Talk:Biocentric universe/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Journal of scientific exploration

I deleted a synthesis from a fringe/pseudoscience journal, which was a fringe rebuttal. Contrary to WP:SYNTH and WP:FRINGE. Are there any P&G based objections to that? IRWolfie- (talk) 01:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

This borders on absurd. You added a quote in the opening reception paragraph by Vinod Kumar Wadhawan and Ajita Kamal (whoever they are) from a fring blog site in India. Yet, then you want to remove a quote by a reputable physicist, who has tenure at one of the top universities on the planet. This is a peer-reviewed scientific journal (despite you personal opinion). Professor Conn Henry's is a respected scientist physicist who has published in the top scientific journals in the world. His opinion deserves respect. It is also worth noting that you deleted every supporting quote by physicist (even an astrophysicist from NASA). You have used your Wiki experience to impose your view of right and wrong, and of what’s fring or not fring. That’s not our job as Wiki editors. We would still be in the middle ages (and science would not advance) if people weren’t allowed to question customary views. Under the pressure of advancing research, facts (indeed, worldviews) can turn into error. No one, including you, can suppress scientists from challenging dogma.Josophie (talk) 02:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I can't comment on the Indian source because I haven't seen it, but that has no bearing on whether SciEx is reliable. See my post below and the links I provided. While I understand the argument you're making, WP has policies that aren't quite compatible with your view. If you haven't read over the relevant material I suggest you start with WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. But the relevant aspect here is that fringe/pseudoscientific journals cannot be used to criticize mainstream views, see WP:VALID for more information on that. Sædon^talk 02:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Please show a diff of me adding a quote from an indian blog. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Your edit was reverted and I removed it again. The Journal of Scientific exploration is not a reliable source, especially not to criticize mainstream views. This source has been discussed numerous times on WP:RSN and User talk:Jimbo Wales and consensus has always been that it's unreliable. See here, here, and here. In that last diff, Jimbo sums it up as so: "Let me a bit more direct[...]Those claims are so patently absurd, they instantly demolish any sort of claim that it is a "genuine, peer-reviewed journal". It's quackery of the worst kind, and should only be used as a source for Wikipedia whenever it might be necessary to illustrate what kind of nonsense some people believe. It isn't science, it isn't academic, it's just rank nonsense" and "[...]basically, I'd say that legitimate people who lend credence to fake crackpot journals ought to be ashamed of themselves."

Josophie, for future reference, if you want to revert an edit your reasoning should be based on more than just the fact that the edit had been there for a while. If someone gives a policy based reason for a removal then you need a policy based reason to revert. Thanks, Sædon^talk 02:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

@IRWolfie-: "I deleted a synthesis from a fringe/pseudoscience journal". No you didn't. You deleted a direct quote [1]. Also I don't understand your "fringe rebuttal" reference above. What in that quote do you think is fringe or what was it rebutting? In fact can we not get distracted by talking about fringe. There is nothing fringe in Lanza's work - as I think the consensus in the section above on "Requested move" is clearly that his work is fully consistent with quantum mechanics. The debate is whether it should be called a theory of everything or metaphysics, not whether it is fringe. And the critics of it seem to be basically saying either it has all been said before or that Lanza needed to do more (well, much the same thing then), not that it was fringe. I think you have clearly demonstrated that you have a non-neutral POV on this article. Aarghdvaark (talk) 02:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I need to spell it out. When you have one sentence. And then you follow it without another sentence; if you use the word "however" to start the second sentence that means you are trying to counter the first sentence. That is a synthesis. Did you even look at the source for the quote? It's a journal that prints pseudoscience and fringe material. Biocentrism is clearly fringe, particularly if you, as you claim, believe it is a theory of everything. I am aware that you have a soft spot for the underdog, but do you honestly believe that a significant number of physicists accept or are even aware of the existence of biocentrism? I think anyone who reads the review will also recognise that this isn't a standard review, how often do people claim "we are dreams in the mind of God". It's also amusing that you want to include such a positive comment, but ignore the rest which spends two pages listing mistakes, and yet you want to use this to try and counter a review which also notes the mistakes. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Please stop trying to intimidate and bully everyone who disagrees with you. It’s degrading and makes for a very unpleasant editing experience. The editor above is absolutely right: You have a non-neutral POV on this articleJosophie (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Josaphie, no offense intended but I don't think you're being fair here. From IRWolfie I'm reading a reasoned argument as to the inappropriate nature of the source. I don't see any bullying (at least not in this section, I have not looked elsewhere), or anything even marginally degrading of other editors here. As for whether he has an NPOV, note that neutrality in WP's context does not mean "unbiased" "balanced" in the sense that might be used for a journalist. Neutrality on WP doesn't mean giving all views equal validity, it means representing views published in reliable sources in proportion to their prominence. To be neutral on a scientific subject like physics means representing the mainstream views in such a way as to confer their validity among experts in the field. Contrarily, fringe sources can be used on WP, but only to explain the views of the adherents, and never to rebut mainstream sources. I believe you when you say the author in question is a respected physicist, but for his views to be represented seriously and non-fringe on WP the work would have to be published in a reputable journal such as, but not limited to, Science or Nature. There is also the matter of WP:REDFLAG which stipulates that exceptional claims require exceptional evidence (on WP this means publication in multiple high quality sources) - the claim in the edit by the author insinuated views among professional physicists, but it appears that none of these physicists are agreeing in published sources, as such the quote is not appropriate.

