Talk:John Hagelin/Archive 6

Physics research
The idea that Hagelin's TM practice with Consciousness is part of his physics work, work that is explicitly rejected by his co-workers as having nothing to do with physics violates WP:FRINGE guidelines. The secondary sources such as Nature indicate strongly that this is not part of his physics work but rather he has been accused of distorting science, IRWolfie- (talk) 15:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If you disagree I will happily contact wikiproject physics for more opinions, IRWolfie- (talk) 15:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Wolfie: That you think you have the right or expertise to determine what qualifies as a physicists work and what doesn't, that you unilaterally edit based on this determination, that you would deep revert another editor's painstaking work, unilaterally, based on some notion you have about what a scientists work is, and that you would then threaten editors on this page should they disagree with you is ownership and beyond the pale. You are skating on the thinnest of ice.(olive (talk) 16:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC))
 * "That you think you have the right or expertise to determine what qualifies as a physicists work and what doesn't ... is ownership and beyond the pale" I am qualified as a physicist, I am currently engaged in research in physics and have been studying it for many years, I have physics publications, so I would have thought that would, perhaps, give me some expertise? But anyway, I'm not saying anything that the sources don't say. I am not basing my edits on any expertise I may have (imagine if qualified individuals wrote articles, truly an awful world!). Again, I am open to asking Wikiproject physics. I have not threatened anyone and quite frankly have no clue what you are talking about, but if I was to summarise I would say "You are skating on the thinnest of ice" sounds rather treat-like. I am talking about content issues and you respond with an accusation that I am making a threat. Assuming good faith I have no idea what I am meant to make of that, IRWolfie- (talk) 17:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No editor has the right to determine a scientist's work does not qualify as his work. While you can determine that the sources are critical of the work dismissing the research out of hand as not part of a life's work in not your or our business as editors. Further most scientists I know would never take that step, critical of the work sure, but not the next step which you take here by excluding the research from the research section in this article based o n your personal opinion of what is research and what isn't. Such a move clearly illustrates a POV. Further you reverted an editor who has been uninvolved in these discussion after he spent a fair amount of time working on the article. Ownership. Further fringe deal with sources. There is no violation of anything by setting out the range of Hagelin's work contentious or not as that work may be. You misunderstand Fringe.(olive (talk) 18:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC))
 * "You misunderstand Fringe", I am quite aware of what the fringe guidelines say as they constitute nearly all of my 20,000 edits. On reverting, WP:BRD is a standard editing approach taken on any article. Someone boldly makes changes, and then someone reverts, and then there is a discussion. Characterising that as some sort of surprising twist is very odd; it's part of the standard process. "There is no violation of anything by setting out the range of Hagelin's work contentious or not as that work may be", per the fringe guidelines Hagelin's work can be laid out but it should be contextualised with respect to the mainstream position. The ideal sources for that are the secondary sources, as we currently do. Also note that the delist at GA highlighted the issue of an over-reliance on fringe sourcing. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I came to this fustercluck with no pre-existing view. My previous edits have been entirely stylistic. I started making more substantive edits and seem to have run afould of some sort of long-standing argument, replete with an ArbCom case, evidence of edit warring, lots of WP:OWN behavior, and a level of incivility that's an archetype for the reasons for the attrition the project is suffering because people of good will decide the project isn't worth the tsuris and indigestion. The near realtime reversion of edits is just plain annoying. It bespeaks WP:OWN, WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:TENDENTIOUS problems at a high degree of magnitude. David in DC (talk) 18:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I hope you'll stay. I am sorry an uninvolved editor who spent the time you did on this article was reverted unilaterally. I have little more to say on this article at this time since no progress is being made. This was a GA article which I spent a lot of time working on in compliance with the reviewer. I doubt that it is at that standard now. I would be happy to have an uninvolved editor try to make something of this article. (olive (talk) 18:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC))

Well, I've taken a second shot. In the fullness of time, we'll see what unfolds. I've gotta say, on the merits, I think the attempt to link consciousness with physical cosmology seems more than a little nutty. But that's mostly an argument that ought to be settled in the other articles in the TM suite. This here's a BLP. It ought to lay out Hagelin's life and views, without giving undue weight to his critics. They belong here, but not in the same way that they belong on pages like The Maharishi Effect, Transcendental Meditation technique and the like. I fear our project's not-entirely-unreasonable fear of FRINGiness, and of what JzGuy has correctly identified in the past as the problem of "polite POV-pushers", is playing out badly in the context of this BLP. The place for full-throated criticism of Hagelin's theories is on pages devoted to those theories. It's not like there aren't enough TM-themed articles on wikipedia for that. Call the theories wacky there. Tread carefully when you're getting close to calling the living theorist wacky here.

