific studies have validated the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi programs to be effective, practical means of systematically transforming the quality of human life." Yogi.("http://www.mum.edu/msvs/)

Hardly a Scientific publication in the traditional sense. I should add that I may seem as if I am "negative" toward TM. This is not the case, trust me I'm a connoisseur of "kooky" facts. However, I am concerned when religions miss-use science - or scientific "authority" to support their religious views when this is clearly not the case ( I have the same difficulties with the miss-use of intelligent design and creationism in certain Christan thought for example). I just feel that at the moment, within the context of this Bio, his collaborative - and fine work in "normal", "recognized" science - ie string theory - is not separated from the highly religiously influenced - and unpeer reviewed work- to combine consciousness with some unified field theory - something realistically unlikely to ever be fully proven I would suspect. The two are very different, the first existing within physics and the second - if belonging to any "science - perhaps psychology.

Does that make any sense what-so-ever?

21:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Crowleys Aunt

Hi. I just left a message on your Talk page. I've got to run right now but will be back in several hours. I'll just quickly note that I wasn't suggesting that Hagelin's two papers were published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Far from it. In a sense, they're self published. I guess what concerns me is that his ideas are dismissed by scientists who have never bothered to read the logic. John is a highly intelligent man. His IQ is in the stratosphere. He has top-level physics credentials. He's thought deeply about this perplexing idea of a unified field that underlies all of existence and how that might relate to a view from other traditions of knowledge. It pains me sometimes that scientists dismiss him as a kook without ever examining his ideas. And it must pain him. I'd like to get these seminal papers online so that they're more easily viewed. Our librarian would be happy to make them available to anyone who wants to critique them.

Is there a way that we can change the language so that it doesn't make it sound like these are peer-reviewed ideas accepted by the scientific community? Thanks! TimidGuy 11:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi timid. Thanks for your response - and indeed words of encouragement :-) I have, to be honest, decided to leave any further discussion on this subject. I think i should just keep out of theological discussions when they relate to one specific religion. However, thank you all for your time and good luck. And may your god/gods go with you

14:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Crowleys Aunt

Thanks, Crowleys. : ) On a personal note -- I'm not a religious person, other than experiencing the wonder of creation as revealed by science. As I have time, I'll make the three changes that we had consensus on. (the citation, qualifying the DC study, and seeing about changing the wording regarding his two papers on consciousness and the unified field) TimidGuy 15:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The citation for this states this was true between 1983-84, the reference itself is dated 1985. This remark should either be removed, edited to stated that this was during 1 year 22 years ago, or updated with a new citation to prove its continued validity? Crowleys Aunt 01:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand your concerns concerning research that is dated. This material though is contained in context of the awards Hagelin received during his lifetime, and is just part of the time-line of a career. In several places in the article, and importantly in the introduction, the material clearly states Hagelin made an unusual career shift, a couple actually, so there is no attempt as far as I can see in this article to hide anything or to deceive the reader. Dr. Hagelin is shown as an excellent student,and a brilliant physicist who makes some strong life changes. Fair enough its his life, and that's what this article is about. As well, the material is not being used as a citation for anything else in which case the dates of the research would be important-although I believe, (and I'm not an expert in this) that Dr. Hagelin's Unified Field Theory still maintains a significant place in Theoretical Physics.(olive 01:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Seems like it would be nice to give the reader some indication of the influence of his physics work within the field. Hageln's most cited paper^[1] has 589 citations,^[2] Should we say something like this instead? TimidGuy 15:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by TimidGuy (talk • contribs) 15:54, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Sounds better to me Timid.At the moment it reads like he his cited more then Einstein, Planck, Bohr, or Schrödinger :-) Crowleys Aunt 21:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did make two edits but very strange, but the first never showed up either here or in the article .... At any rate have removed lines because they are not referenced and as they are, are POV. Lines are here until referenced and discussed .

Ig Nobel prizes are often awarded simply for the perceived entertainment value of unusually bizarre research.

second edit. Thanks for noting the award was a Peace award. Hagelin's award was given for the conclusions to a research study so I see no problem with points referring to that . The added information noting that the research was one of many, a replication of other such studies, and therefore not in line with the award statement concerning awards that "can't or should not be replicated" is pertinent information. I am reminded that in biographies of living person an editor should be scrupulous in adding any information that throws a less than positive light on the person written about. Adding this statement gives context to the Ig Noble award statements.(olive 15:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I think more context would be provided by noting that the previous year's prize went to Pepsi for sparking huge riots, and the following year's to the Taiwan Parliament, for "punching, kicking, and gouging" each other. The award is obviously not meant as a sincere commendation, and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise. Rracecarr 18:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Rracecarr. Some good edits. Others seem to reflect your POV. Why are you so freely removing sourced material? Aren't such removals usually discussed first? I see you're an experienced editor based on edit count, but your edits and your manner suggest otherwise. TimidGuy 19:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry about the severity. It really bugs me to see such twisting of the truth. To claim that "His papers are among the most referenced in the physical sciences" (paraphrasing) when the fact is it was one paper which he wasn't even first author on, and which was listed as one of the 103 articles which were cited the most times during the years 1983/1984, well, it's like saying that a backup vocalist on a track that hit the top 100 for a few months in 1965 is one of the biggest rock stars of all time. Parts of this article read like propaganda. Just because there are references tied to some of the claims does not mean they are not written with POV. Rracecarr 19:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Rracecarr. Most editors would have reflexively reverted. It's good to have your input. I agree that sourced claims doesn't automatically mean NPOV. And it's good to scrutinize some of these things. But it bears discussion. Where would you like to start? With the claim of being some of the most cited papers? TimidGuy 19:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just changed that sentence. Right now it's kind of annoyingly detailed, but at least it reflects what the reference says.

