Talk:Beckley Foundation/Archive 1

Albert Hoffman
The guy unfortuantely died earlier this year. Supposed (talk) 16:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

COI
Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have noticed examples of text which appear to have been copied wholesale from publicity material, e.g. "We endeavour to learn more about consciousness itself." Which is why, I am guessing, the article still has the advert tag at the top. If this has nothing to do with the editor named above, then I must apologise. But the crude way in which material has been introduced suggests that edits have been made in "good faith", without sufficient knowledge of Wikipedia policies, and I suspect that the editor concerned may not even realise what "conflict of interest" means here. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Very likely, which is why I left a substantial notice on the talk page of the user in question. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I have removed some lists of articles and reports per What_Wikipedia_is_not. These lists are unsupported by citations (like the rest of the article); unencyclopaedic, as having no commentary beyond mere existence; and impossible to keep up-to-date without disproportionate effort. Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That seems very circumspect. I wonder could you remind me whether or not jounal names should be linked in sub-headings, e.g. PNAS and British Journal of Psychiatry? Otherwise there is no direct link to those articles with the current ref format. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, the resaon for my question now seems to have gone away, which is perhaps unfortunate, as they were reputable journals. But I now notice that the link in the "Proceeding Documents" (which presumably is meant to to reda "Proceedings") seems to link to the monograph linked in the preceeding section. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * We wouldn't normally keep an entire list of the publications of a research institute -- it would be almost impossible to keep up-to-date, even if referenced, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We might mention significant publications that have been described in independent reliable sources.  There is an overarching problem with this article at present, that almost nothing in it is sourced.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that those two or three particular papers represented "an entire list of the publications". But I seem to recall that they were some of the very few items in this entire article that were sourced, and to reputable journals which were entirely WP:RS. But they've now gone. It seems a little pointless for me to try and step back through the edit history and try and retrieve them if they'll just be removed again. I was trying to make the most of anything that linked to an source outside the website of the organisation itself. Without them I can't even search to see if they have been mentioned by secondary sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see that a partial list of publications is any better than a complete one. Some of these papers are in journals which are reliable sources, and so we may presume that if the journal states that a paper is authored or coauthored by a member of this institution, then that is the case.  But why include them here?  What encyclopaedic purpose does it serve?  Unless and until some independent source finds it worthy of note that this institution published this paper, why would we note it?  Cusop Dingle (talk) 22:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought it might give readers a better idea of what they do. Publication of a paper in a reputable journal does add credibility, obviously, even if it is co-authoured by ten different people. I had thought that two or three papers might be better than none. But I am no apologist for this organisation and if no-one else thinks they add value (not that they might ever see them now) then so be it. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

(←) I have removed the list of scientific publications again, which was reinstated by without edit summary or discussion here. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This editor appears to be a single-purpose account devoted to publicity for this organisation. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Named individuals
I have removed the section that names scientists working with the Foundation. There appears to be no independent reliable source, and associating those people with this subject is contentious. I think WP:BLP applies here. Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Absence of references
In the absence of any references, I propose to reduce the article to a stub, consisting of the introductory paragraph, which appears uncontroversial and can be sourced to the organisation's own web site. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that seems like a reasonable course of action. Although I'm not sure that Wikipedia will really be any better off as a result. Perhaps a deadline, for supporting references, should be given? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)