Talk:Elizabeth Rauscher/Archive 1

Notability

I don't see any real notability here. Elizabeth Rauscher's research is mostly unsubstantiated pseudoscience. In addition this page lacks reliable sources. The only sources here are from her own works, and the article fails to meet criteria 3 and 7 on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources

I'm proposing that the article be deleted if notability cannot be established, and if sources other than her own published works or works published by associations she is a part of cannot be found by others. I have had no such luck on google/google scholars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.15.135 (talk) 6 August 2008

This is ridiculous. Elizabeth Rauscher is a leading figure in physics research and has held numerous posts at several universities. It is understandable that the anon IP has claimed that her books are "unsubstantiated pseudoscience" because he obviously has no idea what Quantum Mechanics or Astrophysics is. Before you start questioning notability based on questioning the science, bring forth your own credentials before you start criticizing what you don't know. The claims in this relatively simple wiki page are not unsubstantiated. Notability is guaranteed by the number of Google hits and the page has a number of references (albeit in science papers). Also, check WP:SELFPUB yourself: it definitely meets more than 3/7 of the criteria. I will be removing those notices & btw please sign your comments with the 4 tildes. Ace blazer (talk) 04:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Ace, or maybe another editor, perhaps you could add additonal references to her article? I believe anon IP was referring to the fact that the only sources cited are self-published, and therefore do not meet the criteria for having reliable sources.70.67.169.92 (talk) 06:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

A message will be left on the creator's page (User:Avsav) stating that either he establish a better reason for notability and better citations or else the two pages on Elizabeth Rauscher and Nassim Haramein will be facing deletion. Remember though, notability guidelines say to "PLEASE USE DELETION AS A LAST RESORT". If you guys need a bone to pick, try something else like going to the Wikipedia:Community portal and take a look at the fix-up projects there. Ace blazer (talk) 16:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance, Ace. Originally I listed dozens of her published papers, if one takes a look at the history of the original article. This was taken out by someone else later and deemed inappropriate; however it does merit note that she has published quite a few papers in established mainstream publications, taught at major universities, has a PhD, has written books, etc. I will take the time to find a list more of these as I can.Avsav (talk) 23:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

So I've removed the "who's who" awards since individuals pay to receive those awards and they don't mean anything. I've also asked for citations for a number of the other that appear obscure awards. The "Outstanding Contribution to Astronomy and Astrophysics" was listed in a confusing way and you'll probably want to clean it up. Actually it would be worth turning the awards into a bulleted list. Honestly the detail in her teaching should probably be scaled back to two sentences. Take a look at noble laureates in physics for example Albert Fert. I doubt this page will be deleted. Its just important that she be placed in the right context.--OMCV (talk) 02:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I just tried to clean the page up some more. The award section still needs work and you need a better citation than the CV. If the award isn't listed on the internet its probably not note worthy. Additionally where did she get her BA from and when? Did she really get 3 PhDs and were they all received at the same time (when)?--OMCV (talk) 03:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I am a physicist with an interest in bad science. This character is not a real scientist. Evidence: LLNL does not have a "Chairman". There is however a director. She was never it. She has published books on diverse topics such as how the B2 has a new kind of anti gravity propulsion system and the spirituality of man. She has not published any papers in any journals and I would put money on her having never obtained any degree except maybe a diploma in BS studies from a non accredited correspondence college on the net. As much as I find these delusional con artists such as our protagonist amusing, I think the article has to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.144.90 (talk) 20:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sadly she appears to be a real person with a degree. I checked a couple patent numbers too. I think the chairmen statement might have been tied to a seminar series that statement that didn't get fully deleted in my efforts to prune the article. The people who stuck here up here are doing for slimy reasons. It would be worth adding what you know about her not being a mainstream scientist or pushing for the deletion.--OMCV (talk) 20:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes you are right it appears I was wrong I was too hasty in my judgement. It looks like she does have a PhD obtained in 1978 from California Univ, Berkeley and has published a few papers. The last one I found was in Phys. Rev. Letters, 68:21 p.3152. 1992. The paper lists her institution as University of Nevada although not surprisingly she is not there anymore. I don't know what happened to her; but whatever it was it's a real shame. Normally these people don't have any qualifications, very occasionally you find a real scientist that went off the rails. Very sad.

Wow, the same group of people in here. Yes, sad indeed. You mean a scientist thought things that the other scientists didn't? Good lord! Heretic! Lets sweep this person under the rug quickly. Science is an unchangeable edifice! We don't want anyone questioning science! We may have changed the laws of physics every 100 years since the beginnings of the scientific method, but this time we've got it right! Can't have any nay-sayers! Oh, wait, she's a famous and well known physicist and mathemetician who's worked with some of the heaviest hitters on the block? Oh, jeez, oh, um... uh, sorry about that, uh, Doctor.

This is one of the sorriest sights to which I have borne witness. People writing the garbage I see in here and not even signing their name to it. Scientific method seems to have been completely forgotten. Come up with the most outlandish stuff you can imagine and then test it out!

You know, Einstein had a hundred guys like you shooting spitwads at him from the back of the patent office.

To think, the next closest thing to what Haramein and Rauscher are working on right now is string theory. In a nutshell: the universe is made up of 11 dimensions. 7 of them you can't see, and for which we have absolutely no evidence. But that's what it is!

And that is just bought by the truckload.

Attacking a person like this is just shocking. If it was by people who understood the theories their proposing, that would be one thing. But by the completely ignorant? You may have doctorates yourselves. That doesn't excuse you from doing your homework.Concolor (talk) 04:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

notability?

is this person notable as per wikipedia's standards? Theserialcomma (talk) 02:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

She might be, but it needs to be established. Right now there are no references on the page that do that; the main reference is to her own cv, which is self-published and not worth much here. Google news brings up a couple of hits, but mainly something about her being evicted from somewhere. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW, to deal with the relevant conception of notability, see WP:PROF. One's own personal feelings on the issue are not what matters here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Tidbits of interest

None of this is usable in the article in its current form: Notes for further work:

http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/pdf/15.3_rauscher_targ.pdf in which she discusses her work with remote viewing and a model for psi abilities, including remote viewng and ESP .

Dr Rasucher has also been known as Elzabeth Van Bise and was a self styled expert in electromagnetic mind control, remote viewing, ESP, distance healing, and electromagnetic influences on earthquaakes.

Dr Rauscher and her husband(?) william van Bise were evicted from the estate of Josh Reynolds (the eccentic grandson of the founder of Reynolds tobacco) after his death. Search for "Andrija Puharich" for more details. Guyonthesubway (talk) 20:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Summary of June 2011 Tags

This person seems to be know lately through her association with pseudo-scientist Nassim Haramein and his "research institute" called the Resonance Project. Not sure why this is not even mentioned in the article. The article makes no real claim for notability – it's merely a recitation of positions she's held. Most physicists arrive here at WP through the impact and/or notability of their work, as documented through scholarly output. I did a quick check of WoS, which is the appropriate source for physicists, and found 29 publications, having citations of 32, 12, 8, 8, 5, 4, 4, 3,... (h-index = 5). Also, the holographic multiverse book is held by <100 libraries. (Her other book is new this year and not perhaps yet widely held.) These are remarkably average figures for someone who's been a physicist since 1962. (This article would likely be deleted at AfD with these stats.) This article needs help to demonstrate notability of the subject, as well as WP:RS. Please do not remove these tags until these problems are demonstrably resolved. Thanks! Agricola44 (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC).

Probably ought to just send this to WP:AfD. Per consensus at AfD, Haramein isn't sufficiently notable for a WP article, and if Rauscher's primary claim to fame is her association with him, then she probably isn't notable enough for inclusion in WP either. Yilloslime ^T_C 00:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Please be my guest. I'm too busy with other things right now, but I did do some good-faith checking before applying tags, and it seems there's not much more to be found out there. She probably isn't actually notable. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 17:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC).

Contested deletion

I do not think this page should be speedy deleted because it seems to make some claims to notability via the award, acadmic record and work. I am not sure if this article is substantially the same as the one that was deleted before but it would seem to me good to allow another AFD -- (Msrasnw (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC))

Citation style and templates

Headbomb, I'd appreciate it if you would respect WP:CITEVAR, and not change the citation style and add templates. As it stands now, the references are properly formatted, consistent, and easy to read in edit and read mode. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, please respect the relevant guideline. I'm quite willing to discuss it here with you. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, adding that she taught a summer class looks undermining, as though this is all that can be said about her. I object to these changes, particularly while the article is at AfD. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

i put that in there because it predated the group. "philosophy of science" during the summer, may seem undermining to some, but it is an early class in the topic. this is what grad students do.98.163.75.189 (talk) 00:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

To quote WP:CITEVAR "Generally considered helpful -- Imposing one style on an article with incompatible citation styles (e.g., some of the citations in footnotes and others as parenthetical references): an improvement because it makes the formatting consistent." The article was a mishmash of citation templates, poorly formatted manual citations, shortened footnotes, long footnotes, etc... There was absolutely no established style, and I gave it one, so please respect it. Stop reverting to a mishmash of horror. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:CITEVAR and WP:CITECONSENSUS are very clear. Citation styles should not be changed over objections, and templates should not be added over objections.

I created this article a few months ago, after it had been deleted in 2008. It was not, and is not, a mishmash of styles. Also, you are adding material that, as I said, appears to undermine her. It's important not to do that for BLP reasons, but also because it is currently at AfD. Please revert yourself. I would like to expand this article, and had intended to work on it tonight. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

CITEVAR is also very clear that articles need to be consistent, which they were not. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

It is consistent. See here. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

They were not at the time I made my edits (which your version follows). The first time the article had a consistent style was when I gave it one, so per WP:CITEVAR, this should be restored Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

This is where I created the page in April 2011 (it had been deleted in 2008). The style was consistent. This is where it was restored in August after DGG after the contested speedy deletion. That is the style—a consistent one—that I'm requesting be followed under CITEVAR and CITECONSENSUS.

And, as I said, the style change is just one of the objections. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

eight dimensional

correct page is 93,94 = "in the course of her work, Rauscher realised to account for non-local effects - perhaps even to explain Bell's theorem - would be to increase the number of dimensions of space and time ..." [1] 98.163.75.189 (talk) 00:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the page numbers. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

New Issues

SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} now seems to be guarding this article and has reverted efforts of a number of editors to make it a balanced, accurate piece, including the removal of legitimate references. Right now the article is basically an overt POV piece to downplay Rauscher's new-age activities, seemingly to rehabilitate her reputation as a mainstream physicist. Agricola44 (talk) 16:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC).

Nothing was removed. But you can't say she is best known for something, then link only to an article she herself has written. If you want to say she is known for something, you need a secondary source, and if you want to say she is "best known" for something, you need a high-quality secondary source who has written about her extensively for that reason, more than for any other. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Please don't put words into my mouth. I never said "removed", but you are certainly reverting efforts to accurately portray Rauscher and her work. You yourself are violating your own assertion by claiming she is best-known for FFG. That is false. The Kaiser book is only 1 source that discusses that. I put in 3 legitimate references (published book) that mention her in the context of new age work and, indeed, there are oodles more on Google books. It is a fact that she is most well-known for her new-age activities, and your edits are diminishing that. Agricola44 (talk) 16:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC).

The Kaiser book is the highest quality academic source. It discusses her extensively (have you read it?). You are saying you know her for X and Y, but if you want to say other people know her for that, you need secondary sources, not a paper by her. And if you want to mention "New Age," the source must say that. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Yet another non sequitur. As you well know, the Kaiser book is brand new (W. W. Norton & Company, 2011) – most people haven't read it yet. Since this is the only source that really discusses Rauscher, it follows that it is logically impossible for her to be known primarily for FFG. I don't know how this could be made any more plain. Conversely, she has been active in new-age work for about 40 years and there are many books that make mention of this (trivial though they may be) and these books are also from "high quality publishers" (if you now want to delve into another level of subjectivity). One example is the 1993 book "Healing words" books published by HarperCollins. It is a fact that she is most well-known for new-age work and your edits give the distinct impression of trying to whitewash this. Agricola44 (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC).