I also changed the What the bleep do we know bit again. The website maintained by the producers of the movie is not an acceptable reference for awards the movie has received. The IMDb page [3] doesn't list any awards. There may be some other source, in which case, the "five awards" bit can go back in. Rracecarr 19:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there are two sources for the claim about his research being widely cited. Note that the authors are listed in alphabetical order. Would be great if we could follow WP:CONSENSUS. TimidGuy 19:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word controversial doesn't need to be there if it's too POV. Will change that. Rracecarr 19:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Let's also discuss your deletion of the Discover magazine statement that the work suggests Nobel Prize. Also your removal of the list of studies similar to the one in DC showing that this research has been replicated. TimidGuy 19:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. The first change was made based on my interpretation of WP:CBALL. Who knows if he's going to win a Nobel? The second one is a subtle point. In my view, the link with the 50 studies is an attempt to try to offset a possible negative connotation associated with the Ig Nobel prize, and as such is POV. Also, the link went to a Maharishi University website, and docomented papers about the so-called Maharishi Effect. That should raise some alarm bells. Rracecarr 20:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Here's from WP:CBALL: " It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced."

Why isn't it a case of representing both points of view by citing that list of studies? Why hide the fact that it's been repeated. These are contradictory facts, and it could be argued that both sides should be represented. This is simply a list of published studies. How is that disputable? If it is, then one could simply put in a long list of citations. Again, thanks for discussing. You're touching on some areas of the article that need attention. TimidGuy 20:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, referenced or not, it seems a little unencylopedic (if that's a word) to speculate on a future Nobel Prize. Also, the reference is from 1991. Surely there's a more current reference to decide who is or is not likely to win a Nobel. Particularly since the sentence was written in the present tense: ...theory IS considered one of the more successful unified field theories or “theories of everything,” evoking mention of a possible Nobel Prize.

Yeah, my main point with the 50 experiments thing was not the website but the fact that the very fact that the sentence is there at all reads like a defense of the research. The section is about awards (partly). I don't buy the "show both sides" argument at all. No one seems to think it's necessary to supplement information about the Kilby Award with the "other side" i.e. criticisms of that research. Why is it suddenly necessary to defend an experiment because it got an award that isn't always associated with scientific rigor? Rracecarr 20:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To my mind, this suggestion of Nobel prize suggests the significance and originality of the research. It could be reworded and attributed. The fact is, this has been an influential theory.

The problem is that the phrase "cannot be repeated" is forever associated with the Ig Nobel. And it's a lie, because it has been repeated. Seems like it's important to acknowledge that. The award is always going to be an embarrassment to a dedicated scientist. No amount of qualifying will remove the stigma. But one should at least be able to state the counter fact. TimidGuy 20:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really appreciate this tweak [4]. TimidGuy 20:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think a reworded Nobel part could go back in. Something more specific than "evoking mention". Personally, given the conservatism of the physics Nobel committee, I think a Nobel Prize is extremely unlikely, but I won't try to keep the sentence out on the basis of that opinion.

We can take out the sentence about "cannot or should not be repeated". But I still can't see defending the research. Just say it won an Ig Nobel, and leave the readers to draw their own conclusions (most of them probably don't associate it with "cannot be repeated"--most of them probably haven't even heard of it). That is the only way I can see to keep it NPOV. If anything, that is kind of POV the other way, because it really doesn't make it clear at all that the Ig Nobel is often used as a criticism or to make fun of its recipient. If you like the 50 other experiments thing, I would say it belongs in the paragraph above, which discusses the experiment in question. Rracecarr 20:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, damn. I had just reinserted. Some excellent suggestions. Will revert my addition and be back. TimidGuy 21:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Working quickly here, and I have to leave in a few minutes, but I think above already mentions about there being a number of studies of the Maharishi Effect. So I'll simply add the citation there but leave the sentence out. We can cut the "cannot be reproduced." Maybe you could suggest Nobel wording. Thanks much. Article is improving. TimidGuy 21:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree that parts of the article may have been a bit effusive and that the recent rewrite has improved it. I feel like it's now more encyclopedic in style -- just presents the facts. I wanted to alert any interested editors who may have seen my participation in yesterday's edit warring that I think the result is an improvement. TimidGuy 11:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have had to be away for awhile. I think the article is looking better,cleaner.The section on the Ig Noble Award was probably inching towards OR so this looks good . I don't agree that leaving out comments about the Kirby award such as "in the tradition of Bohr ...." is POV or effusive .... if this is what they said, this is what they said and it can be used. Some small statement like that can really give a sense of the man and makes for interesting reading. Not choosing to use such a statement is much more of a non- neutral move I think. Are we choosing to make the man look less than he is. But I will go with the consensus on that .... I think you both have done a great job on this article. (olive 15:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks, Olive. I'm relieved you agree that mostly the edits are good. Rracer, from what I understood, thought that part of Kilby was POV and he questioned the source -- MIU World. TimidGuy 15:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this was covered in the Des Moines Register. We could find it online, probably via Lexis/Nexis. TimidGuy 15:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My search for another source for this quote(Eistein,Bohr) came up empty as I thought it might. As far as I can tell the comment was made at the ceremony and either was part of the citation verbally given or was on the award. I doubt if this had been written down anywhere. I would really like to use this quote since it gives a great sense of the abilities of this man but as well gives a larger more interesting context for the subsequent shift Hagelin makes from gifted young scientist to aligning himself with a spiritual teacher - not that these are mutually excluse - and then also runs for president of the US .... an interesting life, and not of the norm.Using this quote shows this. Wikipedia does indicate that there are exceptions for including material that may not be as well sourced as is usually the case. Since this quote was cited as the award ceremony, it probably can't be used in the usual way but could it be included anyway.Neil Dickie's research and writing seem to be good . Is this an instance where that kind of source might be ok. Just some thoughts.(olive 14:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I had personally wondered about the significance of the Kilby Award, especially after reading something on a critic site. Turns out, what I read was totally false (no surprise). For future reference, am putting some info here about the award that's from the Kilby web site [5]:

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

The Kilby Awards Foundation annually recognizes five to seven individuals who make extraordinary contributions to society through science, technology, innovation, invention and education.