I would ask that in your future discussions here you focus more on content and less on the contributor. Wolfie and I have both explained the relevant policies and given arguments as to the inappropriate nature of the edit, but you have not replied to any of those concerns, instead focusing on the contributor. Thanks. Sædon^talk 22:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Aarghdvaark, this is in fact a fringe subject. Fringe doesn't mean false or psuedoscientific, it just refers to that which is on the fringes of science/philosophy. Relativity, for instance, was fringe when first presented because it had not yet gained mainstream support. Is there any doubt Lanza's work hasn't been accepted by the relevant communities (philosophers and scientists)? Sædon^talk 00:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I added the quote in question in an attempt to add some balance to the beginning of the Reception section, which appears a bit negative at the moment. I added "However" so that it would read smoothly, but I can rephrase or add the quote elsewhere if that's considered synthesis. As for the source, as Aarghdvaark pointed out, I was quoting a scientist directly and that quote happened to appear in the JSE. I believe the conclusion of [this discussion] was that the JSE is reliable as a source of information (as in the fact that Prof. Henry did publish the quoted article) but not for a scientific statement. I'd like to add the quote but rephrase to avoid any potential synthesis. HtownCat (talk) 21:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Synthesis is not the only problem with the edit, actually I'm not even sure I agree there's a synthesis problem. The other problems are more substantial however, as I've pointed out above. (i) Your assessment of the RSN discussion is correct, but we have to consider the context. Yes, it's fine to use fringe sources to represent the views of fringe adherents, but what's inappropriate is using a fringe source to rebut mainstream views. Basically, the reception section should be a summary of the mainstream's take on the theory, what it shouldn't be is a mainstream take of the theory and then a rebuttal from its adherents. (ii) Per WP:REDFLAG, a part of WP:V, exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. Basically, Henry is claiming that other professional physicists agree (I think this is what he's saying, the quote is a bit convoluted), and since this is a fringe theory and other experts are not indicating agreement, this is an exception claim. Redflag reads "claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living people. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them." (iii) SciEx is a really terrible source for anything. I'm surprised to see that Henry would even allow his name to be associated with such a nonsense publication, but basically if he can't manage to publish these views in a real journal then they aren't especially important for our purposes. (iv) WP:GEVAL applies here as well since you mentioned balance. Balance, i.e. creating a dialogue between two views and negating that one view is based on a scientific consensus while the other is fringe, is not the goal of WP. In an article like this, the fringe sources can be used only descriptively, but not in rebuttal of mainstream sources. Sædon^talk 23:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Can someone link me to...

The old move discussion(s)? People are mentioning a previous move but there I found nothing searching the archives and I would like to understand the arguments that were made for this title (frankly, the arguments in the current move discussion to keep the current title are unconvincing, but I'm assuming there were more convincing arguments in the last discussion). Sædon^talk 00:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

It's just above, see point 8 :) Jeremy112233 (talk) 01:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see, thank you. I was under the impression that there was a previous RM, my mistake. Well, that's a pretty short discussion so not much help unfortunately, but thanks anyway. Sædon^talk 01:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes it was a pretty informal process. Jeremy112233 (talk) 01:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Chopra

Can someone explain to me why Deepak Chopra's opinion is relevant in any way whatsoever? He has no qualifications that would give his opinions credence on physics or philosophy. As far as I know he is an endocrinologist, which makes him an expert on hormone interactions, and he writes new age spiritual books, which confers no expertise on this subject (or possibly any subject aside from "how to write new age spiritual books"). Addionally, he is not considered a serious philosopher or scientist within their respective communities (I think the mainstream perspective is basically that he's a charlatan).

