Talk:Russell Targ/Archive 5

Untitled
Substantial discussion of editing/improving this article is also occurring at User talk:Torgownik

Science vs pseudoscience
There is an important point relevant to this article that may not be appreciated by those unfamiliar with experimental research in the real world. This is that experiments tend not to work the first time they are tried. Problems are identified and fixed, and the experiment is tried again. When it seems to be working and is producing results, the results are published, but further problems may be discovered subsequent to publication, so further investigations are carried out to see if the results hold up. This is all part of the normal business of science. An example is the Harwell experiment to test the General Theory of Relativity using the Mössbauer effect. The experiment appeared to yield the results expected by the theory so the Harwell team published their results. But it turned out that the experiment was flawed because the frequencies involved were very sensitive to temperature fluctuations, which had not been controlled. So they went back and added temperature controls, thus fixing the problem (as it happens, they did not publish the results of the new investigation themselves because in the meantime a Harvard team had also done the experiments and discovered the temperature sensitivity, and published their results from an experiment where the temperature was controlled). A number of points arise from this:
 * It is quite common for experiments to be published that subsequently turn out to be flawed. This is not considered a misdemeanour on the part of the experimenters concerned, which seems to be the emphasis in the present article.
 * Further, history does not dwell on the early flawed results the way this article seems to have done (unless the flaws concerned have important consequences), but focusses on the subsequent corrected investigations.
 * While the flaws point out by Marks et al. may have affected the results reported by Targ, there is a good chance they were irrelevant. This is because it is not that likely that knowledge of the temporal order of the targets was a relevant factor in the outcome, because there were independent indications (viz. naming the actual target in one case, rather than merely giving descriptions) that the subject had RV skills.
 * The subsequent Stargate investigations did not have the flaws pointed out by Marks et al., but were successful from the scientific point of view (skeptic Hyman was unable to find any errors in the procedure), even if it was concluded that the process did not have significant value militarily (that is the public position at least; I would not be at all surprised if RV is not still used covertly on occasion, as it had been previously (Carter: confirms CIA remote viewing project).

In conclusion, the article as it is at present breaks good practice in the way it emphasises flaws in early experiments (flaws that may well not have affected the outcome in any case) at the expense of subsequent successful research where little detail is given. This serious defect needs to be fixed. --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

PS: out of curiosity I had a look at the GR article to see what it included relevant to this issue. It references the valid expt. by Pound and Rebka, and ignores the flawed Harwell experiment published at the same time. That is how things should be. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Professor, how do we go about fixing the article per your comments? As you know, in Wikipedia we can only describe what secondary, reputable sources say about a subject, so I am not sure I understand how we can apply your arguments above to this article. Cwobeel (talk) 14:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Josephson's claim that the flaws pointed out by Marks are "irrelevant" to Targ's remote viewing experiments is completely unreferenced. I would like to see reliable references for this extraordinary claim. He also says the Stargate Project was a "successful from the scientific point of view". This is a falsehood because there is an entire article on Stargate which is well referenced and the project was definitely not successful if you read those sources. Here is what Ray Hyman has written "Psychologists, such as myself, who study subjective validation find nothing striking or surprising in the reported matching of reports against targets in the Stargate data. 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." . Josephson's claim "skeptic Hyman was unable to find any errors in the procedure" is not also not accurate, because errors were found, , Goblin Face (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * And what Hyman says is equally 'vague, general, and way off target'. He clearly does not understand the principles behind the experiment (but this is bad science rather than pseudoscience).  I'm not going to go into detail on this because w'pedia is not a place where proper scientific discussion is possible, and according to the logic that w'pedia goes by Hyman is to be accepted as gospel truth. --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

And pseudoscience works by taking on the trappings of science but rejecting any findings that don't fit the expected outcomes. The sources say we're talking pseudoscience. --Ronz (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * And pseudo-logic works by ignoring the principles of real logic, often spinning a conclusion out of thin air. Your statement above doesn't follow any of the principles and practices of real logic that I am familiar with. --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "that I am familiar with" Then you need to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies. --Ronz (talk) 15:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm familiar enough to know that blind application of rules is the dominant activity. --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If that's how you feel it really works, then don't expect to have much impact on anything here. We work by collaboration and consensus-building. --Ronz (talk) 18:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

