Talk:Jim B. Tucker/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Image

The early image from Wiki Commons was not fit wikipedia. This new image is a neat derivation of that image Jon Ascton (talk) 04:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Notability

OK Verbal, what exactly do you think is missing? The man has been given considerable exposure in prominent media outlets, continues the notable work of Stevenson, has published a book that has been reviewed widely, and has made a significant impact in his field of expertise. What more do you want? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 13:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

State which points of WP:PROF this guy meets below, with supporting WP:RS. Note that prof contains the qualifiers significant and major. I don't see him meeting any of the criteria, or the WP:GNG, from the current references in teh article. Verbal chat 08:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

maybe we're not Reading the same page of guidelines. Can you explain to me how the refs already provided do not satisfy #7 on the list - with or without the newly added Oprah ref. I'm happy to discuss #1 too, but 7 seems so obvious that if we can't agree on that then I'm not sure we're going to agree on anything!! Cheers, Blippy (talk) 23:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see evidence of "substantial impact", it doesn't say appears in the media a lot. If you're going for that it would be the WP:GNG that applied, and the "significant coverage", which I also think hasn't been established. Verbal chat 09:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

With the present impressive list of media outlets which have used him as an authority your refusal to accede this as "substantial impact" outside of academia would tend to invalidate that entire clause. Perhaps you are equating the terms substantial with ground-breaking or perhaps historical? __meco (talk) 10:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm looking at "impact". People can be very vocal but have no impact, WP:RS for "substantial impact" please. Also, saying that the media use him as an authority is questionable. Verbal chat 12:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, as I see it you do not recognize the fact that he is being called on extensively by leading mass media outlets to discuss the topic of his professional focus as indicative of substantial impact outside his field? You are in fact requesting an attributable source asserting that Tucker has made substantial impact outside academia in his academic capacity? Do I have your position correct? Could you possibly give an example of how you could conceive of someone hypothetically making such an impact? I would like to quote WP:PROF where it elaborates on criterion #7 which we are debating here:

"For people who have made substantial impact outside academia but in their academic capacity, the appropriate criteria for that sort of notability apply as an alternative—as for a person notable for popular writing in her subject. If notable only in another capacity entirely, see the general criteria for that field."

To me, becoming a familiar mass media name associated with this topic is pretty much tantamount to becming well-known for having published popular lay-oriented books on the subject of his professional focus. To wit, I will assert that the fact of his being called upon as has been described is prime testimony of the impact he has had outside his field of his authorship on the subject. __meco (talk) 14:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

No, that would fall under the WP:GNG. We need either "significant coverage in multiple sources" or "substantial impact". Verbal chat 16:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Condition #7 (of WP:PROF) reads:

"The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity."

Could you give me an example of one (hypothetical) individual who would meet this condition and none of the other? As the guidelines text clearly implies, cases where only one of the nine conditions is met would clearly exist, but I find your reasoning making me wonder if you accept that premise at all. __meco (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Prof. Brian Cox and Ben Goldacre, to name just two that come to mind immediately. Verbal chat 18:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Verbal here. Appearing on TV interview shows to tout his books is not enough to satisfy WP:PROF... he might pass some other notability guideline, but not that one. Blueboar (talk) 17:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there any indication that the extent of his mass media appearances fit that description? __meco (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

That would be the GNG, and not that I've seen presented here. Verbal chat 18:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Criterion 6 and 7, the guideline notes that "Heads of institutes and centers devoted to promoting pseudo-science and marginal or fringe theories are generally not covered by Criterion 6. Books on pseudo-science and marginal or fringe scientific theories are generally not covered by this criterion (7)." - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

And the next section reads: "Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark." __meco (talk) 18:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Does a subset of WP:N really matter when WP:N is clearly met? I'm leaning towards "no". Removing the tag Artw (talk) 22:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Points 6 and 7 of prof aren't met, per LL. Please justify your opinion with some reasoning based on one of the notability guidelines. Verbal chat 09:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, condition 7 is met since Tucker "is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area." What's "LL"? __meco (talk) 09:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

LL is LuckyLouie above. Crit.7 "The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity". He's not done that. I gave examples of people who do above. An example of Crit 7 is Raj Persaud. Verbal chat 10:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Then you obviously disagree with the quote from the very same guideline page giving as an example of what would be considered substantial impact (I quote again): "Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark."