Actually, going over the sources I'm a little discomforted by the fact that this is a scientific/philosophical article but the majority of sources are either primary or non-scientific. I realize sources like MSNBC help to establish notability but this gets complicated when we can barely find WP:PARITY sources. Sædon^talk 00:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Part of the difficulty is that few reputable people in science have commented on it. Both "sides" here are grasping for quotes. The R.C.Henry quote is one of the few remarks from an actual physicist with a well-known institution, so it should be in the article. It's the verifiably published opinion of one scientist, in the article's "reception" section, so the discussion above about the journal not being a reliable source (as an authoritative voice in and of itself) is irrelevant. The Chopra quote isn't very helpful IMO for the reasons you state. -Jordgette [talk] 00:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that simply being published in a fringe journal is not enough to discount a reputable person, but that was not my argument to not include him; rather, it was due to the type of claim being made and that it was being used as a contrast to mainstream claims, thus giving a false sense of validity. Please feel free to join that discussion. Regarding Chopra, I'll remove his section within a couple hours if no one offers a compelling reason why his opinion should matter. Sædon^talk 00:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Another question, or perhaps a metaquestion, is whether our notability policy needs to account for highly specialized subjects that are made notable only in pop-sources. Organizations like MSNBC love stuff like this because it's interesting to their audience of laymen, but after running a story or two it's never talked about again. I'm not sure that should be enough to establish longterm notability on this subject and if we discount the pop-sources what we're left with offers almost nothing in the vein of notability. Sædon^talk 01:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I do think we need to decide whether or not this is a "metaphysics" article before removing these kinds of sources. If it is not a "metaphysics" article then perhaps you have a point, but if it is a "metaphysics" article, then why would you remove Chopra? Perhaps we should wait to settle this first point before the other. In fact, if this is seen as a "metaphysics" article, a great many things in the article would no longer be of value--namely the scientific reactions, as it isn't very notable that scientists think metaphysics is bunk :) All I'm saying is, can we wait to fix the first issue before diving into this one? Jeremy112233 (talk) 01:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know Chopra has no degree in philosophy and is not a metaphysician and is therefore not an expert on the subject, so the title issue is irrelevant. Are you perhaps using the more colloquial understanding of metaphysics, the one generally associated with the new age movement, astrology, etc? When I say metaphysics I'm referring to the well established academic subject of Metaphysics. What Chopra writes about may have metaphysical aspects to it, in the same way that Ann Coulter's books are technically about politics, but I'd hesitate to call either an expert in those respective academic disciplines. Sædon^talk 01:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