Hey, "focus on the theories, not the theorist" sounds sorta like something I've heard around here before. Maybe it's contagious. A feller can hope. David in DC (talk) 20:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Near real time reverts? I reverted 2 hours after a sequence of edits that lasted a day. BRD is a rather standard editing approach. You were bold, I reverted, and then we discuss. I have been civil throughout my interactions on this page, indeed my very response opening this thread was met with the accusation that I was threatening editors and that "You are skating on the thinnest of ice". Anyway, back to the content, "Efforts to link consciousness to the unified field", sufficiently puts his views into context for the header. " But that's mostly an argument that ought to be settled in the other articles in the TM suite": every article should properly contextualise what is fringe with what is mainstream. I'm not suggesting going beyond what the sources say, and indeed the sources specifically all do concern Hagelin. Indeed I think the previous sectioning makes more sense because everything in Politics, public policy and government and the relation with conciousness and the Maharishi effect is related and independent of his physics career. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

In my view, the proper balance between WP:FRINGE and WP:BLP is misapprehended here. Frighteningly so. Two whole hours, eh? I stand corrected. David in DC (talk) 01:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Article filed in Request for Arbitration
This article has been listed in a recently filed request for arbitration. Filer is IRWolfie. (olive (talk) 01:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC))
 * Arbitration/Requests;

These aren't books
(olive (talk) 11:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC))
 * Hagelin, J: Is consciousness the unified field? A field theorist's perspective. Modern Science and Vedic Science 1, 1987, pp 29–87.
 * Hagelin, JS: Restructuring physics from its foundation in light of Maharishi's Vedic Science. Modern Science and Vedic Science 3, 1989, pp 3–72.
 * What are they exactly? There is no doi or ISBN, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * apparently (olive (talk) 14:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC))

Maharishi Effect
Hello, My name Peter Schwarz. I was reading the article about John Haegeling and his research on the "Maharishi Effect", which made me wonder how negative his work was judged in wikipedia. I am an electronic engineer and my main expertise consists in hardware development in the field of automotive electronics as well as solar- and windenergy. Solar- and windenergy has some historical relation to me, since I was one of the first who developed a new type of charge controllers, called Maximum Power Point Tracker. So this was 25 years ago and I am still producing these controllers. A quite more technical challenge is windpower tracking. Now, concerning the Maharishi effect, I have got some experience with it, since I took part in some of the so called "world peace assemblies". One was in Holland/Amsterdam around 1984, with about 5000 participants and one in Frankfurt 1983, with about 800 participants. To assemble such groups is quite much effort and it costs several millions for all together, to travel from all over the world, to one place and stay there for some days or even weeks. Nobody pays for the time spent, than oneself. I noticed that Haegelins work on the "Maharishi effect" was not clearly cited in the wikipedia article. The theme of his work is: EFFECTS OF GROUP PRACTICE OF THE TRANSCENDENTAL MEDITATION PROGRAM ON PREVENTING VIOLENT CRIME IN WASHINGTON, D.C.: RESULTS OF THE NATIONAL DEMONSTRATION PROJECT, JUNE–JULY 1993 The citation of the "Maharishi effect" in wikipedia is only a TM Centers homepage, with a short summery of the "Maharishi effect". But critical citations of "Park" appear 3 times in the text. This is somehow not balanced and a reader misses a proper reference to the object of critics, which is obviously Haegelins research on it. In the Wikipediatext is put the statement from Haegelin "the numbers of murders had increased .." This is wrong cited. I refer to the explanation in the attached text "A Rebuttal to “Voodoo Science” by Maxwell Rainforth, Ph.D. Wikipedia claims that the review board is composed of entirely TM practitioneers. Is there any proof for this? There is no citation in the text, which could proof this claim. Haegelins work points out clearly: "A 27-member Project Review Board comprising independent scientists and leading citizens approved the research protocol and monitored the research process". Is he a liar? He is a well established scientist. Concerning the critics of Park, it seems to be very emotional and nonscientific. He even is insulting Haegelin and his research group. And it seems that he even did not study the theme at all. I refer to "A Rebuttal to “Voodoo Science” by Maxwell Rainforth, Ph.D.