Look, you've been arguing for months that she's not notable. [2] [3] You voted to have the article deleted. You said there were no sources for her role with the Fundamental Fysiks group, [4] though there's a scholarly book about it. You've tagged the article as problematic. [5]

I think with this degree of interest in her, you ought to read the Kaiser book, where you'll see for yourself that she gets a fairly extensive treatment. Then we can discuss how to present his research in relation to others, per UNDUE. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I would love it if you would stop changing the subject. The facts are: (1) there are many references about Rauscher, (2) all except 1 are trivial, (3) the AfD consensus based on this information was "keep", so (4) we should now all move on and try to make this the most accurate article possible. You have a very obvious POV agenda and are turning a blind eye to her 40 years in the world of new age. Her last primary paper in a mainstream physics journal was published in 1973, "MINKOWSKI METRIC FOR A MULTIDIMENSIONAL GEOMETRY" LETTERE AL NUOVO CIMENTO 7(10), 361-367 and almost all her substantive activities since then have been new age. We can easily fill the article with 30 or 40 references to this effect. Agricola44 (talk) 17:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC).

I don't know what my very obvious POV agenda is. All I'm requesting is that you read David Kaiser's How the Hippies Saved Physics (2011), which discusses Rauscher extensively as one of those hippies. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we both know what the agenda is (whitewashing Rauscher's reputation), we, or should I say "I" just don't know why it is. Requesting me to read Kaiser's whole book (I've already read the parts relevant to Rauscher) implies that (1) I still don't abide by the "keep" consensus (I assure you, I do), and that (2) there's some sort of "right" that I have to earn in order to be permitted to work on this article. That's complete rubbish. In fact, it's already clear that the parts about Rauscher discussed in Kaiser's book are already quite well covered in the article. What is missing (or, at least dramatically underemphasized) is the whole rest of her new-age career. Please allow this legitimate material to be added to the article. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 18:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC).

I will tell you what my agenda is, so that you don't have to engage in remote viewing to discern it. :) I started reading David Kaiser's book (not finished yet). I thought it was cool. I saw that Elizabeth Rauscher was extensively mentioned, yet was going through the same old same old on Wikipedia, where scientists with quirky points of view are often deleted or undermined. So I decided to use the book as a source to make sure that doesn't happen to Rauscher again. Not whitewashing, just not blackening. Neutral point of view, verifiability, no original research, and a disinterested tone.

If you have other good secondary sources who've written about her, by all means use them to expand the "later research" section. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You've done a marvelous job of being subtle, but the article is still a POV whitewash. You've now (1) changed the lead statement to call her "an American physicist" with no mention of her paranormal work, (2) condensed lots of new-age references and their individual call-outs into 1 cite, and these placed under the Kaiser book, and (3) expanded the single Kaiser source to multiple called-out citations. These plainly slant the article. Moreover, there are references that would appear not to satisfy your definition of a high-quality source that further the POV, like a website source for being a physics prof at Nevada. What has happened to other articles on "scientists with quirky points of view" is not particularly relevant here. You're really using the Kaiser book as more of a battering ram to suppress the fringe work this woman has participated in for the majority of her career. There are numerous sources for this and it should be reported with proper weight in this article. Agricola44 (talk) 21:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC).

sophistry: Yet another non sequitur. As you well know, the Kaiser book is brand new (W. W. Norton & Company, 2011) – most people haven't read it yet. Since this is the only source that really discusses Rauscher, it follows that it is logically impossible for her to be known primarily for FFG.

"most people" means you?; she can be known without being written about in sources; for example Brian Josephson recalls: I've not been following up her activities, but I believe she was one of the first to propose the use of multi-dimensional spaces to explain certain things (in a conference in the late '70s, I believe). That would seem pretty notable. [6]; she was known by all those at the FFG reunion.

when you say "POV whitewash", you mean it does not reflect your POV? 98.163.75.189 (talk) 21:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

We're now getting even more far afield. It's common sense that the aggregate number of people who've read a particular book grows the longer the book has been in print, so yes, it matters whether a book (such as this one) is brand new. (If you'd have bothered to read carefully, you'd see that I've already read the book though.) Second, we do not count user testimonials as sources, even if the user is Brian Josephson. Please stop wasting everyone's time with these sorts of attempted redirects. Thanks! Agricola44 (talk) 15:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC).

changing the subject - you made a false statement: it is quite possible to be known, without being written about in RS. after all, Brian Josephsen says he knew of her. please stop wasting peoples' time with your POV pushing at AfD and article talk. 98.163.75.189 (talk) 17:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course it is quite possible to be known without being written about in RS. If that were relevant, you'd have a point. You're not a terribly careful reader, are you. I said testimonials don't count here. It seems you're still stuck in arguing the AfD. We've all accepted the "keep" consensus and are now trying to resolve POV in a constructive way. I'll not respond to any more of your trollish, parroting posts, as you seem only interested in baiting people into more argument with nonsense about personal testimony. You seem to be confused about some basic policies and what counts as sourcing. Please familiarize yourself with the guidelines before weighing-in with more off-topic nonsense. Thanks! Agricola44 (talk) 19:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC).

POV tag

I think the latest revision now furnishes sufficient evidence that SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} is guarding this article against any edits that portray Elizabeth Rauscher as anything less than a mainstream scientist in good standing with the physics community at large. In fact, Rauscher has spent the majority of her career on various paranormal topics (supported by a large body of sources) and is indeed known primarily in this context, but Slim is waging a focused campaign to suppress this information as much as possible. As one can see from the discussion above, tactics include POV editing of text and citations. However, let me give, in detail, one very specific example.

This version of the article mentioned a piece of work by Rauscher and Nassim Haramein that purports to make substantial progress on Einstein's Unified field theory. The paper is quite clear on this, e.g. from its abstract "...U4 space in which we formulate solutions to Einstein’s field equations with the...", from its introduction "We do so by formulating torque and Coriolis forces into Einstein’s field equations and developing a modified Kerr-Newman solution where...", etc ... seemingly an impressive piece of work in physics. The version of the article I'm speaking of portrayed the Haramein-Rauscher work very accurately, in particular it said "She is known more widely for her New Age activities, including... and her efforts to complete Einstein's vision of the Unified field theory" (emphasis mine), with the Haramein-Rauscher paper cited. Sources such as the Resonance Project, where Rauscher has been on staff for some time, indicate this paper is extremely significant.

Less than an hour later, Slim had changed the wording to this: "She has also written about completing Einstein's vision of the unified field theory" (emphasis mine). Note how this subtle rewording changes the entire context of the claim. The reader is left with the impression that the authors are perhaps describing others' work on the problem, the current status, the history, etc. It completely stunts the significance – akin to saying that Andrew Wiles wrote about solving Fermat's Theorem in his famous paper.

Why would Slim change the context?

From a "new age" standpoint, there's nothing really wrong with this paper: It tackles a large "cosmic" problem, claiming an explanation with a mixture of various jargon. The problem arises instead when one views it from the perspective of physics, proper. Here, one quickly concludes, with all due respect, that it is fanciful and utter nonsense. This was demonstrated in detail in an AfD all the way back in 2008, so I will only give a few examples: meaningless (mis)representation of integrals (e.g. pp 2 and 4), naive assumptions that simple undergraduate definitions of entities like torque "yield a picture of galactic, nebula, and supernova formation" (section 2), and basic misunderstanding between torque and energy (pp 10, they have nominally the same physical units). In fact, the paper is mostly filled with flowery language and equations from undergraduate science books and will therefore appear quite impressive and intimidating to anyone not familiar with basic mathematical physics. Predictably, it was never submitted for scrutiny to the mainstream physics community (or perhaps it was submitted, but rejected), but rather was "published" by a new-age outlet called the Noetic Press. So, we now have our answer to the above question. Slim changed the context because this work isn't credible for a mainstream physicist, the precise image in which Slim wants to cast Rauscher.

So what is the problem? Rauscher does have a background in physics, right?

Yes, even a PhD. These facts are well-emphasized in the article. The problem is that the article tries hard to downplay Rauscher's roughly 40-year career in the paranormal, the area where she spent the majority of her career and for which there are numerous sources. In short, the POV here consists of efforts that are trying to control Rauscher's image, evidently to whitewash anything that contravenes whatever reputation she might have as a physicist.

In the interest of full disclosure, I had voted to delete this article in the recent AfD because I felt the substance of the sources (excluding the Kaiser book, which is a good source) was lacking. Overt POV was evident in the article even at that time, so much so that I openly expressed concern. The problem seems to have made no progress toward resolution. I'm hoping other eds might weigh-in here to give some perspective. Until then, I think the POV tag is entirely justified in light of the above observations and I'll thank everyone to not remove it until better consensus forms either one way or the other. Agricola44 (talk) 22:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC).

I agree that the POV tag is justified; the current article does not accurately represent Elizabeth Rauscher's work, which is largely in the paranormal. It also exaggerates Rauscher's role in the FFG: there is no indication that she was involved in the no-cloning theorem, for example. I am also unsure why the external image link is included, given that it's a photograph not including Rauscher. And the sentence "She has also written about completing Einstein's vision of the unified field theory" should, in my view, be deleted, since no publication in an accepted physics forum is involved. -- 202.124.73.38 (talk) 23:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It was Agricola, by the way, who added the primary source about her work on the unified field theory. [7] Hence our discussion at the top about using secondary sources. Primary sources are allowed, as are self-published ones in BLPs, so long as written about the subject (see WP:BLPSPS), but we can't use them the way Agricola did, to make claims about them. For that we need a secondary source. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 14:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned that you removed the POV tag without addressing the points raised by two editors. I have restored the tag, as per policy. -- 202.124.73.14 (talk) 15:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPOV dispute: "Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort." SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

From WP:NPOV dispute: "In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed." -- 202.124.72.81 (talk) 00:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

But it should be added as a last resort, not as a first resort by someone who has tagged multiple articles with multiple IP addresses, and who won't log in, or respond to requests about logging in. Otherwise practically every page on Wikipedia would be tagged, because there is always going to be someone who doesn't like them. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The POV tag was inserted by Agricola44, for the reasons outlined above. -- 202.124.74.188 (talk) 01:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Several things, first the constant comments and accusations about other editors must stop, that is an inappropriate use of the article talk page per WP:TPNO, please restrict future comments to the editorial content of the article. If anyone has a problem with another editor's behavior, take it to your user talk pages and follow WP:DR. Second, I don’t see an NPOV problem with the article, the lede clearly indicates her interest in the paranormal, It appears to be correct that she has an ‘interest’ in Parapsychology, rather than the vaguely worded “paranormal researcher’ with an unhelpful link to Paranormal, if she is to be called a parapsychologist, we’d need a WP:BLP-compliant source that says this.

Also, I see attempts to remove WP:SPS sources under a misinterpretation of SPS.[8]; Rauscher wrote the paper, which therefore falls under Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field. Since the source is a Primary Source, its use should reflect that part of policy.

Please focus on adding the content and sources you believe will further the interests of NPOV and the project rather than the constant sniping and revert warring. I don’t see a need for the tag, just normal editing per policy. Dreadstar ☥ 01:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with Agricola's rationale. SlimVirgin is whitewashing this article to make her look more mainstream than she is. It should stay until this issue is fixed, and due weight is given to her less-than-mainstream research.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you actually attempt to fix the content problems you're seeing instead of continuing to comment on other contributiors - per WP:NPA.. I see you've now done it in an edit summary, which is inappropriate. I don't find your arguments for the tag or neutrality problems compelling. Dreadstar ☥ 16:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what a personal attack is. As far as "commenting" vs "fixing the problem", the first step is to establish consensus that there is a problem. The article has been whitewashed. It does not give due weight to her less-than-mainstream work, tries to present Rauscher as more mainstream than she is, and thus cannot be considered neutral. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but continued accusations that another editor is 'whitewashing' an article is indeed commenting on another contributor and falls squarely under WP:NPA. If you truly have concerns about the neutrality of this article then I suggest you outline those specifics and add content and sources per policy. Quit commenting on others here, period. Dreadstar ☥ 17:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, what then would be the explanation for the above behavior? My intention is to let emotions cool down a bit and then to make a good-faith effort to add information (with sources) on Rauscher's roughly 40-year career in the paranormal. I don't speak for Headbomb or anyone else, but perhaps their intentions are similar. Perhaps it is best for all of us to cool off a bit. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 16:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC).

