Talk:Russell Targ/Archive 1

Trivia
Trivia: Brother-in-law of Bobby Fischer -- Jrm2007 10:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Call for Deletion
To any rational scientist, this subject's contributions to physics are rather minor whereas the damage done to the public's understanding of science by his forays into pseudoscience is enormous. I would even contest that, given the absence of any scientific evidence (worthy of the name), he effectively defrauded the American taxpayer by misrepresenting the reality of 'remote viewing' to gullible government agencies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.194.104 (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we should also delete the CIA, NSA, ... for being gullible enough to fall for it? Or just maybe there's more to it than meets the eye and there is something to it after all... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.168.176.148 (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Paul H. Smith book
This article should cite Paul H. Smith's book Reading the Enemy's Mind: Inside Star Gate: America's Psychic Espionage Program, from Macmillan, published in 2005, ISBN 9780312875152.

Smith is "a retired Army intelligence officer and Operation Desert Storm veteran [who] spent seven years in the Department of Defense's remote-viewing program"... according to Google books blurb. An insider's account would be very valuable here. Binksternet (talk) 08:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Another source to use is New Scientist, November 22, 1984, an article by Ian Anderson titled "Strange case of the psychic 'spy'". Pages 3–4.
 * Yet another is Jeffrey J. Kripal (2010) Authors of the Impossible: The Paranormal and the Sacred, University of Chicago Press, ISBN 9780226453866. See pages 175–176 and beyond. Binksternet (talk) 08:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Edits by Torgownik
who claims to be Targ himself has been blocked for editing warring previously, he keeps inserting original research into the article and deleting criticism of his work. Does Conflict of interest apply here? Goblin Face (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, it says that you can give him advice as to how to approach this situation. Have you? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Targ has been told many times by three different users (including myself) to insert reliable references when he makes his edits on the article, if he did this there would be no problem and no user would delete what he has added but every time he inserted personal commentary into the article with no secondary references to back up his claims. He's now on websites promoting some kind of conspiracy theory that users are deleting information from his article out of bias, but this is false. It is Wikipedia policy to delete unreferenced original research, everything he added was his own opinion and not referenced. Targ also makes the false claim in his rant here that he was banned from editing his biography which is not true. He was temporarily blocked for edit-warring. He's asking people to edit his Wikipedia biography so this may well be a case of Meat puppetry. He has not helped himself, all he has shown is ignorance. So I will not be further trying to help him. Goblin Face (talk) 13:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Targ has indeed been complaining about what he (and I) see as unreasonable removal of information such as his first wife being married to Bobby Fischer, and I inserted this information through learning of his complaint, not because I was asked to do so by Targ as GF suggests. That detail can be seen on Joan Targ's w'pedia page so further sourcing is not necessary. but I suppose one can't insist that editors do such easy research before reaching for the delete button.  Perhaps three people have sent him advice but I assume this advice didn't get to him as he has not mentioned it. I also added the information about his 2nd wife, having checked the details with him.  In fact this information was once there and has been gratuitously removed by someone.  I should point out to those seemingly unaware of the fact that details of marriages, etc. are public domain (in the UK they are at least) and can be accessed through organisations such as ancestry.com: in view of this, sources should not normally be needed for such information.  Removal of marriage information as seems to have happened sure looks like vandalism to me (but perhaps it was an honest mistake). --Brian Josephson (talk) 07:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Joseph McMoneagle reliable? due?
Can Joseph McMoneagle's book be considered a reliable source? He is certainly primary and not independent. What is the due weight he should be given. Is he a credible source for stating a specified number of documents? Is this undue? Is he a credible source for the continued classification of a government program? Is he a credible source for claiming that the AIR's government commissioned review of remote viewing's usefulness for intelligence was not given access to extensive material on the study of remote viewing? I think he is not a credible reliable source for this content. I do not object to the brief mention that he claims this but per WP:DUE it should be very brief. Other sources on the subject are much weightier and more credible. - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Not reliable for anything on this subject. I don't see how an involved primary source can be used at all on a controversial point like this.  It would be incredibly simple for a real psychic to prove it and generate buzz that would attract reliable secondary sources.  If none of them are reporting, Wikipedia has no business reporting.  165.214.11.76 (talk) 18:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion on list of works
The following set of papers was added without discussion here by an acknowledged COI editor.


 * R. Targ, P. Rabinowitz, S. Jacobs, "Homodyne Detection of Phase-Modulated Light,"  Proc. IRE, Vol. 50, No. 11 (November 1962).
 * R. Targ, "Optical Heterodyne Detection of Microwave Modulated  Light," Proc. IEEE Correspondence, pp. 303-304 (March 1964).
 * R. Targ  and  W.B. Tiffany, "Gain and Saturation  on  Transverse  Flowing He, N2,  CO2 Mixtures," Appl. Phys. Letters, Vol. 15, No. 9 (1 November 1969).
 * R. Targ, W.B. Tiffany, J.D. Foster, "Kilowatt CO2 Gas-Transport Laser,"Appl. Phys. Letters, Vol. 15, No. 3 (1969).
 * R. Targ, Roland Bowles, Michael Kavaya, and R. Milton Huffaker,  "Coherent  Lidar Airborne Windshear Sensor:  Performance Evaluation,"  APPLIED OPTICS, 20 May 1991.
 * R. Targ, James G. Hawley, Michael Kavaya, Sammy Henderson, and Daniel Moerder, "Coherent Launch-Site Atmospheric Wind Sounder: Theory and  Experiment, APPLIED OPTICS, August 21, 1993.

