Talk:Russell Targ/Archive 3

Targ's father and petty bias
I just made two edits which illustrate and are meant to counter the sort of petty and inexcusable bias that some people have indulged in here. First, I restored the fact that William Targ had published The Godfather which was one of Putnam's most profitable purchases. Then, I had to tone down a statement sourced to CSICOP  that said "Targ was introduced to the paranormal by his father who had published the work of Erich von Däniken"  Now to appreciate how wrong this was, consider that CSICOP is a potentially quite biased source, yet even it didn't put it like that - because, after all, Targ's work has nothing at all to do with von Daniken, and as the CSICOP source pointed out, his father had had a paranormal section in his bookstore since he was practically a kid. I don't know if I went far enough here.

In short: please don't cut out everything about Targ's family bio that sounds respectable while harping in only on whatever you think will make him sound silly. Thank you. Wnt (talk) 07:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * How much detail about William Targ is appropriate for this article? William Targ has a WP article and a link is given. In general we don't go into much detail on the activities of the subjects parents. How is it relevant to Russell Targ that William Targ published The Godfather or that William Targ was 22 when he opened his bookstore? The information about how Russell Targ was influenced is what is relevant, the notability of William Targ's activities not so much. I agree with the changes in how the influence was paraphrased, if one wanted to go further Gardner's ideas of the influence might be attributed. If the reliability of the Gardner 2001 article in Skeptical Inquirer is challenged that's going to have to go to RSN. I would urge a focus on improving the article without attacks on editors. - - MrBill3 (talk) 12:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Wnt has done some good edits and I appreciate his work on this, but something else might be going on with him here. He's now writing that various sources are "biased", that various users are biased to Targ and in his commentary to Targ on his user page he has written "I think though that the tide is turning now". Would you like to explain your self Wnt? What tide is turning now? Anyway - even if we look at the source in the Skeptical Inquirer from Martin Gardner it said "Russell inherited his psi beliefs from his father, William Targ", "William Targ’s beliefs in the paranormal trickled down to his son Russell" and "At Putnam Targ was responsible for many best-sellers, including Erich von Däniken’s notorious Chariots of the Gods" - so the text that was in the article which said "Targ was introduced to the paranormal by his father who had published the work of Erich von Däniken" is entirely accurate. There is no "inexcusable bias". Goblin Face (talk) 13:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Whatever else may have 'trickled down', It is fairly safe to assume that approval of the ideas of Erich von Däniken was not among them. Unless there is confirmation of that from an RS, mentioning EvD is inappropriate.  And with your quotes, you appear in addition to be doing some OR, as well as some highly dubious WP:SYNTH. --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * actually, there is no need to assume at all Targ himself has said that Gardner's piece "makes a nice little introduction" to his autobiography specifically keeping the "weird beliefs are passed down in families" bit. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Since there are indications that you are unfamiliar with WP:SYNTH I'll quote from it here: do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the author(s) of that source. The text I was originally complaining about, Targ was introduced to the paranormal by his father who had published the work of Erich von Däniken, tends to imply the conclusion that Targ accepted the ideas of EvD, for which there is no evidence that I am aware of, and even if this were the case the text as written would violate WP:SYNTH.  Apologies for being a 'wikilawyer' here, but some attempt needs to be made to stop this becoming completely lawless territory. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC) And as regards that '... is entirely accurate': surely GF does not intend to stoop to that tabloid trick of writing something that is factually correct, but has built in implications that are very doubtful? --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Goblin Face that the prior content was entirely supported. I would also point out that the source is the ideas of Gardner albeit supported with relevant facts. A proposal (or even a bold edit) to change the phrasing is within reason. If the current phrasing has problems I suggest proposing alternatives.
 * I also find the use of the term "petty bias" and the statement, "the sort of petty and inexcusable bias that some people have indulged in here" problematic. This is not WP:CIVIL nor collaborative it is disruptive and verges on a personal attack. Comments should be constrained to improving content. That said pointing out perceived problems with following the neutral point of view and biographies of living people policies is appropriate, if done in a constructive manner (pointing to specific problems, providing sources etc.)
 * It is my opinion that every person has some bias, even a collection of absolutely true facts reflects the point of view of the gatherer of the collection. I don't think discussing Wnt's point of view is needed except as it motivates problematic editing or comments. So long as an editor's intent is improve WP their POV is not an issue (given they follow PAG).
 * Short version, content not editors is what we should be discussing. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Targ's father has a full page in Wikipedia, so there is no need to belabor on his background or accomplishments. I have removed that sentence and added a link to Putnam's page as well. Cwobeel (talk) 14:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm very glad to see MrBill3 saying an editor's PoV should not normally be an issue, a corollary of which is that CoI should not be brought up as often as it is. --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you are unaware of the long-term problem of COI editing of Wikipedia. The consensus among the community is pretty solid: conflicted edits are rarely neutral edits. Additionally, the backlash if someone is seen to add the kind of promotional and tendentious content Targ has added here, can be significant. This is usually only controversial in the minds of those who have been prevented from promoting themselves, their business interests or their pet ideas. Guy (Help!) 23:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Targ's personal commentary being cited in the lead
I am not too sure about Targ's comment on his website about Wikipedia being put in the lead. The reason I say this, is because most of what he has written is completely wrong about Wikipedia but it also contains a deliberate lie "Wikipedia should not characterize remote viewing as pseudoscience, when it is not characterized that way by the informed scientific community." - The problem here, is that it is characterized as a pseudoscience by the informed scientific community, and there are countless references that show this. It is misleading to readers by linking to Targ's inaccurate comments about Wikipedia or the scientific community. Goblin Face (talk) 16:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is not appropriate for the lead. Perhaps it should be in the body somewhere.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Feel free to follow WP:BRD. I think that it is appropriate, but we can discuss and reach consensus. Cwobeel (talk) 16:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Goblin Face and Nomoskedasticity, not appropriate for the lead, perhaps in the body. What is the intersection of BLP and DUE on this? Would we include the rejection of the characterization of a flat Earth ideas as nonsense in the bio of a flat Earth proponent? I think there is room for Targ's statements but not sure this is the best to choose. We have a series of discussions in Nature and published books that seem more weighty. - - MrBill3 (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed it. Find an independent source that considers it worth noting in a historical context as part of Targ's biography, then add it with due weight to an appropriate location in the article body. --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Do you have any idea how far off the reservation you are here? You're literally calling the subject a liar, not in some source's voice, but in your own!  You're insisting on presenting only one side of the story and muzzling the subject of the article in a statement which - at least here - is cited only to indicate that he disagrees with being called a pseudoscientist.  Most of the time, when some celebrity wants her topless photos or porn star history scrubbed from her article, I'm the person who believes in BLP policy the least.  But my yardstick doesn't change based on the article, and now I'm saying you're deeply in the wrong here. Wnt (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "literally calling the subject a liar" What? --Ronz (talk) 17:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It appears that the esteemed Professor Goblin Face, after carefully reviewing Targ's work, has given it a thumbs down, saying The reason I say this, is because most of what he has written is completely wrong about Wikipedia but it also contains a deliberate lie. That's the reason given for excluding his right to respond to the content posted here.  Now if there is anything more flagrantly wrong than Wikipedia editors picking through the sources saying "I agree with this one, but let's ditch that one because I disagree with it", it's doing that in a BLP, and if there's something more flagrant than that, it's doing it to the subject of the biography. Wnt (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I have not called Targ a "liar", I just said that one of his statements was a lie because he has been repeatedly shown scientific sources that describe remote viewing as a pseudoscience (James Alcock, David Marks, Martin Gardner, Terence Hines etc) yet in his anti-Wikipedia piece Targ wrote "Wikipedia should not characterize remote viewing as pseudoscience, when it is not characterized that way by the informed scientific community." (he gave no scientific references for this claim) But please look up the definition of a lie "an intentional untruth; a falsehood", it was not to attack Targ just point out what he wrote. It is a falsehood from Targ and I have no problem stating it, and no this is not original research or my personal opinion - what Targ has stated is in contradiction to the scientific sources. Goblin Face (talk) 17:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yah, and Bill Clinton did not have sex with that woman. Is there a barnstar for Wikilawyering? Wnt (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Goblin-face's remark was probably not the most constructive contribution to this discussion. Can we now please focus more directly on how to edit the article?  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, take away his rationale, and your rationale that allowing Targ's response creates a battleground (whereas reverting it doesn't...) and there is, of course, nothing left to prevent him from being heard. I always want to let the subject have his say in any biography.  Sometimes people want a subject's comments left out because in retrospect they seem embarrassing, and sometimes because they make a point that is inconvenient for someone's POV, but in every case, letting the subject be heard is just basic common decency, fairness, and above all, provides an entry for those looking to evaluate what is true for themselves rather than relying on some Wikipedia editor to make "the right" call. Wnt (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I said nothing about "battleground". I've suggested finding an appropriate place in the body for it -- a comment not incompatible with your goal.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I would be more than happy to move it to the body, provided of course that the entire sentence goes with it. We should not have pro-X and anti-X statements in two different places; that would be bad organization. Wnt (talk) 18:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it's not bad organisation; in this instance it's a matter of WP:WEIGHT. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * If Targ publishes in a peer-reviewed scientific paper (or at least a notable book) his opinion that the "informed" scientific community take remote viewing seriously and do not treat the subject as a pseudoscience then let him. Until that happens his SELFPUBLISH anti-Wikipedia comments on his ESP website will not do. I don't think they should be included anywhere on his article because other pseudoscience proponents and parapsychologists like Dean Radin and Rupert Sheldrake have also written negative comments about Wikipedia on their websites but they have not been cited on their Wikipedia articles as they are not reliable sources, so I do not see why Targ's comments should be included. Goblin Face (talk) 19:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:SELFPUBLISH, Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. -- so in this case, we have reliable third party sources naming him for his work on remote viewing, and he is a main proponent of that theory, so his self-published piece can be included and attributed. Cwobeel (talk) 21:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Huh? WP:SELFPUB and WP:BLPSPS give rather important caveats to what you're quoting. --Ronz (talk) 22:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Huh? Have you read these policies? per WP:BLPSPS, my highlight: Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject. Cwobeel (talk) 00:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Huh? Should a self-published AND minority if not, dare I say, fringe assertion be presented in the lede? WP:UNDUE? Juan Riley (talk) 00:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Pray tell, where would that lead? Juan Riley (talk) 00:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Answer:The lede has become drivel.Juan Riley (talk) 00:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The quote is most definitely a violation of WP:BLPSPS, as it is "unduly self-serving" --Ronz (talk) 00:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Lede temporarily WP:DE_DRIVELED. Thanks to User:Ronz. Juan Riley (talk) 00:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I understand where are you coming from, and respect that. But it is still my understanding that self-published sources written by the BLPs subject can be included. In this case, the subject is rejecting a characterization in a self-published page, which granted, it is a borderline case. So we may need to wait until a secondary source refers to that self-published piece, or a secondary source if found in which Targ defends his position to be able to include it. Cwobeel (talk) 03:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * i dont see any justification to include his presentation of blatant falsehoods. that is just making him look stupid. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  03:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The statement this SPS supports is merely that the designation as pseudoscience is a characterization which Targ rejects as "inaccurate and insulting". We can read what Targ wrote, see he said it is inaccurate and insulting, know he rejected it as inaccurate and insulting. It's not rocket science. And it also doesn't take a great mind to see that the objection to citing Targ's response is a matter of muzzling someone you disagree with. Wnt (talk) 05:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course he does. It would be remarkable if anybody prominently identified as a contributor to pseudoscientific inquiry, accepted the label. That doesn't mean we need to say this every time it's mentioned - it's a given. Guy (Help!) 06:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * JzG makes a good point above, but my concern is that the article in its current state can be considered to be more about a critique of Targ than a biography of Targ. For example, the Parapsychology section is 95% dedicated to a critique of Targ's methods than on the methods themselves. I added one short para providing context of what remote viewing is purported to be, but I think it is not enough. Just one point for my fellow editors here: I have no love at all for pseudoscience or for fringe theories such as these espoused by Targ. Just that we ought to make sure the article is balanced, this is a biography after all. Cwobeel (talk) 14:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The solution to the issues I raised above, could be to simply follow WP:SUMMARY and have two or three paras describing remote viewing and its reception by the scientific community, linking to the main article Remote viewing for details. This will make the article shorter and better balanced. I will follow WP:BRD again and see if it sticks. Cwobeel (talk) 14:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Good points. Let's see what you can come up with to clean up this mess. --Ronz (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hope it sticks. Cwobeel (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It needs, and should be mostly about, Targ's contributions and viewpoints, not just summarize Remote viewing. --Ronz (talk) 17:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * We really shouldn't cover all of remote viewing here, and it is indeed problematic for a BLP to dwell on a 1995 review of the value of a program that Targ left in 1982. You might justify it if you can show that the review specifically evaluated Targ's work, or argue that Targ supported the program after he left and this was a notable opponent of that view, but right now it's too far out on a limb. Wnt (talk) 21:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Not really, no., He started it, after all, and he was a major contributor to the work being criticised. This looks awfully like an attempt to whitewash the tranchant criticism of his rather credulus approach to the claims of purported clairvoyants. Guy (Help!) 23:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There are multiple sources that specifically discuss Targ & Puthoffs work. There was a back and forth in Nature there was a reprocessing of the same data for a paper/submission to Nature that is also discussed and evaluated. This is work that Targ was directly and heavily involved in, much of the discussion concerns Targ's methodology, (distinct from the topic of remote viewing are the practices of a researcher). Why on earth would the original response to Targ & Puthoff's Nature paper have been removed, Marks, D.; Kammann, R. (17 August 1978). "Information transmission in remote viewing experiments". Letters to Nature. Nature 274: 680–1. doi:10.1038/274680a0? This addresses the way the research was conducted and being published in Nature makes it highly notable and reliable commentary on the research and research practices of Targ. I have to agree that there appears to be a blatant attempt at whitewashing. Look above on this talk page and see the many references given that specifically discuss Targ. They were asked for and given, they support content specifically discussing the subject of this article not just the topic of remote viewing. Removed content and references should be restored. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Blavatsky, Theosophy, Occult Chemistry
The way I read the current text gave me the impression that Occult Chemistry was Targ's book, but he has nothing to do with it. I haven't accessed the Gardner source -- but is there really any direct endorsement by Targ of this book? At this point I want someone to quote here (no, not in the article; I just want to see it) what Gardner actually says to see if it's "remote"ly convincing as a BLP-grade source for this statement. The mention that his father published her book, sourced to a skeptic's rhetoric, seems extremely tenuous, a once-used-the-same-subway-stop level of relevance.