(ot): I am new to this topic, this type of articles and the disputes, so I would want to understand why is there such a tension between scientists about subjects that are outside of mainstream thinking. It seems almost religious to me (from both sides of the dispute). Can any of you point me out to some reading on the subject? Cwobeel (talk) 15:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Already have: WP:ARBPS, WP:ARBFS, WP:FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 15:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * More WP shortcuts? Give me a break... I was referring to some reading on the subject of the animosity between mainstream scientists and those exploring boundaries that are outside of the mainstream (not on Wikipedia). Cwobeel (talk) 16:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I just read WP:FRINGE in its entirety, and found there WP:PARITY, which is what I have been arguing about all along. Cwobeel (talk) 16:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * If you want some background reading, I recommend this as a good historical overview by Robert Todd Carroll, for a refutation of some of the paranormal claims, this by Steven Novella and this by Benjamin Radford , also this essay  and for a psychological take on the subject some comments from Bruce Hood . Goblin Face (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * And this book is well worth looking at also: Dogmatism in Science and Medicine; How Dominant Theories Monopolize Research and Stifle the Search for Truth by Henry Bauer. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes but you forgot to mention Henry H. Bauer is an AIDS denialist who believes the loch ness monster is real. ^_^ Goblin Face (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but that needn't detract from the interest and importance of what is said in the book. You are trying to distract, using techniques well practised by illusionists. --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * See WP:TRUTH, also WP:SOAP, WP:NOTFORUM and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Sorry if some editors have a problem with WP shortcuts but these subjects have been discussed to consensus and essays, guidelines and policies reflect a great deal of work alleviating the necessity to reinvent the wheel. Of note the application of logic in analysis is exactly what WP:SYNTH expressly discusses. WP does not do original research to discover the truth, we present what has been published by reliable sources. If your objection is to the way mainstream science works WP is not the place to fight that battle and right that wrong. - - MrBill3 (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I would add that Nature found Mark's criticism significant enough to publish. Where is the continuing science that has validated the concepts and theories despite flawed research? This article deals with Targ's research, the flaws are appropriate for discussion in this article. - - MrBill3 (talk) 18:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Is this article about Targ's research? I thought it was a biography of Targ. Cwobeel (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It is, of course, about both. All biographies discuss the thing that the subject is notable for. In this case he's notable for tooth fairy science. Guy (Help!) 18:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * So wouldn't a biography of Targ discuss his work? Read any of the major published biographies of figures known primarily for their work. Why are biographies written? They are about what a person did, what impact they had etc. Absent Targ's work in parapsychology, RV in particular he would not be notable enough to warrant a bio on WP at all. On WP we base discussion of a topic on what is published in reliable sources. The focus of reliable sources is almost exclusively on Targ as an RV researcher. - - MrBill3 (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually you have that precisely the wrong way round. It is Targ who places undue emphasis on early results, and deliberately de-emphasises later work which shows the many ways in which bias and wishful thinking could creep into the experiments as he designed them. We would not accept Targ's claimed confirmation of the psychic abilities of Geller as a counter to the later complete demolition of those claims by other, more acute observers. Similarly we do not accept Targ's claims for remote viewing as a counter to Wiseman's later comments. The field as Targ left it can only be described as a shambles. Now, it is not even that. This is not cold fusion, where there is at least an objectively verifiable if inconsistent anomalous result: with remote viewing, properly controlled tests find no effect, just as they do with every other purported psi effect. Mr. Randi's million dollars has never looked safer. Guy (Help!) 18:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't believe that Cwobeel above opened up the can of worms about attempting to read up on science vs pseudo-science. Some of the suggested readings above are just what I would have guessed. If I were to suggest anything it would be the down to earth writings of Feynman (e.g., on the Cargo Cult). However, only a small fraction of the many scientists I have worked with over 40ish years would be able to discuss the nuances of Wittgenstein v Popper v Kuhn re the nature and philosophy of science--and I aint one of that small group and even had to look-up up Wittgenstein just to make sure I remembered the right guy and spelled his name right! BUT they virtually all know the difference between science and pseudo-science when they see it. And there is (at least fundamentally) no animosity of scientists toward denialists/parapsychologists/creationists/etc...just a frustration. Only if one makes a mistake of debating such folk (e.g., anyone who might say: "precognition is a valid alternative hypothesis") does frustration sometimes blossom into a raging animosity. So the key is no debate..unless of course one is interested in a complete china set of Russell teapots. Does this mean I think that a NPOV necessitates a main-stream science POV? You are damn right I do! Juan Riley (talk) 22:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Can of worms indeed! Thanks for the pointers, though. Cwobeel (talk) 23:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think Russell's teapot is a fair comparison. All over the world, peoples have traditionally believed in seeing the future.  When something is traditionally believed, you should legitimately have scientific experiments to evaluate that.  For example, Spallanzani's tests of spontaneous generation aren't seen as pseudo-science or unnecessary in their day.  Now to be sure, I find the model that the Stargate program used to be very far from what I'd have in mind; it's truly based on some notion of extrasensory perception, with little more than lip service to precognition (for example, it doesn't seem like they addressed the paired retrocognitive event at all, or even considered it as a form of memory) -nonetheless, it was at least some data, and there are little nuggets in there of great interest.
 * What's funny is that no matter whether you're looking for psi confirmations in the details or for debunker's gold in the fishy parts, you're missing them all by being so knee-jerk critical. I mean, I don't think you people even noted the role of Scientology, or compared and contrasted how they were able to access IRS offices with whether they might be able to describe the inside of an NSA office, or what the group might have had to benefit by having a star reader at the forefront of such a program, let alone the operational advantages of having an international church with independent, not-espionage groups in every country and readers at Fort Meade.  I mean, you dig deep enough with this and you have Scientology, MK-ULTRA, NSA, CIA, DIA, Army Intelligence, and I think several other interesting threads all dancing around in a very small space, and it's worth asking what was going on in that space, gradually accumulating what is known until you can infer what is left unspoken.  But to do so, we have to respect all the people involved, respect the ideas advanced, treat everybody fairly, because most likely not everyone is in on the mystery. Wnt (talk) 02:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * uhhhh, so you are saying this also falls under the ARBCOM Scientology ruling? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  03:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh my... maybe we should drop this per WP:NOTFORUM now and concentrate on improving this article? Cwobeel (talk) 03:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You people are hopeless. Even when your own POV could be bolstered by diving deep into the facts and looking for answers, you still prefer sniping from behind a wall of misused bureaucracy over seriously researching the topic of the article.  To be clear, Russell Targ is not himself a member of Scientology; you'll have to do a moment of digging to see how it figures in to the history. Wnt (talk) 06:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * "You people are hopeless" Not true!! But your agenda has become clear now. And please stop inserting fringe sources into the Stargate Project article. Goblin Face (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Really? Maybe you can tell me what it is, because I have no idea. Wnt (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Defending psychic woo-woo :) Goblin Face (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * See User_talk:Goblin_Face --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * My goal here is to defend the right of Wikipedians and society in general to understand events that actually took place in America's most important institutions - the NSA, CIA, Stanford, SAIC, etc. My goal is to support the right of all people to explore, and perhaps find support for, a range of personal interests and hypotheses, whether pro or anti psi.  Because you still don't appreciate the idea I gave you, I'll spell it out explicitly - please note however that I have no reason to suppose that Targ was involved in any way, and this is purely a hypothesis that I would think would inspire a real skeptic to more careful research.  Namely:
 * According to Operation Stargate included some very high level Scientologists.  Putting together some other sources (maybe not BLP-citably just yet) I would tentatively say that these included multiple "OT VII" level (there were about 3000 people at that level), some as viewers, some as judges.  Now right there, because Scientology has a strong sales reason to promote itself as a source of psychic abilities, there is a potential COI already; you could hypothesize that some members might have gotten together and conspired to cheat the test.  But we're not started yet.  Because it's more significant to bear in mind where Scientology came from: L. Ron Hubbard was in Naval Intelligence.  He started a secretive Sea Org that permeated international borders, and made great effort to start chapters all over the world.  And now, bring in what Scientology actually is -- by and large, it consists of "auditing sessions" where members are hooked up to a sort of simple lie detector called an E-meter and repeatedly drilled with questions that sound like they were chosen for espionage value to confess all their sins in past and present lives.  All those auditing transcripts go to Scientology central HQ; there's no "seal of the confessional" in the organization and they freely make use of the data against their apostates.  So ---  in theory  --- it seems like Scientology could be an operational intelligence gathering operation from beginning to end, with judges and viewers collaborating to deliver tidbits from their network as the results of remote viewing experiments.  The main flaw in this conspiracy theory is that I haven't seen the evidence that the remote viewing operation produced enough tips to be relevant to the immense data collection capability of the Church of Scientology.  Now I'm definitely not saying that is true, and I do happen to think that certain kinds of real psi are also possible (beginning with the paranormal experience we all share of conscious sensation and will), but what I am saying is, if you really value a scientific mind-set at all, stop trying to load the article with blanket denunciations and turn people loose to explore and set down all the facts about everyone neutrally, without judgment, until the truth at last finds us worthy to perceive it. Wnt (talk) 16:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