What is the inclusion criteria for the list of works. Books published by publishing houses of course. I think to include papers published in journals they should be notable by citation count or discussion in media. Lists of works need clearly defined inclusion criteria, publication alone is not adequate indication that a paper is notable enough to be included in an encyclopedic article. Looking for consensus on what level of citation in this field contstitutes notability or references that discuss these (or other) papers. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The kilowatt laser one has been cited 99 times so is surely notable. This one: FM OSCILLATION OF THE He‐Ne LASER SE Harris, R Targ - Applied Physics Letters, 1964 has been cited 95 times and is surely good enough (ref: Google Scholar). Others on lasers have been cited more than 10 times which I suggest is good enough. In any event, I'm sure whoever added those references had good reason for so doing, so why not leave them all in (or restore them if they have been removed).  COI is a pretty illusory criteron as I think most research people have sufficient integrity that their judgements can be respected regardless of hypothetical COI -- it is not as if they are working for drug companies after all. --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * And again, MrBill3 refers to a 'COI editor'. I must say I have problems understanding how COI can be relevant here.  In the first place, it is completely standard for an article about a scientist to include examples of his publications, and the number at issue can hardly be considered excessive.  And in the context of 'including examples', the quality is hardly relevant -- one could perfectly well include dubious papers if those were typical of the subject of an article -- it is not at all the same situation as citing an article to support a point.  Please take note of this distinction.  Secondly, the only credible way in which COI might be relevant in regard to a specific publication would be if the claims in that publication had been disputed, which as far as I am aware has not been the case in regard to the cases cited. It seems to me that objections to these publications are being magicked up out of thin air, and a much more cogent case needs to be made if you wish to censor them (assuming that was your movitation for bringing this issue up). --Brian Josephson (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * There's no harm in putting Targ's published papers into the article. Binksternet (talk) 18:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Glad you agree on that. I think rather than some box-ticking approach to the question of which papers should be included as some seem to advocate, the thing is to ask people in the field which papers they consider the most important, and I will look into that when I have time. Incidentally, I find it bizarre that the article has a section on Targ's contributions to parapsychology but none on his laser work, where I gather he made important contributions.  Rumour has it (I don't know how much credence to give this) that once there was such a section but it got removed by someone who wished to diminish Targ's credibility.  I have not had time to look into this (the history should tell), and of course that rumour may be completely false. --Brian Josephson (talk) 18:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I've found out who removed the reference to Targ's early work on the laser, with an excuse that has no legs since there would have been absolutely no problem finding an RS for the material removed and the appropriate action would have been to insert a 'source needed' comment. Details will follow when I have the time. --Brian Josephson (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Targ should not be editing this article per Conflict of interest and maybe you should not be editing per Meat puppetry. Targ is all over the web spamming facebook pages and forums which false libelous claims about his Wikipedia article and requesting for his fellow paranormal believers to edit it. He obviously told you and come to edit his article considering you are one of his parapsychology friends and it's funny how you took no interest in this article at all until he mentioned it on various paranormal websites. If you have reliable secondary sources for his laser work then that's great add it in, but as stated above it's been hard to find these sources. There is no conspiracy to suppress or delete Targ's laser work, the problem is the lack of reliable sources for it. Goblin Face (talk) 22:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Lighten up! Targ can edit his own biography as long as he does not violate the COI guideline. Wikipedia does not care what Targ is doing elsewhere on the webs. Our job is to tell the reader about Targ, not to prevent the reader from learning about Targ. Binksternet (talk) 22:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually an editor claiming to be Targ has edited this article repeatedly in violation of the COI guidelines and has repeatedly inserted unsourced content and talk within the article. Off wiki canvassing is against policy and there have been improper edits made to this article by editors who directly said they had been canvassed off wiki.
 * Targs contributions to laser have not been supported as significant or notable by any reliable sources provided. I reliable source in the relevant field is all that would be required to provide some description of his work with laser as important. As always on WP we paraphrase the encyclopedic content of reliable sources. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Targ is called an "accomplished laser physicist" by Jeffrey J. Kripal. Ian Anderson called him a "laser physicist". If you look on Google Scholar you'll find that there are a lot of papers co-authored by Targ on laser technology. The paper "Kilowatt CO2 Gas‐Transport Laser" was cited 99 times by other researchers. The paper FM OSCILLATION OF THE He‐Ne LASER" was cited 95 times. Both of these appeared in Applied Physics Letters. Please put away your distaste for the subject and acknowledge that the papers are significant. If Targ had never taken up with ESP experiments, he would have been well known in the laser field. Binksternet (talk) 04:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Who says Targ is well known in the laser field. The two links you give are to, Authors of the Impossible: The Paranormal and the Sacred and "Strange case of the psychic spy" not exactly relevant to laser science are they? Where is the relevant source. Something in the field that describes Targ's contributions as of 'any notability at all. Note your contention is particularly weak since both of the sources you give are only discussion Targ because of his paranormal work. 99 citations in 45 years according to Google Scholar doesn't make a paper notable in fact it's fairly paltry. The journal Applied Physics Letters focuses on publishing new work rapidly, resulting in publication of plenty of non notable material. If Targ "would have been well known in the laser field" where are the reliable sources in the laser field that discuss him? If you want to propose a citation metric using a more reliable source than Google Scholar that would probably be appropriate. What kind of citation numbers do papers that experts in the field actually call important or highly cited have? Who in the laser field has called Targ's work important? It may be in some of the citations, especially later ones. The paper from the IEEE is certainly in a notable journal but note it is in the "Correspondence" depart not a featured research article.
 * BTW the second source you gave says Targ left the psychic reasearch center in 1982 should the article be changed from "from 1972 to 1995" to "from 1972 to 1982". What source is there for the dates of his involvement with SRI other than the one you just gave? - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * @Brian Josephson, it is a personal attack to attribute motivations not stated by an editor to their edits. Refrain from discussing rumours, ascribing motives and activity other than discussing how to improve this article on it's talk page. Your contention that "an excuse that has not legs" is not constructive, if there is absolutely no problem finding an RS provide it. Of note several editors have done some research and not found any indication that Targ's scientific/academic contributions outside his paranormal work are in any way significant.
 * Removal of unverifiable content is adherence to the core policy of WP:Verifiability: "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed."