Why don't you expand the "later research" section with the material you want to include? There is no point in adding a POV tag, while failing to expand the article with the material you say is being left out. The tags are meant to be a last resort only. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Tags aren't meant to be last resort. Tags are meant to identify problems and warn the reader. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

You haven't identified content problems, merely continued to inappropriately comment on what you see as behaviorial issues. Per NPA: "Comment on content, not on the contributor."". Can't get any clearer than that. Dreadstar ☥ 17:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Haven't identified any problem??? What that's huge wall of text from Agricola if not exactly that??? And what exactly here is a personal attack? It's been focused solely on content issues. Anyway, I raised this at the NPOV noticeboard.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

"..focused solely on content issues"? You must be kidding...it's almost entirely about behavior. "Slim did this," "Slim did that", "Slim is guarding", etc..etc..etc... The "wall of text" would have been much more effective if it had focused strictly on the editorial content of the article, and gone off into these purported behaviorial tangents. Be concise, be clear...about content. Dreadstar ☥ 17:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)Dreadstar ☥ 17:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

C'mon Slim. You've reverted or blunted practically everything that several editors have added to this article that discusses her paranormal work. It's a little disingenuous to now invite folks to add such and it's a little presumptuous to suggest that such can only be added to "later research". A balanced version of this article would mention this work prominantly in the lead-in and would expand on it in the text. I will be glad to add such if and when this edit-warring nonsense cools down. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC).

The Lead reflects the content of the article, so adding content to the 'later research'or other appropriate sections would be the natural first step to mentioning things prominantly in the lead. And yes, way to go on stopping the comments on the contributors. Oh, wait.. Dreadstar ☥ 19:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Please read carefully my friend. Edit-warring applies to all of us here – I mentioned no names, nor even any "sides" of this kerfuffle. I think we should all cool down so that we can begin again in a constructive way. Alright with you? Agricola44 (talk) 20:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC).

I read it very carefully, old buddy, and I'm well aware of the bounds of edit warring. Contrary to your assertion, you indeed 'mentioned' names and continue to comment on the contributors. This continued behavior merely detracts from the points you are trying to make and derails constructive collaboration on the issues you raise. Dreadstar ☥ 20:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

How's about leaving the POV tag there, old friend, till we all cool down some. I beg again: is that alright with you? Agricola44 (talk) 20:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC).

Certainly, old chum, I look forward to addressing the issues behind the tag once the lava lake has reduced temp.... :) Dreadstar ☥ 22:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

To the anon (202.124.7x.xx)

As you're reverting and tagging a lot on several articles, would you mind logging into your account so people can keep track of your edits? It would mean editors could leave notes on your talk page. I've done that a few times, but you haven't responded, so I'm leaving this here instead. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 14:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

As one of the editors in this range, I understand from WP:Why create an account? that creating an account is not compulsory. -- 202.124.72.81 (talk) 00:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

No one said creating an account was compulsory; it was merely stated that an account would provide a user talk page, making it much easier to communicate with you rather than attempting to use multiple IP talk pages, where you never seem to respond to messages left for you. Dreadstar ☥ 01:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

A few examples of the anon tagging sentences or whole articles in the last few days: as 202.124.75.72, as as 202.124.74.59, as 202.124.75.6, as 202.124.75.6, as 202.124.74.147, as 202.124.75.50, as 202.124.73.14. When you do that, you're saying your opinion matters more than anyone else's, and your personal view must be prominently displayed, like spraying graffiti on houses you walk past if you don't like the colour of their front doors. And when you do it with multiple IP addresses, it's harder for people to see the extent of it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

May I beg an end to this thread? It is entirely off-topic. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 15:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC).

How to use the POV tag

This should be used as a last resort, not as an act of revenge. To use it properly, those wanting it must have proposed specific remedies that are (a) actionable within our content policies (NPOV, V, and NOR), and that (b) they have been repeatedly prevented from making, so that they have no choice but to add the tag.

Can I therefore ask that people first of all list below the specific edits they want to make, along with the sources? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

See WP:WIKILAWYER. {{NPOV}} tags are certainly not a last resort, and should be present whenever the article does not present a neutral point of view, to both warn the reader and be listed in cleanup categories. {{NPOV}} tags do not exists as some kind of "last resort" before ARBCOM. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:NPOV dispute:

• "Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort."

Therefore, can I ask again that the people wanting the tag list here the edits they want to make, along with the sources? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

You want to know the specific issues? See #POV tag above, where the specific issues that are actionable within the content policies are documented. Now stop wikilawyering. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and I've addressed those issues. Let's move forward. Dreadstar ☥ 17:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

A succinct list would be appreciated, not a long explanation, i.e. "I want to make this edit, with this source." SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes please, let's avoid TL;DR... :) Dreadstar ☥ 17:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

NPOV/NB

User:Headbomb has posted this non-neutral statement on the NPOV Noticeboard: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Elizabeth_Rauscher. Dreadstar ☥ 17:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

POV tag again

The article can't remain tagged unless the taggers make proposals for change that are actionable within the content policies. It would therefore be helpful if the taggers (Headbomb, Agricola, and 202.124.x.xx) would list here the edits they want to make, along with their sources. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I plan on doing this once it's clear that we can all discuss the subject in a calmer, more objective way. You seem to still be making the very same sort of edits that are disputed. Agricola44 (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC).

It's not really appropriate to leave the tag on until you feel ready to say what specific edits you want to make, Agricola. You were the one who was engaging in personal attacks, so if that has stopped, all is calm. You could list here the sources you want to use, so we could start to read them. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

That is one side of the story. Another side is this. There is a well-documented dispute and the tag is really nothing more than a signpost for that. The solution to this problem is quite another matter, so the tag really must stay until the interested parties are all satisfied. You've been very assertive in going directly to the article itself, molding it the way you see fit, and then trying to cast the burden on other eds to ask permission here first for what they believe should be in the article. In my view, this type of behavior is not helpful to resolving the dispute. How about all of us (you and me, Dread, Headbomb, 202.124.x.xx, et al.) discuss matters here first instead of jerking the article itself back and forth? (This is still evidently going on.) I really think the article could be written so as to satisfy everyone. Would you agree? Agricola44 (talk) 20:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC).

I agree that we should reach a compromise, but we have to do within the letter and spirit of BLP, which means she can't be undermined. We also have to stick to the most reliable secondary sources, and say what they say, not what we personally believe. So long as we work within the content policies (V, NOR, NPOV, and BLP), I'm fine.

But in the meantime, I would appreciate it if you would list here the sources you want to use.

For example, one of the issues at stake is that you wrote she is "known more widely" for, inter alia, "her efforts to complete Einstein's vision of the Unified field theory." But your source was a paper of hers about that (Haramein, N. and Rauscher, E.A. (2005) The origin of spin: A consideration of torque and coriolis forces in Einstein’s field equations and Grand Unification Theory). That source can't be used for the claim that she is "known more widely" for that work.

That is the kind of policy violation that has caused the problem. The anon (202.124.x.xx) wants to remove that reference from the article entirely. You want to use it as a secondary source. But you are both wrong, in terms of the policies. That source can be used as a self-published primary source, per WP:BLPSPS, but we can't use it to make claims about the importance of the work as if it were a secondary source. That is an example of how making yourself familiar with the content policies and sticking closely to them will help to resolve the dispute.

But it's not really appropriate to leave the tag on because the content policies have been ignored. So if you would list your sources here, and say what you want to use them for, we would be able to tell immediately whether they were valid edits. And if they are, then we can discuss placement. But until we know what you want to write, and what you want to base it on, we are stuck. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

How to resolve dispute

It now seems impossible to make any headway against the impenetrable wall of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:LAWYERING above, so let me make a good-faith first attempt to lay out some of the missing and/or downplayed material that would go toward making this article balanced.

• change the kick-off sentence from the current Elizabeth A. Rauscher is an American physicist with an interest in parapsychology to Elizabeth A. Rauscher is an American physicist and paranormal and new-age researcher, or something very similar

The current sentence appreciably subordinates her paranormal work, which was the bulk of her career. There are numerous references to this effect and at least 4 aspects are notable and well-covered by secondary sources (books mostly):

• energy control, e.g. as described in Smith, J.E. (2006) Weather Warfare, Adventures Unlimited Press: discussion of causing earthquakes using radio waves and Rauscher's role in one particular investigation. Says She has researched psychic phenomena and psychic healing for over 30 years... This aspect is discussed in lots of other books, e.g. Earth Spirit Living: Bringing Heaven and Nature Into Your Home by Ann Marie Holmes

• psychic healing, e.g. as described in Dossey, L. (1993) Healing words: The power of prayer and the practice of medicine, HarperCollins: discussion of Rauscher's work with Olga Worrall. Again, this work is very widely reported, both in the new age literature, e.g. Benor's book and in the skeptical literature (transcript from Arizona Skeptic 3(1), 1990).

• remote viewing, e.g. Jones, M.D. (2006) PSIence: How New Discoveries in Quantum Physics and New Science May Explain the Existence of Paranormal Phenomena, Career Press: reports on some of her remote viewing work. Lots of other refs are out there on this too.

• new age approaches to classical problems in mainstream physics, e.g. Samanta-Laughton, M. (2006) Punk science: Inside the mind of God, O Books: discusses the Haramein-Rauscher "spin paper". I mentioned above that the paper is quite clear that it claims to make substantial progress on Einstein's Unified field theory, e.g. from its introduction "We do so by formulating torque and Coriolis forces into Einstein’s field equations and developing a modified Kerr-Newman solution where...", etc. My previous complaint (see above) was that the text was changed in a way that made it seem that no such claim was being made. However, Dr. Samanta-Laughton's book is clear that this paper is supposed to explain various astrophysical phenomena like black holes, e.g. ..I have discovered others who have arrived at very similar conclusions. Notably, physicist Nassim Haramein also describes the universe as a holographic black hole fractal with creative black holes at every level. Together with physicist Elizabeth Rauscher, he has published a peer-reviewed paper that contains the mathematical basis for this model [citation of spin paper].

Rauscher had comparatively little work of her own in mainstream physics. Her last primary paper was in 1973 (as reported above, data from WoS). In summary, there is a preponderance of evidence that she is not best known by the world at large as a physicist, but rather as a paranormal researcher. The article will be misrepresentative if it does not convey that status.

• find a reference for the claim She is known for having theorized, in 1974, that an eight-dimensional space-time, rather than Einstein's four dimensions, could account for nonlocal effects and Bell's theorem, or delete as WP:OR. The Kaiser book says John Clauser was working on Bell's Thm, but does not seem to mention Rauscher in this context from what I read. (Perhaps there is another source, though.) Rauscher is likewise not mentioned on our own page for Bell's theorem.

Note. This one is resolved (see below). Agricola44 (talk) 18:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC).

• Change the reference style to the conventional format where a source is called-out once and only once in the reference list. This fixes two current POV-ish problems: subordination of paranormal and new-age sources (many of the ones above) under the Kaiser book (as bullet points) and the separate listing (about a half-dozen times) of the Kaiser book, giving the illusion within the text that many separate sources are being cited.

• Flesh out the header with something like She is (also) known for her New Age activities, including in psychic healing, faith healing, remote viewing, and her efforts to complete Einstein's vision of the Unified field theory with various references listed above, and perhaps others, appended appropriately. A very similar statement had been inserted, but then redacted.

• Expand the body with a paragraph or two describing her various paranormal efforts with various references listed above, and perhaps others, appended appropriately.

I think these changes will paint a fair (and well-documented) picture of her as one who trained classically in physics and did some amount of work there, but whose larger career was in the paranormal and new-age. Concerns that the article somehow demeans Rauscher should also then be satsified. (Incidentally, Rauscher should be added to the infobox at Glenn T. Seaborg as one of his students, since that is stated in the Kaiser book.) Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 16:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC).

Reply

Kaiser

Resolved

That's a lot to read, but you asked for one source that is already in the article, for this:

She is known for having theorized, in 1974, that an eight-dimensional space-time, rather than Einstein's four dimensions, could account for nonlocal effects and Bell's theorem ...