Wouldn't it be more appropriate for you to take your disagreement with this interpretation of condition number 7 of WP:PROF to the discussion page of WP:PROF since we must assume that what is clearly stated on that page reflects current consensus with regard to what is to be considered "substantial impact". __meco (talk) 11:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Note the may in that example. This person is a fringe researcher in a fringe area, and does not meet the criteria. Also, selling books is not being "frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area". I disagree with your interpretation, which fails as you haven't shown "substantial impact". No need to change this guideline. What part of WP:N or other guideline applies? Verbal chat 11:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

That's correct. If Tucker's media appearances constitute promotion of his books and provocative subject matter to talk show programs, that's much different than an actual academic expert who is 'frequently quoted' in the media. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

And although both Blueboar and Verbal has tried to pass that notion off as something which we ought to take as a basis for the current discussion, it is blatantly refuted by the article's current text which, in addition to listing several appearances which may possibly be limited in this fashion, also reads: "His work has been the focus of documentaries on TLC, Channel 4 in the UK, and Channel 5 in the UK". __meco (talk) 13:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be promulgating the unfounded claim put forward by Blueboar (if you haven't yourself also made it previously in the discussion) that his media appearances are limited to promoting his books. This assertion stands in contrast to information about his media appearances given in the article, albeit unreferenced.

And how do you reach the conclusion that "a fringe researcher in a fringe area" is excluded from being considered whether or not he meets the condition "frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area". If there is something in WP:FRINGE which somehow overrides WP:PROF, please cite and explain. __meco (talk) 13:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

There are problems with the article such as you identify. The "a fringe researcher in a fringe area" comment is regarding the fact that he isn't to be found "frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area" going on the RS presented. If he is as notable as you claim you should have no trouble with the GNG. Verbal chat 13:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps not, I haven't tried. I have limited my involvement here to the issue of meeting WP:PROF, which he clearly does, per the guideline's condition number 7 and as per elaborations on how to interpret the guideline which I have cited a couple of times above. __meco (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I have come here from the post on WP:FTN. Having read the article, I share Verbal's concerns about it. It is resume-like and makes too much of things that are bread-and-butter for academics, such as a 50K euro research grant, which is too small to be worth mentioning, and speaking at conferences (we should hope so). Citations are needed for all the UK media appearance claims. Google turns up nothing for a Channel 4 documentary. BBC Radio - are we talking Laurie Taylor here, or the likes of Chris Moyles? I don't see anything here yet to indicate that this is a frequently cited expert. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

TBH I'm not entirely clear on how things being "fringe" or not affect WP:N, or why Verbals post to WP:FTN couldn't be considered a fairly naked example of WP:CANVASSing, since whetehr the article is fringe or not seems fairly irrelevant - unless Verbal is insisting on the WP:PROF tag as some kind of indicator that this guy should not be considered a proper academic, which would be a complete missuse. Artw (talk) 00:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a fringe academic who studies fringe theories, and is clearly within the remit of the WP:FRINGE and FTN. Please do not assume bad faith, and do not make personal attacks. I think you should look at WP:CANVASS, and also WP:TALK and WP:CIVIL. Rather than discussing possible motives of editors, can we stay on topic. Is there a notability noticeboard? If so, I have no objection to it also being crossposted there. I would have problems with multiple postings across many projects. If you feel I have acted incorrectly, follow the steps in WP:DR, as I will. Verbal chat 07:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The 'fringe' aspect of his work is completely irrelevant here, the question is whether he is notable. Tucker is an expert and leader in his field. He has made *many* appearances at both academic and *non-academic* conferences, and in media. Efforts to denounce his notability and reject these objectively agreed facts are pretty tedious, and enough to really put doubt on the AGF side of life. The lack of agreement at this level of obviousness, coupled with not-so-veiled accusations of COI, suggest that there is going to be the kind of intractable crap that took place on the Stevenson page. This is a biography, in fact a BLP. There is ample evidence of Tucker's notability - to quote a very nice wiki-faerie;

Daily mail UK newspaper finds and cites him as an authority in his field http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-562154/I-died-Jerusalem-1276-says-doctor-underwent-hypnosis-reveal-life.html On a programme called Friendly Fire as a subject matter expert http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLKT5UsKoqM The UK Channel 5 documentary The Boy Who Lived Before (2006) follows Jim Tucker’s investigation of a case involving Cameron Macaulay http://www.ianlawton.com/rsvideos.htm That’s three clear appearances in mainstream media on both sides of the Atlantic found after only two or three minutes on the internet.