Mr. Kilby received the Nobel Prize from His Majesty the King of Sweden. The Founders and Trustees are grateful to Jack St. Clair Kilby, who graciously allowed the founders to name this international awards program in his honor and thus to commemorate the power of one individual to make a significant impact...

Young Innovator nominees are individuals under 40 whose past accomplishments and future potential indicate exceptional promise. They are persons for whom early recognition might mean significant and timely freedom and support for their maturing talents, enabling them to make even greater contributions in the future. Young Innovator candidates might be very young or very close to the senior laureate age.

Dallas, Texas - In 1999, The Kilby International Awards have been selected as one of the world's most distinguished awards and cited in the official roster of The International Congress of Distinguished Awards, which includes 116 awards selected from a five year study of 26,400 awards worldwide.

Seems impressive. TimidGuy 15:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here we are again. Seem to show up at the same time. Where are you getting your info? Here's a paper that was published in 1996 [6]. That's just one that i happen to know about that's after the date of 1995. TimidGuy 15:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My bad then. I was looking at older versions of the article. I think last time that "fact" was removed without a reason. I am thinking about a section titled "Controversy" or something similar. There are plenty of sources supporting the idea that some of Hagelin's ideas are not accepted by the mainstream scientific community. Rracecarr 18:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, hope you find better sources than an old version of the article. : )

Which ideas? The controversy regarding the DC study is presented in the article on the TM-Sidhi program. I haven't seen any published critiques of his ideas connecting consciousness and the unified field. Maybe you can find some. One thing that always makes me sad is that people often reject these ideas without ever having read his two papers connecting consciousness and the unified field. He's an intelligent man who's thought deeply about this connection. TimidGuy 19:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just went through the 90-odd listings on Google Scholar with him as an author, and that PRL 1996 is the most recent physics listing that shows up. Doesn't prove anything though, and I don't think it's important to include the date of the last publication. I do think it's informative to indicate that if he's still doing physics, he's certainly not as active as he was in the 80's. But I suppose that's hinted at in the article already. You seem to be implying that that you think I haven't read the consciousness papers. Well, you're right (there would be no point--garbage or not, it would be all Greek to me). But I still think concerns expressed by his former collaborators (e.g. Ellis) may have a place in the article (those are the sources to which I was referring--statements made by physicists, not published critiques). A "Controversy" section could be written in a neutral tone--no implied judgment on the validity of the ideas on consciousness, just an indication that they haven't met with wide acceptance (some of Einstein's ideas didn't either, for a while). Rracecarr 19:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing this research. How can we represent John's hypotheses that his former collaborators are commenting on? I guess we'd have to first summarize them somehow. Greek to me, too. TimidGuy 19:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's discuss this. As far as I understand it, this is not a critique of Hagelin's theory linking consciousness and the unified field. And in fact, I believe it's not directly related to Hagelin. It's a critique of a study that appeared in Yale University's Journal of Conflict Resolution. Hagelin wasn't involved in this study and wasn't a coauthor. It would be appropriate, as I've noted in other contexts, to include this study and the critique (and the forthcoming rebuttal) in the article on the TM-Sidhi program. TimidGuy 17:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darn. Seems like I'm always messing with your work, Rracecarr. Sorry about that. I'm putting the new addition here until we can discuss. Hope that's okay. It just doesn't seem accurate.

==Controversy== Hagelin's linkage of quantum mechanics and unified field theory with consciousness and, particularly, with Transcendental Meditation, has met with some skepticism among scientists.^[1]

Do you have a copy of the article? TimidGuy 17:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that the article is primarily aimed at a study in which Hagelin was not involved, but his contributions are discussed. Here is an excerpt.

...Hagelin (1987, 1989) argues first that the identification of the mental with the physical is plausible within the framework of quantum mechanics and, second, that this identification—and a fully worked-out theory of mind/matter that anticipates contemporary unified-field theories—is found in the oldest sacred Hindu texts, the Vedas.

Hagelin’s case rests on three pillars: (1) supernormal phenomena ("sidhis"), such as the ME, levitation and invisibility, have no other natural explanation; (2) parallels between an esoteric theory of consciousness and quantum mechanics; and (3) parallels between a theory allegedly imbedded in the Vedas and contemporary unified-field theories. Regarding (1), Hagelin goes to some lengths to invoke the more recherché possibilities allowable by quantum theory, in particular, levitation. The problem is that, ignoring for now the ME, no sidhis are validated and so the far-fetched explanation lacks purpose. Under the circumstances, Hagelin assigns premier importance to the ME, saying it provides "the central core of experimental evidence in support of the proposed identity between pure consciousness and the unified field" (1987:73).

Hagelin’s (and O88’s) other pillars are equally shaky. His argument for a unified field-consciousness identity suggests that some quantum-mechanical properties of physical fields match characteristics of consciousness. However, his argument relies critically upon ambiguity and obscurity in the terms denoting these properties. For instance, he notes that "creativity of consciousness" describes intellectual inventiveness, whereas "creativity of matter" describes the quantum field’s capacity to generate particles. Both kinds of creativity share the characteristic of production, but Hagelin does nothing to show that these two kinds of production are the same, or even interestingly analogous. This is about as cogent as arguing that the mind is a sort of mirror because both reflect, but it does capture the essence of Hagelin’s approach.