"Did Some Graduate Work"
Replaced this with "completed his PhD". The cited source says he "finished his graduate work". The NYTimes refers to him as "Dr. Targ", so this was not a masters degree. http://www.nytimes.com/1984/01/10/science/pentagon-is-said-to-focus-on-esp-for-wartime-use.html BTW, this is kind of an interesting article that shows how widespread this psuedoscience became during the cold war. Formerly 98 (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * You can't make that connection and assume that because someone called him Dr,, he has a PhD from Columbia. Page 70 of that book is unambiguous: “done some graduate-level work at Columbia but left before completing is PhD”. Please avoid original research Cwobeel (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Reference 1 says "He studied at Queens College, New York (B.S., physics, 1954) and completed his graduate study in physics at Columbia University"

http://www.answers.com/topic/russell-targ#ixzz33nWVCAMT Formerly 98 (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Answers.com is not a WP:RS. You can see the reference here Cwobeel (talk) 20:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The reference you provide is from Occultism & Parapsychology Encyclopedia does not say that he obtained a PhD. It only says "completed his graduate study in physics". The source in the article is very clear: He left before obtaining a PhD. Cwobeel (talk) 20:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * See also . This is a book written by Targ. See the list of scientists there and you will see that Targ  does not have PhD after his name, while all others do. Can we put this to rest now? Cwobeel (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The cited reference (not one I added) says that he "completed his graduate work". Maybe the NYTimes was wrong, but "completion" implied, well, completion.  He finished a degree.
 * I can accept "completed his graduate work", which is a verbatim use of the sources words. "Did some graduate work" sounds carefully crafted to minimize the graduate work he did.  What exactly is the word "some" adding here, except to imply "a little", which is not apparent from the cited sources, at least one of which clearly says "completed his graduate work"?Formerly 98 (talk) 20:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * We can only follow what the sources say. The Answers.com site and compilations are not verifiable, so we have just one single source which says clearly "done some graduate-level work at Columbia". I will see if I can find the original source from Occultism & Parapsychology Encyclopedia Cwobeel (talk) 20:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you, that's very kind of you. We all got a little worked up here. Formerly 98 (talk) 15:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW, there is nothing wrong whatsoever in completing some graduate work, so I don't know why are you persisting on this. Cwobeel (talk) 20:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking into it. Normally, at Wikipedia, "verifiability" means that the information comes from a reliable source.  If the Occultism & Parapsychology Encyclopedia is a reliable source, it is already verified by that definition. If it is not, the encyclopedia should be removed as a source.
 * As I noted above, the word "some" is the biggest problem I have with this. It conveys the impression of someone showing up and then leaving after one or two quarters. This is not apparent from the cited sources, and seems intended to trivialize the extend of his education. Why not just say "He did graduate work at Columbia"?
 * I admit this is a minor point. But there are minor points like this throughout the article. They add up.  Formerly 98 (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * So you reverted me when I was using the exact language from a pre-existing source in the document on the basis of an alternate source which is not available to be viewed online? And you did not remove the word "some" nor provide any counterargument to my objection to it?
 * Man, that's pretty hardball.Formerly 98 (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Offline or online source, it does not matter. We just need to be able to verify it. For now we have just one source that is verifiable, so that is it for now. I am sorry if you believe this is hardball, just go edit any article in politician's bios to get a sense of what hardball is. This is nothing. Cwobeel (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * On this one I'm not seeing evidence for a Ph.D. Searching I find lots of sites saying "did graduate work", almost none saying Ph.D.  The New York Times article cited has two "Mr. Targ"s immediately afterward.  If Russell happens to be reading this conversation and wants to give us a clue, it would be welcome, but it's easy enough to see why someone might be willing to leave early for a job at Technical Research Group doing cutting-edge physics, given the opportunity. Wnt (talk) 22:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "Completed graduate work" could mean quite a number of things: for example, that he finished a Master's degree; that he fulfilled the research part of a PhD but not any coursework; or that he finished everything but did not defend his dissertation. We don't know - all we do know is that the phrase does not mean that he received a PhD. Unless sources specifically say that he completed PhD (which they don't), we can't say that, either. --Ca2james (talk) 02:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If you insist in removing "some" from that sentence, then we have to use the full quote from the source: did graduate-level work in physics at Columbia University and left without completing his PhD. Cwobeel (talk) 03:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Again I think you're arbitrarily calling the reference you like "verifiable" (though you're the only one with access to it) and calling the other reference "unverifiable". It seems to me that since you are not the only editor here, the priority would go to the one we can all see.  Can you defend why your source is reliable and the other isn't?