It is also worth mentioning that Targ's writings on remote viewing do not exclude precognition, so for someone to "remotely view" an atom does not imply the fairly absurd idea the present seems to suggest that they literally project their mind to see electrons circling a nucleus. Rather, it would simply be that they would recall seeing an illustration in a future publication that showed this structure. The tendency of multiple scientific groups working in different countries to come up with an idea simultaneously is well known, and while a skeptic can certainly assume that, as per the Lehrer song, the best scientists (in terms of announcing breakthroughs) have networks of contacts who pass them privileged information in time to plagiarize it, precognition is a valid alternative hypothesis.

It's not like there aren't legitimate ways to criticize Targ. I don't see why the anti-psi people here have to resort to repetition, showcasing criticism, deleting contrary opinion, and irrelevancies to get their point across. Meanwhile, this low road to their goal means that they've missed serious opportunities for criticism, such as the commissions Delphi Associates received. Wnt (talk) 18:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Targ may well be interested in Theosophy, but I'm not aware of his having made any public endorsement of it. This mention of his father's publishing the Godfather and EvD may well be appropriate for an article about his father, but it does seem odd including it in Targ's own biography as there is no sourced connection.  However, mention of his father's position as editor-in-chief to establish his status is reasonable.  Hence I suggest the paragraph be abbreviated and tidied up thus: Targ was introduced to the paranormal by his father, William Targ, who was was editor-in-chief of G.P. Putnam's from 1964 until his retirement in 1972.[7] --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

What are Targ's main contributions on the subject of remote viewing?
I went ahead and reverted, as the section had hardly anything about Targ left.