After all I would appreciate if the above mentioned points would be corrected in the text. As I already had done it. With kind regards Dipl. Ing. (FH) Peter Schwarz 217.8.56.219 (talk) 13:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Capitalization question
This is a minor issue. It seems that throughout the article, when discussing Hagelin's position at MUM, it is described as "professor of Physics" in the "Physics department" with "Physics" capitalized, but "professor" and "department" lower case. At first this looks like sloppy style, but I wanted to ask if there's a reason for it before changing. Perhaps the intent is to hint that "Physics" is more of a title than an accurate descriptor of the subject matter--I notice that MUM does not offer any advanced degrees in physics, or even an undergraduate major, only a minor. Let me know, or I'll change Physics to lower case soon. Rracecarr (talk) 15:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Please make the changes (from my side as one editor.) They look like copy edit errors. Whatever Hagelin's title is on the MUM website is probably the best way to describe him in reference to the school?(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC))

Edits and thanks
I made some edits for meaning in the lead. I'm not attached but I do think we have to be hyper accurate. The professor of physics is odd; its not a title in the lead but a position. I did change it, but not sure what we should do there.Anyway very nice to see friendly input all around. Thanks all.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC))

Reporting fringe views accurately
Regarding this diff with comment "Please see sources for JH research In unified field theory/retaining controversy and criticism/ remove generalization". Indeed I had checked the sources, which is why I had made this change.

Physicist Jorge Lopez quoted in Nature:

Woit:

Fox:

The denigrating quotes around "research" and the attribution of "laughable" are among the reasons that Wikipedia cannot report this as research for real, without quotes. Hence my edit comment, "we can't state as fact that the research is a valid endeavor".

Regarding the change from

to

Per WP:FRINGELEVEL we are obliged to report the level of acceptance, and simply saying "criticized" does not accurately portray the level of acceptance. See the above quotes, for instance. Manul ~ talk 00:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Are you questioning Hagelin's research in unified field theory? Are you suggesting his work in unified field theory is fringe? I'm unclear as to what you are suggesting.(Littleolive oil (talk) 05:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC))


 * The purpose of my post above is to fully explain these changes. The Maharishi Effect / field stuff is certainly fringe, as shown by (at least) the three sources mentioned above, which are in the article. My edits aim to reflect them accurately. Because the sources are reliable and independent, they are suitable for describing fringe views (see WP:FRINGE). Manul ~ talk 07:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * You are conflating Hagelin's strong contribution to unified field theory research which is not fringe to his connection of UFT and the Maharishi Effect.That should be clarified in the lead.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC))


 * "not accepted by other physicists" is a generalization and a definitive which implies all physicists. (This is why weasel wording is frowned on) Unless you have a source that says all physicists this should be changed as well. This is a BLP so extra care must be taken when adding content seems to me. I find "controversial" to be a stronger statement than "not accepted" which has an emotional element,  (Littleolive oil (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC))


 * I think we're making the word research too precious here.Whether we like what Hagelin researched, it was researched. Please check your sources for the protocols etc. Its not up to editors here to define research in out own terms or to set boundaries on its conditions. Its enough to note the sources in general . The few quotes here are cherry picked as you probably know. Its far more accurate and neutral to note that the research is highly controversial rather than determine that it wasn't research at all. (Littleolive oil (talk) 16:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC))

Manul ~ talk 17:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a good point that we should clearly separate mainstream contributions from fringe views. I have done so here, and even beefed up the former with "substantial contributions".
 * Please note that "not accepted by other physicists" has been present for a year and a half, and was not added by me. Somehow I prompted this sudden change of heart? In any case, "not accepted by other physicists" is really the most accurate and charitable way to describe this fringe view. See WP:FRINGELEVEL, "If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance".
 * "Controversial" seems inaccurate; string theory has been called controversial, whereas the Maharishi-Effect/field proposals are on a wholly different level than that.
 * There's no problem with "research" being applied to the mainstream contributions, of course. It's the fringe views where it doesn't quite apply, as shown for instance in the Fox quote above. It's not a big deal, and I don't think most readers will notice.


 * Thank you for the change you made and the compromise. I do disagree with you on other issues. Much research in its infancy is fringe and controversial. Its still research. What we have to do is describe the reaction to the research  not suggest the research didn't exist.  Generalizations aren't good in most contexts. Better to note who said what which is more accurate. Copy editing is an on going process. No need to assume it has to do with a change of heart.  Once again thanks for your thoughtful change and cmts.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC))


 * I just changed the order of the new wording. I think it was a bit choppy before.  Also, presumably the "substantial contributions" refer to published work from the early 80's--new ordering makes that clear. Rracecarr (talk) 17:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I was about to make a similar change, thanks. I based "substantial" on his co-authorship of flipped-SU(5), which is among the more prominent models (see e.g. the Nature article). It might be too promotional for the lead. Manul ~ talk 18:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I just removed substantial.The article can include elaborations on what those contributions are. I don't mind a revert on that, but seemed removing it was the easiest most neutral way to go.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC))


 * It looks more encyclopedic without "substantial", thanks. There's another point that I was going to let go, but feel compelled to mention now. You said the above quotes are cherry-picked, implying that there are other quotes (from reliable independent sources) that would lend credence to this fringe view. However to my knowledge there are none (or if there are, I would expect them to be singular in nature and merit elision per WP:NPOV). Those quotes accurately reflect the reception of this fringe theory. Manul ~ talk 19:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * , this change does not accurately portray the level of acceptance for the reasons covered above. I hate to repeat, but please see WP:FRINGELEVEL, "If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance".