David Kaiser (2011), pp. 93-94 says:

In the course of her work, Rauscher realized that one way to account for nonlocal effects—perhaps even to explain Bell's theorem, at a deeper level—would be to increase the number of dimensions of space and time. She began toying with a model in which the familiar coordinates of space and time were made complex; instead of a single dimension of time, for example, there would be two, a real componet and an imaginary component. A similar doubling of the three dimensions of space (height, breadth, and depth) led to an eight-dimensional space-time rather than Einstein's four-dimensional version. ... A long duration of time, as viewed within the four-dimensional slice, might take no time at all when viewed within the larger multidimensional system.

When Rauscher got to those last features of her model, Puthoff and Targ stopped trying to shoo her out the door.

• Question 1: Are you saying this is not a good-enough source?

• Not at all (please note the tentative tone in that particular point). Great ref and that one is resolved. Probably could (should) be added to the Bell's theorem article? Agricola44 (talk) 17:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC).

The rest

The lead already mentions the other areas you want to include (my bold):

She is known for having theorized, in 1974, that an eight-dimensional space-time, rather than Einstein's four dimensions, could account for nonlocal effects and Bell's theorem; for her work in psychic healing and faith healing; and for her experiments with Russell Targ into remote viewing.

• Question 2: So I'm not quite sure what you mean about the need to include them. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• Please read my points carefully. Some of them are a matter of information (the lead sentence, the "spin paper", etc) and some are a matter of presentation (the reference list). The article, as it stands, does not satisfy those concerns. With all due respect, I can't keep repeating these same points. Thanks, in good faith, Agricola44 (talk) 17:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC).

• The citation style point, I didn't understand. This is a standard way to write refs (see WP:CITEBUNDLE), and I can't see what difference a citation style would make. Also, if we use Kaiser, p. 1, then Kaiser, p. 2, we cite him twice, obviously.

I explain very precisely above what difference it makes. You seem not to have read it and repeating this again will only bloat the discussion further. Agricola44 (talk) 17:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC).

• Can you reply to my question 1? Are you saying that Kaiser pp. 93-94 is not a good-enough source for that sentence? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, I see now you wrote above that that issue is resolved. If you try to get hold of the Kaiser book, I think it would help a lot. Trying to read it on Google Books or Amazon doesn't let you see how he deals with her work in context. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It would help if we were all to give very thoughtful reading and have a slower trigger finger. Please insert that citation for that claim. In good faith, Agricola44 (talk) 17:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC).

Not sure what you mean about inserting the citation, sorry. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

That part of the article strings together 3 points (i.e. 3 independent clauses using a ";"), the first of which is: She is known for having theorized, in 1974, that an eight-dimensional space-time, rather than Einstein's four dimensions, could account for nonlocal effects and Bell's theorem, with only the last point being cited. Many readers will interpret this as the citation only applying to the last independent clause. My suggestion was to add the citation to the first one too, i.e. the one in question. Agricola44 (talk) 17:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC).

The citation style makes clear in the footnote which source is used for which part of the sentence. The aim is to avoid sentences with footnote tags in the middle of them, per WP:CITEBUNDLE and WP:INCITE: "If a word or phrase is particularly contentious, an inline citation may be added next to that word or phrase within the sentence, but it is usually sufficient to add the citation to the end of the sentence or paragraph, so long as it's clear which source supports which part of the text."

But can we leave discussing the citation style to the very end, and deal with content first?

The space-time sentence is resolved. Can you raise the next point here, so we can look at each issue singly? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• Just to toss in that a “paranormal and new-age researcher” is a Parapsychologist, so that’s already taken care of in the lede. If we go beyond saying she has an ‘interest’ in parapsychology and is actually a Parapsychologist then we’d need to source that. Right now, I don’t see a source. BTW, it’s a WP:LEAD not a header. :) Dreadstar ☥ 19:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• I'm glad you raised this point because this seems to be the crux of the matter. (The semantics are irrelevant to me.) The issue is how to frame her paranormal/new age work: as an "interest" (which is what you two have advocated), or as more of a "title". The "interest" option seems disingenuous, as it has the distinct connotation that this work was somehow secondary to other activities, a dabbling or passing curiosity, if you will. In fact, the numerous sources are clear that this comprised the majority of her career. If you'll pardon the expression, you two seem to be "hung-up" on her as a physicist solely because she has a PhD. I don't want to delve too far into the philosophical, but that is only a credential. "Being a physicist" is at least equally dependent on doing the work that physicists do. The mainstream world of physics does not consider her a member in the sense that (1) she works primarily in a different area that is not physics, that being the paranormal/new-age world, and (2) she has fringe proposals and ideas that physicists do not accept as credible, e.g. the Haramein-Rauscher paper. This would seem almost to boil-down to something from MOS:IDENTITY, which basically says that articles abide by whatever classification a person self-identifies with, regardless of how unconventional that might be. Sadly, I think this is one of the guidelines that can really make WP look silly in certain instances and that this could, in fact, be one such instance. Just so we're clear, there's no guideline or policy mandating citation of a declared profession in the lead as Dread wants, nor is there even a convention for that. For example, Charles Fefferman is a mathematican and the lead says as much without any reference whatsoever. Of course, the article then affirms this for the reader, as it describes the mathematical work that Fefferman has done. The situation is much the same for Rauscher. It might be good to have other physicists weigh-in here. Agricola44 (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC).

There's absolutely no need to continue commenting on the editors and being insulting. What is wrong with you? Stop it. Dreadstar ☥ 19:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this I really don't get. I said that there's no need for a source if we call her a parapsychologist and I gave an example. Is this what you're angry about? Agricola44 (talk) 20:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC).

There's absolutely no reason to litter your posts with comments like "disingenuous," "you two seem to be "hung-up" on," "impenetrable wall of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:LAWYERING"; or even the condescending "You seem not to have read it" type comments. No need. I mean, you bring up some really good discussion points and then distract by making these comments about others. The point being what? Dreadstar ☥ 20:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• She's a physicist because she qualified as one, worked as one, and the sources refer to her as one. We had a situation last year where people tried to remove that Fred Singer was a physicist, because they disagreed with his views on climate-change. They wanted to say instead he was only "trained as" a physicist. That's the essence of inappropriate BLP editing.

  Brian Josephson, who won the Nobel Prize in Physics, seems to think she is a physicist, as does David Kaiser, himself a physicist. Anyone wanting to argue that other physicists think she isn't one will need a source.

  The lead, and indeed the first sentence, make clear that she has quirky interests. There is no need to overegg that pudding as a signal to readers not to take her seriously. We write in a disinterested tone, and we assume that our readers aren't stupid. It's enough to include the information with the sources; no need to hit people over the head with it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Right, she's a physicist, plain and simple. There's no monolithic consensus amongst the profession that mandates a strict interpretation of what makes a physicist a physicist. I can find discussions on all sides of the fence. Now as to identifying her as a parapsychologist, we run into WP:BLP issues if it's not sourced....does she self-identify as a paranormal/new-age researcher or parapsychologist? What can we say that isn't OR or POV (e.g. 'intense interest in parapsychology and new-age things', where 'intense' is POV and OR afaict) And really, we need sourced content in the article to bolster what we put in the lede. Dreadstar ☥ 20:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh my goodness! Are either of you actually reading my suggestions? It seems not. Nowhere have I advocated taking out the title of physicist! Rather, I have proposed adding the title of paranormal researcher (as have many others). I think this was quite clear above when I said

change the kick-off sentence from the current Elizabeth A. Rauscher is an American physicist with an interest in parapsychology to Elizabeth A. Rauscher is an American physicist and paranormal and new-age researcher, or something very similar

It makes all the difference in the world. Now, if it's clear that that is my proposal, we can go on with the discussion. If there's continued confusion, then I don't think we'll be getting anywhere. I see your motivation is the worry that people will not take her seriously and I think that is precisely the POV that many of us are worried about. Why? Because there are numerous sources for her work in the paranormal, so much so that I would turn around what you said about being a physicist and apply that instead to being a paranormal researcher. That is, anyone wanting to argue she isn't a paranormal researcher will need a source. I'm afraid we're at an impasse. Agricola44 (talk) 20:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC).

Could you cut out the comments, please, Agricola, like "oh my goodness!" I feel the same about your editing and responses, but I'm not expressing it.

I assumed you wanted to remove physicist because the editors you are supporting keep removing it. [9] [10] [11] [12] And you edit directly after them and do not revert them. [13]

Perhaps you could make clearer that you do not support their edits. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the burden is not upon me to cast arguments relative to what others say. The burden is upon you to actually read my arguments, if you want to take issue with them. Was it not clear when I said (twice now) in terms that cannot possibly be considered to be ambiguous: "change the kick-off sentence from the current Elizabeth A. Rauscher is an American physicist with an interest in parapsychology to Elizabeth A. Rauscher is an American physicist and paranormal and new-age researcher, or something very similar"? I'm sure you appreciate that these sorts of exchanges smack of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT to any reasonable person. I've shown you the courtesy of thoughtfully reading all your posts. May I assume you will return the favor from here on? Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 20:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC).

You clearly supported anon's edit which removed 'physicist'. Are you reading what you write? Where are you divining motivations of other editors when you accuse "I see your motivation is the worry that people will not take her seriously"? Oh my goodness. Dreadstar ☥ 21:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Agricola, you have just argued extensively that she's not really a physicist. [14] I was responding to that.

I think we all need to make efforts to AGF and make this discussion flow more efficiently. Here is how it began (bold added):

SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} now seems to be guarding this article and has reverted efforts ... including the removal of legitimate references. ... Agricola44 (talk) 16:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC).

Nothing was removed. ... SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Please don't put words into my mouth. I never said "removed" ... Agricola44 (talk) 16:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC). [15]

And it's been downhill from there. :) The instant ABF, the personal attacks, the personal opinions, and the long posts all make editing and discussion very difficult. So from now on can we please all focus only on content; try to raise one issue at a time; no long posts; and concentrate only on what the sources say, with no personal opinions? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

For the record. (1) I've never advocated taking away the title of physicist, as I've clearly said 3 times now, even if that may have been perceived by readers of my posts, (2) I would love if we stick just to content. Can we all agree on that, because I hereby agree to it. Agricola44 (talk) 21:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC).

Excellent, thank you, me too. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Brilliant. Count me in. Dreadstar ☥ 22:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

"Tecnic Research Laboratories"

Sources seem to list Rauscher's affiliation as Tecnic Research Laboratories - (the company she established and is President of(?)). (One even says Theoretical Physics Division, Tecnic Research Laboratories). Our article doesn't seem to mention this affiliation rather has her as a former researcher with the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, the Stanford Research Institute, and NASA. I think most of her career has been as an independent researcher with her own lab as her affiliation. Another possible problem with the lead/lede to my mind is that it also has the two new books prominent (with R. L. Amoroso (who could be linked to Noetic theory or Noetic Advanced Studies Institute#Richard_L._Amoroso) and these and their content don't seem to be discussed in the main body. I am not sure if these are particularly notable among her works? Also given Agricola44's, in my view legitimate, concerns would it help if we added the page to the Category:Parapsychologists (like one of her coauthor's Russell Targ has) and added a Parapsychology project template to this page. Her own self decription as World renowned physicist, researcher and presenter, in addition to Agricola44's sources would seem to me such, as to support us in offering a more useful description of her as a physicist and researcher in parapsychology (an interest in, sounds a little odd to me and I am not sure that presenter is otherwise sourced or useful). Best wishes. (Msrasnw (talk) 11:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC))

Disruption

Resolved

 – Resolved by an admin on AN/I with no action taken, except a 'firm warning'. Dreadstar ☥ 22:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I've had enough with the blatant censoring of dissenting opinion. I've reported him to ANI. See [[16]]. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

A naive question: shouldn't that implicit claim be properly documented?--Brian Josephson (talk) 12:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Parapsychologist

Since the esteemed Brian Josephson has weighed in that Rauscher can be titled a "Parapsychologist" and there have been no definitive qualifications for such a title revealed here, besides the simple fact that all one has to do is 'look into' or 'research' into Parapsychology, then I agree that she can be titled that. Although, I must say that any physicist or other academic discipline can be be titled the same if the individual ever looked into such. Dreadstar ☥ 22:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Binksternet (talk) 00:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Rauscher Titled "Parapsychologist"

Continued WP:LAWYERING now demands a source that explicitly names Rauscher as being a parapsychologist, this in spite of the dozen or so odd references above that talk about her 4-decade career as a worker in that field. (Struck so as to not further hamper negotiations, sorry.) I now submit 2 more sources from respected publishers, both of which seem to precisely meet the condition that has been demanded above.