My take on WP is that it's about collaborative efforts, not sniping and carping at the petty sort of level I think we are witnessing here. How about AGF, give the benefit of any doubt you might have to creating rather than destroying. Let's get on with making a good page based on the VERY plausible assumption that this guy IS notable. If you disagree, then back off and let those who do agree work on producing a good page. Pursue your arguments in the relevant forums that discuss page deletions and leave the people who want to do some useful work here alone. It's sad that so much energy is squandered on inanities. I for one am going to proceed on the basis that he is notable, and if others wish to do so I encourage them to join forces. If there are those who dispute his notability, bully for you, lobby for the page to be deleted and we can have the discussion elsewhere. I'd prefer to use this talk page for its primary purpose; to explore how best to produce a good BLP on Tucker. ***end of rant*** :-) Cheers, Blippy (talk) 10:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

If he's notable, please say be which guideline and give supporting evidence - as has been asked. Verbal chat 10:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I have just restored the banner again, pending some clear justification as to notability. Verbal chat 12:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Verbal; please specify what notability criterion he may meet, and then we can discuss whether sources can be found to support it. (Note also that youtube is hardly a source for anything, although it could possibly be used as a courtesy link if independent confirmation of his appearance on the programme can be found.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

When you write "please specify what notability criterion he may meet", do you mean to assert that you haven't even read the previous discussion where this has been specified time and time again? For the third time I shall cite condition #7 of WP:PROF:

"For people who have made substantial impact outside academia but in their academic capacity, the appropriate criteria for that sort of notability apply as an alternative—as for a person notable for popular writing in her subject. If notable only in another capacity entirely, see the general criteria for that field."

WP:PROF also provides advise on interpreting condition #7:

"Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark."

__meco (talk) 14:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you can assume he has read it, by WP:AGF, and that he disagrees with you about that. Please show "substantial impact", per the wording of the actual guideline. Please don't repeat the same argument over and over. Verbal chat 14:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

This is logic, pure and simple. The elaboration on criterion 7 gives an example where it is met, e.g. "if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area."

Question 1: Does Jim Tucker meet this criterion?

A caveat exists: "A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark."'

Question 2: Does this caveat apply and thus invalidate Tucker satisfying criterion 7?

If anyone here disagrees that the answer to question 1 is undoubtedly yes and, likewise, that the answer to question 2 is undoubtedly no, then please respond to this call and give a to-the-point argument showing why you think that is the case.

Obviously, we can only give a tentative answer to the second question pending confirming references for the media appearances listed in the article. Should it at some time become apparent that these are not notable appearances (or maybe even untrue) that must mandate a re-evaluation of this issue. __meco (talk) 16:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see my previous comments (re "substantial impact"). Verbal chat 19:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

"Please see my previous posts" is not a useful response conducive to bringing this discussion out of the deadlock. This section is voluminous and the term substantial impact occures 15 times (now 16). If you want to be responsive and assist me in following your reasoning, please respond to my two questions in the manner that I request. In doing that I would welcome your referring to any of your above posts where you elaborate on the meaning of the term "substantial impact". __meco (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

To Q1: Currently, no. I don't see any "substantial impact" required per crit 7. Q2: Flawed premise, it isn't a caveat, it is an example, and he doesn't currently meet crit7, so it can't invalidate it. Why would you expect a different result when you do the same thing?. Verbal chat 19:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, let's break it down since you failed (as I see it) to respond to question 1. I shall take some responsibilty for having worded it in an ambiguous manner. I definitely should not have phrased it using the word criterion. Could you please just respond to whether or not Tucker meets the following condition: "if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area." I know this is tedious, but I hope you will humor me as I shall if you request similarly. __meco (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

To anser Verbals question in the RfC ("Which criteria of WP:N or WP:PROF are met, and by which WP:RS?") I would respond: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." and "The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." - both of which are met by the articles sources.

I'd also argue that even if you accept Verbals convoluted logic on WP:PROF (which would be quite a leap - he's tied himself into pretzels there) that WP:N, which is clearly met by the sources, overrides it. As a follow up question to Verbal I'd ask the question he appears to have ducked so far: Do you honestly beleive this article does not meet WP:N? Artw (talk) 22:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if he meets WP:N. If more than one of those documentaries are about him, rather than by him (or being presented by him), it would seem to meet "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I tend to feel he doesn't meet WP:PROF, anyway, as the programs may be about his views without a credible implication that the views are accurate. (Unsolved Mysteries, even if a source can be found, is not credible; although it seems acceptable for WP:N if the program is about Jim, rather than merely using Jim as an "expert". I don't know enough about Channel 4 and Channel 5 to determine whether the same can be said about them.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Video for "Extraordinary people - The boy who lived before" is readily googlable and features Jim Tucker throughout, following his investigation of a claimed case of reincarnation.

I am still very interested in hearing a yes or no answer to my question from [user:Verbal]. Artw (talk) 04:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I don't feel it meets the significant coverage part of the WP:GNG, as I've already said. Asking the same questions, as I've already said, over and over, without bringing either evidence of significant coverage in multiple independent RS or evidence of substantial impact per crit7 of PROF is disruptive, as is your reply to me in the RfC - please remove it. Verbal chat 08:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you feel I've been uncivil, from my point of view I've just enteres the conversation with a blunt matter of factness similar to your own. Feel free to pick it up in the appropriate venue if you feel it's a problem.