 * Also, as mentioned in Nature and elsewhere, Hagelin extended flipped SU(5) for the consciousness stuff. It's not the same thing as your edit suggests. Manul ~ talk 00:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I hope this compromise is suitable. Manul ~ talk 00:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what you are objecting to. David in DC used the word linked to describe UFT and consciousness. Woit used Identifies. I adjusted syntax slightly to say link. Your points above are your summary of what you believe WP:FRINGELEVEL means.This doesn't mean that I or any other editor accept this personal version so I doubt its fair to assume we all agree with you and should be editing in line with your position. Further I have no idea how whatever was in the article is not in line with fringe but your edits are.

If you add a quote by Peter Woit it should be inline attributed to him.The cmts of one author must not be used as if its in WP's voice and as if it is the definitive position. Cite Woit, attribute, and such a specific point should not be made in the lead but elsewhere in the article. Best wishes. I'll leave you to this. (Littleolive oil (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC))


 * , when I quoted WP:FRINGELEVEL for the first time, I was referring to your issue with "not accepted by other physicists". When I said "I hate to repeat" and gave the quote again, I assumed it was clear that I was again referring to "not accepted by other physicists". I don't see how the FRINGELEVEL quote could possibly have multiple interpretations. Your change to "not accepted by many other physicists" is what misrepresents the sources and goes against FRINGELEVEL.


 * The Woit quote can't be attributed per WP:ITA, "Be careful not to use in-text attribution carelessly to imply that only the named sources would agree". All our independent sources are in agreement with the quote. It accomplishes exactly what you wanted -- we have "virtually all" instead of what you infer as an "implied all" (though I don't believe that "other physicists" is understood as an absolute statement that exactly zero other physicists in the world share the view). I thought you would be satisfied with the compromise. Do you wish to go back to "not accepted by other physicists"? Manul ~ talk 03:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I like that suggestion. TimidGuy (talk) 15:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Unified Field connection to Consciousness
I reading through this article again I see that and remember that content that explained how Hagelin saw Unified Field connecting to consciousness was removed. What is left is criticism of what that connection is with out any explanation of what the criticism is actually discussing and pertains to. I'd like to add some content, a few lines, that describes Hagelin's position. Even with a few short lines the article is still very heavily weighted towards criticism and fails NPOV.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC))

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on John Hagelin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://tricell-ent.com/EAD.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on John Hagelin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mum.edu/m_effect/dc_md.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Aftermath of GA delisting
When the article lost its Good Article status in 2013 (Good article reassessment/John Hagelin/1), one GA reviewer called the article "deceptive and misleading" and "a skillfully written piece of propaganda". There have been many WP:NPOV-oriented improvements since then, but there haven't been many editors involved with the cleanup and I still notice some oddities. For instance the Bibliography section contains entries which aren't referenced by the article and don't seem appropriate by themselves. I get a bit of a feeling that it's a repository of links to information about Hagelin rather than encyclopedic content. I have only partially assessed the article and I would invite others to look it over for NPOV-ness. Manul ~ talk 15:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with you removing the content you did, but I would suggest the reasons for doing so aren't accurate. Primary sources can be acceptable and in this case are, as proof of Hagelin's leadership of the GUSP. However the real issue is weight and whether this is significant content. Given the lack of secondary sources in the mainstream it may not be.


 * This article was reviewed in good faith and the changes requested were carried out in good faith including a complete revamping of the sources which took me and one other editor a couple of weeks of work so you will see a high edit count for Olive for example which reflects the hundreds of changes i made in the sources. However, this article was written by multiple editors including one now banned from all new religious movement articles and the encyclopedia. We can assume there was a great deal of scrutiny on this article. I requested a review to stabilize the article and to make sure it was neutral. The first reviewer seemed to think it was; I suggest that if you have concerns about the article you raise them for the sake of all the editors over the years who have worked on this article perhaps a better solution than suggesting foul play. I would also note there are some irregularities in terms of weight where explanatory  content was removed while criticism remained. I may or may not work on the article; I'm pretty busy these days.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC))


 * I haven't removed anything from the lead, at least not recently. Are you referring to the above thread about GUSP? I can't see how anything I've said there could be inaccurate. Please explain in that thread. Manul ~ talk 19:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Global Union of Scientists for Peace
"Hagelin is the president of Global Union of Scientists for Peace which is a coalition of leading scientists and experts"

That sounds like a self-promoting PR blurb to me. A search for this organization gives mainly their own pages or those of associated groups. I did not recognize any of the names of the "leading scientists and experts" except Hagelin, who is not a leading scientist. Why do those leading scientists allow Hagelin to lead them? Weird.