• Bernard Gittelson and Laura Torbet (1987) Intangible Evidence, Simon & Schuster. This source quotes: As Elizabeth Rauscher, a theoretical physicist and parapsychologist with...
• Joseph Banks Rhine et al. (1985) The Journal of parapsychology, vol. 49, Duke University Press. This source quotes: Parapsychologists were not invited as a category, but the field was represented through Harold Puthoff, Elizabeth Rauscher, Montague Ullman...

May I take it than we can now change the kick-off sentence from the current Elizabeth A. Rauscher is an American physicist with an interest in parapsychology to Elizabeth A. Rauscher is an American physicist and parapsychologist if these sources are used? Agricola44 (talk) 21:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC).

Addendum. Please don't take "WP:LAWYERING" in the wrong context. I did not mean this as an insult, but rather in the example of Fefferman above, which shows that we do not typically require this level of specificity. Thanks and sorry if this could be misinterpreted. Agricola44 (talk) 21:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC).

Not sure about the first one; author is described as a businessman who became interested in astrology, etc. What is the title of the Joseph Banks Rhine paper? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: the first one. Above, you argued on the basis of a source coming from a good publisher, by which I assume you mean a widely-recognized commercial or academic house. Surely Simon & Schuster qualifies. Moreover, it explicitly calls her a parapsychologist by name. This would seem to be the incontrovertible proof that you and Dread had in mind and I would hope that the bar isn't about to be raised. Yours in good faith, Agricola44 (talk) 22:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC).

The second one is not a journal article, but rather a summary of a conference reported on by the journal. The relevant paragraph on pp 270 is discussing the attendees: Physicists and psychologists, engineers and religious scholars, philosophers and physiologists all mingled in person, if not always in thought. Parapsychologists were not invited as a category, but the field was represented through Harold Puthoff, Elizabeth Rauscher, Montague Ullman (discussants), and Olivier Costa de Beauregard,... Like the first, this source is very specific in referring to Rauscher as a parapsychologist. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 22:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC).

A source has to be a good one, not a businessman with an interest in astrology. Please read WP:BLP, which is the guiding policy here. Could you link to the second article, or give a full citation so I can find it? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I hope you aren't seriously contesting this on the basis of the author's credentials. You and Dread have raised the bar once by lawyering in that we do not require an explicit reference for a person's title. However, I've now furnished two good quality published sources for the condition you demanded and your now going to attempt to move the bar even higher? This is very discouraging. All I can take from this now is that you feel the right to judge sources based on your own criteria and are willing to reject any that do not support your point of view. How else can one take this? Agricola44 (talk) 22:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC).

I believe we all want to abide by WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:LEAD. [redacted]That's how else one can take it. Now, about that second source? Dreadstar ☥ 22:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, volume 49, pp 270 of the Journal of Parapsychology. That is the second source. There's probably not a link because it's from 1985. Agricola44 (talk) 01:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC).

It must have a title, which might help us to find it. Or could you email it to one of us? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm done with jumping through hoops. You have the ref right down to the page number. This journal is available in your local academic library and I'm not walking back over to mine to recheck a title when you can simply get the exact volume and turn to the exact page to see for yourself. I'm afraid these sources are valid and they name Rauscher explicitly as a parapsychologist. Let's just agree that she's both a physicist and a parapsychologist, shall we? Agricola44 (talk) 02:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC).

If it is an article in an academic journal, it must have a title, and an issue number. There are Wikipedians I can ask to look for this, but presumably they will need that information. You expected me to type out part of Kaiser for you earlier, and I was happy to do it, though you could have gone online and found it for yourself. We're expected to be helpful toward each other when it comes to sourcing. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Again, the exact volume and the exact page number identify the material exactly (not every journal has an issue number and this is irrelevant if one has the page number, as we do here) and anyone can find this. I believe I already returned the favor by going to the extra trouble of typing in the relevant sentences, so that everyone here can directly see that both sources clearly call her a parapsychologist. I would presume that in itself is sufficient, yes? Agricola44 (talk) 05:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC).

• I'm not sure we can really title her as a parapsychologist. Apparently, what we do have is that she's a physicist who has also did research into paranormal and new age ideas, now how to cram that into the first sentence - and do we need to? I think as long as the lead has a summary of the article, we're fine. So light details beyond 'she's a physicist with an interest in parapsychology' can be distributed past the first sentence in the lead, with more detail in the article body. The most I could see saying in the first sentence is that she's a 'physicist who has also researched paranormal and new age concepts.' But that's kinda kludgy... Dreadstar ☥ 23:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
  • The difference is that she is a physicist by training and qualification. Elizabeth A. Rauscher is an American physicist with an interest in parapsychology sounds apt to me, and certainly preferable to "a retired physics researcher ..." (which reminds me, too, of the Fred Singer debates). --JN466 00:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Excellent point, and I agree on the aptness of the wording. Dreadstar ☥ 00:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
      • The sources we've now all found collectively say that she's both a physicist and a parapsychologist. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 02:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC).
        • I think we may need a little more than that to say in Wikipedia's Editorial Voice in the lede section that she's a Parapsychologist. Dreadstar ☥ 02:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
          • Sorry, the sources say she's both a physicist and a parapsychologist and that is indeed sufficient. Why would you say that these sources are not sufficient? Agricola44 (talk) 05:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC).
            • Believe me, I would very much like to say she's a parapsychologist, it was my idea and I have a lot of respect for members of that field, as I do for physicists. However, with only two sources, with one only vaguely referring to her as a parapsychologist, I believe while it could be included as an attributed statement in the body of the text, we have insufficient sources to say it in the lede in WP's editorial voice. This is vague: "Parapsychologists were not invited as a category, but the field was represented through Harold Puthoff, Elizabeth Rauscher, Montague Ullman". I believe that's why SV asked for more information on the source, so it could be viewed in context. I'm unsure if the Bernard Gittelson and Laura Torbet book would be the best source for this, since it's a single source and taking into consideration the subject matter - I believe it would need to be attributed, (e.g. according to Gittelson and Tolbert in their book, Rauscher is a parapsychologist). Dreadstar ☥ 14:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
              • Again, these 2 high quality sources say perfectly clearly that she's a parapsychologist. There's just no reasonable way around this. Agricola44 (talk) 15:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC).
                • "The field was represented by.." is not clear at all, the field of football players can be represented by a lawyer, that doesn't make him a Quarterback. Dreadstar ☥ 15:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
                  • Again, it's perfectly clear that the term "represented" is being used in the common way of "this specific item we're talking about (Rauscher) is one instance of a larger set of these items (parapsychologists)" and not in the formal way that word is used within the field of law. Let me add that there's no numerical requirement beyond 1 source, as you seem to imply. I know these sources are inconvenient, but they're not going away. I did finally find a link that shows the text I typed above for the J. Parapsych. source. The obvious solution to this problem is for the first sentence to name her as both a phsyicist and a parapsychologist, Wouldn't you agree? Agricola44 (talk) 15:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC).
                    • Thanks for your analysis of what that says. There's nothing inconvienient about the sources, they just seem insufficient to satisfy WP:BLP, a strict policy which seems to be inconvenient and ingored here. Dreadstar ☥ 15:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
                      • Don't forget, the other source says point blank: As Elizabeth Rauscher, a theoretical physicist and parapsychologist with... Even you will recognize the very precise and unmistakable naming as a parapsychologist, yes? Agricola44 (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC).
                        • "Even you"?? Just wow. ...and yeah, I already addressed that source above. If you think one source puts it in the lede section in WP's editorial voice, then you fail to understand the policies I've been linking to over and over. Dreadstar ☥ 15:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
                          • There are 2 sources that state unequivocally that Rauscher is a parapsychologist (I've listed them below again). Taken with other sources that say she's a physicist means that we must say she's "a physicist and a parapsychologist". Agricola44 (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC).
                            • And again, I disagree with you. Dreadstar ☥ 15:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
                              • Hopefully, the RfC will help. Agricola44 (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC).
                                • Me too. And to be perfectly frank, I hope consensus finds me wrong and we can use those sources to title her a parapsychologist. Dreadstar ☥ 16:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

RfC: titling of Elizabeth Rauscher

Should the title of "parapsychologist" be added to the title of "physicist" in the first sentence of the article? Agricola44 (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• Yes. Furthermore I also support Agricola44's other suggestions below for editing the article. -- 202.124.74.224 (talk) 16:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• No. When it comes to BLPs, we err on the side of caution. Agricola has found one source that explicitly calls her a parapsychologist, a book compiled by a businessman with an interest in astrology, and written by a ghostwriter (Gittelson, Bernard and Torbet, Laura. Intangible Evidence. Simon & Schuster, 1987). She is a physicist by qualification and trade, and she has an interest in parapsychology, as the first sentence currently says: "Elizabeth A. Rauscher is an American physicist with an interest in parapsychology." I see no need to ascribe to her a second profession, especially when there's no evidence that she uses the term "parapsychologist" to describe herself. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• Yes. There are two sources (relisted below for convenience), both of which unequivocally name her as being a "parapsychologist". I submit that these are both from reputable publishers. Moreover, it is both WP:UNDUE and unconventional to attempt to dismiss any legitimate source based on qualifications or credentials of the source's author that may not meet an editor's own personal taste. There are numerous other sources splattered about this page that discuss her roughly 40-year career in paranormal work. It is not a matter of "need", as argued above, but rather an issue of completeness and accuracy of this article. The sources are there and the evidence is overwhelming. The question is whether or not we ignore all of this.

• Bernard Gittelson and Laura Torbet (1987) Intangible Evidence, Simon & Schuster. This source quotes: As Elizabeth Rauscher, a theoretical physicist and parapsychologist with...
• Joseph Banks Rhine et al. (1985) The Journal of parapsychology, vol. 49, Duke University Press. This source quotes: Parapsychologists were not invited as a category, but the field was represented through Harold Puthoff, Elizabeth Rauscher, Montague Ullman...

Agricola44 (talk) 17:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC).

• Your first source is the businessman with the interest in astrology (Bernard Gittelson). Your second source (Joseph Banks Rhine) does not call her a parapsychologist; quite the reverse, he says "parapsychologists were not invited as a category", but the field was represented through Harold Puthoff, a physicist; Elizabeth Rauscher, a physicist; Montague Ullman, a psychiatrist; and Costa de Beauregard, an engineer. Wikipedia does not refer to any of these people as "parapsychologists," and there's no indication that's what they called themselves. They are people with other professional backgrounds who have an interest in parapsychology, which is what our lead says about Rauscher. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• You're voting against one source according to its authors' qualifications as judged by nothing more than your own personal taste. For the second source, you're synthesizing what you want to believe the authors' intentions were. The word "represented" is being used in the plain and simple way of "this specific item we're talking about (Rauscher) is one instance within a class of such items (parapsychologists)", i.e. Rauscher ∈ Parapsychologists. Agricola44 (talk) 18:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC).

• Yes, per Agricola and sources, which are quite explicit that she is one. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
• No, per WP:BLP we need very high quality sources to say in Wikipedia's editorial voice in the lede section that her titles include Parapsychologist, the two sources given above do not meet that criteria. Per SlimVigin, one of the sources says she is a physicist, not a parapsychologist. One can represent a group without being an official member of that group (e.g. a lawyer or publicist can represent parapsychologists too). Dreadstar ☥ 17:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Parapsychologists are people who study the alleged paranormal aspects of psychology. Rauscher does exactly that. Therefore she's a parapsychologist. Someone who plays soccer isn't "someone with an interest in soccer", but a soccer player. There's no difference here. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your original research and personal opinion, but per WP:BLP, this needs to be very solidly sourced with high quality Reliable sources - which is also true for soccer players. The sources posted above by Agricola do not meet that threshold for the reasons I describe above. Dreadstar ☥ 18:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The sources are above. Dread, please stop deleting my posts. If you can respond, so can I. Agricola44 (talk) 18:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC).