So what are Targ's contributions? --Ronz (talk) 20:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't follow your logic, and it was unnecessary to revert. The content there is not about Targ's work, but about a critique of Targ's work. That violates WP:UNDUE, and WP:BLP. Best approach would be to revert back and then put some effort in reading the sources available (there are aplenty) to summarize his work, or better help me summarize Remote viewing, adding more content that may be suitable in that context Cwobeel (talk) 21:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My concern was that the section was more about remove viewing in general than Targ's contributions. I thought that starting this discussion would focus us better.
 * The second attempt is much improved. Given how strongly Targ is linked to remote viewing, I see how it's difficult to separate the two. --Ronz (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * He coined the term, did much to promote the idea of it as a legitimate field of inquiry, contributed significantly to the cottage industry in books and papers claiming it to be real leading up to and after the termination of the project, and since then has been one of the handful of people identified in every single treatment of the subject I have ever seen. Yes, it's kind of difficult to separate them. Guy (Help!) 22:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * So we have:
 * Coining the term
 * Early research published in respectable journals
 * CIA funding (which led to further government interest)
 * Remote viewing of atoms (Why?)
 * We no longer have:
 * Criticism of the research (Why not?)
 * We don't have:
 * Mention of Mind Reach as covered in the Gale Encyclopedia article
 * Why the wholesale removal of the criticism of his research? --Ronz (talk) 22:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Lot's of the criticism has just been deleted off the article, the reason was because apparently there was too much. But it is very important to mention David Marks and that he tried to replicate Targ's experiments into remote viewing but discovered they contained sensory cues, this is entirely notable and relevant (other writers just use Marks as a source) Marks was the one who literally debunked Targ. He published a rebuttal to Targ's original remote viewing experiments in the nature journal, and covers it all in his book The Psychology of the Psychic (two editions, 1980 and 2000) in three chapters. Goblin Face (talk) 00:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The removal was based on WP:SUMMARY, as we have a full article on Remote viewing that contains all the criticism and the reception by the scientific community. So, the idea is to summarize that article as much as possible and highlight the main points. Agree with Ronz that we should add the "Mind reach" andand other bits that are worth mentioning on Targ's work that are not included in remote viewing. The remote viewing of atoms is there on the note about Madame Blavatsky. Cwobeel (talk) 00:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Completely removing extremely prominent viewpoints on Targ and his work would be a POV violation. --Ronz (talk) 01:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it is not a POV violation, and you can go easy on the wiki-lawyering. This is a biography, and a BLP, and as such we can and should include notable criticis but not at the expense of WP:UNDUE, and that can't be the only thing we put in the article... As we have an entire article on Remote viewing that contains substatial criticism, we ought to summarize that article here, per WP:SUMMARY. So here is what we have to do: summarize the critique of Targ's work in a couple of paragraphs. Give it a go. Cwobeel (talk) 02:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * there is absolutely no "must" that the reviews of a life's worth of work "must" be summed up in two paragraphs. That's ludicrous. As long as we have sources that are covering different aspects of his work we have enough room and pixels to cover them all, however many paragraphs or sections it takes. The burden is on you to establish that the coverage is redundant or trivial. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  03:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The content which was a discussion of Targ's work in published reliable sources should be restored. This article is about Targ and his work discussion of his work should be complete per NPOV, "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". If this article discusses the topic of Targ's work the published views need to be presented proportionately as due. Just because there is overlap with another article does not mean the topic discussed in this article should not be adequately presented. There is a distinct topic (Targ's work) that has been discussed in multiple sources as discussion of his work, not just as discussion of the topic or remote viewing. There are clearly two different topics, remote viewing as a whole and Russell Targ's parapsychological research. Removed content should be restored, it was well sourced, references that specifically discuss Targ and his work should never have been removed. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree, I believe those references should all be restored as well but until we can come to a consensus on this we should look at solving the other sections of the article, mass material needs to be added in about Targ and Geller (I collected all the sources above). On a side note Targ has been insulting Wikipedia users on his userpage as "trolls", asking "what alternate universe are they living in?" and he wrote regarding remote viewing "Within a decade modern physics will figure out how it works, and then you will all go away, back into your mother's basement.", . All edits should be per policy not trying to please Targ. Goblin Face (talk) 07:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Prominent viewpoints should be given due weight in this article. I didn't expect we'd have to discuss the basics of what NPOV means and I hope we won't again. Doesn't this article fall within Arbcom enforcement? --Ronz (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

None of you are responding to my argument, which is that we have an entire article on Remote viewing, so it is incumbent upon us to summarize the article here rather than duplicate it. So, I have made an attempt to do just that in the "Reception" section, to which I invite you to contribute to. Just let's not make this article Criticism of Russel Targ, as that would be a violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP Cwobeel (talk) 20:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My response was and still is that this article is about Targ and that we must include prominent viewpoints about Targ in this article. I think that others' responses were similar.
 * If Targ were mostly known for the criticisms about him, then the criticisms should dominate this article.
 * As for Arbcom, WP:ARBPS and WP:ARBFS apply. --Ronz (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I checked these two ArbCom cases and I don't see anything there that applies. Care to enlighten me? As for your other argument, sure WP:NPOV applies, but WP:BLP takes precedence. We need a balanced article and we can't just have criticism. And finally, you are not responding to my argument above, and spewing WP shortcuts is not the way to argue your case. Cwobeel (talk) 22:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You said this article is about Targ and that we must include prominent viewpoints about Targ in this article... But most, if not all criticism is not about Targ, but about his work. And the work by which he is notable is this nonsense of "remote viewing", which is fully covered in Remote viewing. Get it? Cwobeel (talk) 22:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I like CwoBeel's reasoning for and implementation of a summary only of RV in this article. As he notes, the details on RV are already given in Remote viewing. And I think the main stream scientific criticism does comes through in his summary. Now of course there is less verbiage to argue over. At least in this article. :} Juan Riley (talk) 22:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC) Afternote: there be other issues that I don't follow CwoBeel on. Juan Riley (talk) 22:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "We need a balanced article and we can't just have criticism." We'll have whatever the sources indicate we should have. Is that unclear, or is someone saying we "balance" articles regardless of the sources?
 * ARBPS addresses issues of pseudoscience, ARBFS with fringe science. Since we have mention of pseudoscience in the lede, I don't know how anyone would think they don't apply. --Ronz (talk) 01:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * On those points I agree with you Ronz. I think CwoBeel was making an aside point of just summarizing RV on this article since RV has a page of its own. Believe me I agree with you (for all that that matters) on the issue that fringe POV's are not to be given UNDUE weight...regardless of BLP. Juan Riley (talk) 01:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ronz: I don;t know what you are saying. The ArbCom cases have no applicable sanctions to any of the involved editors here, and no discretionary sanctions, so I don't see the point of bringing these up. And again, once more 'you are not responding to my argument about WP:SUMMARY, so please do so. It will help finding a way forward on how to improve this article. One thing is clear to me: You can't have a BLP in which the majority of the article is a criticism. Cwobeel (talk) 02:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "You can't have a BLP in which the majority of the article is a criticism." No matter what the sources say? --Ronz (talk) 14:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, I responded directly to your argument. Multiple sources discuss Targ's work, with detailed discussions on problems of methodology and theoretical basis. As I pointed out this is distinct from the topic of Targ's research, it deals with the research itself. While a summarized discussion of the general topic of remote viewing is appropriate, a more detailed discussion of Targ's work is precisely what distinguishes this article. Do you see the two different topics? One is remote viewing as seen by the scientific mainstream, the other is Targ as a researcher, his focus, methodology, theories and the interpretation and analysis of this work by reliable sources. Also separating out reception is not appropriate per fringe. Where fringe ideas are presented the mainstream scientific consensus should be presented at the same point as due. Also per due, discussion of Targ as a researcher/theorist should proportionately reflect the published sources as due. Any article should be proportionally present what has been published on the topic, balance is per due, NPOV means representing what the reliable sources say. - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems Cwobeel disagrees, but that would be clarified if my question was answered: Are BLP articles not allowed if they are mostly criticism, no matter what the sources say? --Ronz (talk) 19:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course criticism should be included, but the article should be balanced. That is all I am arguing for. Granted, many editors here (I just checked your contrib history) are in the skeptics camp, which is fine with me, but folks, this is a BLP and we can't have an article that describes the criticism of Targ's work without describing Targ's work, can't we? Cwobeel (talk) 21:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You haven't answered the question. You don't have to, but it undermines your interpretations of NPOV and BLP, especially when you try to label other editors in the process. That is what you're doing, labeling me as a skeptic? If so, please withdraw it. --Ronz (talk) 21:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, did not intend to ruffle any feathers. Refactored. Cwobeel (talk) 23:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The cornerstone of BLP is NPOV. "This page in a nutshell: Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research." And a cornerstone of NPOV is appropriately presenting the mainstream academic view(s) of the subject. Failing to represent Targ and the reception his work has received in the academic community would be to fail BLP. Creating a false balance would be to fail BLP. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:32, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Mind Race Controversy
This has been hard to find references for but it turns out in his book Mind Race, Targ wrote something libelous about the science writer Martin Gardner which has been referred to as "slander". The libelous content was also quoted in the Fate magazine (July 84) under the heading "Quote of the Month". After Gardner threatened legal action and complained - Villard Books apologized and removed the entire section from all later printings of the book. Fate magazine also apologized to Gardner. The source for this appears to be an old issue of the Skeptical Inquirer by Ray Hyman. I believe this was later re-printed in an article Outracing the Evidence: The Muddled "Mind Race" and re-published in the book Science Confronts the Paranormal edited by Kendrick Frazier. Unfortunately I used to have this book but sold it, I no longer have access to this book, only clippings are available for this source on Google books. If anyone does have full access, confirmation please needed here and I think this is a notable event that should be inserted into the article. Goblin Face (talk) 01:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Delphi description
I trimmed back the description to the two sources. Using the label of "psychic" on an individual and their services seems a bit much given it wasn't used in this manner in either of the sources and given WP:FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 15:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Parapsychology section and guilt by association
There is this sentence in the parapsychology section that raises my eyebrows:


 * "Targ and Puthoff stated that their studies of Geller at the SRI demonstrated that Geller had genuine psychic powers, though flaws were found with the controls in the experiments and Geller was caught using sleight of hand on many other occasions."

Putting aside my skepticism of a skeptical (i.e. blatantly biased) publisher like Prometheus Books, I question what relevence there is to mention Geller's sleight of hand here. If Geller cheated during Targ and Puthoff's experiments then provide a citation from a reliable source which can demonstrate this. It's irrelevant to mention alleged sleight of hand here unless it was proven to have occurred in the lab. Mark Turner (talk)     20:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I have documented the sources on the talk-page already (see above for some links in the Geller section), but I agree the Geller stuff does need to be expanded becuase what is on there at the moment is too vague. I will be working on it at some point and would very much like some help on this. Goblin Face (talk) 20:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Fantastic. I look forward to assisting you. Cheers. Mark Turner (talk)     22:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Fantastic. I look forward to objecting (politely and on talk pages) to every attempt to introduce pseudoscience into WikiPedia.Juan Riley (talk) 22:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Awesome. We'll continue the discussion there. Cheers. Mark Turner (talk)     23:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi there. How's the Geller revision coming? I would once again like to express my concern about the above statement as what Geller did/does outside of Targ's experiments has no relevance in an article supposedly about Targ. Cheers. Mark Turner (talk)     15:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Jessica Utts quote that Targ added
The following (unsourced) content from Targ that he added to the article has been correctly removed:

"Jessica Utts, president of the American Statistical Association wrote in her part of the same report: “Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well established. The statistical results of the studies examined are far beyond what is expected by chance." 

Jessica Utts is a parapsychologist, and believer in psychic phenomena, her fringe claims on remote viewing do not represent the mainstream scientific consensus on this subject. As the Utts article says: "A report by Utts claimed the results were evidence of psychic functioning, however Hyman in his report argued Utts' conclusion that ESP had been proven to exist, especially precognition, was premature and the findings had not been independently replicated. According to Hyman "the overwhelming amount of data generated by the viewers is vague, general, and way off target. The few apparent hits are just what we would expect if nothing other than reasonable guessing and subjective validation are operating." Goblin Face (talk) 20:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Just a quickie..but I cannot confirm that Jessica Utts was ever "president of the American Statistical Association". See President_of_the_American_Statistical_Association. Juan Riley (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * She is not the president (yet), according to this she will be from January 1, 2016 . It's more of an argument from authority why Targ keep's mentioning this. It does not matter who she is what she has said, her endorsement of remote viewing and other psychic claims does not represent the mainstream scientific consensus on this topic and there is no positive repeatable data for Targ's psychic remote viewing experiments. If there was they would be all around the world in the top science journals but no such thing has happened. Note that most of Utts papers on this stuff are in parapsychology, not science journals. Goblin Face (talk) 21:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Nice work. Juan Riley (talk) 22:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * In his official report to the govt., reproduced at http://www.mceagle.com/remote-viewing/refs/science/air/hyman.html, Hyman says"I will grant them that they have apparently demonstrated that the SAIC and the ganzfeld experiments have generated significant effect sizes beyond what we should expect from chance variations. I will further admit that, at this writing, I cannot suggest obvious methodological flaws to account for these significant effects."That seems pretty clear. He tries to conjure up problems later in the review, but none of the issues he dreams up (there or in his CSICOP magazine article) provide ways whereby a positive result could be produced (unless he is hinting that the project director faked the outcome) .  For example, coaching the viewers cannot help them do better than chance if there is no psi; all it can do is to help them produce clearer data.  Regrettably one has to conclude that Hyman's belief system made him grasp at inconsequential straws.  In any event, quoting Hyman in the article while not referencing Utts at all is blatantly pushing a PoV. --Brian Josephson (talk)

Is a list of Targ's laser publications in bibliographic format appropriate
This is a new section hopefully for concise, focused, policy based discussion of this question. The issue hinges on WP:DUE. Given the size of the article is a bibliographic list of Targ's laser publications due or undue? I tend to think not but considerations include this article which supports some notability and the possible notability of co-authoring a paper on lasers in 1962 with Gould (one of two with a claim to inventing the laser at around that time). If consensus to include these papers is reached, how should the bibliography (all publications listed) be structured?

My current opinion is no, a list of laser publications is not due. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This would depend on establishing the significance of his role. It's not uncommon for grad students to be listed as co-authors if they have done the experimental work, even though their contribution to the intellectual heavy lifting may be minimal. If there is a claim that Targ played a significant role in the development of the laser, rather than simply working in a lab or group where this work was done, then we'd need a proper history of early laser research to back it. I don't have access to the best bibliographic search tools, but I can't find a book on the history of lasers (rather than a collection of laser papers) that even mentions Targ. That would seem to be a necessary first step. Guy (Help!) 10:10, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Brian Josephson has provided on source (linked above) that provides one brief mention (less than a full sentence) but does describe Targ as one of two authors of a paper demonstrating an aspect of mode locking. I am hoping that better sources are forthcoming (like a book on the history of lasers or an article in a journal on the development of lasers or even an article on lasers that places Targ's work in context of the development of lasers). There is no support for his work (often lead author BTW) in lidar other than citation numbers. Until sources that state Targ's work in lasers was a significant contribution to the field are provided, his laser articles do not belong in the WP article as a bibliographic list much less as a main level section. They are not discussed in proportion to his papers on parapsychology in reliable sources. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You're confusing the level of proof needed to have these papers in mode locking with the level of proof required to have them here. They are very relevant to Russell Targ; they're also relevant to mode locking but have more competition there. Wnt (talk) 07:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not confusing anything. The question is are these papers discussed by secondary sources enough to give them due weight in this article. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

A wee bit on my edits on the Laser etc research section
This is in case there are issues with my edits in this section. Note that I am a WP newbie so I am giving my reasons NOT arguing yet for them. First and foremost, though Targ's optical research credentials are sound, I would not think they are sufficiently notable for a WP article on him. I don't think there is any contention other than that his WP notability is due to his parapsychology work. Thus I attempted to keep this section as short as it was when I first read it. Generally I compacted what I originally found in this section to keep it short--certainly modifying word choice, removing an as yet unverified reference, finding and adding a reference to a paper Targ co-authored that was explicitly related to one of the noted areas of research (mode-locking), finding and inserting an external link for one of the given references,etc.... I also made all references in this section inline ones in order to eliminate a later laser research category in a bibliography section--thus leaving this bibliography relevant to his WP notable parapsychology works.