My main concern is establishing whether the article is, as the tag says, in danger of being deleted or merged - which would be the case if it failed WP:N. Just to confirm, would you say that the following do not address the subject directly in detail? [1] [2] [3] BTW, with the national post article you may wish to click through the pagination. Artw (talk) 09:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

There's been no activity either way on this issue. I'm going to remove the tag as it seems like notability has been established due to the sheer number of outside, reliable references. I'm going to suggest that if the there is still doubt about this, we elevate it to the mediation cabal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IAm172.16.100.1 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Suggested headings for the article

I quite like the structure used on the Stevenson page separating biographical details from research interests. Perhaps the latter could be subsumed under a Career heading which has Education, Early Career, Research under that. Thoughts? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 12:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Alternative views wikiproject

I've removed this wikiproject banner. Please justify here before restoring. Verbal chat 12:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The scope of that WikiProject is stated to be: "significant "alternative views"—those theories, hypotheses, conjectures, and speculations which, though notable, lack widespread acceptance, and which may challenge a "dominant view" which does have such acceptance. The project encompasses alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities." That said, both I and you are members of this project. Perhaps a needed discussion about the project's scope would be better had at the project's talk page instead of at individual articles' talk page? __meco (talk) 12:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

So you claim that Jim Tucker is involved in alternate research and not a scientist or is engaged in non-science (such as pseudoscience)? Correct me if I'm wrong. These are individual points so the talk page is the best place. Since tucker claims to be a sceptic I fail to see the reason for the tag on this page. Verbal chat 13:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Surely if your bid for deletion is successful the banner will go away with it... hardly worth the effort?? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 13:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

What bid for deletion? Please stay on topic per WP:TALK. Verbal chat 13:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Why would you be concerned about listing Tucker under Alternative views if you think he is not notable enough to have a page? Blocking and diverting on as many fronts as possible is hardly constructive. I would encourage you to pursue your highest level concern - notability. If the page fails notability then you have nothing further to trouble yourself with. Otherwise it might seem that you are merely being obstructionist rather than wishing to collaborate to produce the highest quality page that we can manage, or have you ceded the notability objection now? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 13:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF. I'd just improved the page before you posted this. I'm still pleased to work on the article, hoping someone can meet the notability requirements. I'm concerned as I want to improve the project. Verbal chat 14:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm no longer sure what AGF means - I thought it meant to assume good faith. I would suggest that it would be good faith to improve the article in keeping with your view of it. If you believe it fails notability, pursue that in the appropriate forum where non-notable pages are dealt with. There is an inherent contradiction, which breeds bad faith, in continuing to edit a page you do not believe should exist. Resolve the matter of utmost concern, then perhaps we can work productively together. Otherwise everything you contribute is tainted with a kind of hypocrisy that makes it difficult to take in a positive light. You cannot expect people to value your contributions on the one hand while you're trying to pull the carpet out from under them with the other. Humans tend not to work like that. It doesn't help if edits are used to remove references that would otherwise demonstrate notability - not that I'm accusing you of that. cheers, Blippy (talk) 14:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh! AR, I've just revisited the page and noticed there are still quite a few words without {cn} tags. I'll AGF that this is an oversight that you'll fix shortly. Or did you also think that this page didn't satisfy notability criteria???

And now that I've taken my sarcasm cap off, perhaps you might consider finding BETTER sources, rather than merely deleting the ones we've got? I think that might be a far more constructive approach to collaboration. Again, if you think the page should be deleted, maybe it would be a better use of your energies to pursue that instead of "helping" here. cheers, Blippy (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Would you rather I put in {{disputed}}? That's as much GF as I can assume. I don't really believe he was in a notable role as a scientist in an episode on/in a notable programme on/in a notable channel, and all of those "notables" (except possibly the last, but it's hard to verify a notable program on a non-notable channel) are required for it to count. (And America's Most Wanted runs against accuracy, even if mildly for notability.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

TBH We don't seem to be getting very far for this. I'm oppeing an RFC to get fresh view. Artw (talk) 17:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Does this article meet notability requirements?

Are the sources for the article sufficient that WP:N and WP:PROF are met, and is the template indicating that the article may be merged or deleted due to not meeting WP:PROF justified? Artw Artw (talk) 18:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

"and is the template indicating..."? Incomplete sentence. And what template are you referring to? __meco (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, the extent of what you are rfcing becomes still more ambiguous since you referred to the opening of an rfc in the above section #Removal of Alternative views wikiproject. __meco (talk) 18:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The end of the sentence got lost somehow. Edited. Artw (talk) 18:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Which criteria of WP:N or WP:PROF are met, and by which WP:RS? I haven't seen anyone give evidence that this is so (such as "significant impact" per crit.7 of PROF) Verbal chat 19:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of the RfC is to get an opinion on the article from users unaffiliated with those that have taken part in the previous talk, please don't use it as an oportunity to recover the same ground. Artw (talk) 22:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

He definitely does not meet WP:PROF since any claim to notability that he might have lies outside his academic field (ie might be known for his views on reincarnation, but he is not known for books on Child Psychology).