No, it's that I think this theory is as metaphysical as Chopra would be, so removing it if that is the place we're pushing the article would only make sense if we were leaving this as a scientific or physics page. I believe he was added here because he is a medical doctor back when the article was mainly about biology and physics. There seem to be a lot of changes being made under different perspectives of what this article is about, so I'd like to see that issue settled so that we know exactly what is relevant and what may not be. Just my opinion though. Jeremy112233 (talk) 01:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not agree there is any need to wait as my reasoning would apply to this article under any condition. My point is, whether this article is about science, metaphysics, a mix of both, or really anything outside of endocrinology, Chopra's opinion is simply not relevant because even if he writes about metaphysics, he is not a recognized expert of philosophy and possesses no credentials which would qualify him (i.e. a PhD in philosophy, physics, biology, hell maybe even cosmology). Even if the article was more about biology and physics as you mention, Chopra is neither a biologist or a physicist (MDs study far less biology than biology graduates and are definitely not biology experts all things being equal). Basically, what we're doing is using the opinion of a man whose opinion is as qualified as yours or mine, with the exception that neither of us are famous for writing books with metaphysical undertones that are wholly disregarded by actual metaphysicists. Sædon^talk 01:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The section is about "reception", not reception by any particular group of people. I'm concerned that limiting who we choose is an okay critic we push in one or the other direction away from NPOV. I mean, we wouldn't say that a newspaper article isn't a good source because the journalist wasn't a scientist, so why is CNN all of the sudden a bad source because instead of a reporter talking, it is Deepak Chopra? The reception he gives the theory is also demonstrative of the kinds of reactions people had to the theory, not just to the scientific assertions it made. Jeremy112233 (talk) 02:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I understand your point but I think it mischaracterizes my argument. I'm specifically saying that Chopra is unreliable on this subject because he doesn't have a demonstrated understanding of it, and so it would be akin to including a quote by John Elway simply because he said something on the topic. I don't mean to implicate that only expert opinions can be presented; there are instances where non-expert opinions could be included. Let me use your CNN example: firstly, the journalist's scientific credentials would probably be irrelevant unless the journalist was expressing their opinion only. However, if CNN were to report on say a group of people or a university or something adopting Biocentrism then it could be included. The problem here is that Chopra is simply irrelevant, being famous is not enough in and of itself to guarantee inclusion. There could be exceptions if it actually added anything to the article, but basically it's just a quote from a radio interview between Lanza and Chopra and it appears the only purpose it serves is to "balance" the fact that all the expert criticism (with the exception of Henry) is negative. Additionally, I just found after checking the source though is that it's a press release, which pretty much makes it worthless for our purposes as a self published source (our article links to a dead Yahoo link, when I searched the title it turned out to be a press release); the policy reads " Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Chopra has never been published in a relevant field and it doesn't add anything to the article. Also, from WP:FRINGE "Scholarly opinion is generally the most authoritative for identifying the mainstream view, with the two caveats that not every identified subject matter has its own academic specialization, and that the opinion of a scholar whose expertise is in a different field must not be given undue weight." Sædon^talk 03:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Good discussion, but it is getting a bit long :) Could I please simply plead that Chopra be deleted as he has no expertise in either science or metaphysics, so I can't see the relevance of him except for notability. Hopefully we can excise him without then opening the article up to accusations of lack of notability. And I would also like to plead for the inclusion of the quote by R.C.Henry as he is probably the most qualified person quoted. He is not a fringe scientist, so excluding him because he is critical of the mainstream view is very odd - smacks of wikilawyering in my opinion. Aarghdvaark (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I apologize if you feel I misrepresent your article, I by no means am trying to misinterpret your view. A press release should be deleted, but I'm still not convinced that Chopra's view should be removed as it could be seen as a popular view, the value of which we disagree on. I'd revisit the argument if and when we find a better source about the interview--preferably the interview itself. Secondarily, I would add that I have a degree in philosophy as well, with a speciality in analytic philosophy and metaphysics, as contradictory as those two may be. But I'm arguing from the point of view of a layman, and from the specific overall viewpoint of those editing the article, however flawed. If we can get the entire article into the right perspective and following more accurate thought categorization then I'm all for trading sources, but I'm concerned about picking away from all sides before that happens, which could whittle away the entire article unnecessarily or tilt the article away from balance. Not saying Chorpa is the end all be all here, I just think it is representative of an overall environment here in this article. Jeremy112233 (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Chopra has published extensively (books and articles) on the topic of consciousness, although perhaps not in scientific journals, peer-reviewed or otherwise. While I (and others) may personally disagree with some (or even much of) of what he says, he's still a notifable force and writer on the topic, even if people in certain branches of scholarship disagree with his views. Josophie (talk) 20:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'm actually ok with Chopra being quoted here in an IAR type move. I think most people realize Chopra has no relevant expertise, and is not credible on matters of science. I won't say more to avoid possible BLP implications. As such, I think his comment helps to take away any undue credibility from Biocentrism (I think Aarghdvaark realises this as well, which is why he wants it switched with the other guy sourced to a fringe/pseudoscience journal, so that it can imply more mainstream acceptance) . Keeping the text seems in line with WP:FRINGE. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree but since I don't have much time for WP these days I can't really escalate this to DRN. It doesn't seem like anyone else involved thinks it problematic enough to pursue so I suppose the issue is decided for now, though I reserve the right to bring it up again should my free time open up :). Sædon^talk 00:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Though I'm dropping this, could someone see if a non-SPS source is available? Sourcing to a press release, regardless of whether the content should be included, is not appropriate here I don't think. Sædon^talk 02:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Lanza as a scientist