 * And why would it be "left without completing his PhD". You have no source to state that he ever sought one. We have a reference that says he "completed his graduate work" The alternative to completing his PhD would be completing his master's degree.  If you don't have a reference stating that he ever sought a PhD, it would be completely inappropriate to says that he left without getting one.  In most engineering disciplines masters degrees are much more common that PhDs.Formerly 98 (talk) 03:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, here it is: http://www.eso-garden.com/specials/encyclopedia_of_occultism_and_parapsychology_2.pdf. The phraseology is exactly as indicated in the Answer site. "Physicist with parapsychological interests. He was born on April 11, 1934, in Chicago, Illinois. He studied at Queens College, New York (B.S., physics, 1954) and completed his graduate study in physics at Columbia University." Formerly 98 (talk) 03:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC) What is "graduate study in physics"? That's quite a vague statement. --Ca2james (talk) 04:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Vague in what way? Type Graduate study into Google. You'll get a hundred hits for academic programs that 1) accept only students that have completed a bachelors degree, and 2) offer a master's degree or Phd at the end of a prescribed program of coursework and/or research.

Then search for the word "complete"

verb: complete; 3rd person present: completes; past tense: completed; past participle: completed; gerund or present participle: completing

finish making or doing. "he completed his Ph.D. in 1983" synonyms:	finished, ended, concluded, completed, finalized; More accomplished, achieved, discharged, settled, done; informalwrapped up, sewn up, polished off "their research was complete" finish, end, conclude, finalize, wind up; informalwrap up, sew up, polish off "he had to complete his training" antonyms:	unfinished

He "completed, finished, ended, concluded" something, which by any reasonable definition is a closed end task, the achievement of a goal or project. Since no one goes to grad school with the goal of stopping short of their degree, the reasonable assumption is that he finished a degree. I think you're really splitting hairs here and I don't understand your insistance on putting outrageously high barriers up to putting anything the least bit postive in this article.

I'll say it again. If your goal is to discredit the psuedoscience, you're failing because this article reads like a screed written by people with a huge chip on their shoulder.

User:Formerly 98|Formerly 98]] (talk) 04:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I think you need to drop it now, you are making a mountain out of a molehill. He does not have a PhD and that is what the article says. End of discussion, please? Cwobeel (talk) 04:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Again, see this: . This is a book by Targ, Radiant Minds: Scientists Explore the Dimensions of Consciousness, Russell Targ, Dean Radin Millay, 2010, and here is the list of authors and contributors: Dean Radin, PhD, Russell Targ, Stanley Krippner, PhD, Charles Tart, PhD, Stanislav Grof, MD, PhD, Sasha Shulgin, PhD, Jeffrey Mishlove, PhD, Roger Nelson, PhD, and Jean Millay, PhD.
 * Get it? Cwobeel (talk) 04:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I compromised on the issue of the PhD hours ago.

I'm making a mountain out of a molehill? I'm the one who was reverted over the issue of "did his graduate work" vs. "did some graduate work". If the issue is trivial, why are you fighting so hard to oppose it? Don't make this out to me being obsessed. You've been here just as long as I have argueing about this. And unlike you and your supporters, I've been willing to compromise. You're the ones who drew a line in the sand.

And seriously, archiving a discussion that is ongoing???? Do you really want to discuss this over at the Admin incident board? Formerly 98 (talk) 05:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Look, I don;t know what your motivation is to pursue this line of discussion, but this is a bloody waste of time. Find a source in which it is stated that he has a PhD and then we talk again. Until then, what is have is correct and verifiable. Cwobeel (talk) 05:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * First WP doesn't prioritize sources based on availability policy is quite clear on that. The specific content from Kaiser 2011 actually is viewable online here. Even if it were not WP assumes good faith on the part of an editor in presenting quotes from sources unless someone checks the source and finds otherwise. Policy is clear that if the source is published it is up to editors to do the work of accessing it. An assertion that Kaiser 2011 is not a reliable source must be supported and would likely fail (David Kaiser published by Norton in the last 5 years). At this point what we have explicitly stated in the source is, "who had done some graduate-level work at Columbia but left before completing his PhD."


 * The Kaiser book may be higher quality RS as it is directly attributed to a notable expert with a more recent date of publication. While J. Gordon Melton is also a notable expert he is given as editor of the Encyclopedia of Occultism.... Importantly Kaiser's content is clear and specific.