I also don't think he meets the requirements for WP:AUTHOR. As for General notability... to me the key is that Notability needs to be established through reliable third-party sources that are independant of the subject. Mearly appearing on a few TV shows is not enough. What is needed are reviews of his work and discussion of his theories by either accademic or media sources. In other words... to answer whether he meets GNC, we need to know the substance of his appearances on TV, and what others say about him and his theories, not what he says. Blueboar (talk) 03:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Blueboar - Tucker's only claim for notability lies squarely in his academic field - reincarnation. He is a psychiatrist, but that is not his field of research, reincarnation is. In this field he is mentioned in many third party RS's - I'm just not sure how many of them have been left on the page by some of the other editors here. Deleting references during a call for comments seems rather unhelpful in my view, but then I'm biased because I am already convinced he is notable (perhaps because I've seen the RS's). Cheers, Blippy (talk) 14:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

{{off-topic?}} tags and other non-notable statements

Being a referee, even if the journals are real, credible, journals (which at least one is not) is not notable.

Having a "research bursary" may not be notable. I don't know exactly what a "research bursary" is, but Verbal assets it doesn't mean much.

His appearance on Good Morning America is almost certainly a book promotion, rather than an appearance as an "expert". His appearance on Oprah may be a book promotion. Book promotions are not worthy of note. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

In this context, by "notable", I mean "having sufficient significance to appear in Wikipedia", not WP:N.

If you are certain that his appearances are book promotions by all means provide the evidence here. I'll be particularly interested since if all I have to do is write a book to appear on those outlets then I am assured of terrific sales and will consider swapping careers... unless you're implying that his 50k bursary helped pay for his appearances...? Or do Oprah and co. have other criteria that needs to be satisfied to invite authors and/or academics on? Maybe if their work is of some, ummmm what's the word.... oh, NOTE. Yes, that's it. Work of some note. Now why does that sound familiar...?  :-) Cheers, Blippy (talk) 14:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The WP:BURDEN is on those seeking to add the references. The 50k bursary is a tiny amount (in the hard sciences at least), and probably shouldn't even be in the article. Verbal chat 15:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see you providing evidence from the appropriate references about pseudoscience etc. over on the Stevenson page Verbal, you insisted on directing people to the reference themselves. In this case the references are there, you and/or AR are at liberty to demonstrate that they are inappropriate, not merely speculate that they are inappropriate. Or is DG's word the only one you're willing to take for the veracity of sources? And since when do people conduct book promotions three years after the publication date? Reprint maybe? Oh, but that would lend further credence to notability, wouldn't it?? If this is your idea of collaborating, I think I'd prefer if you didn't - although you're always welcome!  :-) Cheers, Blippy (talk) 14:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to mention that I agree the 50k bursary isn't much chop and doesn't add a whole lot to the article - not quite in the $2,000,000 (in 1960's money at that!) of Stevenson. I don't see the harm in mentioning his frequent appearances as invited speaker to numerous non-academic conferences though. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

If I knew the references were inappropriate, I'd delete them, rather than tagging them as {{off-topic?}}. As it is, I only strongly believe the references to be inappropriate; the burden of proof is still on those who want the information in the article. But I don't see his being invited to participate in TV and radio programs, without evidence that the program considers him a credible expert, as notable. (I know some self-proclaimed experts who are brought in as evidence of absurd theories, rather than as a credible expert. I suppose their being invited as such does provide some evidence of notability, but not toward WP:PROF, and not as much toward WP:GNG.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

"Are nightmares really glimpses of struggles from past lives? Do children have the ability to remember detailed facts about past lives? Dr. Oz investigates these possibilities with Dr. Jim Tucker, author of Life Before Life: A Scientific Investigation of Children's Memories of Previous Lives, and Therese Rowley, a business consultant who has intuitive skills she says help her gain insight on people's past lives." You'll note that Dr. Oz is investigating these possibilities, not interviewing Tucker about his book. Please remove your tag. Blippy (talk) 15:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

"This Friday Oprah investigates Haley Mills. What happened to her twin sister, and why won't she talk about it?"...that and similar "TV promo" language is used all the time on talk shows. It's not an indication of academic pursuits. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the tag is justified from Bilby's Blippy's evidence. Verbal chat 21:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