I've noticed there is a new edit-war brewing so wanted to post a question before things get out of hand. How is anyone arguing that Lanza is not a regenerative scientist here, if his actual Wikipedia page supports it: Robert Lanza? This seems like a pretty bizarre argument, as Wikipedia's more substantial coverage of Lanza produces all the evidence we need to support his description as more than a medical doctor. Jeremy112233 (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Another wikipedia page says it so it must be true? the WFU site doesn't say Lanza is on the faculty. If he did work there, what school would he be under [2]? All the sources show he does medical research, that doesn't make him a biologist. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

No no, the massive amount of sources there that exhibit his work in stem-cell research used on that page make it true. It really isn't a matter of debate if Lanza is involved in stem-cell research in the scientific world, other than on this talk page :) Being involved in stem-cell research makes you person involved in regenerative sciences. I'm not sure why you're talking about him being a biologist or not, I was talking about his work in stem-cell research, the denial of which here is truly bizarre to me. Jeremy112233 (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it's quite apparent that if you work for a medical institute that doesn't mean you are a biologist. What qualification do you think medical researchers have? They are doctors, and the sources agree, the sources don't explicitly say he is a biologist. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Um, I didn't say he was a biologist... I said he works in the regenerative sciences, which is a fact you keep removing in addition to the idea he might be a biologist. You're removing both, only one of which you have an argument to remove. I'm trying to see why you're insisting he not be called a person working in the regenerative sciences. Do you have a rationale as to why? Jeremy112233 (talk) 23:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The revision you supported said he was; "a scientist in the fields of biology". I reverted a bold edit, there is no onus on me to fix the edit. Personally I think he is most notable for being the CSO of the company ACT. If you want to try a different edit, feel free. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure, just wanted to discuss it here before making the change. Jeremy112233 (talk) 23:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Just to be fair to all parties. What do we think about the mention of Lanza as a biologist in these sources:

• http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/02/10/still-no-truce-in-the-stem-cell-wars.html

• http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5147015

• http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2004-02-15-clone-usat_x.htm

• http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/genetics/2004-10-26-stem-cell-research_x.htm

• http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-12-senate-stem_x.htm

• http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=stem-cells-without-cancer

• http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=kicqAAAAIBAJ&sjid=LkUEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1475,4180770&dq=robert+lanza+biologist&hl=en

They all call him a biologist. I'm not sure why such poor sources were being used before, but don't these point us in the direction that calling him a biologist is fully supported by good references? Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Robert Lanza is clearly a biologist (broadly defined) and these sources support that. This particular discussion is silly and I don't understand why it is happening. -Jordgette [talk] 01:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

How about simply having "American medical researcher Robert Lanza" in this article? There is no need for full description here, there is already an article for that. --93.139.105.121 (talk) 09:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

That would suffice. As a biologist who is involved in clinical research myself, there is a lot of time wasted in trying to distinguish between medicine and biology. The overlap is so great, that no line can be drawn. I, for one, consider medicine mostly a subset of biology, although there are some things in medicine that lie outside the purview of biology. Lanza's research overlaps both fields. For what it's worth, a colleague of mine had four years of here life wasted because of bickering between the Untiversity and the medical school over whether her research was "biology" or "medicine", and which should be the body granting her her habilitation degree (she finally was granted the degree by the University). Bickering like this is pointless and a waste of time. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

He’s not just a scientist in regenerative medicine. Lanza was awarded Brown University’s "Outstanding Contribution in Contemporary Biology” Award. He has published extensively in non-medical areas of biology. In fact, he is Editor-in-Chief of the peer-reviewed journal BIOResearch Open Access, and is the Editor of “Principles of Stem Cell BIOLOGY,” which is the definitive reference in the field of stem cell BIOLOGY. He has published with Nobel laureates and members of the National Academy of Sciences on molecular, cellular, and developmental BIOLOGY, in journals such as CELL, Cell Research, Nature, Science, PNAS, not to mention specific biological journals. Thus, for accuracy, it should be “scientist in the field of biology and regenerative medicine.”Josophie (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Place for listing his achievements is the article about him, not this article. --78.1.144.86 (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

If you didn't notice, this is a talk page to present facts: The point is that the entire discussion about whether Lanza is a biologist is absurdJosophie (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

See WP:NOTFORUM: In addition, bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles. Talk pages are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article, nor are they a helpdesk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance.