 * I've dealt with this point lower down. Kaiser's book is not an encyclopedia and does not carry the authority, and Targ's career is just incidental to the story Kaiser is trying to tell.  In referring to the fact that Targ hasn't got a Ph.D., he is basically contrasting him with most of the scientists concerned, who do have PhD's.  By taking the quote out of its context, you are deceiving people (quite apart from the fact that the quote presented on its own appears to imply something that is incorrect, as noted below. --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Analysis of the implications of "completed his graduate study" is original research and has no place in WP. RS explicitly states left before completing his PhD. There is no source which states Targ completed a degree.


 * Per policy WP should represent the facts as documented in RS. As one source says left before completing his PhD and the other says completed his graduate study both facts can be presented and attributed if a satisfactory paraphrase that reflects both sources cannot be arrived at. I think "did some graduate work at Columbia" is a good paraphrase. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Take out the word "some" and we're finished here. Formerly 98 (talk) 05:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Its in the source and maintains the meaning of the source in paraphrase. As suggested we could use the explicit content from Kiaser "left before completing his PhD" - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

It's in one source and contradicts the obvious meaning of the other. Having been told that the source was unverifiable, I verified it, and now the problem is that it has been arbitrarily designated as a less reliable source. Or its "original research" to assume that finishing school means getting your degree.

I'm going to walk away at this point, knowing I did what I could to limit the pointless ridicule and public shaming of this guy and his family. I hope you'll think about what you are doing here. Formerly 98 (talk) 05:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As a relatively random observer since I have very little background on the situation in question: stating someone finished their graduate work doesn't mean they have a PhD. In my past experience writing about academics (and I've written about quite a few,) that verbiage is mostly commonly used to indicate someone who finished their graduate coursework, may or may not have passed their quals, and if they did, did not end up successfully defending their dissertation.  At first glance, "finished his graduate work at Columbia but left before completing his Ph.D." looks to be a good paraphrase, because we have a source saying he didn't get a doctorate, and no source saying he did.  Something like "completed graduate work in field X at Columbia University but left without a doctorate" would also probably work. I don't feel great about just "completed his graduate work at Columbia" when we have an RS explicitly stating he didn't earn a Ph.D., and no source stating if he earned a degree - though if we did "completed his graduate work at Columbia, earning a master's" etc would be fine. (Disclaimer: I've blocked multiple people on this page for administrative issues previously iirc, AFAIK this is my first statement as an editor, which obviously transitions my role in to one that won't be blocking people for admin problems here in anywhere near the near future.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "Contradicts the obvious meaning" is not really accurate. As has been pointed out "completed his graduate study" is vague. "Left before completing his PhD" is clear and specific. Interpretation of what "completed his graduate study" means is OR and the lack of any source that states Targ has a graduate degree does not lend support to your contention. Melton was not "arbitrarily designated as a less reliable source" clear and specific reasons were given. Additionally given the lack of support for the content in Melton its reliability is questionable. Melton cites sources perhaps one states that Targ received a graduate degree (I suspect not, as I suspect it is not the case). I regret Formerly 98's departure as I think this article could be brought to a higher standard of biography. I think "pointless ridicule and shaming" is a mischaracterization, perhaps this great wrong will be righted when physics validates remote viewing. Should that happen Targ will be hailed as a pioneer (as Brian Josephson has pointed out early research is often flawed but is of seminal and foundational importance) and WP can present him as such once covered by reliable sources.
 * Kevin Gorman's suggest content seems factual and accurate without extending the content of the source too much. I really would like to see what the sources Melton cites say explicitly. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I probably overstated my case there, things got quite heated when another editor tried to archive this discussion while I was in the midst of responding to his comments. But I do think "ridicule and shaming" is not too far off from where the article was a day or two ago.


 * Kevin, I appreciate your emotionally uninvolved commentary. I suppose there are many different social circles and different people interpret the same phrase differently.  I come from a family in which all four siblings have completed PhDs or Master's degrees in natural science, and throughout my adult life, my social and work circles have consisted mainly of people with similar degrees.  I doubt more than 5% of them would agree with your characterization of "completed his graduate studies" as potentially meaning "finished his coursework" or any other outcome that did not involve leaving with the degree that they sought when they arrived. But maybe its a difference between the natural sciences and other fields. I have no other explanation for how far apart we are in our understanding of this. Finishing high school means getting your diploma, any other outcome is dropping out. I've always understood "finishing graduate studies" in this same sense.


 * My career was in the medical field, where all kinds of people write books that usually have a pretty strong POV to push ("Bad Pharma", "Pharmageddon", and an endless series of titles for how to cure your cancer with herbal remedies, among others) and they commonly contain all kinds of mis-statements of fact. I don't think of non-textbook books as particularly reliable sources myself, but I may be out of synch with Wikipedia policy on this point. I'm more comfortable with the encylopedia, but I've clearly lost on this point and I accept that.