{outdent}By all means continue to embarrass yourselves with increasingly contorted logic to try and pretend that Tucker is not a significant character and did not appear on these programs as a book promotion. Your Haley Mills snipe further evidences your incapacity to make a coherent argument LL. Are you suggesting that Haley Mills is also not notable because Oprah is investigating her? Let me try to clarify it for you. No one here suggests that the Oprah radio program was an academic pursuit. It is being used to further demonstrate Tucker's notability. What was disputed was whether Tucker appeared in his capacity as an expert, or as some sort of (paid?) advertisement for his book. Please explain which you now understand to be the case a) Book Promotion b) expert as part of a Dr. Oz investigation (whatever that may mean). Cheers, Blippy (talk) 09:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: the personal attacks, no WP:BAIT for me today, thanks. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Point taken - I was intemperate and so apologise for that. Are you willing to comment on the suitability of the references? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 03:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Verbal - that was quick! I seemed to clash with your latest edits straight after mine. I was actually trying to reapply the TV tag because I think the Ch 5 one isn't so much a TV appearance, and as you noted, the implication is multiple appearances (unless the plural entails radio and tv together, which is a bit ambiguous). In any case I think it would be nice to have other refs for that. As for the radio tag, there's been deafening silence on the topic for over 2 days, so I think it's quite reasonable for me to remove it. Perhaps you are willing to answer the Qn LL was unwilling to answer... Cheers, Blippy (talk) 09:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

From what you have said it does look off topic to me. Re your question "Are you suggesting that Haley Mills is also not notable because Oprah is investigating her?" that is a straw man argument, and a false implication. It does look a lot like baiting, and I'd advise you to be civil and respectful with those you disagree - moreso if you feel they are mistreating you or your opinions. Verbal chat 09:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

oooooo kayyyyyy.... ummm thanks for the lesson, but now back to the matter of substance - the Question I asked LL was whether Tucker's appearance was as a) Book Promotion or b)Expert taking part in Dr.Oz's adventure? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 09:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Book (and self) promotion, involving "Dr Oz and his magnificent adventures". Not mutually exclusive, although I dispute the expert part (and I note you didn't say academic expert). Verbal chat 09:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps my eyesight is failing, but I can't quite make out your answer to the multiple choice question... was that a) and b)? Blippy (talk) 10:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Then my answer is I reject your question as flawed. It is a 'Book (and self) promotion, involving "Dr Oz and his magnificent adventures". Not mutually exclusive, although I dispute the expert part (and I note you didn't say academic expert).' Please don't be flippant. My answer is clear, we're not in a school debate class. Verbal chat 10:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I was unaware that levity was verboten. I shall keep my heels clicked as I type in future. My question is flawed. Hmmm flawed as in grammatically flawed? Conceptually flawed? Categorically flawed? I-don't-want-to-answer-it-so-I'll-copy-and-paste-my-previous-response flawed? I don't think that you are in a particularly lofty position from which to lecture regarding my style of writing. You are welcome to adopt your style and I shall endeavour not to get personal. Accusing me of flippancy, implying I cannot read what you wrote previously, ignoring my question, and denigrating me with childish insinuations do nothing to build respect or collaboration. I overlooked your previously snotty response to my attempts at being gracious - and I mean snotty in the English sense of the word of course - but you appear to have mistaken my good will for willingness to take whatever drivel you care to pass off as informed comment. I assure you this is not the case. Your answer was not clear. You prevaricated and provided a mangled response. You appear to have offered a) and b) so I thought I would clarify this with you so as not to draw the logical conclusion such a response entails without your awareness. If you have selected a) and b) - which seems to be the case - then you cede the argument. You acknowledge b) to be the case, which is all that matters, regardless of whether a) is true or not. The fact that you argue a) and b) are not mutually exclusive, and that you opt for the intersection as your response, means that Tucker did indeed appear in his capacity as expert as well as promoting his book. Your only way of logically refusing to remove the tag is to claim a) *exclusively*. I am happy to remove the tag if you are not willing to do so. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 10:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Please remain WP:CIVIL, and I politely request that you rewrite the above post to make it civil and polite. I'm afraid I reject both your a and b choices, especially the expert part of b - which means the tag is relevant still. It is a book/self promotion involving an "adventure" with Dr Oz. That is typical for these kinds of programs. I do not acknowledge either a or b to be a correct response, but have instead given my own answer. Call it "c" if you like. I'm afraid I cede nothing. If you have a point please write it out, and I'll give my answer. No more guessing games or quizzes please. Please desist in your argumentative baiting, personal attacks oand incivility. I have previously raised this with you, and I or someone else will probably take it to WP:WQA if you continue. Please refactor your above post with this in mind. Verbal chat 11:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Those living in glass houses and all that eh? I don't think politeness has been the touchstone of this exchange, feel free to lead by example if you wish and I shall then consider your request as more seriously reflecting those of someone committed to a collaborative effort and not merely WP:BAITing. If you are rejecting both a) and b) then you are, once again, logically required to remove the tag - you have rejected the assertion that he was only there to promote his book; the only concern expressed by AR above. Of course you now seem to be introducing some other reason for his appearance on the show, but it is not clear just what that is exactly "a book/self promotion involving an 'adventure' with Dr Oz". I shall have to ask you to explain just what that means exactly, and more importantly, how it demonstrates that Dr Tucker's is not notable. I would encourage you to reconsider your characterisation of Dr Tucker at this point and remind you that this is a BLP. I take the remainder of your post as WP:BAIT and will not rise to your occassion, but rather refer you to the start of my own post just now. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 11:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, my take is that it's (probably) primarily (a), with some (c) (entertainment, with no claims as to the accuracy of statements made) as there is no evidence that Dr. Oz is intended to be an expert or talking to experts. That seems a polite way of agreeing with Verbal. I suppose that might tend toward notability if Dr. Oz is notable and has few guests, regardless of credibility, but not under WP:PROF. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Point 14 says "Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark". Tucker so clearly goes beyond the small number of local media appearances and into major mainstream media in the UK and US, that it is hard to believe there is any argument. For example, ABC Good Morning America [4], the Daily Mail in the UK [5], UK's Channel 5 documentary [6]. These are all major national media. In what conceivable way do these examples not clearly meet point 14? Noirtist (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Media appearances establishing point 14 requirements to meet criterion 7 for notability