So, talk page is not "a talk page to present facts", but it is for discussion on how to improve the article. Therefore, this discussion should actually be about whether to present Lanza as a biologist in this article and not about whether Lanza is a biologist, which would be more appropriate for Talk:Robert Lanza if such need ever arises.

IMHO, it would suffice to say (in this article, of course) only that he is a medical researcher. Anything more might make this article look like an advertisement. --78.1.144.86 (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I think what you said doesn't take into consideration the content of the article or the prior discussions here on the talk page. A large part of the article includes the words of scientists (and it very much highlights their fields) that disagree with the concept. As Biocentrism places biology ahead of other scientists, it is very relevant whether or not the creator of the theory is a biologist or not--whether he is talking about his own field or one he may not know anything about. The edit wars were very much indeed about whether or not he could be called a biologist, now it appears this fact has been established by consensus (no one is arguing otherwise). Now that this has been shown, arguments against or for its inclusion can be made. For most articles this is not an issue, but there are some pretty entrenched ideas/sides here that have to be dealt with before making some edits to the article. I believe it is important to respect those ideas/sides, and find a neutral way forward--rather than merely ignoring the divisiveness that has developed. Jeremy112233 (talk) 21:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

As the main users here appear not to have an issue with adding the term biologist (anonymous users notwithstanding), I'll add it now. Jeremy112233 (talk) 20:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• He is medical researcher, I don't see what the issue is. The language of "a scientist in the fields of regenerative medicine and biology" is just awkward. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Your edits border on ridiculous. You continue to ignore the facts and evidence (see above). Lanza has has published broadly in NON-medical topics of biology in top peer-reviewed journals. You know perfectly well that his background in biology is central to this topic and page.Josophie (talk) 16:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't trust what you say about science; you are the same editor who alludes to being a physicist on her page but who confused having two simple equations in a Popular science book with being a mathematical treatment. From [3] his work is related to medical research. He is also a qualified physician, not a qualified biologist. it's the sort of nuance a newspaper misses (and three of your citations are even by the same author). Most correctly, it's biotech that he works on, as is made clear on his page at ACT. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Please get your facts right before spreading false information. He is not a "qualified physician." In fact, he's not a physician at all (as mentioned in previous discussions on this talk page, he went straight into scientific research after medical school).Josophie (talk) 20:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

He went to medical school, that would be the place where people go to become physicians yes? IRWolfie- (talk) 10:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Here's the opening sentence on Wikipedia for physician: "A physician is a professional who practices medicine..." Lanza has never practiced medicine, so no, he's NOT a physician.Josophie (talk) 22:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Removed unreliable sources from Reception

The blog Nirmukta.com is not a reliable source and is inappropriate for the Reception section. The blog is a biased website that exists mainly to promote an atheist agenda. The PZ Meyers “source” listed next is a two sentence note on a personal blog.29sh00 (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Both sources are fine for opinions on the book. PZ Myers blog is very far from a personal blog, and meets our sourcing requirements. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Before I rollback ... I don't necessarily disagree with the fact that Myers is important, but I feel that his names is (in the context of the page) purely being used to prop up the views of another. Either their views are strong enough to stand alone, or their point isn't. Regardless, I do not see this passing mention by Myers on a blog as notable. Thoughts? We've had a lot of prior edit warring here on this page that no one involved really wanted to happen, so I think it would be great if we could negotiate this out here before we jump on the revert button :) Compromise can be an amazing thing. Jeremy112233 (talk) 23:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Myers is notable, but I don't like the two bloggers being used as a reliable source, even if Myers has supported their opinion. Perhaps a compromise can be simply, "Biologist PZ Myers has dismissed the idea as "bad physics."[ref] -Jordgette [talk] 00:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm okay with that as well if you believe the bloggers do not have stature here. It's not that we shouldn't have negative reviews here, I'm just not sure about piling the non-notable reviewers into the mix. Jeremy112233 (talk) 01:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