I suspect that this organization is just another front of the Maharishi group, consisting of all those Maharishi fans who happen to be academics in any field of science. Is there any independent recognition by scientists that it is bona fide? One letter in the International New York Times, written by those people themselves, plus a bit of HuffPo, which is notorious for publishing anything and its dog, is a bit thin. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh my gosh, one of the cited sources is the International New York Times, which may appear like a legitimate source until one learns that it was a full-page advertisement that appeared in the paper. The HuffPo source is by a staffer from the David Lynch Foundation, of which Hagelin is the president. The last source is the GUSP website.


 * The article uncritically mentions "scientifically proven technologies for national security and global peace", which is over-the-top WP:PROFRINGE and a violation of the WP:NPOV policy -- not to mention that the whole paragraph from which it came was lifted directly from the advertisement. This is an epitomic example of bad sourcing that showcases why articles need to be based upon third-party sources (WP:SOURCES). Removing (obviously). The article already mentions that Hagelin is president of GUSP. Manul ~ talk 15:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


 * This material has now been restored twice using quotations, but that doesn't solve the problems mentioned here. Wikipedia isn't a venue for promoting this stuff; independent sources are needed to satisfy NPOV, specifically WP:PSCI. We don't report uncritically that these "scientifically proven technologies" are a thing. Manul ~ talk 10:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The current version mostly works for me, though I'm wondering if the material on GUSP stating that he advocates the "brain-based" stuff would be useful to describe what it is, precisely, that he promotes. I think the main thing is in, though, which is simply to note his connection to the organization.   Montanabw (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Sourced in lead per BLP
Per BLP, I've sourced physicist, in the lead, to Woit, one of Hagelin's detractors. (Littleolive oil (talk) 14:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC))

Yogic flying
I've just realized that we don't have an article on Yogic flying, which is a major part of the TM movement and of this article (because of the Maharishi effect). There used to be an article, but it's now a redirect to TM, and the TM article doesn't have a dedicated Yogic flying section. SarahSV (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Several years ago there were multiple articles on aspects of the TM technique. Many of those articles were deleted. I can't remember anymore if there was an article on the TM Sidhi program although I suspect there was. According to our articles the TM Sidhi Program is the actual program while so called yogic flying is one aspect of that program. The Maharishi Effect actually refers to TM meditation while the extended Maharishi Effect refers to the effects of the TM Sidhi program  of which Yogic Flying is only one aspect although probably the most visible.  I also looked at the MUM website and this is what they say about the TM Sidhi program. My sense is that we may have enough content about the TM Sidhi program and can link to our own article. I would wonder if developing it too much here would be a coat rack situation. I' m not attached to anything on this, but wonder if we need more TM articles especially given several were deleted including the more valuable article on the TM research. I'm actually more than happy to have a neutral editor working on this article so while I may  not always agree with everything I am very happy to have your edits and changes.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC))

Unclear sentence
This doesn't make any sense as written: "Hagelin believes that his extended version of unified field theory is identified with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's 'unified field of consciousness', a view that is rejected by 'virtually every theoretical physicist in the world'.

Can someone say here what the source says? SarahSV (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Some of this can be found here, page 204. Some of it, this I think, " a view that is rejected by virtually every theoretical physicist in the world" is no longer visible on Amazon view when I looked for it just now.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC))


 * What may be missing in terms of explanation is what Hagelin himself actually said when he was attempting to make this connection. This was removed as  I remember as fringe and as a primary source . At the same time without the explanation as a base line for the criticism,  the concept doesn't make a lot of sense.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC))


 * Littleolive oil, can you link to what was removed? It might be better to paraphrase was he said himself. SarahSV (talk) 23:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * removed content.(Littleolive oil (talk) 13:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC))


 * Second Quantization is the former user Wolfie.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC))


 * Thanks for the link. I restored a sentence from that, so the consciousness section now begins: "In 1987 and 1989 Hagelin published two papers in the Maharishi University of Management's Journal of Modern Science and Vedic Science on the Vedic understanding of consciousness as a field, and its comparison to unified field theories in physics." SarahSV (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Good. That's an improvement and adds context.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC))