Tucker's academic work involves research into past live narratives through his position as assistant professor at the University of Virginia's division of perceptual studies.[7] In his position as a leading academic expert on reincarnation research Tucker is frequently quoted/featured in mainstream media in both the UK and US to talk about his work and give his views when reincarnation comes up. Being quoted in this way is enough to satisfy example 14 as a way of meeting criterion 7 for notability. The following list establishes Tucker as a frequently quoted expert in one of his areas of academic expertise and thus meets criterion 7 via example 14.Noirtist (talk) 16:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• 1. Tucker's investigation of a case in Scotland is detailed extensively in a UK Channel 5 documentary Extraordinary People: The Boy Who Lived Before.[8]

• 2. Quoted as a subject matter expert in the Daily Mail UK newspaper [9]

• 3. Quoted as a subject matter expert in ABC's Good Morning America (also a TV appearance here??)[10]

• 4. Interviewed as a subject matter expert in a documentary for TLC/Discovery Past Lives: Stories of Reincarnation [11] - click the "next" arrow on the right and it is the 5th documentary listed. Tucker is not mentioned by name in the blurb but he appears in the short video clip.

• 5. Quoted as a subject matter expert in the National Post article Haunted by past lives? Academics wrestle with treating the 'reincarnated'[12]

• 6. Interviewed about his work in SFGate [13]

• 7. Tucker interviewed about his work alongside someone called Michael Shermer on the Charles Adler Show on Canadian Radio [14]

• 8 Tucker interviewed as a subject matter expert by Dr Mehmet Oz on Oprah radio [15]. Oz himself seems to have fairly sound credentials as well.[16]

• 9. Quoted and described as a subject matter expert in an article in Discover (magazine) [17]

Noirtist (talk) 15:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

None of the four so far given satisfy crit 7 as they fail to show "substantial impact", and do not give "significant coverage" per WP:GNG. Verbal chat 15:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Crit 7 from WP:PROF:"The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." Please show substantial impact in his academic capacity, which is psychology not parapsychology. Verbal chat 15:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You've misunderstood point 14's relationship to criterion 7. Meeting point 14 is one means of satisfying criterion 7. That is, by appearing regularly on national media you satisfy criterion 7. These other words and phrases that you are using have no bearing on the matter.Noirtist (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You see, here it is "Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area". That's what the examples show happening (or do you disagree) and that's why they satisfy criterion 7 via point 14. Noirtist (talk) 15:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

That's an example which doesn't apply. Crit 7 is quite specific, and is the actual guideline part. In his academic capacity (ie not reincarnation research, unless we have a good RS that his academic capacity includes reincarnation research) and substantial impact (awards mentioned in the press, not woman's magazine/GQ/Oprah nonsense). Verbal chat 15:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

What? Like this from the University of Virginia [18] that has him down as "the Assistant Professor: Division of Perceptual Studies" where the reincarnation research is done.Noirtist (talk) 15:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It's quite clear that WP:PROF criterion 7 is not met, as he is not an academic expert. Consideration of whether his frequent appearances on quasi-factual programs meet WP:ENT or some other criterion in WP:BIO are open, but he doesn't meet any of the criteria in WP:PROF. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

What more is there to being an "academic expert" than being expert in the subject you professionally research in academia. You seem to be objecting solely on the basis that his research is into reincarnation. Is that right? Noirtist (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

What evidence is there that his reincarnation research is "academic"? Published academic papers in respectable journals? It's not related to the charter of his academic department. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