To draw his parallels between the Vedas and contemporary unified-field theories, Hagelin relies on numerological and exegetic styles of reasoning. For example, his evidence for linkages between the Vedas, the unified quantum field, and consciousness includes the fact that there are five special Vedic terms called tanmatras, and there are five "spin-types" in quantum mechanics. Moreover, the quantum field theory that Hagelin especially favors is known among physicists as a "superstring" theory. In corroboration, Hagelin offers a line from a Vedic text that he translates as "My body is called a string."[8] Hagelin’s interpretations of physical fields in terms of consciousness are supported by nothing more than the construction of arbitrary formal isomorphisms, metaphors, and a reliance upon ambiguity and vague analogy.

I assume this takes care of your concerns about accuracy. I'm putting the section back in. Rracecarr 15:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much, Rracecarr. Good job. This is very helpful. It looks as if they're accurately characterizing his arguments. I haven't seen his papers. The forthcoming rebuttal tests their alternate explanations of the observed phenomenon against the data and shows that they don't explain it. And it makes a case against their philosophical criticism of this particular heterodox theory. But in skimming it, I don't recall that it rebuts these arguments against Hagelin. Though I guess since ME is a cornerstone, and the authors rebut Fales and Markovsky's critique of the JCR study, then that may be relevant once the rebuttal is published.

Seems like we need to consider WP:UNDUE. Is it a matter of undue weight to take a single study and make in an entire section and label it controversy? Why wouldn't we integrate that into the research section? Also, we need to be cautious about ad populum statements, which Wikipedia cautions against using. TimidGuy 15:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny, my take on WP:UNDUE is that the Controversy section ought to be much more extensive. Since the idea is to give viewpoints weight corresponding to the distributions of expert opinions, and since most physicists certainly don't accept Hagelin's more radical ideas, it seems to me that a Controversy section should appear prominently in the article. Everyone has his own bias--I guess that's why it's good to have multiple editors working on an article. Rracecarr 15:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem if you're able to locate sources -- physicists not accepting Hagelin's ideas.

By the way, it's not clear in what sense these are Hagelin's ideas. The Maharishi Effect isn't his idea but a phenomenon that's been researched over several decades. The connection between consciousness and the unified field isn't his idea, but is certainly one that he's tried to articulate more than anyone else. TimidGuy 15:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent changes have improved the flow of the article, but you have removed the phrase about skepticism among scientists. I know about verifiability not truth blah blah blah but my opinion is that the controversial nature of a two-way connection between human consciousness and fundamental physics is under-emphasized. How many physicists' quotes are needed to back up the statement that there's a significant amount of skepticism? One of the problems is that most physicists just ignore stuff they regard as junk science, and the ones who do comment on it are often pejorative--several of the quotes I have found would not be especially appropriate in a biography of a living person. I'll leave it alone for at least a while. Rracecarr 16:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This inclusion based on a Reuters article seems to contain several inaccuracies.... the newspaper article itself as source is inaccurate. John Hagelin is not the head of this course or group, to my knowledge, although he has commented on it, and could be considered an integral part of it.In actual fact Maharishi Mahesh Yogi is probably considered to be head of the course, and he has addressed the participants on many occasions. This is not an organization but simply a course. The organization which the article seems to indicate is the IAA as noted in the newspaper does not own two facilities, ....As I mentioned this isn't an organization and these course participants don't own anything. The course is being held on the MUM campus, and course participants may be staying at the nearby Vedic city. To my knowledge John Hagelin isn't doing any kind of research on the "group" or "Maharishi effect" of this course.

Although, I did correct the material I'm not convinced this information should be included in this article There is no information that indicates Hagelin is researching this group effect at this time,and the Reuter article is somewhat inaccurate making the inclusion inaccurate. I think I'll wait a day or so for comments but then probably delete as not useful material.(olive 20:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Olive, thanks for correcting the sentence I added. Reuters is a respected news service. It seems to me that contradiction by a reliable source should be demonstrated before dismissing the article as inaccurate. Whether or not the article got the details of IAA right, the main point of the story is the predictions made by Hagelin about crime rates and the stock market. If the news story is not totally bogus, and he really did make such predictions, I think that is very notable, and definitely belongs in the article. Rracecarr 21:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I think there is a better way of doing this.

Reuters is a highly respected news service but alas they got some of this wrong.My tendency is to think well if they got some wrong how do we know if they didn't get more of it wrong. No matter.... What if I find out if Hagelin is doing research on the effects of this course .... If he is we can use this under the research section if not we can still use the info as a comment and find a place where it fits somewhere in the article. (olive 23:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Here's a source that correctly refers to it as an assembly.[7] TimidGuy 11:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC) Oops. Just read the Reuters story. I see that it also refers to it as an assembly. TimidGuy 11:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a press release that refers to John as leading the assembly and refers to it as a scientific demonstration project. [8] Seems like the Reuters mostly follows the press release, except for the vague and confusing statement about operating two facilities in Iowa. TimidGuy 15:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yup... speaking of brain loss.... sorry I got this wrong ....should we cite this press release. (olive 16:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Looks like this section is pretty complete, and the Reuters article as a mostly reliable source : ) pretty much brings the research section up to date.(olive 15:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

• In addition to his role as President of the US Peace Government, Dr. Hagelin currently serves as ... Raja of Invincible America. [9]

• Raja John Hagelin, Raja of Invincible America [10][11]

• At the national level, I was recently blessed by Maharishi with the privilege of serving as the Raja of Invincible America. [12]