With a few possible exceptions I do not believe I substantially added to or removed from the section any content. One such possible exception (or maybe two) is that I removed two claims of "firsts". There were no verifiable references that I could find which supported these claims. It is possible that someone can come up with such a reference. An alternative is we can let the "firsts" go back in with 's or the like. Juan Riley (talk) 21:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I thought previous discussion concluded that his laser research was pretty notable. I've not actually looked into your edits, but it sounds as if they should be reverted.  In fact physicists would probably be more familiar with his laser work than anything else. I see answers.com claims 'He received two National Aeronautics and Space Administration awards for inventions and contributions in lasers and laser communications.'  Assuming this is correct, that would seem to confirm his notability. http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2013/02/RIR-130203.php says the same.  Can these people all be making it up? And I think it was pointed out that one of his papers on laser has been cited many times.  And here it is said in an article by the President of Saybrook University: http://www.saybrook.edu/forum/univ/mark-schulman-defending-science-against-futurists-and-marketing-gurus-ted  Please go and revert! --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Juan, Obviously I read more into your comment than was justified; you have not been doing any large-scale deletion as practised by certain editors. I'm not sure that the claims of 'first' should be that contentious.  I haven't the time to look into the details, but I should imagine the appropriate procedure would be to restore the 'first' and include the reference where the work cited was published.  In the absence of any previous publication of work on the same subject (which should show up in a Google Scholar search) it would be reasonable to include the 'first' which you removed (though I have to admit that the cabal is famed for not allowing reasonable material to be included). However, in the circumstances and absence of good justification I would tend to regard the removal of 'first' as going in the direction of tendentious editing. --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it is disingenuous to claim that anybody would probably be more aware of his laser work than anything else, especially in the absence of any reliable independent secondary source to that effect. It is beyond any shadow of doubt that he is best known for his promotion of remote viewing, and virtually unknown for anything else. If he is still known in the laser community, it is a side-note in the career of a man who is, according to every single reliable independent source I have seen, known almost exclusively for something else. Guy (Help!) 22:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * @User:Brian Josephson I did not mean to start a contentious issue. My argument on notability was purely to point out why I did not think enlarging the physics research section was appropriate as the WP notability was his parapsychology research. I am definitely NOT denigrating Targ's laser/electro-optics professional credentials. I did not cut anything out of this section except the "first" clams as I said above. Note: the type of organization (e.g., NASA) awards you refer to are perhaps resume notable but not WP notable. Juan Riley (talk) 22:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This deserves a Wikilawyering medal. Having spent a week arguing that all sources about the paranormal are "fringe", even when Targ talks about his own frame of mind, now you tell us that the sources about the science must also be underweighted.  It seems like there's no room for anything, science or parapsychology, that might in any way distract or dilute the damnatio memoriae.  But all the fancy PR spin in the world doesn't change the fact that Targ was at the center of a serious program run straight out of Fort Meade with SRI and SAIC and CIA and NSA and all the heavy hitters that do mass surveillance on the Internet involved, and that's no joke and not something to simply be dismissed without examination. Wnt (talk) 03:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Can Guy produce a reliable source to support the assertion (implied by his comment above) that not a single person is more aware of Targ's laser work than anything else of his? What about people working on lasers at the time? You can not be serious! --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

@Brian Josephson: Thank you for your attention to this matter. As I should have said more clearly in starting this section: It is my thinking that although the WP notability of the Targ article is not based on his physics research, documentation summarizing his scientific physical research is important to the article as a whole. So important that it should be concise and be unquestionably referenced in order to avoid the donnybrooks that have, are, and will erupt over Targ's more controversial parapsychology work. You have to admit that I brought up my removing the claims of "firsts". Such claims almost always invite controversy--unless backed up with a definitive secondary reference or a widely accepted research community consensus. As I noted, I wouldn't be completely averse to putting them back in...but with 's which will be dated and, failing someone coming up with a reference, the firsts would again be removed sometime in the future. I would like the decision to involve more than just you and I.
 * PS I am guessing that User:Guy is sorry for his exaggeration.
 * @User:Wnt I suggest you actually review the edits and associated references whereof you are speaking. Juan Riley (talk) 17:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, Juan! You might find it interesting to look at the section Criteria for inclusion on list of works (right near the top of this page, item 4).  You will see that once upon a time your very sensible suggestion regarding references was indeed implemented, but these references were soon removed with some paltry excuse. That is the unfortunate way this 'encyclopedia that anyone can edit' works in practice. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Yes...some embarrassingly misguided remarks there. I should of course have reviewed the talk page from top to bottom before entering this fray--my bad. Though I am no fan of parapsychology (to put it mildly) there seems to have been (to this WP novice) NPOV violations where there should not have been have been no controversy: Targ's physics research credentials. On this we agree. Juan Riley (talk) 18:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I have to give folks here credit --- the POV here is concealed with an excellent knowledge of Wiki editing and a remarkable degree of strategy and regimentation. To a first and even a second glance you make it look like it's a law of nature that Targ is credited only with parapsychology publications in a highly visible section, because after all, the others are cited somewhere.  True, with effort one can find the cites back from the references from things like "Targ & Puthoff 1977" to the parapsych works also ... but it is easy to miss that.