To return to the subject of this section. It is not appropriate to include a list of publications without some basis for inclusion. If an expert or someone with knowledge of the field and some examples can suggest what would be considered a highly cited paper in the field I think including papers that are highly cited would be appropriate. Honestly a papers published 20 and 30 years ago that have not been cited over 100 times don't seem significant enough to include in an encyclopedia. Are these papers cited in textbooks in the field? Are they called important when cited by other papers? Have scholarly works on the history of the field described these papers as important? It is not enclyopledic in nature to provide lists of papers published without some inclusion criteria. Examples are not necessary or encyclopedic unless reliable sources have reported them as important. That's the standard on WP. An expert in the field could establish that X number of citations is significant for the field. Excepting that the material does not belong in the article. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC) This material should not be reinserted into the article until reliable sources for it's notability are provided or consensus is reached here. The assertion "because it's notable" requires reliable sources. At least someone knowledgeable in the field giving some indication of what level of citation could be considered highly cited. I will ask an experienced editor if they know or care to weigh in. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC) {{u:Binksternet]] Where on this talk page have you provided a reliable source that states the content you seek to include is notable? Per the WP:Verifiability policy, "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." Where is there any verification that this content has any significance, importance or notability? What RS even discusses that Targ published some papers? Much less that his publications are notable. Where are the books on the history of the development of laser that discuss Targ as an important contributor? Where are the citations of these papers which refer to them as important papers? This content is not supported, continued re-insertion without consensus or reliable sources is edit warring. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Where have you seen a guideline that says scholarly papers published in notable peer-reviewed journals are not worthy of inclusion in a biography about the author of the papers? It's hard for me to take your complaint seriously after I have already shown you two of Targ's papers that were very widely cited. Binksternet (talk) 04:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * WP reports on what others have reported. The guideline No original research applies a list of selected publications by an academic is based on that list being published in a source or the publications being considered important enough to be written about in reliable third party sources. WP does not include random or extensive lists of non notable publications. I don't think that an editors opinion that a paper is widely cited because has acquired less than a hundred citations in 45 years based on Google Scholar is exactly what establishes notability. Why would you say "I have already shown you two of Targ's papers that were very widely cited" the comment making that assertion was signed "Brian Josephson" this most recent comment was signed "Blinksernet"? If Targ's contributions to laser were notable enough to be included in the biography of someone notable for their paranormal research, I ask again, Where is the reliable source that states Targ's papers were important or notable or made a significant contribution to the field? This should not be hard to provide, the papers are over 30 years old there should be books about the subject which discuss these papers and the contributions they made. If there is no such reliable source these papers are not of significance. Not every paper published in a peer reviewed journal is encyclopedic content. The journals are not that notable btw and many of the publications of these journals have not been found notable. That said if you wish to propose a citation metric based on the opinion of someone with knowledge in the field, make a proposal. I may contact an experienced editor and ask if they care to weigh in on the subject of inclusion criteria for published papers in biographies of academics. Of note Targ is not so much notable for being an academic but for being a parnormal researcher who was highly criticized. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's what I posted just a couple of inches above, signed with my name: {{quotation|1=Targ is called an "accomplished laser physicist" by Jeffrey J. Kripal. Ian Anderson called him a "laser physicist". If you look on Google Scholar you'll find that there are a lot of papers co-authored by Targ on laser technology. The paper "Kilowatt CO2 Gas‐Transport Laser" was cited 99 times by other researchers. The paper FM OSCILLATION OF THE He‐Ne LASER" was cited 95 times. Both of these appeared in Applied Physics Letters. Please put away your distaste for the subject and acknowledge that the papers are significant. If Targ had never taken up with ESP experiments, he would have been well known in the laser field. }}
 * Let's agree to write this biography with the reader in mind rather than writing it with an eye to punishing Targ for COI. Binksternet (talk) 05:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

As above Kripal is not an authority in laser in fact the source is a fringe book on PARANORMAL not on laser, the second source an article "Strange case of the PSYCHIC SPY" these don't provide reliable sourcing for asserting that Targ is notable in the field of lasers. Where is the reliable source that says he is? Under a hundred citations in 45 years is not exactly important and notable. The journal publishes new research rapidly, resulting in publication of plenty of non notable papers. The IEEE paper was published in a notable journal but not as a featured research article but in the "Correspondence" department. Where is the reliable source that says these papers are important contributions to the field? (Try reading some of the citations it may be there). Where is the reliable source that says Targ would have been well known in the laser field? Stop your personal attacks immediately and constrain your commentary to improving the article. Your attribution of positions and motivations I have not stated are inappropriate personal attacks if they continue I will make reports at the appropriate notice board(s). Let's agree to discuss the content of the article and policy based ideas on how to improve it.