 * I am walking away here because I think I've done what I can do. I appreciate the group's willingness to accept the removal of the horrible quote about "a sorry example of human credulity" and the second set of footnotes that contained harsh commentary that seemed to go well beyond what was needed to debunk the bad science. I urge you all to bear in mind that the subject of this article has a family.  He made some very nice contributions to the science of wind shear at NASA (though as the junior party on the team) and has to the best of my knowledge never been convicted of any crime.  Its fine to dismantle the bad science, but putting him in his place is not the role of Wikipedia. Formerly 98 (talk) 11:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I feel compelled to sincerely apologize for my previous comments and attempt to close the conversation. Patience is not one of my strengths I must admit, and I lost it when you could not understand the basic premise behind the need to stay close to sources. Hope you stick around. Cwobeel (talk) 14:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I responded to this earlier but in the wrong place. Thanks for your kind remark, we obviously all got a little worked up here. I ran across a secondary source for some of Targ's work in wind shear, it is here: http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/482997main_ContributionsVolume2.pdf. Perhaps it is already in the article, I didn't check. It appears to be pretty important work, but since the effect is named after Targ's co-author, one has to assume that he played a substantially lesser role.  I'll let others decide if this is worth adding. Formerly 98 (talk) 15:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing that source. I had been looking to see if there was any support for the importance of Targ's work in Lidar/windshear. I had gotten the impression it was pretty significant work but there was a lack of funding from the aviation industry for applications (the work seems to be being applied in climate sensing). I will check the source when I get a chance and see what it can add to the article. At the least it may be support for listing a lidar/windshear paper in the bibliography. I appreciate the cooling off and hope no editor is too discouraged to continue participating (here or elsewhere in wikidom). I think Kevin's interpretation is more accurate but I appreciate you taking the time to explain your position. You made a cogent point on Melton v Kaiser but I hope this minor issue is laid to rest. I agree that the removal of the excess notes was appropriate. I also agree this article should not be a coatrack upon which to hang everything negative about Targ. Its tough with the lack of general sources on him. Best wishes and happy editing. - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Re the revert https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russell_Targ&diff=next&oldid=618564685, I really can't figure out why Targ can't deal with an omission from his bio by putting in the actual dates of his graduate-level work, even if these do not happen to be indicated in any published source anyone has been able to find. C'mon, folks, this is beyond ridiculous! --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What would be ridiculous is for an experienced editor to feign ignorance of the Verifiability policy. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I am by no means ignorant of the major guidelines and do not pretend to be. But I attempt to discern what their intent is, rather read them superficially. The issue here is whether Targ is a reliable source of this information on this issue or not; if he is, he is welcome to add the information.  Agreed, this is a form of self-publication which counts against it, but since it is acknowledged that he did do graduate study the relevant criterion is whether or not it is self-serving for him to add this information.  I suggest not.  We might also ask whether his memory might be wrong in this matter?  Well, we do know from the reference that his starting date is correct, so the issue is, might he have thought he was at Columbia for 2 years when in fact the length of time was different from this, which again seems unlikely.  That's my thought, over to you now. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You seem to misunderstand the policies in an odd way. An edit on WP is not a self published source. WP is never a reference for WP. Making an edit on your own WP page is not publishing. Reliable sources are not the individuals involved in or witnesses to events. That is original research. WP is not based on interviewing or corresponding with individuals and composing content based on such conversations (that would be the very definition of WP:OR). WP is based on published reliable sources which are detailed in policies, guidelines and essays I'm sure your aware of (perhaps a refresh reading might be in order). As it is we are not using what is clearly stated in the published reliable source "left before completing his PhD" mostly as a courtesy to the subject. It would seem more significant and encyclopedic to report that the subject did not complete the degree sought than to report the years during which such an aborted attempt occurred. As no reliable source has seen fit to publish discussion of this, except as quoted previously, we don't know what occurred during this time period. One class in one semester on each of two years, two years of full time study or what. To report the two year period creates an impression of the latter, doing so based on nothing but the WP edits of an editor who has shown limited competency in editing WP would be absurd. I'd prefer to see it stand as is than have "left before completing his PhD" added. It has been suggested that a reputable source might well see fit to write an article about the subject. I'd like to see that happen as it would provide sourcing for some information that would improve the article. I hate to open a potential mess but the subject has had several books published including a memoir. If the dates of attendance at Columbia are thus published I think we could consider that a reliable source for this rather minor and not particularly controversial or contentious information. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