A so-so biologist claiming bad physics...please. His claim to fame is being an extremist (over-the-top) atheist blogger. Hardly there source to cite for such an extraordinary claim. Josophie (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Nirmukta is a blog, not a scholarly source, and does not offer notable criticism to be included in a Wiki article on a scientific theory. Removing the Nirmukta source and the corresponding PZ Meyers source leaves us with a balanced reception section that offers both positive and negative feedback from actual scholars.29sh00 (talk) 14:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

No, it works per WP:PARITY. Since this pseudophysics is fringe, it need not be a "scholarly rebuttal". After all, Lanza did not publish in a physics journal. jps (talk) 20:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

According to Wiki guidelines, care should be taken with sources that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. Nirmukta.com is an Indian atheist propaganda blog run by a fanatical group that has been accused by some of providing fraudulent statements as well as scientific misinformation (see, for example [granted these sources, including Nirmukta, aren’t exactly scholarly] http://mystryseeker.blogspot.com/2011/01/yogi-ashwini-vs-nirmukta-frauds.html; http://www.speakingtree.in/spiritual-blogs/seekers/self-improvement/nirmukta-frauds-rationalist-making-fool-of-themselves_10232; and http://nirmuktafrauds.wordpress.com/2011/01/24/yogi-ashwini-vs-nirmukta-the-fraud/; http://nirmukta.net/Thread-Nirmukta-accused-of-being-frauds-and-of-unscientific-thinking. Nirmukta is a blog expressing views that are acknowledged as extremist, promotional in nature, and rely heavily on personal opinions. It’s a lightweight source with a poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It is unsuitable for citation here.Josophie (talk) 19:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Nirmukta is an excellent blog. It is self-published, but it appears to be self-published by an expert physicist. The attempt to claim it is too harsh is rather lame. jps (talk) 20:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Adding YouTube reference to Introduction calling the idea "Woo"

This reference is a rant on YouTube. It discusses an article that appeared in the British tabloid the “Daily Mail”. This tabloid is well-known known for its outrageous and sensational journalism. According to the piece, the journalist based the story on material found on the web (Lanza wasn’t interviewed for the story, nor does biocentrism make many of the claims in the story). Adding an extremely one-sided statement in the “Introduction” calling the “Biocentric universe” “woo” based on such a piece is inappropriate. There is already an entire “Reception” section that includes some quite harsh criticism. One would just as easily add a quote from another YouTube at the beginning of the Wiki page saying how great the idea is. In any case, making such an exception claim [REDFLAG?] would “require multiple high-quality sources.” Also, it appears the reference is self-published, and as such would also not be considered as a source.Josophie (talk) 17:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you know of any physics professor who has been interviewed who has indicated that this idea is well-received? Also 60 symbols is not "self-published" by the professor in question, so I'm not sure how you made that proposal.

Daily Mail is a reliable reference, but Youtube is not. Unless it is publishing a legitimate newscast, Youtube should never be used as per WP:YOUTUBE. It appears there is no real consensus to add the Youtube source given the multiple reversions in the edit history, so let's discuss it here before reading it again please. Jeremy112233 (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Did you actually read WP:YOUTUBE? It does not say what you says it says. jps (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

That section is talking about external links. The proper link for YT as a reliable source is: WP:NOYT. Quote: "Official channels of notable organisations, such as Monty Python's channel, may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed, or as a secondary source if they can be trace to a reliable publisher. Unless the video is not clearly marked as "official" with a name strongly identified with the notable publisher or source, best practice is to treat it as a copyright violation and not use it." -Jordgette [talk] 20:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Certainly an interview is a primary source. But it's an excellent primary source to use when talking about fringe theories such as this one. The guy is a professor of physics. jps (talk) 00:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