 * See the section 'Talk inserted in article reverted' section for a scholarly review supporting the fact that Targ has done notable work in the laser field. If Targ had not contributed anything useful his resarch would not have been included in the review; and it is absurd to say work cannot be considered notable if nobody has actually stated 'X's work is notable', which reminds me of Michael Frayn's joke 'I cannot see the fog unless I can see a sign telling me that there is fog' (or words to that effect). You would do everyone a service by not continuing to push this line.  And now I must go and get on with important things. --Brian Josephson (talk) 07:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * See the above section for my response on the subject of that section and detailed response on the source. Your contention with the poor analogy of Frayn's joke does not hold up. Many researchers work is described as pioneering, important, substantial, significant, groundbreaking, laying the groundwork, instrumental, foundational and a plethora of other adjectives when the researchers and their work are discussed in scholarly works. The inclusion of a study specifically called recent by Targ as a mention in a chapter on CO2 Lasers in a 1971 book on lasers does not make his work on lasers notable. When citing notable works authors frequently use some of the above adjectives or provide a description of how the cited work laid the foundation for later work. Historical reviews of work done 40 years ago specifically identifies those who broke the ground and those who made breakthroughs or substantial contributions. Read a few "History of blah blah..." articles in the major journals and you will see third party, secondary sources that support descriptions of the contributions various scientists. Read a book on the history of a scientific subject, you will find it discusses contributors using adjectives and providing explanation and context of the importance of their work. If there is such that discusses Targ then WP can cite it and describe him as described with paraphrasing. If a book about lasers makes multiple mention of Targ and his work that would make it notable. That's not absurd that's what constitutes notability. Citation counts can establish notability and the published opinion or expert opinion in the field might help us set some criteria but frankly at under 100 citations using the non scholarly criteria of Google Scholar in over 40 years since publication is pretty weak. Something like a citation in a major textbook in the field would be notable. Some of the more recent citations may provide context and establish notability. Rather than presenting faulty and false analogies, unread sources with snippets from Google search and non policy based arguments on talk pages you would do everyone a service by reading sources and proposing content citing them that is constructive editing. If you are to busy with important things and can't be bothered, stop wasting peoples time with tenditious nonsense. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have already made my position clear, and do not propose to waste further time responding to your tendentious comments. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * So you have no reliable source which describes Targ's work as notable or significant in any way and you make your footstomping retreat leaving behind only a false representation of a single sentence in a 1971 book that says nothing about the work being notable or important and the claimed ignorance of many scientist's work being described as notable or important? - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It is a righteous duty, keeping low quality fluff out of biographies. However, the effort expended here is all out of proportion to the perceived problem. Despite his ESP work, Targ continued to be known for laser and electro-optic physics throughout his career. Our article says "From 1986 to 1998 Targ worked in electro-optics as a senior staff scientist at the Lockheed Missiles and Space Company." Targ's laser papers are not fluff. Targ's papers are cited three times in the 1998 book Handbook of Laser Wavelengths ({{ISBN|9781420050158}}). A paper by Targ is cited once in the 1996 book Lasers and Electro-optics: Fundamentals and Engineering ({{ISBN|9780521484039}}). A Targ paper is cited in 2005's Laser Processing of Engineering Materials: Principles, Procedure and Industrial Application ({{ISBN|9780080492803}}). A Targ paper is cited in 2012's Industrial Applications of Lasers ({{ISBN|9780323144780}}). The 2012 book Effects of High-Power Laser Radiation ({{ISBN|9780323149914}}) cites a Targ paper. What's mostly cited in these books is the 1969 paper by Tiffany, Targ and Foster, titled "Kilowatt CO2 Gas‐Transport Laser", published in the Applied Physics Letters journal. In the first volume of the journal Laser Focus with Fiberoptic Communications, published in 1965, Targ's 1964 paper is discussed, "FM Oscillation of the He‐Ne Laser", co-written with Harris. The journal says that Targ came up with the term "super-mode" to describe the observed FM laser output: "When T was adjusted to zero, then all of the energy that was previously distributed between the various sidebands of the FM laser signal appeared in a single 'super-mode' — as it has been termed by Mr. Targ." The term "super-mode" appears in just about every modern laser book. The 1978 publication of the journal Laser Focus described Targ and Puthoff as well-known: "Russell Targ and Harold Putoff {{sic}} are well known to the laser community, Targ for work in developing the gas-transport laser, Puthoff for his text Fundamentals of Quantum Electronics..." The 1966 publication of Electronics journal says "Russell Targ, a physicist who believes in esp and its allied arts, and is one of the developers of the f-m and supermode laser, [Electronics, Sept. 20, 1965, p. 101] feels that the typical card-guessing tests are self-defeating." Binksternet (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response and for your research. Given the material you have referenced I think we should now add/restore to the lead that Targ worked in the early development of lasers. I think the bio section should then contain that Targ played a role in the development of the gas-transport laser. The papers cited in these books should be included (in the proper format, with full info). Again thank you for your research. I am sure Mr. Targ appreciates your efforts and I am pleased that his article can now more accurately represent him. Despite claims and allegations I don't believe there was an effort to discredit Targ but only to follow policy on WP. As I do a fair amount of research for WP I know your input represents significant effort, the subject of an article deserves such effort and WP is improved by it. - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Appeal for consensus: Do we now have adequate references to include in the lead "worked in the early development of lasers" in the bio some detail of Targ's contributions to the field and in the publications papers cited in books or journals that discuss Targ as a significant contributor to the development of lasers? {{u|Binksternet}}, {{u|Goblin Face}}, {{u|Brian Josephson}} and {{u|TheRedPenOfDoom}} - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * i havent been following this discussion and have not read all the materials, but if Binksternet's comment of 15:48, 7 May 2014 is accurate (i havent checked the sources, but have no reason to doubt it), i have no objections. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  00:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we have enough here to flesh out his laser work in the article body, saying that he helped pioneer F-M lasers, coining the term "super-mode" (as applied to lasers) in 1964, and that he helped pioneer gas-transport lasers. The lead section should be a brief summary such as has been suggested by MrBill3. Binksternet (talk) 01:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * We should avoid terms like "pioneered" per WP:PEACOCK but certainly include the specific facts. It makes for a better article and is more encyclopedic. Rather than he helped pioneer, what was his contribution, should prove interesting and be factual and encyclopedic. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I wonder if anyone else is uneasy about the use of this word (assuming they know its definition of course)? Do we have consensus that it is unproblematic and merely allows one to express in one word something that would otherwise require something more verbose? Such tortuous rewording adds little, and is best avoided IMHO. --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you read the guideline? This is precisely what is discouraged. Also read No Original Research determining someone is a pioneer when reliable sources don't is the definition of original research. If reliable sources use such puffery (pioneer used as puffery rather than used meeting it's definition no country or area explored or settled) they can be quoted otherwise WP uses encyclopedic tone. As an encyclopedia WP should include the facts. It seems Targ made some specific, fairly notable contributions to early laser research these should be given as facts in context. The paraphrase for the lead should be accurate, factual and neutral, not peacock. While looking up words check encyclopedia. - - MrBill3 (talk) 23:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I would find the use of "pioneer" as problematic. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Return to subject of section (discussion of changes in content below at "Request for proposal" please). I don't see notability for the lidar papers. They could be used as a reference in the proposed section for content such as "He continues to work in lasers researching the use of lidar in windshear" but as listed publications they seem to lack notability. If there are sources to support notability please provide them. Should "On remote viewing" and "On precognition" be combined into "On the paranormal"? - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Publications to include in article
Thanks to Binksternet for the pointers. Apologies to Targ for not being aware of his contributions to laser research. Although I'm not an expert in lasers but as a general researcher when looking up Targ's papers in the references mentioned it seems they are of some importance in the foundational research in laser (consistent cites in developmental work, ref'd in later books). There may wind up being quite a number to consider listing in his publications. Still looking to establish a clear criteria but for consideration:

cites:



- - MrBill3 (talk) 00:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for proposal
Can an editor with some knowledge of laser physics and/or skill at paraphrasing propose content with refs for a section I propose, "Laser research". A proposed edit to the lead might also be appropriate. There is no problem with a COI editor making proposals here. Avoidance of WP:PEACOCK with clear specifics would be most useful. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much you for adding some of my early laser papers to my bio page. It would by unquestionably correct to say that "Targ did early research in lasers and laser applications. And was an author of the first paper on coherent detection with lasers. He also published the first paper describing the operation of a 1000-watt continuous wave laser." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torgownik (talk • contribs) 17:32, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and made the edits. Some of the references need to be completed. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Laser research
There's too many primary sources in this section. A user above has claimed there are secondary reliable sources i.e. Targ's laser work cited in laser or physics books. Can someone add these in? Goblin Face (talk) 18:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Illegimate removal of information
With reference to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russell_Targ&diff=0&oldid=608011468: I'm sure there's a source for this information which you have removed. Please bear in mind WP policies and do not do this kind of removal without discussing it on the talk page first, or alternatively add a 'source needed' template. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Utter bullshit. There is nothing whatsoever in Wikipedia policy which states that unsourced claims directly contradicting sourced material need to be tagged rather than removed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Really? I don't see any footnote on what I removed. The content, "Dr. Tart not only removed the alleged clues, but he randomly re-numbered all the transcripts. So that even if some clues remained, they would not be useful to a judge." has no source. It contradicts itself "removed the alleged" you can't remove something if it's only alleged, then "removed... So that even if some clues remained" What's the deal were the clues, clues? Did they exist and were removed, or were not all of them removed? Oh wait let's look at the content above "when it was discovered they still contained sensory cues" referring specifically to the transcripts after Tart supposedly removed the sensory clues, is that sourced? With 2 footnotes! This also contradicts the content I removed, "'considering the importance for the remote viewing hypothesis of adequate cue removal, Tart’s failure to perform this basic task seems beyond comprehension'" is that sourced? Yup there's a footnote.
 * Why are you "sure there's a source for this information"? If there isn't a footnote to support it? Unsourced content is subject to removal per WP:V (see the section WP:ONUS). What WP policies are you talking about it would seem you have it backwards. This is what policy says,
 * "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation"
 * There is no citation to a reliable source directly supporting this contribution, the burden has not been met. WP:V is a core policy. Take some time to familiarize yourself with policy before making assertions. This behavior is WP:tenditious WP:patent nonsense and demonstrates incompetence. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * What Brian has pointed to there was completely unsourced so it should have been removed but I also think this is a case of not reading the references. The claims of the parapsychologist Charles Tart regarding the remote viewing transcripts of Puthoff and Targ have been refuted. Those references are on the article already i.e. David Marks and Christopher Scott "Remote viewing exposed" published in Nature in 1986 and pages 135-136 in Terence Hines book Pseudoscience and the Paranormal (2003). Goblin Face (talk) 13:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As this is a BLP, editors should expect unsourced material to be removed. --Ronz (talk) 15:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand the problem here. Targ may well have been a laser researcher at the start of his career (and maybe even after that) but what he is known for is not laser research. If he had done only the laser research, we would almost certainly not have an article on him. The majority of significant and biographical sources about Targ, are primarily about his work on remote viewing; those which do note his laser work, do so as background colour. What he is known for, is remote viewing. He may prefer it otherwise, and I'd have every sympathy if he did, but that's how it is: nobody's made a film of his laser research starring George Clooney, nor are they ever likely to. And I don't think Targ himself disputes it: it's the lead of his LinkedIn profile, after all. Guy (Help!) 19:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Up the page a ways at Talk:Russell_Targ I argue that Targ was well known in the laser research community. There's no way to know whether he would have achieved Wikipedia-norm notability solely for lasers if he had never researched remote viewing. I think he would have, as the foundation is there. Targ coined the laser term "supermode" which is found inside every laser physics text. Binksternet (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Objection! Calls for speculation ;-) Yes, he may well have done, but the fact is, he didn't. If he had retired in 1972 and none nothing else, we'd have no article. Guy (Help!) 20:57, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

How did this thread get so far off topic. The topic is the following completely unsourced material was removed and another editor objected.