• No, there is the issue of undue weight. Many sources say physicist and only two (one of them indirectly) say parapsychologist. The current mention of her interest in parapsychology in the lead is more than enough.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
• No - The title "parapychologist" is not supported by the sources. On the other hand, the sources do support "... with an interest in parapyschology". So the only real question is where the statement "... with an interest in parapyschology" should be located. Putting it down in the body is not quite right, since it is more of an introductory statement, a piece of the overview of her specialties. So I'd recommend that it appear somewhere in the first paragraph of the lead. --Noleander (talk) 19:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
• Yes: Perhaps Yes but would be better. My preference would be for Elizabeth A. Rauscher is an American physicist and researcher in parapsychology. I think the references (Bernard Gittelson and Laura Torbet (1987) , Joseph Banks Rhine et al. (?) (1985) Kane, Beverley and Millay, Jean (1993), her many articles in important psi journals, her prize/award from Noetic Advanced Studies Institute#Elizabeth_Rauscher (where she is listed on our page on that institute as one of 12 fellows of NASI and as holding a senior fellowship at the Noetic Adv. Std. Inst. ( that page also lists her as chief scientific advisor to BioHarmonic Resonance, Inc.) ) and my own view of all of this and her earlier work would seem to indicate that she might be usefully be referred to as a physicist and parapsychologist. I am not clear why people don’t want it mentioning prominently as much of her life she has been working in this area. My suspicion is that some are perceiving the label as a negative (both those arguing yes and no.) This is unfortunate I think from the point of view of clarity and assisting our readers for whom I think this would be a useful label. If our leaving it out is because we think it is a negative label this might well be insulting to parapsychology. As a naughty aside I think if one was being pedantic one could argue we don’t actually have a source to say she is interested in parapsychology. Lots of people do things – work for money for example - which they aren't interested in. I myself used to be an admin clerk and to say I was interested in clerical work would be pushing it. Clearly this line of argument would not be helpful and we can assume that her years of research in this area is based on an interest in it and not just for money. But I think since we do actually have sources saying she has researched in parapsychology or that she is a parapsychologist, then to say that directly in the lead rather than saying she is interested in it would be better. Whether we should say she is a parapsychologist or has researched or is a researcher in parapsychology is I think debatable but I can see no good arguments for not including either of these and going instead with an interest in. Would is a researcher in parapsychology be in anyway a compromise? Anyway these are my thoughts. (Msrasnw (talk) 21:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC))
• No. One of the two suggested sources is very poor; it says Rauscher helped to represent the field of parapsychology at a meeting but it plainly says parapsychologists did not attend. The other source is not enough to say in Wikipedia's voice that Rauscher is a parapsychologist. Yes. The references found by Msrasnw, Silver threads: 25 years of parapsychology research and Parapsychology review, Volumes 19-20, are now enough. The latter says she served as the research director of the Parapsychology Research Group. In 2001 and 2006 she also wrote two conference papers on the speed of thought and on precognition, both with Russell Targ, known for his ESP work on remote viewing. She is certainly a parapsychologist. Binksternet (talk) 08:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
• Yes per the references found by Msrasnw. As Msrasnw, I think "researcher in" would be most accurate, but if the choice is between yes and no, being a research director is more than having an interest in. --GRuban (talk) 18:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
• Yes But. I change my mind from what I said above below. Given new references and a review of her career, I think it makes most sense to say that she /was/ a physicist and is now Research Director of Para. Res. Group of SF. As far as I can tell she has not published research in physics in almost 20 years except for a paper published in a symposium proceedings 10 years ago. If I am a physician surgeon and 20 years into my career I leave the profession to become a crab fisherman in Alaska, it no longer makes sense to say that I am a surgeon. I can just see the exchange in a bar. "What do you do?" "I am a surgeon." "Oh, really, then why do you smell like the ocean?" "Oh, well, I guess better put I /was/ a surgeon. Now I'm a crab fisherman."--Lhakthong (talk) 19:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Or thin about the reverse. If someone left crab fishing to become a surgeon, would she still tell everyone she was a crab fisher?--Lhakthong (talk) 19:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Did the crab fisherman go to medical school and become a licensed surgeon, or did they run out and start cutting things open? There's a difference. Show me where Raushcher actually became a Parapsychologist and didn't just start looking into the things that parapsychologists do. By the loose criteria given by many here, I myself am a Parapsychologist, a Physicist and a Surgeon...amongst many other professions. Hell, we probably all are. Dreadstar ☥ 22:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Please note I am stating she should be listed as whatever her current title is with whatever paranormal research group she is with, if one even exists. If not, then I would not mention being a parapsychologist at all. Here's why. Why is this person notable? Is she notable for her parapsychological research? There is little evidence of that from the dearth of resources about her. So, if the article is about that, I would tag it for deletion. Most of what makes her notable is her work in physics. As such, that should be the central focus of this article, mention of her interest in parapsychology can be made in a separate section, and due diligence should be take as to not conflate her work in physics with whatever she's doing in parapsychology. I am hesitant to the verbiage "physicist with an interest in parapsychology," because it makes it sound like parapsychology is the focus of her work in physics; and, as I think everyone is in agreement, parapsychology is not physics. Moreover, were I an engineer with an interest in painting, why would the latter be mentioned in the lede? It would be hardly important enough to state, and to say outright that I was a painter would be misleading, unless I was also notable for my painting.--Lhakthong (talk) 03:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
      • I think the arguments on this are very clear, and continuing to repeat them with different professions or pursuits isn't of any further use. Dreadstar ☥ 20:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Dreadstar: first, just to be clear, are you saying that no one can be called a parapsychologist? Second, if she was never called "a parapsychologist" in the article, but there was a section dedicated to her research in parapsychology and described it as such, would you object?--Lhakthong (talk) 04:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
      • In order, no and no. Dreadstar ☥ 20:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
      • Very succinctly, then, what exact standards would need to be met for you to be okay with her being called a parapsychologist?--Lhakthong (talk) 20:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
• Yes. The sources found by Agricola and Msransw are more than adequate to describe Rauscher as a parapsychologist. Skinwalker (talk) 16:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
• Yes. I was skeptical at first, but Msransw's post has swayed me. Still, I would prefer their wording "researcher in parapsychology" to just "parapsychologist"; I would be happier with just "parapsychologist" if we could find evidence of her actually self-identifying as one. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 10:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

RfC discussion

Agricola, are you saying Wikipedia should call Montague Ullman, the Clinical Professor of Psychiatry Emeritus at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, a parapsychologist, because your source (Joseph Banks Rhine) wrote in 1985 that "parapsychologists were not invited as a category, but the field was represented through Harold Puthoff, Elizabeth Rauscher, Montague Ullman (discussants), and Costa de Beauregard ..."? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it's best for us to stay on topic with Rauscher only. I've no opinion on what you've just said, nor have I ever looked at the Montague Ullman article. I will be glad to debate that one with you after we get this one resolved. We're bogged-down enough here without bringing a separate debate into the mix here. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 19:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC).

No, it's an important point. You are saying Joseph Banks Rhine should be used as a source to support a first sentence calling Rauscher a parapsychologist in Wikipedia's voice. But he says the same about her that he says about Harold Puthoff, Montague Ullman and Costa de Beauregard, who are clearly not parapsychologists, and whom Wikipedia makes no effort to label as such, even though they had an interest in it, as does Rauscher. The onus is therefore on you to explain why you want to handle the first sentence of Elizabeth Rauscher differently. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. You're asking me basically "do you think Rauscher and Montague Ullman are parapsychologists?" That is the classic two-question fallacy of argumentation. No thanks. I'm debating Rauscher only based on what the sources say about Rauscher only. You'll have to pursue your point without me. Agricola44 (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC).

That's backwards, it's about application of the source. If that source actually confirms Rauscher is to be titled a parapsychologist, then the same source is applicable in the same way to the others it mentions. That's the real question, not debating whether other bio articles should include that title. I think the answer is obvious, the source is woefully insufficient to be used for such a thing - including in this article. Dreadstar ☥ 00:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Again, I'm debating only Rauscher. You're trying to set up a False dilemma. Both sources clearly and unequivocally say she is a parapsychologist. I'm saddened by the fact that this is the sort of POV that casts a very poor light on WP. Just as an academic question: does your position require that you now go after other articles, like Émile Boirac, which explicitly name their subjects as "parapsychologists" without any sort of sourcing? I only ask because I'm curious whether the Rauscher article is a special case, or whether you now have to get this title removed from other articles too. Agricola44 (talk) 02:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC).

Again, we're debating on the source and not other articles. The claims being made here about the source is the 'special case.' Dreadstar ☥ 02:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

No, Slim wants to debate other articles. What I just cannot get over is how several people seem to believe that these sources do not claim Rauscher as a parapsychologist when in fact they are crystal clear. I mean, one actually says Elizabeth Rauscher, a theoretical physicist and parapsychologist! The whole thing is Orwellian. I just can't figure out to what great and noble end this agenda is directed. Sigh. Agricola44 (talk) 03:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC).

That's not my understanding of what Slim is asking; it appears to be exactly what I'm saying: it's about the source, not articles. As for the rest of your statement, that's been addressed in detail above and below - I'm sorry you can't figure it out, but it's directed towards WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:RS and, basically, WP:FIVE. Dreadstar ☥ 03:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I imagine you're growing as weary as I am on this one. I can only observe the following: Source Elizabeth Rauscher, a theoretical physicist and parapsychologist, many editors here the source does not say Rauscher is a parapsychologist. Explain how this is not Orwellian. Agricola44 (talk) 11:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC).

This little thread here is about the other source you mentioned. Your paraphrase of what 'many editors' are saying isn't quite what's being said - it leaves out a lot, but I think you must know that by now. Dreadstar ☥ 15:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I've nothing more to say. Agricola44 (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC).

Another ref that might help, or not.

Kane, Beverley and Millay, Jean (1993) Silver threads: 25 years of parapsychology research, Praeger - on p37

Elizabeth Rauscher is unique among psi researchers in having both an extensive repertoire of experimental trials in remote viewing and a detailed theoretical model based on her primary work as a physicist.

This book shows consciousness studies in the context of scholarly investigation and liberal thinking. It was written to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the Parapsychology Research Group.[17]

My own preference would be for Elizabeth A. Rauscher is an American physicist and researcher in parapsychology Best wishes. (Msrasnw (talk) 21:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC))

Interesting source, thank you. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Msrasnw. Also, there is something odd about the way this article is written. It seems that there is a lot of energy convincing the reader that the subject is an accomplished physicist in order to lend credence to her ideas in parapsychology. My first thought was WP:Coatrack. Perhaps it would make sense to place all of the parapsychology content in one section and title the section as such. That might clear up some confusion and inappropriate entanglement (no pun intended). Maybe someday physics and parapsychology will be better friends, but for now they are very distinct fields of study. I have yet to see a course textbook in quantum physics discussing ghosts.--Lhakthong (talk) 03:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Another possibly useful ref: The Parapsychology review: Volumes 19-20 (1988) lists Elizabeth Rauscher as the Research Director of The Parapsychology Research Group of San Francisco, California. The other officers being Saul-Paul Sirag as the President and Russell Targ as the Vice President.[18] It seems to me this might help establish her more of a researcher in parapsycology than someone with an interest. This group is the subject of Silver Threads: 25 Years of Parapsychology Research ed Beverly Kane, Jean Millay, Dean Brown. mentioned above I think (Msrasnw (talk) 09:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC))

What a complicated discussion! How about 'parapsychologist with a training in physics' (Ph.D. I think). It establishes what she does now, a very well-established piece of terminology, apparently supported in her case even up to w'pedia standards, and indicates her background and credentials for being taken seriously despite engaging in that frequently criticised activity --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Source

Another source that mentions her here by the way. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there are quite a few for the Olga Worrall experiments. Agricola44 (talk) 22:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC).