• Maharishi Honours Dr John Hagelin as the Raja of Invincible America [13]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, I agree with Will, we can't use a blog. It is appropriate however, for an article to contain some self definition, and in the case of a WP:BLP to use a personal website. In this case I believe it would be compliant to say something to the effect that," Hagelin's titles include...." and reference Hagelin's own website. If no one has objections I can add that information later on today. Website is here: [14]

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

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

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

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

Looking over the sources Will has included I would be inclined to use the first source ^[2] (olive (talk) 19:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

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

[15] [16] [17] [18] Kbob --Kbob (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I checked the links that Will had provided at the top of this discussion and this one [19] seems most appropriate to me as a self published source. --Kbob (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This letter on the Natural Law website explains the connections betwen it and the USPG.[21]   Will Beback  talk  15:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The information on the award is linked in the lede. The text I am referring to is in the recent edit here.[22][23](olive (talk) 21:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Information on the award:

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

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

Just to show what a tnagled web this is, I see that one of the directors of the International Congress of Distinguished Awards is Victoria Downing, founder of the Kilby Awards.[24] Ms. Downing is reported to meditate.[25] That's why I'd like to see some reliable, secondary sources that talk about this award. In a quick search on Google all I see are listings and press releases.   Will Beback  talk  21:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nature article

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not surprisingly, the linkage of SU(5) with TM infuriates his former collaborators. It is hard enough, they complain, to win scientific support for any type of unified theory. "A lot of people [Hagelin] has collaborated with in the past are very upset about this," says Jorge Lopez, a Texas A&M University physicist. "It's absolutely ludicrous to say that TM has anything to do with flipped SU(5)."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Criticism and praise

Further information: Wikipedia:Coatrack

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

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

The quote above very clearly does not support your addition.

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

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

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

Seems that that must be the same Chris Anderson. The Christopher Anderson who worked as a reporter at Nature in the early 1990's went by "G. Christopher Anderson" for a while, but eventually dropped the "G" from his byline, and previously wrote for The Scientist And, yes, there is quite a bit of useful information in the Nature article. I see it was discussed above [[26]] but all mention of it got deleted by User:Sparaig. Fladrif (talk) 19:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Here is the sentence being discussed:

• Harvard’s Sheldon Glashow, says about Hagelin, “His papers are outstanding. We read them before he went to MIU and we read them now.”^[3] -- — Kbob • Talk • 01:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You go right ahead and take it to the BLP Noticeboard. I'm not going to engage in this game with you. Particularly when you assert as facts, without supporting references, things that are patently false, and which you know to be patently false. Hagelin has never spoken about SU(5)? Hagelin has never researched SU(5)? [27] Fladrif (talk) 17:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have the sentence:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I told Timidguy to go right ahead and take it to BLPN. But, Anderson doesn't have it wrong. He specifically mentions flipped SU(5) at the outset, and quotes Lopez specifically about flipped SU(5): "A lot of people [Hagelin] has collaborated with in the past are very upset about this," says Jorge Lopez, a Texas A&M University physicist. "It's absolutely ludicrous to say that TM has anything to do with flipped SU(5)." To suggest that the source and material is somehow inaccurate and be yanked because he also uses the term SU(5) without the term "flipped" in another sentence is nonsensical and hypertechnical. Fladrif (talk) 21:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THis all proceed from the BS argument that Hagelin never said or wrote anything about SU(5) and TM. Hagelin specifically writes about SU(5) - not "flipped" SU(5) SU(5) in his first paper in Journal of Modern Science and Vedic Science where he makes the claim that the unified field and consciousness are one and the same: [28] - p56, middle of the page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No Fladrif. I was clearly talking about Hagelin's research however you want to see that. My rewrite very clearly indicated the criticism the science community lobbed at Hagelin, and did so in a manner that took into account that section of the article. You're right I didn't cherry pick the worst comment I could find, I summarized the overall tone of the article, using the comment from the most notable critic in the article and took out the comment by a non collaborator when in fact the article implies incorrectly he was a collaborator. We don't need quotes from multiple scietists unless someone is trying to prove something. One comment from someone in a high powered position summarizes that aspect of the situation quite well. Lopez by the way is not positioned for much of anything.[29]. I consider your edits clearly non neutral and unacceptable in an article that is a BLP.(olive (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's go through this point by point:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It looks like it's the same bio as here: [30]. And I see more material copied straight from it.   Will Beback  talk  22:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

For some time, I have studied this biography and followed the discussion. It is clear that the article is being badgered by someone who harbors a negative POV and wishes to undermine it. All one has to do to see the situation is to compare this biography with others. For example, compare it with that of Francis S. Collins. Collins is another recipient of a Kilby International Award. He is a scientist, but also one who has been particularly outspoken about his religious beliefs and has written books on both topics. Nevertheless, the body of his scientific history and accomplishments is separated from material relating to his views on religion and the interaction between religion and science.

I suggest we rearrange the components of the Hagelin biography to make the biography more logical and to bring it more in line with other biographies by keeping the factual descriptions of his academic choices and his research separate from the examples of reactions to these choices and research. Moreover, these reactions need to be placed in their appropriate contexts, and they need to more clearly reflect a neutral POV.

The following is a set of headings that seems to better reflect Hagelin’s activities and the responses of others to those activities. I see no need for the major heading “Professional Careers.” Instead, all the bases seem to be covered by headings arranged as follows: Academic Positions; Research in Theoretical Physics and the Unified Field; Research on Consciousness and Peace; Notable Awards; Reactions to Hagelin’s Academic Choices and Research; Business Activities—Enlightened Audio Designs; Political Activities; Activities in Support of World Peace; Popularity; References.