"Dr. Tart not only removed the alleged clues, but he randomly re-numbered all the transcripts. So that even if some clues remained, they would not be useful to a judge."

As the material has no source, is contradicted by reliable sources in the article, this should be done. Open another thread for another topic. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE and list of works
Targ published a hell of a lot more works on remote viewing than are listed; alternatively, we seem to cover the majority of his works on lasers. This seems to diminish a major part of his career. See http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=targ+remote+viewing&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp= Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Many of the observers discussing Targ as a remote viewing researcher note that he is also a laser researcher, so I don't see a problem. If you see a problem with UNDUE then perhaps the solution is to add more papers on remote viewing. Binksternet (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That would be my preferred solution, yes. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It does look a bit WP:UNDUE, but in the end we could always collapse it or something. Do we routinely list all of the papers by a scientist in areas outside the subject they are known for, especially when that subject is - ahem - controversial? Guy (Help!) 20:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The early laser work is pretty highly cited. The later work on lidar and windshear is minor and could be moved to references. Is there any source that considers his lidar and windshear work notable enough to report? If there is no secondary source does it belong in the article?
 * If we are going to include more works from the parapsychology genre, we should establish inclusion criteria. I suggest highly cited or discussed in the media. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Placing list of works added then removed so their due weight can be considered.

Just thought I'd move them here for comment/consideration... - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Where were all the dashes coming from? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The format of a bibliography/list of works for the subject of the article does not repeat the name of the subject for each item. If the subject is the sole author then no author is listed, if there are multiple authors the subject is represented in the list of authors by a dash. This list is not really accuarate at this point as Targ is listed as author1 for all the articles and he was not lead author for them all. See the list as it appears now, you will see Targ is indicated at third author on the first laser article etc. See WP:MOS. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Got it. I find the whole "Cite Something" style a bit confusing on the eyes, so I usually just stick something between ref tags and square brackets. Wouldn't work in a section.


 * As for whether to include them, I don't see a problem with it. If someone doesn't want to see them, nobody's forcing them to read that section. If someone wants the info, they have it. Undue weight is only really a problem when a section about something gets heavy with something else. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Before adding back or adding any more publications to the list they need to be found notable. Literally millions of papers are published each year, they don't all get listed in WP in the article on the author/coauthor. For inclusion in an encyclopedic article the publication must have some notability to establish it's WP:DUE weight. A research article in a highly prestigious journal, like Targ & Puthoff 1974 in Nature is notable, subsequent publication of a letter defending this 1794 paper from criticism is not really notable, it belongs in references but not in a list of journal articles (it's not even a journal article). Articles that have been discussed in scholarly works are notable, those that have recieved considerable attention in the media are notable. Articles that are discussed and cited in textbooks or major articles on a general topic and referred to as foundational, fundamental or important etc. are notable. Articles that are highly cited (by the standards of the field) are notable. Without meeting this kind of criteria articles don't belong in an encyclopic list of publications by the subject of an article.
 * WP:DUE applies to all content. If someone wants to find publications by Targ they can use search engines, like google, pub med and a dozen others. Or they can go to his website, a fan website etc. WP is an encyclopedia. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You can use google scholar to see how many times a publication has been cited in subsequent research (link). Some have been cited a lot; others, not so much.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Google Scholar isn't really that great for that purpose. What it considers citations goes well beyond subsequent research and the publications included go far into magazines and fringe. It's a decent starting point though, and a huge number on Google Scholar would indicate notability. Web of Science is taken seriously in the academic community as are a few other proprietary citation indexes. What constitutes highly cited varies pretty broadly by field so an expert opinion or some published opinion is useful. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Even with the questionability of Google Scholar I think 2 of the lidar papers could be considered highly cited. Both close to 100 cites on GS the citations listed are pretty much all actual journal articles in journals with some repute. Waiting to see what others think. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk inserted in article reverted
I reverted the addition of a comment purportedly by Targ. Talk does not belong in an article. Post the message here and the points made will be responded to. Might I suggest finding reliable independent secondary sources for material one seeks to include. - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I am having difficulty finding secondary sources that discuss his laser work. Targ claims he is a pioneer in the development of the laser but only fringe paranormal books seem to be mentioning this and they are unreliable; no scientific journals or papers etc seem to mention it. There are reliable sources describing him as a "laser physicist" but they do not go into detail, he has published some old papers on lasers but I do not know how important they were (why are they not discussed in secondary sources)?