 * I've replaced the primary-sourced (borderline self-published, as the other editor noted when deleting it) material with a fuller explanation using WP:FRIND sources, which are required here. Manul ~ talk 02:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * , would you please explain what exactly is unclear? The change you made doesn't look appropriate because it suggests there may be a significant number of non-mainstream physicists holding this view, in contradiction to the source. Manul ~ talk 12:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * "His extended version of" and "identified with" are unclear. The sentence you object to now reads: "This view has no support among physicists." SarahSV (talk) 23:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Well it's not clear why "his extended version of" and "identified with" are unclear, but no matter, that's not really my concern. And you mean "among other physicists", since Hagelin is a physicist, but that's not my concern either.


 * WP:FRINGELEVEL is quite explicit about how to report the level of acceptance: ...a lack of consideration or acceptance does not necessarily imply rejection...Ideas that have been rejected...should be documented as such... Woit is right that this stuff is rejected by virtually every theoretical physicist in the world. Reflecting the source is the same as following FRINGE here. Manul ~ talk 00:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to restore Hagelin's two papers. It makes no sense to discuss what they say without including them as refs, and policy allows their inclusion, per WP:BLPSPS.

As for the lead sentence, we ought not to quote without in-text attribution, but including attribution doesn't look good in the lead. It's far better to summarize in our own words, and with less hyperbole. "This view has no support within the physics community" does the job. SarahSV (talk) 05:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * You haven't responded to the point about WP:FRINGELEVEL, which I also mentioned in my edit comment. The quoting without attribution is indeed unfortunate, but was the outcome of discussion here. The issue was how to accuracy convey the level of acceptance. One editor argued that phrases like "other physicists" can't be used because they have an "implied all". On the other hand, quoting with in-text attribution runs afoul of WP:ITA. We couldn't find wording that said exactly the same thing, so the result was the quote. I don't believe Woit is being hyperbolic. Your earlier lead had "This view has no support among physicists", by which you meant "no support among other physicists". As I said above, per FRINGELEVEL we have to say rejected. How about "This view is rejected by other physicists"? Manul ~ talk 08:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't know if there is a policy or guideline about purposefully citing a source that's not used, whether a primary source or not. That doesn't make much sense to me. We'd be suggesting to readers that we summarized these primary sources when we haven't. We'd be suggesting to Wikipedia editors that we are improperly using primary sources when we haven't. The two papers are already present in the "Selected works" section. Isn't that sufficient? Manul ~ talk 08:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I support Slim Virgin's text, "This view has no support within the physics community". The versions using both "other" and "many", my earlier version, and the version just added using "other" are indefinite and what we used to call weasel words. In-line attribution as I said in earlier discussions is not best in a lead since it is too specific. Concerning hyperbole, see per WP:ITA which says, "Particularly harsh criticism should be attributed...", and suggests Woit should be summarized.Text that is cleaner without implied meaning is preferred. Although I have seen comments in the scientific literature that support Hagelin; they are so few, and I can't remember where they are now, that a definitive "no support" is fine with me.


 * If we are going to refer to content that is fringe to the mainstream, and keeping in mind per WP:FRINGEBLP which says, "Fringe views of those better known for other achievements or incidents should not be given undue prominence...", we are obligated as good writers to clearly define what that fringe content is. The definitive source for that content is the scientist himself explaining the theory, and it behooves us to use a definitive explanation and so most accurate explanation before we veer off into secondary explanations and criticism. WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD says, "Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used," and "the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources." Hagelin has to be the bald, definitive, without error, source of his own theory. The use of his papers and short summary of those papers is an appropriate use of a primary source so I do support inclusion of his papers and the brief summary SV added.(Littleolive oil (talk) 13:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC))


 * A few points in reply:
 * (1) FRINGE is just a guideline. It's important to refer to it when people are trying to fill an article with a fringe view out of context, but that's not happening here. Let's follow the content policies, plus common sense and good writing.
 * (2) I prefer "This view has no support within the physics community". I don't mind "This view is rejected by other physicists," and it's better than the quote, so thank you, Manul, for changing it. But it's not as strong as "has no support".
 * (3) Manul, I like the way you summarized Fales and Markovsky in the consciousness section. There's one part I'm not keen on (the words after "permits"):


 * "More central to his argument was his claim that quantum mechanics permits the tying together of mental and physical phenomena, an idea he found echoed in the Vedas.'"