Something that interests me about articles like this: I have never studied physics, but when I was a graduate student I hung around with physicists because I was interested in the philosophy of it. They talked about issues like this a lot, and not only the PhD students, but the dons too, a couple of them big names. X number of years later, I arrive at Wikipedia to find editors pooh-poohing it all, trying to question the credentials of the physicists, or biologists, or whatever other area is involved.

What happened in the intervening years, or is this a difference in approach between the U.S. and the UK? Or is what happens on Wikipedia not representative of what happens outside it? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

"Pooh-poohing" might be a little NPA-ish. I think it's more accurate to say that most physicists would define a physicist as someone who works as a physicist: someone who publishes peer-reviewed work in physics and/or who holds a position in physics at a recognised university or government institution. So Michael Behe, for example (who is also controversial) is rightfully called a biochemist based on his continuing professorship and the fact that he continues to publish in mainstream peer-reviewed publications. In fact, scientists generally put little weight on credentials as such (Noam Chomsky has famously commented on this). In the case of this article, the editors who are physicists are quite naturally seeking a label other than simply "physicist." Agricola44's suggestion of "physicist and parapsychologist" seems to me a fair NPOV description. -- 202.124.73.142 (talk) 09:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, there's no monolithic consensus amongst the profession that mandates a strict interpretation of what makes a physicist a physicist. I can find discussions on all sides of the fence. Dreadstar ☥ 03:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstood my point. I'm curious as to what happened to the profession; whether it's an American/UK difference, or what. Looking at Hugh Gusterson's review in Nature of Kaiser's book, the main source on Rauscher (see Gusterson, Hugh. "Physics: Quantum outsiders", Nature, 476, 278–279, August 18, 2011), he writes:

The book makes important observations about the social dynamics of physics in the United States during the cold war. Kaiser argues that ... the discipline's horizons shrank. University physicists disdained the philosophical questions that had enlivened pre-war European physics and developed a narrow instrumentalist pedagogy that sometimes became a straitjacket.

Kaiser describes some students holding secret meetings to discuss quantum mechanics behind their advisers' backs, having been warned that "thinking seriously about foundations was a waste of time and a detriment to one's career." ... By contrast, the heroes of Kaiser's story "strove to expand the physics profession's collective mental space."

My point is that the profession's mental space had not yet shrunk when I was a graduate student in England (or at least so it seemed to me), so I'm wondering whether I got it wrong, or whether it has shrunk since then. Or whether this is still just mostly an American issue, or whether it's really more of a Wikipedia issue now, where editors with specific views want to suppress certain ideas. It's something worth writing about, I think, because it has really affected the way Wikipedia has handled these issues, to the project's great detriment in my view. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Please. This is a heated discussion, but still: WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Nobody here wants to "suppress certain ideas." Nevertheless, the Pauli exclusion principle is physics; The Emperor's New Mind is a physicist exploring philosophical issues; but remote viewing (interesting as it is) is parapsychology, not physics. Remote viewing is not "quirky physics," it is not physics at all. It does not appear in physics journals. It is not taught in physics departments. It is not physics (and as far as I can tell, all the editors with scientific qualifications are taking the same stand). That is probably the core of the entire dispute there. If it's just a question of choosing between words like "parapsychology" or "paranormal," total agreement should be easy to achieve, but if it's a question of labelling remote viewing as physics... well, that's something else. -- 202.124.75.238 (talk) 11:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I didn't mention remote viewing. I'm trying to make a broader point, the one Kaiser made and that Gusterson referred to, about the "physics profession's collective mental space." Replying by telling me that something "does not appear in physics journals ... [and] is not taught in physics departments" misses the point precisely. But never mind. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Bing! I think this observation hits the nail squarely on the head. The argument that Rauscher is singularly a "physicist" makes complete sense if one accepts that topics like remote viewing, new-age ideas about black holes, and psychic healing are redefined to be "physics", or, if one has an agenda toward such redefinition. Of course, such a push can't be too overt, otherwise it would invite an overwhelming backlash. It can, however, be couched more subtley in fuzzy, blurring language like "scientists with quirky points of view". As far as I can tell, this is the only explanation for the nonsensical, Orwellian logic that I've seen wielded here. I'm glad our that our little debate will be preserved and available in perpetuity for outsiders (non WP editors), especially my brothers and sisters in science, to scrutinize. Frankly, this is the sort episode that makes me embarrassed for Wikipedia and the very thing that makes WP look, at times, silly to the broader world out there. I don't know how this debate will end, but it certainly has been an educational experience for me in how social engineering can be implemented. I've hammered away at showing the sources for my thesis repeatedly and there seems to be nothing gained by restating it because lots of folks seem to be covering their ears. So, I'm going to try to sit out the rest of this debate on the sidelines. I wish good luck to the objective truth. Thanks! Agricola44 (talk) 12:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC).

No one here has suggested, even by remote viewing, that "topics like remote viewing, new-age ideas about black holes, and psychic healing are redefined to be "physics"". Nice strawman, tho.. Dreadstar ☥ 03:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Dreadstar seems to be redacting or delting alot of comments by Agricola44. This seems really unfair and heavy-handed and not at all in the spirit of open discussion that's supposed to exist here on Wikipedia. I for one would like to see all the points presented here and read them for msyslef! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.160.19 (talk) 17:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

See WP:TPNO and WP:NPA, anon. The redacted comments have no place on this talk page. If you disagree, then take it to WP:DR instead of continuing personal comments unrelated to the article's content here. Dreadstar ☥ 18:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Whether you realize it or not, you most certainly are trying to redefine "physics". The argument that I see here is as follows: Rauscher spent most of her career working in paranormal subjects (remote viewing, et al), but Rauscher is not a parapsychologist, she is a physicist. Because a "physicist" is defined as one who "does physics" (or as our own WP article puts it: A physicist is a scientist who studies or practices physics), the only logical implication is that the topics in question (remote viewing, et al) must be "physics". By the way, I ask you again to please stop deleting my posts. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 15:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC).

The only attempts to 'redefine physicist' here is by you. The clear message given by those you oppose and attack, is that Rauscher is a physicist who has explored the realm of parapsychology, a quite different message than your continued distortions. Your redacted comments are only those comments you make about the contibutor instead of the content. Short-term consensus seems to be with you on AN/I, but I think that's due to a misinterperation of my comments or a desire to attack me and allow for comments that are obviously about editors rather than the editorial content of the article. Enjoy your 'win'. Dreadstar ☥ 22:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Dread, I'm really very sorry you see this as a contest between the two of us. I guess that, in those terms, I was a gracious looser with respect to the AfD. However, my real post-AfD desire is nothing more nor less than making this article both as accurate and complete as possible. The basic fact that seems to be slowly gathering consensus is that there are many reliable sources that say things about Rauscher that some eds, including yourself, seem to find very objectionable, and therefore not admissible for the article. Again, I think we're at an impasse here, which is regrettable for us all. Again, I don't savor any kind of a 'win' because I don't see it that way. Hopefully, the RfC will gather more comments and something will emerge more clearly either one way or the other. As I said above, I'll abide either way. Sincerely, Agricola44 (talk) 23:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC).

I have no idea where you get the concept that anything here is a 'contest between the two of us", besides your persistence in commenting on the contributors and my persistence in asking you not to. This quest of yours is the real distraction to the actual issues here, which is why comments like that are not the best way to proceed. I'm not seeing where you were 'gracious' in anything, merely attacking others, accusing them of owning the article and being 'disengenous' in their editing. Even now, you create motivations for those that oppose you. Nice. Dreadstar ☥ 23:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I got that idea from your quip: Enjoy your 'win'. Best wishes my friend, Agricola44 (talk) 05:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC).

Your battleground mentality has been apparent from the start, don't try to blame me for your POV and NPA. That's all on you. Dreadstar ☥ 22:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Again, best wishes my friend, Agricola44 (talk) 14:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC).

Slight refactoring to keep to the point and article content. Dreadstar ☥ 03:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
And here you are, still unable to stop making personal attacks on other editors. Yeah, I'd say that was pretty 'Bing!' of you myself. Your assertions about the motivations of others here are both unwelcome and incorrect. It's unfortunate that you seem to see Wikipedia as a battlefield and keep making these pointy comments and edits. So just stop, eh? Dreadstar ☥ 22:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC) And "editors with specific views want to suppress certain ideas" wasn't a personal attack? -- 202.124.73.179 (talk) 02:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC) First, I said no such thing; second, it's a matter of scale. I was commenting to a contributor who has been constantly initiating and making personal attacks; and I will forgive those who are under such an assault when they push back a little. Besides, you've already commented on it above. You have a problem with it, anon, then take it up the chain. Dreadstar ☥ 02:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC) And no, after careful consideration, I do not think it's a personal attack, and neither is 'poo-pooing'. Dreadstar ☥ 02:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, there's no monolithic consensus amongst the profession that mandates a strict interpretation of what makes a physicist a physicist. I can find discussions on all sides of the fence. Now as to identifying her as a parapsychologist in the lede section in WP's editorial voice, we run into WP:BLP issues if it's not from multiple high quality sources....does she self-identify as a paranormal/new-age researcher or parapsychologist? And really, we need sourced content in the article to bolster what we put in the lede. Dreadstar ☥ 15:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, here are those sources

• Bernard Gittelson and Laura Torbet (1987) Intangible Evidence, Simon & Schuster. This source quotes: As Elizabeth Rauscher, a theoretical physicist and parapsychologist with...
• Joseph Banks Rhine et al. (1985) The Journal of parapsychology, vol. 49, Duke University Press. This source quotes: Parapsychologists were not invited as a category, but the field was represented through Harold Puthoff, Elizabeth Rauscher, Montague Ullman...

Agricola44 (talk) 15:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC).

I've addressed those above, as well. Dreadstar ☥ 15:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, that brings us to an impasse. These 2 sources are plain and clear in that they say Rauscher is a parapsychologist, but you and Slim do not accept that. What do we do now? Agricola44 (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC).

I've opened an RfC. Perhaps this will help get things unstuck one way or the other. I'll abide by whatever the consensus is. Agricola44 (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC).

Great! That was going to be one of my suggestions...wait for more editors to weigh in, find consensus, look for more sources, that sort of thing. Dreadstar ☥ 15:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Providing context or going off-topic? And what are the topics she studies?

I wonder whether Dreadstar thinks that this revert is appropriate because the text removed provides context for Rauscher. Kaiser wrote a great book, but this is not an article about his book, it's an article about Rauscher. Including a lot of exposition about his book seems to me to be turning this article into an unrelated coatrack for Kaiser's thesis (which, I admit is an intriguing one, but one that is not necessarily relevant to this page).

Additionally, I don't see any evidence that the areas of study Rasucher is known for is quantum mechanics and consciousness. The sources we list instead say that she's known for being interested in the other areas listed. In fact, even if you think her "eight-dimensional space-time" is what she is known for, it's not really quantum mechanics but rather quantum gravity that is the umbrella topic. However, I don't see much indication that anyone acknowledges that this is what she's know for more than parapsychology.

Thoughts?

76.119.90.74 (talk) 12:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• The mainstream physics world does not, in fact, recognize Rauscher for contributions to the quantum sciences, nor especially does it place her in league with the likes of Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, and Schrödinger, as the current version of the article subtly implies. I think the coatrack concern is a valid one. For example, Kaiser is either mentioned by name (e.g. "Kaiser writes") or cited 9 times in this article and the article's content is somewhat restricted to what Kaiser's book disusses w.r.t. Rauscher. There is still relatively little exposition of Rauscher's main works. For example, her experiments with Olga Worrall should probably be given a whole section, since there's lots of secondary sources. Likewise, detailed descriptions of her activities in remote viewing, energy control, and efforts to complete Einstein's Unified Theory should be added because those represent significant fractions of her overall career and there are lots of sources. I suspect there will be pushback, though. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 15:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC).

• Well, considering that Dreadstar asked me to get "consensus" for this first step, do you agree with reverting his revert? 76.119.90.74 (talk) 17:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• Yes. I agree with going back to what you had ("reverting the revert"), especially because you have another source. Agricola44 (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC).