Fitting the current material into this structure would not involve a major overhaul. Most items already exist and can easily be just moved about. A few sentences would be moved from one subhead to another. If we can reach consensus on these topics, I will rearrange the current contents of the biography into this order for others to see, either on this page or in a sandbox (Which do others prefer?). ChemistryProf (talk) 11:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison is inapt. Collins is not a controversial figure, and does not propose as "science" theories which are regarded by virtually every mainstream scientist as "utter nonsense, and the work of a crackpot". "Neutralizing" is a loaded word. Our goal is not to "neutralize" either criticisms or praise reported in reliable, independent, mainstream sources nor to misrepresent fringe positions - and Hagelin's theories are the fringiest of the fringe - as being mainstream. Our goal is to accurately report, with neither understatement nor overstatement, what the reliable, verifiable, independent sources say about the subject. As olive proposed Talk:John_Hagelin#Example above, it is certainly a worthwhile goal to try to improve the article, and using "feature" bios as a model for improvement is a good plan to try to do so. But, the Collins bio is neither a feature article nor one which is particularly useful as a model. Instead, you should use as a model a feature article on a person who has been subject to serious criticism or controversy. If you do, you will see that the portions of the article which apparently disturb you are entirely appropriate and neutral, and that the efforts of some other editors to sugar-coat the criticisms of his work are inappropriate efforts to push the POV of the TM Org to which they owe their livlihood. And, as for who is trying to dominate the shaping this article, I'd suggest you're looking in the wrong direction. Edit Count-Article Fladrif (talk) 14:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for expressing your views, Fladrif. It has become obvious to me over the last months that you have strong views on this article, in fact, on all the articles relating to the Transcendental Meditation technique. Some of these views appear so strong that they must have a negative effect on your ability to perform as a neutral editor. I have been in this situation myself at times, and it’s not comfortable. It takes the enjoyment out of editing. If we cannot enjoy this work, why do we do it? Let’s see if we can relieve the pressure a little and make this a more enjoyable process, for everyone. Aside from improving the article, this is my main goal.

Fladrif’s first sentence above, “The comparison is inapt,” throws down the gauntlet. Right away it casts a negative light on any constructive points I was making. But is it true? I chose the Collins example precisely because his religious activities and convictions have led to considerable controversy. He has an ongoing, public debate with Richard Dawkins concerning God and the relationship between religion and science, and has been criticized by others. All of this controversy appears under one topic, “Religious Views.” Naturally, we want to make the Hagelin bio a Featured Article, but we have a distance to go to achieve that. The Collins article simply shows that controversial viewpoints on a person’s activities can be placed under one subsection, leaving the more factual material to itself.

Fladrif’s second sentence begins “Collins is not a controversial figure…,” which brings up another point that needs clarification. Let’s not be bigoted. A person is a person. His or her actions or expressed views may be controversial, but the person is simply a person. This is true of Hagelin, Collins, George W. Bush, Obama, Hitler, or Fladrif. Courts cannot try a person for being who they are. We can never know what a person truly is inside. Courts try men for their actions. Sometimes they may be tried for their expressed views, but that is a dangerous departure from our claims to be a free country, allowing freedom of thought, religion, etc. Let’s try to uphold the ideals of our republic, if at all possible. (Correct me if not all the editors working on this article are citizens of the US of A.)

Unfortunately, the remainder of Fladrif’s second sentence, “…and does not propose as "science" theories which are regarded by virtually every mainstream scientist as "utter nonsense, and the work of a crackpot,"” ventures further into the realm of judging Hagelin’s innermost person. If Fladrif is a scientist, or even a historian of science, he or she knows that mainstream scientists often have it wrong. How many examples can we think of where the mainstream has opposed a scientist’s discovery or set of views only to have to retract their criticisms some years or decades later? Galileo, Pasteur, Edison, and Einstein are a few names that come to mind. Their work was vilified in their time, but eventually was accepted, even by the mainstream. Galileo was hanged; Pasteur, Edison, and Einstein were called “crackpots.” What did that criticism do to advance our knowledge?

Is it beginning to be clear what the word “neutralize” was intended to convey? Editors can make their views known in an article through their choice and placement of specific materials. If an editor has a strong view for or against something, then unless they are scrupulously careful, that view is likely to be exhibited in their choice and placement of materials. Any experienced editor knows that. My suggestion is to move material that falls into the “opinionated” category into one section, a place for directly and indirectly airing different opinions of Hagelin’s work and of his chosen career path. That would leave the article much freer of bias and move us in the direction of a decent bio, one not prone to libel or anything of the sort. Let’s look at Fladrif’s example (not yet produced) of a Featured Article on a person who has been subject to serious criticism or controversy for more ideas, but let’s also give feedback on my earlier suggested rearrangement of sections. Here is a repeat of my earlier suggestions for rearranging the material. "I see no need for the major heading “Professional Careers.” Instead, all the bases seem to be covered by headings arranged as follows: Academic Positions; Research in Theoretical Physics and the Unified Field; Research on Consciousness and Peace; Notable Awards; Reactions to Hagelin’s Academic Choices and Research; Business Activities—Enlightened Audio Designs; Political Activities; Activities in Support of World Peace; Popularity; References." Comments, please. ChemistryProf (talk) 20:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I happened to see a comment here that I'd like to respond to, though I haven't followeed this whole thread or dispute. ChemistryProf writes:

• How many examples can we think of where the mainstream has opposed a scientist’s discovery or set of views only to have to retract their criticisms some years or decades later? Galileo, Pasteur, Edison, and Einstein are a few names that come to mind. Their work was vilified in their time, but eventually was accepted, even by the mainstream. Galileo was hanged; Pasteur, Edison, and Einstein were called “crackpots.”