That's a bit too involved for me to deal with right now, but I had been writing the following edit when you added your spiel:
 * A small point, but if no-one has made it yet, it is unlikely that Targ was in for a Ph.D. because in such cases (a) you would call it research, not study, and (b) Ph.D.s take longer than 2 years, so if Targ correctly indicated the dates as 1954-6 (if I have recalled them correctly), this would not fit with a Ph.D. In fact, as per suggestion I've asked him for the details. By the way, my assumption would be that the reason he did not go on to take a Ph.D. was that a more attractive option was available to him at the time. --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No original research what do the reliable sources say, that's what WP presents. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That's for articles, doesn't apply to discussion on talk pages. Take a break! --Brian Josephson (talk) 12:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought we were discussing proposed content/changes for the article. As the source says "before completing his PhD" that was working towards a PhD is clear. One can't exactly leave before completing something you haven't started. - - MrBill3 (talk) 12:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've had a quick look at what you wrote and will just clarify the 'self-publication' point that I made. It was Targ himself (as user Torgownik) who added the dates.  The edit itself was, just in this special case, self-publication.  My point was basically that just adding the dates was a pretty innocuous activity (especially as the short timescale confirms that he didn't get a Ph.D. there), but clearly an editor might add information that really puffed himself up, and that would be unacceptable. You may have made other point as well but I have to move on now. --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "The edit itself was, just in this special case, self-publication." Umm NO. Wikipedia is never a source for Wikipedia. The absurdity verges on amusing. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It is your use of the guidelines that is absurd. The guideline actually says 'Do not use articles from Wikipedia as sources.', which is not what Targ did in adding information about himself to an article.  Please don't make your dubious intentions so clear.  The points I have been making are perfectly reasonable.  Perhaps putting in something about yourself into an article is not correctly characterised as self-publication, so let me rename it self-publicising, which is what would be objectionable. --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's now examine what the guidelines (WP:verfiability) say. The section on self-published sources gives as an example a personal web page, which basically means a web page to which a person can post himself without oversight.  Posting material to a wikipedia page is the same process, and the information thus posted will be available in the history indefinitely even if it is subsequently changed, or removed.  There can be no doubt that Targ has posted on the internet the dates when he did his graduate study.  Now is it OK to use (reinstate) that information in the article?  Let's scroll down a bit.  We see there:"Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim."It is because of that proviso that I mentioned the question of whether this information would be self-serving. The conclusion then: Targ has posted information about himself on wikipedia; anyone can see this by going to the history; this information is not self-serving; therefore it may be included in the article. Sorry to have explained the logic in such detail, but it seems it is necessary. --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * A post in the history of an article on WP is not a published source. If you really want this explained beyond question we can take this to RSN but I can assure you that the decision would be clear and resounding. A post on WP is never a source for WP. Would you use the diff of the edit for the citation? An edit to an article is part of the article so "Do not use articles from Wikipedia as sources" most obviously applies. Your circling of circularity has transcended the absurd to the surreal. As much as I have enjoyed our discussion perhaps a compromise is in order. I think I will create a new section posing the question if any (other) editor contests the addition of the dates. Then if there is no objection I will withdraw my objection and allow the edit to stand under the category of minor/uncontroversial corrections/details. I will however probably add "leaving without completing his PhD" as that is unambiguously present in the source. I am open to the suggestion from a(n) editor(s) for whom I have personal respect that I am being an ass and should put the dates back in and let it go or to policy based argument. I appreciate your reasonably courteous engagement but I must admit I marvel at the convolutions of your argument. I wish you a pleasant day. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * A question for you, MrBill. Supposing Targ, instead of posting the dates when he was doing graduate work in Columbia on to the article page, added the information to this talk page.  Would you then allow the information to be added? However, I have now noted your willingness to compromise so will not press the point.  I was going to point out that there is good precedent for a biographee being able to add uncontroversial information to his biography, even if a RS can't be found.  There is a high probability that doing this would improve the article.  One could always deal with the situation with a 'citation added' tag if it was thought necessary to indicate the absence of an RS explicitly.--Brian Josephson (talk) 16:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If in fact Targ left Columbia and gave up Ph.D. for some reason such as being offered an excellent job, I would regard your 'leaving without completing his PhD' as a gratuitous smear on a WP:living person. And since we don't know the reason, we have to give him the benefit of the doubt, as otherwise it would remain a gratuitous smear. --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No an edit to a talk page would also not be a published source outside of WP. Circular is quite clear. I really suggest you post a query to RSN is you have further questions. That is the specialty there and an editor who was uninvolved would almost certainly provide an answer. It is a curious thing that if the Columbia dates of attendance were posted on the subject own website/blog they would be evaluated as RS and quite possibly found acceptable. I do see your point that the two are in function essentially the same.
 * Your regard of a fact published in a reliable source is of little concern. When writing about the subject a reliable source considered that a detail worthy of including in the published work. It is the source that provides the fact, an editors interpretation or opinion is irrelevant. As there are relatively few published sources that provide biographical information on the subject I don't think you can provide other content that is more prominent in the published sources to argue against its due weight, especially as you are trying to assert WP article and talk page edits as sources. Again you feign ignorance of core policy WP:NPOV.
 * "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"
 * "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."
 * Come now you would argue for the proportion of an edit on WP (by the most primary of sources) but oppose the due weight of a fact published in text under the auspices of a major publisher by an author with substantial publication in the field? Shall we take the two facts and two sources to RSN and let them render judgement? Your interpretation that stating the fact present in a source is a smear is not backed up by anything. A fact is a fact, let the reader interpret, perhaps he left why is not relevant unless some reliable source finds it relevant then we can include that interpretation. I am sure the source given would be considered reliable. - - MrBill3 (talk) 16:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I've been studying this extraordinarily complicated thread and think this discussion has got off track. The real point is that while it is certainly true that Targ left Columbia without getting a Ph.D., he never appears to have embarked on a Ph.D. course, which would make the fact that he left without getting a Ph.D. staggeringly non-notable, and unworthy of a mention in the article.  Likewise the fact that he didn't embark on a Ph.D. course after completing his 'graduate study' isn't particularly notable either since, as someone has pointed out, this is pretty common.  So any reference to a PhD at all is uncalled for.  I might add that Targ has confirmed that he doesn't have a Ph.D., so anyone calling him Dr. Targ would just be giving him a 'courtesy title'.

