User talk:Tutweiler

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Tutweiler, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! I am One of Many (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Intrasomatic model[edit]

Mate, I don't think the Intrasomatic model ‎is notable enough to be mentioned on those wikipedia entries. I suppose one line might be acceptable on the OBE article, but you have gone overboard and created an entire article on this model, and entire sections on several other articles. The intrasomatic model is mentioned in one book by Peake, and even the words "Intrasomatic model" do not appear anywhere else on the internet or in any other publications. Fodor Fan (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. May I leave the article but tone down the other references? I do feel it is an important (albeit new) idea which is robust and solid. Thank you. Respectfully yours; Tutweiler (talk) 12:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)TutweilerTutweiler (talk) 12:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just remembered: I had initially only wanted to put up the one page; then the editors hit it with an Orphan Article citation and told me to make links from other pages: Ergo, I did the NDE, OBE pp. I would only get the Orphan citation again if the links I created (at their request) were taken down. The idea is certainly being discussed globally on radio and forums: One way to increase its notability is to allow people to see it referenced on Wikipedia. It has import and weight beyond , for example, many of the pop-culture references on Wikipedia. It is backed by renowned researchers and was conceived by a researcher and author of some 8 books. Tutweiler (talk) 12:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)TutweilerTutweiler (talk) 12:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intrasomatic model. Mangoe (talk) 15:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your feedback[edit]

And in what lies the arbitratry aspect, pray tell? Because the deletion discussion is not going your way? The policies we adhere to here have a looong history, and they are the rules we must abide by. So please refrain from throwing unfounded accusations around; I can understand your frustration up to a point, but we are at Wikipedia, and to Wikipedias rules we must play. Simple.

Lectonar (talk) 16:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But I still don't understand, except for the need for secondary citations. There are plenty of those. Tutweiler (talk) 16:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)TutweilerTutweiler (talk) 16:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is that: notability, which has to be established by reliable sources. Lectonar (talk) 16:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I will re-write the article again when some of the pending noteworthy secondary citations can be made. I believe they will be more than adequate. Thanks for your help. Tutweiler (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)TutweilerTutweiler (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no point in you attempting to re-write the article again, the model of Peake is very new, and it is currently an unknown fringe theory, it may take 10 or so years before it is covered or reviewed. What you added, is ok for one line on the OBE article in the paranormal section, but not entire sections on multiple articles or an entire article for itself, becuase it is not notable enough for that. Fodor Fan (talk) 21:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So if there were some pieces in magazines, or a venue such as science section of Huffington Post, and a piece pending n the New York Times, where he and the model were cited, these would not be proper secondary sources? It has to be a 10 year wait? That sounds very long. He might be recognized posthumously at this rate. Tutweiler (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)TutweilerTutweiler (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No there doesn't have to be a 10 year wait, I just said that being realistic based on Peake's model. I don't think you realise how long fringe theories take to become recognized, they have to be reviewed by the scientific community etc, which scientists have actually reviewed Peake's model in a scientific journal etc?. There are none. A search for Peake online does not reveal anything in any notable scientific publications. If you have pieces in the New York Times then they would count, but as I said the only mention of Peake seems to be on paranormal blogs or forums and these are not notable or reliable references. You also seem to be trying to present Peake and his "model" as scientific, but Peake endorses pseudoscientific ideas such as Chakras and the akashic records, his ideas are new age, not science. Fodor Fan (talk) 21:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I see your point. He is not new age, but likely counts as a "soft scientist" who blends neurology with mysticism. (Actually, he is one of the few who really does stick to the empirical theories of Blackmore et al. ) That he is not a "hard scientist" does not preclude his being of import in a cultural sense (just look at Bruce Greyson and Robert Monroe, and the ideas they uphold: Both in Wikipedia). He actually relates the akashic record to the Zero Point Field of Laszlo: He is closer to someone like Hawkings in his theories; but then, you must read him and attend his lectures to understand what he is about (naturally ). He is the enemy of the new agers, that much is certain, and clear to him, and to his antipodes. I think his best bet all around is to promote his theories via the venues I have mentioned, where there are editors who have expressed a keen interest in him. The secondary sources are really needed to bolster his model , here and elsewhere. Very best regards - Tutweiler (talk) 22:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)TutweilerTutweiler (talk) 22:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]