The argument that we should give special treatment to unusual scientific theories because Galileo turned out to be right is probably made every day on somewhere on Wikipedia, but it is always wrong. Wikipedia should reflect the majority view of issues. If we were writing in the 19th century, and if the majority of reliable sources available characterized Edison's ideas as unscientific (or whatever) then that is the view to which we should have given the greatest weight. We also should have included other views, if available in reliable sources. We're not here to right great wrongs, or to show readers a higher truth that leading scientists don't (yet) recognize. We're just here to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view.   Will Beback  talk  20:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was a pretty essay. And pretty much fact-free too. Galileo was hanged? That's news. Go back and actually re-reread what I wrote. And, while you're at it, look at the feature bio for oh, say Wesley Clark, which is the example I produced when olive suggested looking at a feature article BLP as a template for this one. Clearly you weren't paying attention. Collins and Dawkins debating their views on whether or not God exists does not make Collins a controversial figure, whether or not one agrees or disagrees with those views. Hagelin positing that the unified field of physics is bound up in the Marishi's theories of consciousness and SCI, to say nothing of his proposals as to how those theories should be practically applied, are universially rejected by mainstream science and are regarded as the fringiest of the fringe of education, politics and any other field that he dips his toe into. That might not be apparent from the limited horizons of beautiful downtown Fairfield, but them's the facts, and its our job to report 'em, unpleasant though you may find them. Fladrif (talk) 20:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'd like to thank ChemProf for his comments. He obviously is attempting to help create an environment where all editors can feel comfortable. There are lots of ways to write articles and lots of examples on Wikipedia. We are in no way committed to any of them. I think Chem makes some good suggestions and I can't see a down side to what he is asking. Can anyone else? As an aside to Will . I didn't take it from what Chem was saying that we should allow material into an article based on the hope that Hagelin for example is another Galileo or Einstein. I thought he was suggesting fairness and good editor work ethics in dealing with whomever we are writing about since non of us are in a position to judge anyone else, either who they are, or the impact their work may have in the future. (olive (talk) 20:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, folks. Will Beback, olive is correct in her summary statement. I was not suggesting we give special treatment to any theory that is not welcomed by mainstream science, but simply pointing out that some of our greatest discoveries in the past were first ignored or vilified. So reception by the mainstream is not a valid measure of the value of a scientific discovery. For that matter, the words of a few scientists spoken in an interview with a reporter are not a valid representation of mainstream science. Challenging current paradigms is often a hallmark of leading-edge science. The context of this point was the current Hagelin article's treatment of his published research on consciousness, implying that because a few outspoken scientists dismiss it, their words should be given special importance and should be highlighted in the article no matter how caustic. This does not jibe with WP guidelines nor does it make scientific sense. It merely reflects the POV of the WP editor responsible.

Fladrif, I read the Wesley Clark bio. It is interesting in several ways. First, it is extremely long, detailing every step of Clark's career advancement in numerous paragraphs. Positive, congratulatory comments were pretty much peppered throughout the article, sometimes without attribution, but the four descriptions of controversial material or controversial actions were inconspicuously placed under the topics to which they applied, and only muted language was used to describe Clark's actions. There was nothing resembling the current negative tone in several parts of the Hagelin article. It is similar to the Collins example in this regard. So now we have two examples, one having qualified as a Featured Article, that provide precedent for the type of rearrangements I am suggesting for the Hagelin article. Neither you nor Will commented directly on these suggestions, but I will make the changes and display them here before inserting them in the article. ChemistryProf (talk) 11:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the proposed structure: Academic Positions; Research in Theoretical Physics and the Unified Field; Research on Consciousness and Peace; Notable Awards; Reactions to Hagelin’s Academic Choices and Research; Business Activities—Enlightened Audio Designs; Political Activities; Activities in Support of World Peace; Popularity; References, would work very well. --BwB (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since my name came up again I suppose I need to comment further. I disagree with the headings proposal. In particular, "Activities in Support of World Peace" is not a neutral title. The folks who built the MX missile, AKA the "Peacekeeper", could have been described as engaging in activities supporting world peace. While the current heading is over-long ("Invincible America, US Peace Government and Global Union of Scientists for Peace"), it can be trimmed to the most important of those entities. "Awards" usually go at the end, and "notable" isn't needed because we wouldn't include non-notable ones. If the "reractions" are in response to the "research" then they should go close together. Why would we have a "popularity" section? That sounds like it'd be more appropriate for a rock star. Overall I don't see the need for a re-organization, and the specific proposal does not appear to be neutral.   Will Beback  talk  16:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Will brings up some good points that I failed to see in a quick glance at the titles. Rather than say the proposal wasn't neutral can we say the proposal might create a non neutral aspect to the article. I have to rush of but maybe there's some middle ground we can discuss. Not sure yet. (olive (talk) 17:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Yes some good points from Will. We can continue to consider different options. --BwB (talk) 18:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good, I appreciate the constructive feedback. In the next day I will make a list of the reasons for the rearrangement and will follow up with suggestions to fix any problems pointed out by Will Beback. ChemistryProf (talk) 20:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to Will Beback's following comment "Overall I don't see the need for a re-organization, and the specific proposal does not appear to be neutral," I explained the need at the beginning of this thread and repeat here as follows: "For some time, I have studied this biography and followed the discussion. It is clear that the article is being badgered by someone who harbors a negative POV and wishes to undermine it. All one has to do to see the situation is to compare this biography with others. For example, compare it with that of Francis S. Collins. Collins is another recipient of a Kilby International Award. He is a scientist, but also one who has been particularly outspoken about his religious beliefs and has written books on both topics. Nevertheless, the body of his scientific history and accomplishments is separated from material relating to his views on religion and the interaction between religion and science."