 * I found this though in the New Scientist which might be useful for the article Goblin Face (talk) 18:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * And try this historical review: http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~phylabs/adv/ReprintsPDF/CO2%20Reprints/03%20-%20CO2%20Lasers.pdf. I've not read this through in detail (except to verify that the paper by Targ and Tiffany is in the reference list), but what appears on the Google search page is this:"Historical Review. Early in 1964, Patel et al. ... CO, laser transitions, the measurements of absorption and transmission spectroscopy, and ...... investigated recently by Targ and Tiffany(l59) who have measured the small-signal gain as well as ... ."In the light of this reference, I think we can conclude that Targ did not make up his claim, so it can be restored to the article. --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What appears on the Google search page is not a reference. If you want to include content and cite a reference, I suggest you actually read the reference that's in keeping with policy. The content inserted was talk a statement by Targ about his careers and Wikipedia's unfairness. That content does not belong in the article. As I have actually read the reference you have linked to I'll fill you in on a few details. First the mention of Targ is not in the section of the chapter entitled "Historical Review"' Second the book itself is not a historical review but a book on the subject of lasers published in 1971. I am quite sure the field has moved along in the following 43 years and there are up to date actual scholarly historical analyses of the subject. Third the mention of Targ consists entirely of nothing more than one sentence you quote and a footnote cite on an illustration. In 224 citations the chapter cites Targ 3 times the above mentioned article twice and another article he coauthored once. This in no way supports any claims of being a pioneer or leader in laser research. It does support, "In the 1960s Targ was coauthor of several journal articles on lasers." I will add that and the reference you have provided. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't say I understand this business about 'what appears in the Google page not being a reference', since what appears on the search page is an extract from the results of a search. More clarification needed. --Brian Josephson (talk) 19:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Pioneer = 'a person who is among the first to explore or settle a new country or area', that's all. Is there not good evidence for that? My guess is that there would be -- it would basically just a question of checking dates and seeing who worked when. Leader would be more difficult to establish and I would not press for that. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually to attempt a survey of the early publications on lasers and make an assessment of who researched what first is the very definition of original research. Isn't there a book or journal article listing "milestones in the development of lasers" or more precisely "pioneers in laser development" something in a book saying, "the early work on lasers..." or "the ground was laid by..." or even "many people contributed to the early development of lasers, including..." That sort of source is available for most subjects and most contributors of significance to the field are discussed in this type of work. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * WP guidelines do need to be interpreted intelligently rather than blindly, and nowhere is this more important than regard to 'original research'. Doing 'what any fule would do' in given circumstances cannot reasonably be characterised as OR. And 'any fule' would immediately, in the context of the question of whether X was a pioneer in field Y, ask when did field Y begin, and in what period was X working in the field. And as regards attributability of the relevant information, please bear in mind that WP does not insist that sources be included in an article; a _reasonable presumption_ that such sources exist is sufficient. In this case, a 'sensible fule' would know that a Google search should provide the discovery date, and a Google Scholar search publication details. Sundry caveats in WP:NOR support these comments.  --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * First see the core policy WP:Verifiability it is quite clear on WP:UNSOURCED content, particularly in BLPs. Next look at the flaws in your proposed original research. Let's say Y field started in the 1940s is every person who was listed as an author on an article in the 1940s a pioneer of Y. What about those whose contributions are flatly called insignificant by authorities in the field later? What about those whose contributions are found to be completely flawed later? A host of examples (failures, frauds etc.) could be provided to show how any fule could be easily mislead by embarking on simplistic and flawed original research. (I'm sure I could find some "discovery dates" and publication details of sheer and utter bullshit on a number of fields important, and abandoned, discredited or not quite real.) When any such fule's content on WP is challenged the WP:BURDEN falls upon said fule. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Recent edit warring
I am pretty convinced that is. He has attempted to remove the fact that remote viewing is a pseudoscience from the article. His problem might be that "pseudoscience" has been used in the lead. I am not disputing remote viewing being a pseudoscience because it clearly is but I am not sure if we should use that word right in the lead, it might be asking for trouble which is what the edit-warring has been about. Have a look at the Jessica Utts article for an example. I think we should state his involvement with remote viewing in the lead but indicate about it being a pseudoscience in the parapsychology section. Any thoughts on this? Goblin Face (talk) 21:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * For those who have read and understood the literature, remote viewing has clearly been investigated scientifically and is thus not a pseudoscience (regardless of whether or not it is considered proved, which is a different issue to the pseudoscience claim), and the pseudoscience assertion clearly should be removed. You seem not to think it of importance that Utts was elected president of the ASA by people who must have been aware of this side of her statistical activities and would not have done this had her analyses be considered flawed.  But then I don't expect w'pedia editors to give proper attention to points that actual scientist will accept, and fully expect you people to go on mouthing 'pseudoscience, pseudoscience!' till the end of time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian Josephson (talk • contribs)
 * Hogwash. It was investigated under an umbrella of science. It was found to be scientifically not supported. It was continued to be pushed under the a cover of sciency sounding "experiments" etc. hence it is the epitome of pseudoscience. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Found not to be unsupported? Where's your reliable source for that?  Have you read Utts' rebuttal of Hyman, if that's what you are referring to? --Brian Josephson (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ROFL Thats pretty hilarious, but i wouldnt give up your day job. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And you think you can judge whether experiments are science, or 'sciency'? What, may I ask, are your own scientific credentials for making such judgements? What awards have you received in recognition of your scientific skills? Why should we take anything you say seriously (a legitimate question, under the circumstances)? --Brian Josephson (talk) 22:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You might also consider the fact that persistently calling Targ's research pseudoscience might well be considered defamatory. I'll leave you to figure out the possible implications of that fact. --Brian Josephson (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You might also consider the fact that persistently calling Targ's research pseudoscience might well be considered defamatory. I'll leave you to figure out the possible implications of that fact. --Brian Josephson (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC) The fact is that you consider remote viewing pseudoscience. There are now hundreds of replications in the literature. People are reveiving PhD's for remote viewing research in England. Take it out of the lead. please. Russell Targ.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.68.105.17 (talk)

break

 * The problem is that an anonymous skeptical reviewer for Wikipedia who is passionate on the nonexistence of psychic abilities can erase my forty years of work in the field, comprising nine books and about fifty papers published in refereed journals. Wikipedia holds itself to be a factual encyclopedia, not a forum for passionately held beliefs. ESP is a controversial field, no doubt. But we were able to provide the CIA information that they found useful enough to keep us on their payroll for 23 years. Of course, they never took action on anything we said. We were just one asset, of many. The reason they kept us is that on many occasions we were able to provide "first intelligence" that led then to look in the right direction. "pseudoscience" is a screaming anonymous insult, when directed to a hundred-year-old field with hundreds of researchers. Russell Targ.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torgownik (talk • contribs) 00:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Its not my fault that 40 years of work merely resulted in substantiation that magic doesnt exist. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  09:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This talk-page is not a forum or a place to argue, please suggest references to improve the article. There are no scientific references that are supportive of remote viewing only pseudoscience publications. This is not the remote viewing article or the place to discuss remote viewing research. You can read about the pseudoscience of remote viewing on the main article. This is what Robert Todd Carroll has written regarding the work of Puthoff and Targ on parapsychology:




 * The Hansel and Marks references are used on the article but Randi's Flim-Flam may be of use here. Goblin Face (talk) 01:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The issue here is not the nonexistence of psychic abilities, it's the validity of your own work. Hindsight (always 20-20) shows the study of remote viewing to have been a trip down the rabbit hole. It's the 20th century equivalent of n-rays. That's what the sources show. There is no clear, reproducible, empirical evidence for the validity of remote viewing, there is substantial evidence that the research into remote viewing fell prey to confirmation bias and other errors. It's not clear what we are supposed to do about that: you plainly don't like it but we don't judge, we just tell it like it is. I am sure other websites adopt a more sympathetic viewpoint, but in matters of science (which the investigation of remote viewing intended to be), we go with the scientific consensus. We aim to be fair and accurate, but we're not going to wave away reality for you I'm afraid. Guy (Help!) 20:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I like the current version saying 'field' of remote viewing in the lead, in view of the way it accords much better with WP:NPV than does the alternative that has been there for quite some time which unconditionally presumes a specific position that future science may show to be misconceived (think Continental Drift, Semmelweis for analogous cases from the past), rather than being neutral in this regard. More compact, also. --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Putting "pseudoscience" in the lede like that seems a bit much, but to try to pass this off as a field is worse. I've trimmed it back. The explanation of remote viewing in the lede still seems a bit undue, but I realize we're trying to balance WP:N, WP:NPOV, and WP:FRINGE here. --Ronz (talk) 15:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 'Field' = 'a particular branch of study or sphere of activity or interest.' I can't see what the problem is with use of the term.  Characterising RV as a field is not making any statement about its quality, and does not detract from NPoV in the way that pseudoscience does. And the number of people working on RV seems to be enough for it to qualify as such.  --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It depends. If your research amounts to pathological science then you're not really doing research in the field of x (cold fusion, say) - you're doing work to bolster its mythology. Research into n-rays does not include the numerous reports by believers, because they did not actually test anything other than their own ability to believe. Guy (Help!) 09:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Improving the lede
I expanded the lede to give better context. Since Brian Josephson tidied up my typos instead of reverting, I think that's a sign this might be a way forward. An ideal lede has up to three paragraphs.

TRPoD added a sentence, "The claims made about the remote viewing have been dismissed and called fatally flawed." I think that's a bit blunt and lacks nuance. I changed it to: "Remote viewing is now regarded as pseudoscience, and Targ's work has been criticised for lack of rigour". Targ adds "by some" (regarded by some as pseudoscience) which is I think not going to fly, as the consensus is pretty clear, so I go with "generally regarded". Guy (Help!) 20:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * the "fatally flawed" comes straight from our article and straight from our sources United States National Research Council (NRC) concluded, "there should remain little doubt that the Targ-Puthoff studies are fatally flawed". and i would think "almost universally" would be more accurate, but i can live with "generally".-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, and we have that lower down, there's no need to put the boot in at every opportunity. Guy (Help!) 21:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with generally per my comment below (assert mainstream scientific consnensus). I do agree "fatally flawed" may overboard for lead "criticized for lack of rigor" is pretty encyclopedic and provides a summary. I believe the assertion that remote viewing is pseudoscience belongs in the lead as it summarizes and presents the mainstream scientific consensus as due. - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Details about SRI
Edits keep getting made to say Targ co-founded SRI, that's not what the source says. Kripal 2010, "this program was originally set up by Stanford alum Harold Puthoff", "After hearing Puthoff lecture...Targ...asked to join his research group." Edits keep getting made to say Targ and Puthoff conducted 20 (or some such number) years of research at SRI, that's not what the source says. Anderson 1984, "Targ, a laser physicist, left a psychic research center in California in 1982". Edits keep getting made that indicate SRI recieved 23 (or some such number) million dollars, no source says that. The sources we do have indicate that much may have been spent in total on defense department, CIA and other government research into applied psychics, not all of this was at SRI, other projects are identified in the sources so we can't say the program at SRI was funded with that number. The source we do have, Anderson 1984, says, "SRI which received $500,000 a year for 12 years from the defence department to conduct psychic research". '''Content must accurately reflect what is in the sources. Unsourced content must be removed and not replaced without supporting sources'''. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't know who's saying that, it hasn't been in any of the versions I've been looking at. How many instances are of these edits that "keep getting made"? Guy (Help!) 10:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * A few examples are recent as 12 May 2014:diff - Revision as of 23:47, 12 May 2014, diff - Revision as of 12:39, 10 May 2014, diff - Revision as of 14:15, 18 April 2014, diff - Revision as of 13:19, 10 April 2014. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Delphi Associates
Targ has formed with Keith Harary and Anthony White a company to investigate psychic claims known as Delphi Associates, I believe this should be included on the article. An article in the New Scientist mentions it here.

Another possible source which discusses this:

Source: Henry Gordon. (1988). Extrasensory Deception : ESP, Psychics, Shirley MacLaine, Ghosts, UFOs. Macmillan of Canada. Page 147. Goblin Face (talk) 17:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds OK to me. Guy (Help!) 19:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This sounds relevant to the subject. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

ANI discussion about this article, its subject, and his account.
I have started a discussion at ANI regarding the edit warring, meatpuppetry, and other disruptive behavior in this article. The thread is "Russell Targ needs to be blocked, or at least topic-banned". Ian.thomson (talk) 19:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Inconsistent spelling
In the section "Remote viewing", there's inconsistent spelling of cuing/cueing - it's not a major thing, but if there's a passing admin who feels like correcting it, that would be nice. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)