 * Nonetheless, this is just another way too fancy way of imposing POV on an article. What that POV is, what your goals really are, I should recognize is entirely unknown to me, beyond the obvious that as usual it seems to misrepresent Targ. Wnt (talk) 00:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * First - Content not editors, ascribing motivations to other editors is not only off topic but is a form of personal attack. Second per due what is the notability of the papers in the "Publications on lasers" section? Per due the representation of content is proportional based on what secondary reliable sources publish. I think some of Targ's work in lasers is notable based on citation numbers. What is the support for the notability of this work in secondary sources? Some secondary sources were proposed but full citations were never given for verification. I think someone with some knowledge of the field could contribute such support. It seems some of Targ's work was foundational to lasers. Some of his lidar work may achieve notability as mentioned by being highly cited. In regards to the appropriate prominence of Targ's publications in parapsychology there is clear support for that work to be highly prominent. It is discussed extensively in multiple sources per NPOV what secondary sources publish should be presented proportionately. What is Targ known for in secondary sources? What does the published ink devote time and space to when discussing Targ? Gould provides a good contrast, if you read up on Gould you will find multiple sources discussing his contributions to laser research. NPOV and balance are based on published reliable sources. How many books discuss Targ's work on lasers? I think the secondary sources are clear about what Targ is known for and about what publications are notable.
 * Goblin Face's movement of most of the laser papers to the references section is appropriate and should be redone, until secondary sources discussing Targ's laser research are presented. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This is absurd. Targ's publications belong in a separate section because they're Targ's publications.  You are arguing that Targ's parapsychology works are more widely referenced --- more mainstream, less fringe --- than his contributions to physics.  This is skewed all the way to the far end of the world from how every other parapsychology source has been treated by the (apparent) skeptics in this and the related articles, as being not even worth mentioning because they offend editors' notions of what is right. Wnt (talk) 08:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, for the benefit of editors who have problems with Wnt's wording as per MrBill3's complaint, in the second sentence of the relevant paragraph Wnt (if he feels this appropriate) can strike though everything except 'As usual it seems to misrepresent Targ' (the first sentence can remain). Re PoV, laser research is regular physics and it seems to me that for some reason criteria are being applied here that are not normally applied in articles about physics.  Re references, they should be linked to the article in appropriate ways (perhaps new text needs to be added), not relegated to the end.  And as for 'Some secondary sources were proposed but full citations were never given for verification', I suggest the problematic sources be listed here so full citations can be given. --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have to prove anything: you made a claim: "In fact physicists would probably be more familiar with his laser work than anything else". You have now struck that, I see, but it was to that comment I was responding. I do not think it very likely that more than a handful of physicists would be more aware of his early laser work than his later and massively more public involvement with the pseudoscience of remote viewing. Nobody has made a movie satirising early laser research, and there's a reason for that. The issue here is one of undue weight. It is fair to cite some of his laser work, it is not fair, appropriate or acceptable to snowstorm the article with these references in order to try to draw attention away from the fact that he is primarily known for the batshit craziness of Stargate. Accuracy and fairness do not mean we have to stray into the territory of apologia or hagiography. Targ is mainly known as a crank, and that's pretty much what we're always going to say, unless and until the real world changes in some meaningful way (which is unlikely on present evidence). Read the article on Prosper-René Blondlot. We do not spend much of that article talking about his obscure early work, we talk about the thing for which he is known: the canonical example of pathological science that is n-rays. That is what defines his reputation, in the same way that remote viewing defines Targ's reputation. It may indeed be unfair, but the unfairness is outside Wikipedia and only is it not our job to fix it, our policies also basically forbid us from even trying to fix it. Guy (Help!) 08:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I struck out the comment as a whole as it was based on a misconception, but still maintain that in total physicists would probably be more familiar with his laser work than anything else (though the majority of scientists would probably not have heard of him anyway since his contributions were a long time ago and probably mainly only known to people in the field anyway). I could probably prove this by conducting a survey, but don't plan to waste time on this even though I would be depriving myself of the satisfaction of proving you wrong as a result. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * citation needed. His work on Stargate is very well known and is discussed in books which are still widely read; Stargate itself has been the subject of a major Hollywood film. His work on lasers may have been significant in the day but I think it unlikely that current practitioners even in this specific field will be on nodding terms with papers that old. As far as I can tell, his crank papers are more widely and more currently cited than his laser papers, the citations of which are few and far between in recent decades. So, physicists are quite likely, on the face of it, to be entirely unaware of his laser work and while laser physicists might be aware of it, they are clearly not mentioning it every week. I do know a decent number of physicists who are well aware of his crank publications, but of course this sample will be skewed by the fact that I hang out with skeptics more than with laser physicists. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was going to mention that the fact that you hang out with sceptics would rather skew your statistics. If Targ had been targeted by Richard Wiseman that would have made his link with RV quite well known in these parts, but RV seems not to be within the field of his radar. --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Apparently my point was not understood. It is a simple issue of WP:DUE. I was discussing notability not level of acceptance/fringe status. If reliable sources do not discuss Targ's papers on laser research they don't belong as content. If reliable sources discuss Targ as a laser physicist and cite his papers they might warrant inclusion as content in proportion to the reliable sources that discuss Targ as a parapsychology researcher. WP does not list non notable publications in bulk to whitewash what reliable sources discuss extensively. In response to Brian Josephson, the sources were posted here. I added the content that was claimed by the poster for them with the sources as provided with full citation needed tags (check some earlier versions of the article. As full citations were not provided verification was impossible. There was discussion here of whether they would be reliable sources for the content given the types of sources they were. With no full citation no assessment of the sources and no verification was possible so another editor properly removed them. If I get a chance I will look through some older versions of the article and post a link of a version in which they appear. If a case is being made for Targ's laser research being notable, adequate sources should be rather easily available, that's what notability is. - - MrBill3 (talk) 12:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * This entire issue can be solved very easily. It's been nearly a month now since I asked Targ to provide independent reliable secondary sources that discuss his laser work. Absolutely nothing was given by him. I take it that no physics textbooks discuss Targ's laser work. It's a month later nearly and still nothing given. What we have is a laser section on Targ's article sourced to basically his own publications. This is against Wikipedia policy. We don't get other physicists on Wikipedia where this is happening. Let's be honest the only reason the laser section was added is because Targ has complained. I will make this easy - find reliable sources in the next 4 days (I believe this is fair amount of time) that discuss Targ's laser work if not I am removing all those primary sources. Now Brian Josephson or Wnt think carefully before you reply, don't spout your usual rants about "bias" "skeptic's" or "POV", if you want to improve this article go and look for reliable secondary sources that discuss Targ's laser work, and please either mention them here or add them in the article. Goblin Face (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Primary sources are OK per WP:ABOUTSELF providing these are not unduly self-serving. I checked these primary sources and IMO these sources are acceptable and well within the policy constraints. Cwobeel (talk) 15:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Did a quick check in Google Scholar and there seems to be a substantial number of works citing Targ's work on lasers, which would satisfy the need for secondary sources. For example:. Google Scholar search: Cwobeel (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Primary sources give us no information on what weight if any should be given to topics.
 * It will be difficult to determine if any weight is due just from citations in other research. If there are no secondary sources summarizing his research in any detail, we can't have a strong case for trying to do so ourselves. From that perspective, the listing of his laser publications seems grossly undue and should be removed. --Ronz (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I respect your opinion, but the relevant WP policies are not in favor of it. Cwobeel (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Searching for "r targ" laser review comes up with several likely looking papers - does anyone have IEEE access right now to get the details? Wnt (talk) 17:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This review paper gives you an IEEE paper with no need for privileged access, and looks like a good secondary source. It shows how work by Targ fits into the general scheme of things in regard to mode-locked lasers.  I may have access to IEEE papers if you can list other likely possibilities. --Brian Josephson (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I seem to have lost track of what is explicitly being proposed by either side in this debate on the physics research section. Let me shorten the question: who is happy (save me) with the concise section as currently in the article (or with minor edits)? Who wants no treatment of this in the article and why? Who thinks it should be enlarged and why?
 * I'll give my reasons again for why I (WP novice, professional physicist) think something like the current section should be there: (a)Targ is stated to be a physicist and parapsychologist in the lead and this section documents the former. (b) However, his WP notability is in my opinion solely due to his parapsychology work and thus the physics section should be kept brief. (c) Because the taint of pseudoscience will of necessity be explicit or implicit in the article, I think it is important to document that Targ had a contrasting sound productive research career within mainstream science--no matter how much I (or you) might disdain parapsychology. His physics research is not not not WP notable. It should be summarized and documented because it stands in contrast to his notable parapsychology work. The surviving references used in the section are indeed primary; however, they are not there to support WP:notability of his physics credentials. They are there to document a main stream science career. Moreover, they are all from very reputable publications and all save one of them are refereed journals. I eliminated any reference from this section that I could not get at least an abstract for on the net. Juan Riley (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * My bad...I only just saw that someone had removed the inline references and re-inserted a physics work bibliography. This I do not agree with. Juan Riley (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I am going to go have a beer and take a deep breath and only blame myself for thinking that there is anything like a reasonable consensus achievable here. We have in my opinion agenda driven irrational arguments from some on one side and pontifical ill-informed edit actions by some on the other side. Figure out yourself who you are.Juan Riley (talk) 20:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Also I think we have the wrong order of sections now (or at least we did when I looked last). Cwobeel seems to think that the 'most prominent work' should be listed first.  I suggest that that is OK for the lead, but when describing someone's career in detail the norm is I believe chronological order.  It is a bit difficult to find a good example because earlier work if less important tends not to be detailed.  I did however find a good example in the page relating to Raymond Davis Jr. where the career section says things about his work prior to his most famous work, all in chronological order.  There's little in the way of lead in this article but I should imagine that if it had more detail it would have highlit the work on neutrinos first of all. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I have re ordered back to the chronological representation. Cwobeel (talk) 21:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Brian (if I may be so informal), you are discussing technical nuances. Why should we waste our time? Another capricious admin level editor will come through soon and revert edits and change the article again without a talk page discussion. What's the point? Ah! Be BOLD! Is there a barnstar I can award for ignorant and arbitrary bold action? See I knew I shouldn't have looked back in here after a beer--well maybe two:). Though we may not agree on the parapsychology stuff, you are reasonable and thoughtful. Juan Riley (talk) 21:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * your edit split the parapsychology section. Now the table of contents reads:

1 Early life

2 Parapsychology

3 Laser and electro-optical research

3.1 Remote viewing

3.1.1 Reception

3.2 Further work on parapsychology

4 Personal life...

Clearly "Remote viewing", its "Reception" and "Further work on parapsychology" are not subsections of "Laser and electro-optical research". Lets get consensus on the appropriate order and set things up correctly. See below. Sorry for pinging everybody but I am hoping we can reach some reasonable consensus so I am going to throw in the two other editors who have been active in the related discussion, and .- - MrBill3 (talk) 05:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * THANK YOU, the reference you gave is precisely the type of reference I have been hoping to see to support Targ's work in lasers as being important. Although a very brief mention it describes Targ's contribution in the development of lasers. I will try and do some research and may request some IEEE papers if I find them. I think this is the kind of material that will satisfy 's request for secondary sources. I am not sure how we should order the sections if we were to go with "Career" in chronological order it would go 1)Career 1.1)Laser 1.2)Parapsychology 1.2.1)Remote viewing 1.2.1.1)Reception 1.3)Lidar 1.4)Precognition. I am not sure this is ideal. Perhaps 1)Career (covering all aspects) 2)Parapyschology 2.1)Remote viewing 2.1.1)Reception 2.2)Further parapsychology.
 * the issue is not whether Targ's primary papers are reliable, acceptable sources. It is what is there due weight. WP does not list all journal publications as content, only those which have some notability. Original research papers cannot support their own importance (unless they make such claims). In general I agree with that citation numbers are not a good indicator of notability. If scientific papers make a substantial contribution to the field the work of the authors is summarized and placed in context by others writing in the field.
 * I understand your frustration. If there is no secondary support for the content in the "Laser and electro-optics" section it is not notable and should not be in the article. As above has made a start with one ref, with a passing but context providing mention of Targ's laser work. I think an argument can be made for publishing a paper in 1962 on lasers with Gould as notable. Is there any support for the contributions in lidar?  do you see how having published papers in the field does not support "contributed to aviation windshear sensing applications"? What secondary source writing about such applications states Targ made a contribution? Just publishing a paper doesn't mean making a contribution. Of what notability or importance is "co-authored a 1969 paper which described the operation of a kilowatt continuous wave laser."? I think the latter is notable but we need a source that describes the importance/significance of the 1969 paper. I think most of the content in the laser section can stand, I am hopeful sources are forthcoming (I think Targ's contributions were of some importance). I also think some discussion of Targ's work in lasers is appropriate to provide a reasonable understanding/description of the subject of the article. Still there is no support for bibliographical list of these publications as content, it's undue and should go as, ,  and myself have said.
 * I hope it is clear the question is, "Are Targ's publications on lasers NOTABLE enough to qualify as content rather than references''' per due weight in this article?
 * I understand your frustration. To answer directly 1) I think the laser research section (possibly with minor edits) is acceptable. 1a) Not sure about placement (hope this doesn't become a battle). I differ slightly with your justification of the laser research section. I don't think it needs to stand as a contrast. It is basic information about the subject of the article and is fairly concise and encyclopedic (unlike the list of laser publications). 2) The proposal is that the bibliographic list of laser research publications is undue and they should be present as references not as a bibliographic list. Four editors have argued these publications are not due the weight of a bibliographic list while three (plus one from a previous discussion on the same topic) seem to feel otherwise. I am open to changing my opinion if sources are provided that support notability of specific publications.


 * Requiring "notability" for a mention in an article is a complete misunderstanding of policy. From WP:Notability, "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list."  This leaves you only with WP:UNDUE, which as I said has been brandished in regard to any other parapsych source to say it is less likely.  Frankly, I don't find the policy very instructive on these points and I'm just going by first principles.  He spent one large part of his life generating research papers and another generating parapsychology papers and books.  Both parts are roughly speaking equally important to his life.  So, cite one and the other the same way.  I don't find it jarring that we would have all the sources that Targ wrote in a section separate from the general references not written by Targ.  It seems clean, straightforward, balanced, sensible, and fair to do it that way. Wnt (talk) 06:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There is broad consensus that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The onus is on the editor seeking to include disputed content, to achieve consensus for its inclusion. The easiest way to do this is to establish that the content is significantly covered in reliable independent sources, thus is not some meaningless trivium - that it is notable, not in the sense of having been cited in a few other papers, but in the sense of being substantially discussed in books and review articles. So yes, the concept of notability is relevant within an article.
 * In this case, the issue is that Targ wants to minimise the fact that he is almost exclusively known for junk science by talking up his earlier work. For this, we use the words "sorry, no." That work, spanning roughly a decade, is relatively obscure. If that were all the work he had done, we would almost certainly not have an article. No biographical source has been presented that pre-dates remote viewing. It is remote viewing that brought him to public attention, it is for this and other crank notions that he is known. You can't argue that away, and you can't obscure it by citing every dot and comma he published earlier in his career, per WP:UNDUE.
 * This is an article about a notable crank who coincidentally had an earlier career in legitimate science. It is not an article on a pioneering laser physicists who happened to do some weird work on remote viewing in passing, for the very simple reason that not one of the independent biographical sources follows that line. Guy (Help!) 09:14, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This is wilful misreprentation. In fact as I have said Targ's RV work is relatively unknown in the wider context, so there is a third category which you leave out, of sources that refer to his laser work and say nothing about his RV work. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * can you provide these? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  09:48, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've already pointed out one. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russell_Targ&diff=prev&oldid=610386465.
 * @Wnt The core policy NPOV states, "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." What is the proportion of significant views published about Targ? I see several hundred books that discuss Targ as parapsychology researcher and so far a few lines about his laser work as background in works that are discussing Targ as a parapsychology researcher and one passing mention in a journal article. So to follow the core policy and write this article proportionally representing the published reliable sources 99.99% of the article should represent the published views on Targ as a parapsychology researcher. This is exactly what the core policy NPOV explicitly states in its first sentence. I suggest you also consult another of the core policies No original research. In what reliable source did you find, "He spent one large part of his life generating research papers and another generating parapsychology papers and books. Both parts are roughly speaking equally important to his life." That is your unpublished original research that quite frankly is completely contradicted by the entire body of published reliable work. Your statement, "Frankly, I don't find the policy very instructive on these points and I'm just going by first principles." is disingenuous at best or simply an attempt at POV pushing. As I pointed out policy is quite clear on these points, read the first sentence of NPOV then try perusing the entire policy. Then proceed to the second core policy verifiability and note that, "content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors." and "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." both from the lead of that policy. Then take a look at the third core policy No original research and read in the lead of that policy, "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources." and "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." Can you explain how the content in the laser research section is directly supported by the sources? Does the 1962 paper state it is early research in lasers? Do any of the three sources given for "he contributed to the development of frequency modulation and mode-locking of lasers" state Targ contributed to the development of anything or is that Original Research involving analysis not present in published sources? Again, "he contributed to aviation windshear sensing applications of Doppler heterodyne lidar technology" is analysis not present in the sources. Was his work a part of applications developed or was it a total failure and applications were developed using some other research? The sources don't say, so WP shouldn't either. Read and understand the three core policies, present arguments grounded in them based on reliable sources and stop WP:tendentious editing. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