"I suggest we rearrange the components of the Hagelin biography to make the biography more logical and to bring it more in line with other biographies by keeping the factual descriptions of his academic choices and his research separate from the examples of reactions to these choices and research. Moreover, these reactions need to be placed in their appropriate contexts, and they need to more clearly reflect a neutral POV." I can now add to this the results of further discussion above, namely, that Fladrif's suggestion to compare the Hagelin article with the one on Wesley Clark was followed, and the same conclusion was drawn. In the Wesley Clark "Featured Article," despite Fladrif's indication that he is a "controversial figure," the amount of discussion of controversy is minute compared with the detailed description of his every career step and activity. Negative comments are also restricted to a few places in the appropriate sections. Although that article does not have a separate section for the controversies, in the Hagelin article the controversies are overlapping in such a way as to make a single section for them more appropriate. For example, several points have to do with the interaction between his physics research and his consciousness research. The physics research part involves references to several dozen articles in this area, while his consciousness research involves only two or three articles. It would clarify the treatment of these topics, then, to deal with these research categories separately and to deal with the criticisms of their interaction together in one section following the research discussions. Likewise, there are logical reasons for each of the other headings suggested. Certainly, some of these headings can be refined following our discussion. That is why we have a discussion page. I appreciate the constructive feedback and will submit a revision of the reorganization plan incorporating the feedback. As for your (Will Beback's) comment that the proposal "does not appear to be neutral," in what way? I am trying to improve a bio that is in obvious need of improvements. The suggested rearrangements will be followed by further suggestions specific to each. Isn't this how WP works? ChemistryProf (talk) 12:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

My recent deletions from the article:

Physicist Victor J. Stenger wrote in The Humanist that "quantum consciousness" as described by the Maharishi, Hagelin and others is a "myth" that "should take its place along with gods, unicorns, and dragons as yet another product of the fantasies of people unwilling to accept what science, reason, and their own eyes tell them about the world."

Pertinent quotes from Stenger:

They [words by Robert Lanza in The Humanist] also resonate with the “cosmic consciousness” promoted by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and his Transcendental Meditation movement.

The myth of quantum consciousness should take

its place along with gods, unicorns, and dragons as yet another product of the fantasies of people unwilling to accept what science, reason, and their own eyes tell

them about the world.

Stenger doesn't say Maharishi talks about quantum consciousness. Others is weasel wording. I've removed them.

I'm not sure what this is about, but it looks like the author talks about the Maharishi and quantum consciousness:

• The Maharishi associates cosmic consciousness with the Grand Unified Field of particle physics. Maharishi University “quantum physicist” John Hagelin, Natural Law Party candidate for President in last year’s election, has spoken frequently about quantum consciousness.

While "associates" isn't the same as "describe", but that could be fixed by copyediting. Or maybe I don't understand the problem.   Will Beback  talk  04:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stenger never says the Maharishi talks about quantum consciousness and neither should we. He says "cosmic consciousness"... "resonates with" and "associates". I don't care about the information but synthesis is something we don't need more of. I've added the older version of the quote from the article. (olive (talk) 09:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The sentence I've brought here from the article probably deserves more discussion.(olive (talk) 09:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I think we should remove this. Stenger doesn't give a source to back up his claim that Hagelin frequently talks about quantum consciousness. Hagelin has never talked about quantum consciousness. Maybe "cosmic consciousness," but that's something different. You'd think that if he frequently talks about it, it would show up via a Google search. But I couldn't find a single instance. We should be wary of using Stenger. He makes stuff up. As can be seen from the recent discussion, Stenger was utterly wrong that Barr 1982 and Deredinger 1984 had anything to do with flipped SU(5) heterotic string. TimidGuy (talk) 19:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We should be wary of using Stenger. He makes stuff up. That seems a bit harsh. We usually review sources for reliability according to the reputation of the publisher, etc. Of course if a writer has a track record of errors that counts too. But if it's just our opinion that he "makes stuff up" then that might not be a strong argument. Unless someone can show definitively thet this is not a reliable source, I suggest that we start fresh and summarize what he does say in regard to Hagelin.   Will Beback  talk  19:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be harsher still No we should not remove it. Stenger doesn't have to give a source. TG continually confuses what editors have to do with what authors of source material have do do. As for making stuff up, see Psychological_projection. What we can see from the recent discussion on SU(5) is not that Stenger was wrong, but that either TG is a pathological liar serial deciever or utterly incapable of reading technical material. Usually, I apply Hanlon's Razor to these kinds of dilemmas, but I don't think you're stupid.your track record here it too long and extensively documented to opt for the stupidity explanation for your actions. Barr is absolutely the first paper to describe Flipped SU(5), derived from SU(5),and his 1982 paper is repeatedly referenced for it, as anyone would discover from even the most casual of Google searches. [31] [32] Similarly, Stenger was absolutely correct about Derendinger's 1984 paper.[33][34] And, I've read the papers, and your statements about them are, to put it most charitably, grossly misleading at best, and less charitably, absolute falsehoods. There is nothing that I can think of that is more disruptive to, or destructive of, the aims of Wiki than the willingness of an editor like yourself to continually misrepresent sources assert blatant falsehoods to try to push your POV on these articles. And yet you persist month after month, year after year, in the most outrageous deceptionsfalshoods, many of which were documented on COIN long before Will or I ever set eyes on this article, apparently with the motive of protecting this article that you wrote and had another editor post at Wiki. It is utterly unacceptable behavior, and frankly inexplicable since your claims are so easily falsified by any neutral editor. This has got to come to an end. Now. Fladrif (talk) 20:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was not looking at the source but at the syntax and the synatx creates a synthesis situation. If the source is reliable and verifiable, and if the source says something we need then we can rewrite the text if not , no. I am not familiar with Stenger but for the article he writes to be considered reliable the material must be verifiable... and if its not the source goes. WP:Verifiable is a policy and underpins and also trumps the guideline, WP:Reliable.