 * The mental and physical are, indeed, "tied together" and not only in quantum mechanics and the Vedas. I can't identify the part of Fales and Markovsky that you were summarizing with those words, so I don't know how best to rephrase it.
 * (4) There's no reason within policy to exclude Hagelin's 1987 and 1989 papers when they are being discussed, and it doesn't make any sense to leave them out. Readers should be able to check that he did say those things: the best source for "X said" is X. A secondary source is useful to avoid UNDUE, mistaken interpretations, and so on. But using a secondary source doesn't mean the primary source should be ignored. I almost always include both when I can.
 * (5) We should restore the sentence you removed where Hagelin discusses the observed and observer.


 * SarahSV (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Break 1
In my latest edit, I left Manul's lead sentence; restored the observer/observed sentence in the consciousness section and the two papers of Hagelin's that are discussed there; and I mostly left Manul's summary of them, except for a copy edit and an invisible note about the sentence I highlighted above. I also added the indefinite definite article to the Maharishi University of Management, and made other copy edits.

So in the consciousness section, we currently have a short paragraph of Hagelin's arguments in the 1987 and 1989 papers; a longer paragraph of criticism of those arguments based on Fales and Markovsky; a paragraph of criticism based on Anderson, Ellis and Woit; and a short paragraph about his appearance in the two films, with criticism from Shermer. SarahSV (talk) 17:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm definitely sure, per the definition found in definitive references, that you meant "the definite article" :) Perhaps one day there'll be franchises and we'll say "a Maharishi University of Management".


 * By all means, let us follow policies. Among those policies is WP:PAG which says we should follow guidelines, not brush them aside while saying "just a guideline". If there is a clear reason for making an exception to a guideline, then please present it. By all means, let us follow common sense and good writing. There is no contradiction between doing that and following guidelines.


 * If there is a direct quote from a primary source then of course we cite the primary source. Of course. The canonical way of doing this is to use a secondary source that quotes a primary source, in which case we cite both the primary and secondary sources, naturally. For example if a secondary source says, Bob wrote the paper [name of primary source] which rests on the key assumption that, as he put it, "Soylent Green is people" and blah blah blah then in the Wikipedia article we may summarize that and give the quote "Soylent Green is people" while citing both the primary and secondary sources. Naturally. But without the secondary source, asserting that "Soylent Green is people" is one of the paper's key assumptions amounts to original research. Summarizing a primary source -- picking out what you think is significant and quoting from it -- is necessarily original research.


 * Alright alright, I'll quote from policy: Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A direct quote is fine: that itself doesn't require interpretation. But how did you decide upon the direct quote to use? How do we know the quote fairly conveys the source, is not taken out of context, is not unduly weighting one aspect, gives weight to that which should have weight, and is not missing the forest for the trees? That requires interpretation of the primary source, and therefore a secondary source is required by policy.


 * So if you wish to quote from primary sources then find a secondary source that contains primary-source quotes that you like. That shouldn't be difficult. We can't rest on your knowledge, no matter how knowledgeable you may be, about what is important or significant about a subject. That's the role of secondary sources. Manul ~ talk 01:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Re "FRINGE is just a guideline", to be clear, the relevant part of policy is: Going against the principles set out on these pages, particularly policy pages, is unlikely to prove acceptable, although it may be possible to convince fellow editors that an exception ought to be made. Your proposal to change WP:FRIND did not gain consensus. The next step is not to ignore FRIND but to convince others that an exception ought to be made. Manul ~ talk 13:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for correcting my definite/indefinite.


 * The policies are mandatory (except for IAR); the guidelines aren't. There's no problem in the article with the way primary sources are used that I can see, though I haven't looked at everything. I don't want to get into a detailed discussion of which policy says what, because there's no point. We're both familar with them, and the page is improving, which is what matters. SarahSV (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * If you won't engage in discussion about how your changes go against policies and guidelines, then you should naturally expect to be reverted. For reasons thoroughly explained (even overexplained), I've removed the primary-sourced summary. I've left the citations to the papers, though, as you wished.


 * Since my last comment here, a new fringe claim was added to the section: "consciousness is a fundamental property of the natural world, not a product of the brain". Per WP:PSCI (part of WP:NPOV), this requires mainstream reception. The source given (Dickie), a promotional piece that uncritically and ebulliently reports Hagelin's claims, contains no mainstream reception, only the fringe view (loudly). Manul ~ talk 01:43, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If we are going to include fringe content in this article we must present in in a neutral way. If we don't want the fringe content we can remove it all, but we should not exclude just what agrees with a POV. For example, you have included a longer section on Fales and Markovsky, written by two non-scientists, which discusses a physicist's work, and which is twenty years old. We have implied agreement to include that content despite its problems. Further, we do  not exclude reliable sources because they express an opinion. All writers have opinions and positions. I agree with SlimVirgin's additions and edits so there is agreement for her work here which should not be reverted unilaterally, and suggesting that her response to you is less than what you want so you will revert, well, no experienced editor believes that, right?(Littleolive oil (talk) 05:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC))

Manul, please don't remove those sentences again. The article is under DS, and the ArbCom decision included: "Peremptory reversion or removal of material referenced to reliable sources and added in good faith by others, is considered disruptive when done to excess."