@Brian Josephson, "sources that refer to his laser work" is precisely what is being asked for. Thank you for providing one with a one sentence mention. Thank you also for your offer to assist with access to IEEE papers. It is my hope that some additional support for content about Targ's laser work can be found. Do you understand what proportional representation of published sources means? This is core policy, not obscure wikilawyering. I don't think the structure of the article should give undue prominence (via placement, header or extent) to views that represent less than 1% of the published sources. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but it is wikilawyering. Proportionately was never meant to mean that you got out your calculator and compute the precise number of words in precise proportion to the number of sources.  And, more to the point, there are a lot of books on remote viewing because this kind of topic is of considerable interest to many members of the public and there is money to be made from it.  That hardly applies to books on the early history of lasers.  Your lawyerly way of doing things grossly distorts the true notability. And I'm sure many similar references exist.  But searching, downloading, and examining papers takes time, and quite frankly I don't see why  should take up my time finding more in response to something that looks suspiciously like -- well, I won't write down what is in my mind right now, as people would pounce on it as a violation of the guidelines. --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * How do you arrive at your interpretation of what "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." means? One doesn't need a calculator, the published reliable sources run 600 plus books discuss Targ's RV work and 0 discuss his laser work. Who is attempting distortion and lawyering? With no calculator and no lawyerly analysis, what is a proportional representation of published sources on Targ?
 * On WP we write articles based on core policy which clearly states proportional representation of published sources. Your personal opinion of the distortion "true notability" is irrelevant. It is clearly POV pushing "the undue presentation of minor or fringe ideas." to assert content should be in the article without providing sources. I have done some work in attempting to find published sources that discuss Targ as a laser researcher it just isn't there as far as I can tell. I am sorry that you don't like the fact that reliable sources consider Targ's work in RV a notable subject and they don't consider his work in lasers as suitable to publish work on. That great wrong must be righted in the world of publishing before the representation you seek is on WP. Until then we follow WP policy and write based on proportional representation of published views. If the scientific field of physics/lasers contains published work that describes Targ's work we can certainly include such discussion as due. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * NPOV encourages us to give proportional time to viewpoints on an issue. It doesn't mean that if sources mention Gandhi's salt protest a thousand times more often than where he went to high school, his biography needs to have a 1000:1 ratio on the lengths of those sections.  Our goal here is to cover the entire biography of a person, not to cover just the parts most news recaps find most interesting. Wnt (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * So how much space should be devoted to Ghandi's high school and how much to his salt protest? That decision like the decision on how much to cover Targ's work on lasers is based on proportional representation. What have any of the secondary sources spent time discussing about Targ? I have said a reasonable understanding/picture of the subject is the goal so some discussion (perhaps the amount we devote to his college education) is appropriate. Due weight is based on coverage by reliable sources, not an individual editors ideas. That is how we acheive NPOV, we represent what has been published in reliable sources proportionately. The reliable sources that mention Targ's laser work generally devote one sentence in an entire article/chapter/discussion. On what basis should WP devote any more? Because some editors want to whitewash the article, I think not. Content representing published sources proportionately is explicitly spelled out in the first sentence of a core policy. Further explanation is given in that policy at WP:DUE. The policy speaks for itself, an editors opinions do not change what is in the policy. That is how WP works and how we get to NPOV. If your arguments are not policy based and supported with sources they are a waste of everyone's time. Your characterization of the published sources as "most news recaps" is blatantly false. It is clear that the published sources on Targ include multiple journal articles, chapters in books and discussion in books, not news recaps, that is obvious from the sources in the article already. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Re your 'I have done some work in attempting to find published sources that discuss Targ as a laser researcher it just isn't there as far as I can tell', I have to point out that scientific research involves using people's work, not discussing the individual. The fact that other researchers use Targ's work is what is important, not whether there is tittle tattle relating to that person. In the case of a political figure such as Gandhi the situation is different perhaps, as personality does affect what a politician can achieve to some extent. --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Much of scientific research involves using peoples work. A great deal of the writing on science however involves a discussion of the individuals involved. While works on gravity might no longer cite Newton in research, tomes are written about him as a scientist. As this article is a biography what have the published biographical discussions of Targ contained? Your opinion that other researchers using Targ's work is important is not very weighty here. How his work is used and what is said about it when it is used is what is reported in WP. If you bothered to read the references I suggested you would find there is a book which lists the Tiffany, Targ et al. paper in its milestones of laser development section so far as I can tell (I have only read the snippet at Google Books but that is the implication). That is the type of reference that supports the assertion that Targ's laser work was significant/important. I think another (full text at link) says something about Harris & Targ "first demonstrating" something. An article that not only cites (simply using others work doesn't make it important) but describing the work as a first and placing it in context (noted in print). The standards at WP are fairly easily understood. Participation takes some effort, repeated ranting is not a constructive contribution. Understanding policy, presenting arguments based on policy and providing sources for proposed content that's what editing WP is. When I get the time and access I will read the sources I have suggested, paraphrase them and propose content that will be evaluated by multiple editors for due weight, accurate reflection of sources etc. This is a collaborative effort not a battle ground. By all means have a point of view, present it and defend it but use the policies of the project. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem. Maybe I was misinterpreting the emphasis of someone's comment, assuming the point being made was that if we can't find anything explicitly saying the work is important we should assume it is not, and noting that there are other ways of assessing importance. But if people such as yourself can find statements of the importance of Targ's scientific work, that's fine, I have no objections at all, and apologies for the misunderstanding if there was one, and I hope we can indeed collaborate on improving the article, as seems to be happening now. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think you misinterpreted my comment. If no reliable source says the work is important, most "other ways of assessing importance" are original research. I note your insistence on explicit designation of pseudoscience in contrast to your rather vague support for the assertion of importance. This contrast is among the reasons for my allegation of POV pushing. While I stand by my allegation I wish to temper it with an appreciation for your thoughtful engagement and adherence to process by using discussion rather than aggressive editing. Apologies are not needed for active challenges to ideas about improving the article. They would be appropriate for accusations of impropriety in editing or ascribing of motives. Please note I have done some research and provided secondary sources for the section on laser and electro-optical work. I maintain my assertion that this work is due substantially less prominence than Targ's parapsychology work and based on this the section on lasers should be moved below the section on parapsychology. The NPOV policy clearly discusses prominence. - - MrBill3 (talk) 21:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

What content on laser research is due
This is a new section for focused discussion on how much, what content and what prominence Targ's work in laser research is due. There is currently a fairly short section that stands as a main section. I think the current prominence in terms of placement and being a main section is undue. I do think some discussion of Targ's laser research is appropriate. I can't cite the PAG but an article should provide a reader with a reasonably complete picture/understanding of the subject. We discuss Targ's personal life, early life and education clearly his career includes work in the field of laser research and that should also be discussed. I don't think the current content is supported by sources adequately. It makes more of his work than any source says and goes into more detail than is due. That's my 2c. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Possible sources: - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

If someone can access They might be a good sources. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I checked out the article by Scully and Lamb listed. It says early on 'various forms of modulation can be discussed, as in the work of Harris' (referring to Harris and Targ in fact.  I'm sure not mentioning Targ in the text was just an oversight).  That is the only one I have checked up on so far. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It was probably not an oversight (that would be conjecture and OR anyway). Harris published a good deal on the subject and Targ was not co-author on many of Harris' papers. This is actually an indicator of the importance of Targ as a contributor that points towards a lack of significance (his name is not mentioned in later review articles). However Harris (in his earlier papers) cites Targ and provides some description of Targ's contributions and gives them some context. I have added the references that I have access to. As below that Targ coined the term "super-mode" is in one of Harris' papers and is probably notable enough to be added back. - - MrBill3 (talk) 21:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Also possibly if accessed three articles in Applied Physics Letters in 2003, Marcus & McCoy 16(1), Gilbet & Lachambre 18(5) and McCoy 15(11), volume and issue numbers given. - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Can we safely assume Targ's laser research is not noted anywhere else in Wikipedia? --Ronz (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I can find no mention here Special:WhatLinksHere/Russell_Targ Theroadislong (talk) 18:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * So for his area of laser research, what is the closest article we currently have to the topic? --Ronz (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There's a presupposition here that he only worked on one area of laser research, and I don't think this is so. Wikipedia articles can't mention everyone related to a subject even if their contribution was notable, and so absence elsewhere should not be cited as proof of non-notability.  In fact he has worked in mode-locking, and his paper(s) on this could well be included in the reference list of that article; and then your 'safe assumption' would no longer apply. It just so happens that no editor chose to include that particular paper in the reference list (the total number is quite small); and the talk page shows that it has not been considered and then rejected. --Brian Josephson (talk) 19:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No presumption, so let's not waste time pretending otherwise.
 * Thanks for identifying mode-locking.
 * Anyone want to look to see if there are sources currently in mode-locking or look for other WP:SCIRS sources that mention Targ's work? --Ronz (talk) 02:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder: at present all this is cited to the primary sources. Secondary sources anyone? These might be hard to come by, I know: there seems to be virtually no biographical coverage of Targ other than as a proponent of RV. Guy (Help!) 19:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I have added secondary sources and removed the section tag. I placed an inline tag on the only remaining fact that has only a primary source.

The coining of the term "super-mode" is noted in one of the sources. This fact could be added back.

I think this section should be moved back down below parapsychology per due. I think there has been enough support for doing so here. I also think the bibliography should have all notable journal articles listed in chronological order without subsections. All the papers but two are cited in the secondary sources. I think those two should be moved to references. - - MrBill3 (talk) 21:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)