YouTube is not a reliable source and I'll tell you why. Suppose a physics professor from a major university decided that 9/11 was an inside job and the buildings were brought down by explosives, claiming to have evidence. He makes a video with these claims, even though no reputable journal will publish his papers, and no other physicist will come forward to engage him. So should his video be a reliable source in the 9/11 articles? Of course not. (That is a real person in fact. His name is Steven E. Jones and he taught physics at Brigham Young.) -Jordgette [talk] 18:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Except that this youtube video is part of a series sponsored by the University of Nottingham. We're talking about high-quality content that is reliable per our policies on the matter. This isn't nutters setting up their own youtube channel. This is an editorially controlled, high-quality channel meant to elucidate ideas relating to physics. It features experts on the subjects at hand (not conspiracy theorists yammering on about demolition). jps (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same video? The one I saw is on a channel called SixtySymbols and appears not to be operated by a university. -Jordgette [talk] 20:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I think we are. Check out their website: http://www.sixtysymbols.com/ "Videos by Brady Haran for the University of Nottingham." jps (talk) 21:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I see no reason to believe the website is associated with the University of Nottingham, let alone an official university outlet, despite its logo being on there. The WHOIS record lists the admin as Brady Haran, no organizational affiliation, and his personal Hotmail address. This does not support reliability of the source.[4] -Jordgette [talk] 22:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Brady Haran is the filmmaker sponsored by the University of Nottingham to make these videos about science and mathematics that are some of the best available on the web and include http://www.periodicvideos.com/ and http://www.numberphile.com/. Why are you dismissing them out-of-hand? jps (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I was merely looking for some indication that Brady Haran's videos are sanctioned by the university and that he wasn't an independent vlogger. It would have been a lot easier just to link to his own Wikipedia article to establish this connection. -Jordgette [talk] 00:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we should not use a YouTube rant about a Daily Mail article as a source. The video is a primary source (at best).29sh00 (talk) 19:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Origins

Can someone with access to the text add information regarding Lanza's theory as to the origin of life? It seems like the most profound question the premise of the work raises is how physics could be modeled without space or time in such a way as to permit the formation of the earth and evolution of life.50.147.26.108 (talk) 14:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Intro

Lanza has claimed that future experiments, such as scaled-up quantum superposition, will either support or contradict the theory.

Can this be rephrased? It would seem that this is meant to say that scaled-up quantum superposition is the kind of test by which Biocentrism is either proved or disproved.

Chinagreenelvis (talk) 15:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Jacquelynn Baas quote

As Wikipedia editors, it's not our job to evaluate whether or not someone has the "required expertise. This quote was published in a reliable source and is perfectly acceptable for the Biocentric universe article--29sh00 (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm thoroughly unconvinced that the Smithsonian Research Exchange is a reliable source, let alone peer-reviewed. Though it's interesting, I recommend that the quote be removed. -Jordgette [talk] 19:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I just did some research on this. The piece was from publication of the proceedings of a Smithsonian Institution symposium, and published by "Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press" (SISP) in 2012. Of course it’s a reliable source. As you can see from the links I found (see below), it was indeed peer-reviewed. According to their stated “Peer Review Process” “SISP requires that each manuscript be evaluated by peer reviewers identified and approved by its Editorial Board. Reviewers are selected based on professional qualifications…Typical time for completion of peer review and return of the reviewers' comments and Board feedback to authors is 2-3 months…”

http://www.scholarlypress.si.edu/content.cfm?page=FAQ#11 http://opensi.si.edu/index.php/smithsonian/about/editorialPolicies I think the quote should be kept. It’s a bit arrogant to think non-scientists (in particular, in the arts) have no right to comment on this. Biocentrism is an interdisciplinary theory that straddles all of the arts and sciences, including philosophy, art and the other humanities. It’s an idea that has direct relevance and importance to all areas of life. Josophie (talk) 21:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Can we at least have a proper reference? The current reference does not link to any article. -Jordgette [talk] 19:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The inclusion is solely on the basis of Baas's evaluation of the scientific content of Lanza's ideas. She is neither an expert in quantum mechanics nor philosophy, and her opinion on quantum mechanics is not only not reliable, it's wrong. jps (talk) 14:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Who are you to judge which field(s) are more important than another? Biocentrism is a theory of everything, and has relevance to all fields of endeavor. Just as important to biology, metaphysics, and the arts and humanities as quantum physics (which is just one small part of it). Please do not keep reverting without a consensus. Josophie (talk) 16:06, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The quote dealt with quantum mechanics, a field with which the author has zero familiarity. Remove per WP:FRINGE. jps (talk) 17:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Biocentrism is based on biology, NOT quantum physics. Nothing to do with fringe --this territory has been gone over and over for years (please search archives). You are engaging in an edit war. Don't you understand what consensus means? Josophie (talk) 17:55, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Did you not read the quote? Anyway, this topic is unequivocally WP:FRINGE. There is no debate about that. jps (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Yes, that works for me as well. Josophie (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)