Since regular encyclopedia writers usually that Targ "did two years of graduate work in physics at Columbia University, then joined the Sperry Gyroscope company in Long Island to do research on microwaves and plasma physics. In 1962 Targ moved west to Palo Alto and went to work for Sylvania, a company in General Telephone's orbit, where he invented a high-power gas laser now used in fusion research."take considerable care over their facts, I suggest (unless there is any evidence that this information is incorrect) we just quote what is says in the Encyclopedia of Occultism etc "He studied at Queens College, New York (B.S., physics, 1954) and completed his graduate study in physics at Columbia University", adding if people agree the years of this graduate study supplied by Targ himself. --Brian Josephson (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As per previous discussion the reference you quote is questionable at the very least as to what its wording "completed" means. The current wording is based upon a more recent less ambiguous reference. Juan Riley (talk) 23:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see the relevance of recency, given that we are discussing an event in the 1950s. Alternatively, the reverse of your position can very well be argued thus: in the case of the more recent book there was a greater lapse of time between the event and the book than was the case with the earlier book, so the earlier book is more likely to be accurate.  And again, it doesn't make any sense to me to claim that 'complete' has a well-defined meaning in one quote but not in the other. --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Authoritative information: ambiguity clarified
I now have it from Kaiser himself that he got his information about Targ's career from a 1977 magazine article by Elaine Dewar, "In search of the mind's eye: In the weird world of ESP, seeing is not believing," which was published in the Winnipeg Free Press Weekend Magazine on 30 July 1977, pp. 8-12. That article says that Targ "did two years of graduate work in physics at Columbia University, then joined the Sperry Gyroscope company in Long Island to do research on microwaves and plasma physics. In 1962 Targ moved west to Palo Alto and went to work for Sylvania, a company in General Telephone's orbit, where he invented a high-power gas laser now used in fusion research." So this bit about Targ leaving before completing his PhD isn't a good way of describing the situation, but I can see that since he has just referred to Puthoff and his PhD he might have thought the fact that Targ didn't have one would be of interest to readers. It looks as if, as I speculated, he didn't go for a PHD as a good alternative was available (before you editors pounce on me, I'm not suggesting that OR speculation be included in the article). But for a bio just about Targ the fact that he didn't go for a PhD isn't noteworthy, as I and others have pointed out. The conclusion it seems to me is that Kaiser quote misleads and doesn't add anything useful, but the WFP article does add useful information not in the current article, so that might be added. It incidentally confirms the two years. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be available on the web (I've checked the magazine web site also), but Kaiser forwarded me a pdf of the article. I can't post that here for copyright reasons, but I could forward it by email to anyone interested. --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * While a WP editor's interview of an author is pure OR and isn't a solid argument. I'll take your word that the author identified the WFP article as his source. Given that, and that the WFP article is at least a marginally reliable source I think it is an adequate reference and the two year period can be added to the article. I think we can also take your word that the author synthesized his statement from the WFP article which I can't see stating the subject was working on a PhD and did not complete it. The fact we do have is two years of graduate work and a date range that he didn't get a PhD may not be as relevant as the Kaiser source made it seem, he also didn't get an engineering degree, a literature degree of any of several hundred things people get in graduate study. With no evidence he was attempting any of those (excluding the devalued Kaiser statement) we have just the fact did two years graduate work with that fact from Dewar, the dates supplied by Targ seem fine. Here is a formatted version for use as a ref:


 * Glad to see this resolved (barring some objection from another editor). If you think there is other material that should be included from the WFP article, if you email it to me I will give it a read. I was hoping something in print would turn up that would allow a broader perspective. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Glad we are now agreed on how to go ahead on this. I've updated the page, and thanks for saving me the trouble of sorting out the format of the reference.  I removed the reference to Kaiser as I believe that was only there to support reference to the non-PhD, which I believe we are now agreed was misleading. --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way, it looks as if the extra information in the magazine article is already there in summary form in the wp article, so maybe there's nothing that needs to be added there. --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There was another reference tagged to that Kaiser reference so I added the Kaiser ref back in. Moreover, Kaiser's work is technical and he is a scientist (not a free lance journalist)...so shall we say in my book a more RS. Let the readers decide. I still think the Gale references are questionable but for the moment they stand.Juan Riley (talk) 23:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Good that you spotted that — it looks as if the reference was duplicated in the reference list instead of using the official procedure which makes it clear when a ref. is used more than once. Re Gale, have you any evidence that the content is incorrect, which is the thing that really matters, after all? --Brian Josephson (talk) 07:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * FYI, the Gale ref is actually:
 * Not exactly sure about the copyright status of the url. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @Brian: not sure there is an official way of so referencing a single source two or more times. The way it is done in the article is the only way I know of not to have to repeat the citing info and yet change the page referenced in the source. MrBill3 should know more about that. Juan Riley (talk) 23:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @Brian: not sure there is an official way of so referencing a single source two or more times. The way it is done in the article is the only way I know of not to have to repeat the citing info and yet change the page referenced in the source. MrBill3 should know more about that. Juan Riley (talk) 23:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Notes on referencing
It is not official policy that the reference cannot be simply duplicated with a different page number, see Help:References and page numbers, although Help:Citing sources does state, "When an article cites many different pages from the same source, to avoid the redundancy of many big, nearly identical full citations, most Wikipedia editors...".

There are a number of ways my preferred way is to add the "ref" parameter to the first citation of a work such as |ref= or |ref= inside the first citation template, then subsequent citations could be in the form of  or

A full explanation can be found at Help:References and page numbers and Help:Shortened footnotes.

As an example:

Fact one about subject. Then later in the article, fact two about subject. Further on in the article another two facts about subject in a single sentence. Getting fancy one could reference the way the article was identified on the cover of the magazine. Other editors prefer the "rp" template, fact from page eleven.

Reflist

Example above with markup revealed.

Fact one about subject. Then later in the article, fact two about subject. Further on in the article another two facts about subject in a single sentence. Getting fancy one could reference the way the article was identified on the cover of the magazine. Other editors prefer the "rp" template, fact from page eleven.

I am sure this is of little interest to most but I thought I'd provide the details for those interested as I am in having the tightest, clean ref section possible. Other editors prefer to add the "rp" template after the closing ref tag. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * When one uses the cite mechanism, one of the fields in the list is a name for the reference, but I guess most people (including myself) don't bother to fill in that field. The ideal solution would be for the system automatically to issue a warning if you try to delete a reference that is used more than once. While we're on the subject of references, I once used the cite mechanism on my own talk page, and it appeared in what I seem to recall was an inappropriate location.  I then realised that I could improve matters by inserting a reflist tag.  This caused a Reference section including the reference to appear, but the snag was that when someone added a new section it got added after the reference section instead of before it as in the norm.  Is there a way to avoid that? Sorry to extend this rather off-topic discussion, feel free to respond on my own talk page if you think it more appropriate. --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you MrBill3. I have copied your notes to my sandbox for future reference (pun intended). Juan Riley (talk) 16:47, 2 August 2014 (UTC)