• We can discuss adding content from the sources used here, as well as the content and source that was removed by anon in that same edit. It's inappropriate to revert that version back into place without consensus. As for the additition of all these items in the infobox, without any corresponding sourced content in the article is purely WP:UNDUE, and I think that would be adequately covered there by the much simpler parapsychology research rather than trying to add every detail. Add detail to the body of the article. . Dreadstar ☥ 22:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• Undue, absolutely. Let's keep the infobox trim and slim. Binksternet (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• Format is not nearly so important as content, which was what I was trying to weigh-in on above. I think there's still quite a bit of sourced information that needs to be added and I would assume that most eds would agree that that info should predominantly go into the body, not the infobox. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 15:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC).

I think that it's good to have vagueness in the infobox. I'll try that out. 76.119.90.74 (talk) 19:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with this assessment and was quite surprised to see this edit summary. Accusations of bad faith, I thought, were frowned upon. Anyway, I think that the removal of these unsourced claims of what Rauscher is "known for" is a good step. Seeing no argument against this and assuming WP:SILENCE means WP:CON, I reverted Dreadstar. Let him post on this page if he has an argument. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks POINT-y to me: "so remove per talk page exhortation to being "vague" in infoboxes" [19] and "I think that it's good to have vagueness in the infobox. I'll try that out" [20] there has been no such "exhortation", just as there has been no consensus, "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus". Dreadstar ☥ 23:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You should re-read WP:SILENCE too, "Consensus can be presumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident (typically through reverting or editing).". So there was no silence either. Dreadstar ☥ 03:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

That's not a coherent argument. 76.119.90.74 (talk) 18:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Known for...

I read in the sources about the FFG that Rauscher is known for founding the FFG. I read in none of those sources that she is known for her research. Thus: [21]. 76.119.90.74 (talk) 18:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

She's known for both, as discussed in the section above and elsewhere. Dreadstar ☥ 18:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Cite a source please. Give a direct quote that says, "She is known for..." 76.119.90.74 (talk) 20:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Infoboxes "present a summary of some unifying aspect that the articles share and sometimes to improve navigation to other interrelated articles" per Help:Infobox. The research into Quantum Physics and Consciousness is sourced in the article. One doesn't need to provide an exact quote that begins "she is known for", the collected sources show that. Dreadstar ☥ 22:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The claim that is being disputed is that she is not "known for" these points. I am disputing the claim that she is "known" for this research -- she is actually UNKNOWN for this research. Therefore, to claim this is an outright fabrication in contravention of WP:V unless you can find a source which documents that she is known for such activities. You are steadfastly refusing to do so for reasons I cannot understand. 76.119.90.74 (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I've reported these issues to WP:FTN and WP:DRN. There are obvious ownership issues since the commentators on this talk page agree with me and not with Dreadstar. The issues I outlined are clear from the edit summary. Since others have encouraged me to edit, I'm not sure what to do about this persistent obstruction without any sort of coherent argument. 76.119.90.74 (talk) 22:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Justification

I will now justify every single edit I made that was reverted by Dreadstar:

[22]

1. There is a claim that Rauscher is "known for research into quantum physics and consciousness" in the infobox. There are no sources which state this and Dreadstar has steadfastly refused to provide any quotations that support this claim.
2. There is a claim that Rauscher is "known for having theorized, in 1974, that an eight-dimensional..." however, the source does not say that she is "known for" this, but merely that she did this. I changed the wording to indicate this. Dreadstar changed it back.
3. By extension, it is also claimed in the article that she is known for "work" in psychic and faith healing which, it appears, she did on her own free time and did not receive gainful employment therein, thus I changed the wording to indicate the manner in which she was involved in investigating these topics. This was reverted without comment from Dreadstar except that I discuss it here. I hereby begin the discussion.
4. It is claimed by extension that she's known for her experiments with Russell Targ. There is no source which indicates that she is "known for" this. Rather, there are sources that merely illustrate she collaborated on his remote viewing project. We shouldn't claim she's "known for" doing this if we don't have a source which indicates it.
5. A paragraph about Nick Herbert's activities is included in this page. This is a page about Rauscher. Not him. It should be removed.
6. A see also list is included without so much as a justification for any of the links. Many of the links are already included in the article (e.g. Bell's Theorem). Others are of dubious relevance (e.g. Theory of everything). I removed the entire section as unnecessary, but this is something that may warrant further discussion.

Please address the points substantively by number.

Thanks.

76.119.90.74 (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'll take this 3O request if I'm welcome to. I'll return shortly with my comments. --FormerIP (talk) 23:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! 76.119.90.74 (talk) 23:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I've removed some of the highly dubius sourcing and statements from the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

What about New Physics as a see-also link? Does that make sense at all? Sure Rauscher's arxiv papers are "Beyond the Standard Model", but it isn't a notable theory in physics. 76.119.90.74 (talk) 01:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed the see-also links to be more relevant. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

3O respsonse. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that Rauscher is known for "research into quantum physics and consciousness". In fact, there doesn't even seem to be evidence that she has ever conducted such research.

It is obvious from a search on Google Scholar that she is a career physicist with a handful of publications. There is no evidence, though, that she is "known" as a physicist (i.e. she probably does not pass WP:PROF, unless she has won awards, held chairs or whatever that are not mentioned in the article). Her research, AFAICT, also doesn not touch on quantum mechanics.

She also appears to have written for fringe journals on parapsychology. There is also no evidence that she is well-known for these writings, or that they are research-based. There is one exception to this, because she appears to have written a paper describing a visit to some sort of faith healer. But I don't think it is likely that she is "known" for this paper.

We do have evidence that she conducted research "the effects of electromagnetic fields on brain waves", but also no evidence that she is well-known for this or that it was even published. The only reason we know it happened is because of a local human interest news story about her eviction. It is not clear that there has ever been widespread interest in the research.

So, the reference to "research into quantum physics and consciousness" should be removed from the infobox, because there is no evidence currently provided in the article that Rauscher ever conducted such research or that, if she did, she is well-know because of it. --FormerIP (talk) 11:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

This leads on to another question: Is she notable for wikipedia. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• This article went through AfD only a few months ago and the conclusion was that she is notable. However, the post-AfD debate on what should appear in the article has been somewhat acrimonious. Dreadstar and a few others have been guarding this article and have reverted not only content that s/he deems critical of Rauscher, but debate, as well (see archive URL above). The article is still a steaming pile of bias, largely a WP:COATRACK for the Kaiser book, which pushes Rauscher's image as a mainstream scientist. There's actually quite a bit more sourced material that should be added to the article, but all of it is in the context of Rauscher's non-mainstream "parapsychology" work. However, given the history of this article and the continuing WP:OWNERSHIP behaviour of some of the eds, I for one have been reluctant to jump back in here. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC).

Do you have a proposed paragraph to add? It could be discussed in the talk page at first before adding it. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• This is a thorny political question because there's much more that could be added, but none of it is flattering nor does it promote the image of Rauscher as a mainstream scientist, which has been the agenda of some of the eds. For example, the book by M. Samanta-Laughton (2006) Punk science: Inside the mind of God discusses the Haramein-Rauscher "spin paper", which is quite clear that it claims to make substantial progress on Einstein's Unified field theory, e.g. from its introduction We do so by formulating torque and Coriolis forces into Einstein’s field equations and developing a modified Kerr-Newman solution where..., etc. The Samanta-Laughton book is similarly clear that this paper is supposed to explain various astrophysical phenomena like black holes, e.g. ..I have discovered others who have arrived at very similar conclusions. Notably, physicist Nassim Haramein also describes the universe as a holographic black hole fractal with creative black holes at every level. Together with physicist Elizabeth Rauscher, he has published a peer-reviewed paper that contains the mathematical basis for this model [citation of spin paper]. So, we have a "published" paper and WP:RS that discusses that paper specifically. Hence, inclusion would seem to satisfy WP requirements. However, anyone attempting to add a paragraph on this topic will very likely experience viscous pushback because the paper is nonsense (this was pointed out all the way back in the Nassim Haramein AfD) and only supports the case that Rauscher is what mainstream physicists would politely refer to as a parapsychologist. The article still seems to be watched by its guardians, so good luck with trying to make this into a POV-free article. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC).

There is a section on parapsychology which would be appropriate for sources related to this. At first glance "Punk science: inside the mind of God" looks like a fringe source and not reliable to me. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, this is precisely the sort of mentality I have seen with respect to this article: subjective judgement of a published source. (Lots of other instances if you look through the talk archive.) I continue to see little hope of an accurate article on this subject, free of POV agenda. Anyone who examines the large amount of published material, both by and on Rauscher, will immediately see that, although she was indeed trained as a physicist, she spent the vast majority of her career (>30 years) immersed in the "paranormal". A POV-free article would document these activities commensurately, rather than concentrating almost exclusively on her early, brief days in physics and only giving brief mention of the following 30 years. There's no mention, for example, of the years she spent on the faculty at the Resonance Project and the work there (e.g. the "spin paper" above). There is a vague citation, but no mention of the experiments she did with Olga Worrall, etc. etc. etc. If you'd like to try an experiment, add/expand text and citations just on the latter (since the spin material seems to make you uncomfortable) and see what happens. If it is reverted, then you can conclude that the POV is still being guarded. Happy editing. Agricola44 (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC).

Merely being published isn't a great indicator of the due weight of a book, some books have a greater due weight attached to them whilst some have none. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

If you're contrasting "self published books", pamphlets, etc. against books from commercial publishers, then I agree. However, books from commercial publishers tend to be taken at face value as WP:RS here, unless demonstrably problematic. I sense you don't like the title of that book ("Punk Science"), but by that test, the Kaiser book ("How the Hippies Saved Physics") could also be problematic, as would a large fraction of the books on paranormal subjects used in other WP articles. We can't violate policy selectively for this article alone, which I'm afraid has been going on for some time...and what are your thoughts about that little experiment I mentioned? Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC).

• 2. There is a claim that Rauscher is "known for having theorized, in 1974, that an eight-dimensional..." however, the source does not say that she is "known for" this, but merely that she did this. I changed the wording to indicate this.
• nice sophistry. if she did it, would people know it, when they wrote about it in a book, and nobel prize winning physicist mentioned it at AfD? Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 22:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually what he said was "I've not been following up her activities, but I believe she was one of the first to propose the use of multi-dimensional spaces to explain certain things (in a conference in the late '70s, I believe).". This isn't the same as saying she is known for it. edit: it is sourced to the kaiser book, to claim she is "known for it" more sources should be expected to exist and so this would establish due weight. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

A weak statement like "I've not been following up her activities, but I believe she was one of the first to propose the use of multi-dimensional spaces to explain certain things (in a conference in the late '70s, I believe)" doesn't back up the claim that Rauscher was the first to propose multi-dimensional spaces; on the other hand, reworded as a self-confessedly ill-informed belief by Kaiser ("Kaiser believed that...") it's hardly notable. -- 202.124.72.68 (talk) 00:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

68.96.52.132 (talk) 21:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Proton to Electron Mass Ratio Solved

Elizabeth Rauscher's work with Nassim Haramein resulted in this by Lyz Starwalker and Mark Rohrbaugh:

MpRp=4LM=ReMe <-> gives Mp/Me=1836.15236 <-- proof & derivation

http://phxmarker.blogspot.com/2015/06/mprp4lmreme-source-of-mass-of-matter.html

This is the foundation of the unified physics and is a basis for all fields of study using Einstein Field Equations with the Rauscher-Haramein solution and the proper IVM of B. Fuller improved by N. Haramein. The solutions of Dan Winter are in harmony with this first ToE.

Warmest Regards & Enjoy, Mark Eric Rohrbaugh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.96.52.132 (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC) 68.96.52.132 (talk) 21:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC) Phxmarker (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)Phxmarker

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Elizabeth Rauscher. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111019025909/http://www.theresonanceproject.org/pdf/rauscher_cv_12_30_2008.pdf to http://www.theresonanceproject.org/pdf/rauscher_cv_12_30_2008.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Brth date ?

As far as I can see, nobody seems to know when and where Elizabeth Rauscher was born ... --Yakob (talk) 09:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)