The sentences are properly sourced within the content policies. Hagelin's position has to be summarized before it can be criticized. Otherwise the reader is left in the dark.

As it stands, that section contains one 97-word paragraph explaining Hagelin's view, followed by two paragraphs with 340 words of criticism (including the word "crackpot", so it isn't subtle), and a fourth paragraph of 47 words about the two films, also highly critical. This fully satisfies UNDUE.

If you have a suggestion for how to reword the paragraph summarizing Hagelin's position, by all means suggest it here, but please don't keep removing it. SarahSV (talk) 06:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Sarah, after seeing that you wish to openly ignore a guideline, I gave a very full response (3K+ bytes worth) aiming to convince you to follow both policies and guidelines unless you can give clear reason for making an exception. Since you mention DS, please note that one of the expectations of editors is to comply with all applicable policies and guidelines.


 * You didn't engage with the thorough PAG-based objections to your changes. Rather, you posted a curt reply simply restating your position. This, also, fails to meet DS expectations of editors to follow editorial and behavioural best practice. There is nothing peremptory about backing out changes whose problems have been explained at length and whose author will not discuss those problems.


 * Now that you have warned me and I have responded in kind, let's stop doing that, OK? In the future, please post to user talk pages about such things. Article talk pages should be about improving articles, not editor behavior.


 * You have finally offered an argument: that the length of the criticism is WP:UNDUE. This is the first time you've made the argument, and I'm glad you are at last communicating what is in your mind. I think it is a fair point. If I understand correctly, you propose to violate WP:FRINGE in order to satisfy WP:DUE. That is, the reason for making an exception to FRINGE is that DUE must be met. However this isn't necessary. An easy way to satisfy DUE is to just cull some of the criticism. Another way is to use a WP:FRIND source; it seems unlikely that none exists. Fales and Markovsky would be perfect -- they quote from primary sources, e.g. "the localized conscious awareness of the individual becomes experientially connected back to pure consciousness" -- but unfortunately that refers to Orme-Johnson et al (1988), which doesn't include Hagelin.


 * Apart from the already-discussed reasons to use independent sources for fringe claims, there is yet another reason for it. When you quote or summarize a primary source and then follow it up with an independent source, a mismatch occurs. The independent source may not be critiquing exactly what you just quoted/summarized from the primary source, causing you misrepresent the independent source (albeit unintentionally).


 * Thank you for removing the the clear WP:PSCI violation ("not a product of the brain") after the COI editor restored it by reverting me. Manul ~ talk 13:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The source was not removed. I think its disingenuous to paste a COI template on this page on an editor who at the time had made 3-4 small edits to the article in several years, who had attempted to comply with all cmts made by a GA reviewer in attempts to stabilize an article, who has never been shown to have a COI despite efforts by adversarial editors to prove there was a COI. You are using a link to info that is over ten years old and which was removed because of off- Wikipedia harassment - a link you should not be able to see or could not have created as a non admin, which begs the question, how did you get the link and see it. Then you use that self-applied COI accusation to dampen discussion. I am not paid to edit Wikipedia, and no one ever tells me what to do or how to edit. You might be wise to stop the accusations which are now becoming harassment.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC))


 * I've removed that link, which I only just noticed. Manul, how were you able to link to a deleted revision from years ago? SarahSV (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Break 2
Manul, I didn't say that the length of the criticism in the consciousness section is UNDUE. I said that the section is fine as it is: one paragraph of Hagelin's view, followed by several paragraphs of detailed criticism. That satisfies UNDUE. But please don't keep reducing Hagelin's position to almost nothing. SarahSV (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * This is very confusing. When one says that some article text "satisfies UNDUE", to me that means the criteria for undue weight has been satisfied. That is, the text contains undue weight (WP:UNDUE) on some aspect, and it should be changed so that it contains due weight.


 * But it would seem that when you say "satisfies UNDUE", you mean that due weight is already present. If this is the case, would you please say "satisfies DUE" instead? I think I speak for virtually all editors in this regard.


 * With your last comment, it would appear that you plan to continue the pattern of not responding to the ample PAG-based objections to your changes. Is that true? Manul ~ talk 13:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)