Talk:Russell Targ/Archive 6

ReOrganized Article Content
This is meant only as a suggestion but the best way of illustrating it was by actually doing it. No content has been removed or added. Paragraphs have been moved to the Early life et al section in order that it provides a more readable neutral summary of the subjects life education and career before the details on paranormal research are gone into. I only ask that it be considered. Then of course reverted as a whole if it that is the editorial consensus. Juan Riley (talk) 21:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Juan, looks very good, and agree that it is a much better article now. Cwobeel (talk) 21:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks good and it works for me. Thanks! --Ca2james (talk) 23:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There's some duplication. Can someone look over it carefully? I notice the Delphi info is duplicated... --Ronz (talk) 23:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I left the Delphi duplicated for readability. Juan Riley (talk) 00:03, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't see that originally. In a longer article, it might make sense to duplicate information but this is a short article and there's no need for this kind of duplication. I've removed the duplicate sentence from the Early life section. --Ca2james (talk) 00:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Does leave a temporal gap in the career section which is why I copied it there. Juan Riley (talk) 01:21, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm, yes, that's a good point. Do we have anything about Delphi associates other than the fact that it was formed that could be included in the article? If we did, then the fact that it was formed could go in the Early career section and the other information could go later. If not, then we need to figure out a way to make the article structure work without having the same sentence twice because that's jarring for the reader. --Ca2james (talk) 01:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There is an article from the Wall street Journal from 1984. I didn't pay for it here because I'm cheap but I think the text is reproduced here (starting at San Mateo), and it does mention a deal with Atari. I'll keep looking for more. --Ca2james (talk) 02:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * And here's an image of a New Scientist page from 1984 with a short note talking about how Delphi is suing to get the money from Atari. Is this (and possibly the WSJ article) enough to add the Atari info to the article? --Ca2james (talk) 02:06, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

It looks to me like a sentence or two with some difference in content can be developed on Delphi. I also think the discussion of the Atari contract is adequate to warrant mention. I am glad to see this as it is something Targ feels is important. We are closing in on due weight issues but this seems fine to me.

Thanks to JR for the bold work, something needed to actually be done and the work looks good. Now if we could just rename the biblio to "Publications" and list all notable journal articles chronologically...- - MrBill3 (talk) 03:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If by chronological you mean mix science publication with (ahem) paranormal ones...I am sure you know that I would be opposed to such. Juan Riley (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That is what I meant, but I am willing to accept consensus otherwise. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * So am I...my "opposition" should be considered my vote. Though I do hope some discussion of reasoning precedes an implementation. Juan Riley (talk) 23:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I like the current setup with a Publications section and the publication types as subsections, each chronologically arranged. There are 12 paranormal works, 8 physics works, and 1 memoir in the section - is this due weight? I'd think that the physics weight should be less than 66% of the paranormal since he is more notable for his paranormal work. --Ca2james (talk) 03:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)