What would you accept as evidence?Noirtist (talk) 22:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

In fact, don't bother.I no longer have any interest chasing more geese in trying to convince you or argue with you. I think we shall simply have to agree to disagree on whether he meets the notability criterion. Please see the last section on this page about next steps and suggest how we can take this forward.Noirtist (talk) 22:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Precedent

I found this [19].It's a list of articles on academics that have been kept and deleted after debates on whether they were notable. I've only had a brief look but Tucker seems highly notable compared to many who were kept.Noirtist (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The future of this article

It does not look to me like there is any hope of resolving the notability dispute here. In the tag it says that if notability is not established the article should be merged or deleted. If those who think notability has not been established would like to take the necessary steps to do this then they should do it now. Or, if you don't want to nominate for deletion or merger, please outline what you think the next steps should be. One thing seems clear, we should not just leave the tag there forever as a permanent sign of some general disdain for the man? Noirtist (talk) 22:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Find some RS that establish notability? Please don't disrupt the project to make a WP:POINT. Verbal chat 08:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not disrupting the project in any way. I'm pointing out that since notability cannot be agreed upon, the next steps as identified in the tag should be started. The current, and insurmountable as I see it, stumbling block seems to be whether the University of Virginia is an academic establishment. If we cannot reach agreement on matters such as that then there is no point trying to resolve other questions that actually might have some element of difficulty and more than one possible answer.Noirtist (talk) 10:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The easiest way to resolve this would be to add sources that clearly satisfy the criteria (PROF/ENT/GNG). No one has claimed the University of Virginia is not an academic establishment, so that is not even an issue. Please do not misrepresent what others have said. I disagree slightly with the 3O below, in that if the RfC results in any references that support any notability guideline (not just WP:PROF) then that's ok. We should wait for the RfC to conclude first, at the very least, as the 3O below makes clear. Even if the article survived AfD, the notability tag would be proper until it is clear notability guidelines have been met, so going to AfD wouldn't address this issue. Verbal chat 10:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

We don't have sources that meet the lofty standards you and others require. We can't find them. We have tried, but I, and Blippy it seems, have now given up. The current stumbling block is over whether Tucker's research on reincarnation conducted in his professional capacity at the University of Virginia is academic. This is a no brainer, but even this is disputed. I therefore give up. If you want to put the article up for deletion or merger then please do so. Noirtist (talk) 10:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Those are wikipedia's notability guidelines, not mine or anyone elses, and you are free to propose changes to them. That we don't have sources now is a problem, but I'd rather fix the problem than delete the page at the moment. If it is a no-brainer, provide solid RS to that effect. His official capacity there appears to be child psychology, and not parapsychology. Verbal chat 10:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I know that. Fantastic. I agree and have given up arguing. Please nominate for deletion since we don't have the sources.Noirtist (talk) 10:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

As regards your request for an RS that shows that research conducted by professional academics as part of their academic role within academia is academic; I'm sorry, I don't have a source for that either. Noirtist (talk) 11:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

His academic role is child psychology. We need an RS that this includes reincarnation research, which is what I asked for. Verbal chat 11:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

This is the exact same question you asked and I answered yesterday, here [20]. I will provide the exact same answer again. Here is Tucker's academic page from the University of Virginia [21] that has him down as an "Assistant Professor: Division of Perceptual Studies" which is where the reincarnation research is done. This can be seen by following the "Who are we?" link which provides this [22] - the third paragraph in the 'History and Description' section gives the information you need.Noirtist (talk) 12:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

Response to third opinion request (Disagreement about notability of Tucker.): Checking through the references supplied to date and Tucker's current biography at the University of Virginia, this BLP fails PROF. The 9 potential criteria for inclusion are clearly stated and this BLP does not make the case for any of these. Outside of his academic career, there are insufficient sources to demonstrate that this BLP would satisfy the notability guidelines. This third opinion request was raised whilst an RFC was active for the same issue (#Does this article meet notability requirements?); unless this RFC results in new reliable sources that address one of the nine PROF criteria, the page should be deleted.—Teahot (talk) 08:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawn, see comment below.—Teahot (talk) 13:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Teahot, thanks for taking the time to have a look at the matter, that's one of the things I really like about 3O is getting a fresh, neutral opinion. It's easy to get too close to the issue and start to only see intransigence instead of substance. Sadly the RfC has only generated one new, unresponsive, C a week ago, so a 3O seemed a reasonable way to get some further input. I take on board your opinion, and would be grateful if you could explain it a little further so that I am better informed in future. I understood that an author who has attracted international media attention would be considered WP:N. I'm assuming that's not what you're saying here (please correct me if I'm wrong) - you're saying that because Tucker is an academic (something disputed below by those arguing for deletion) he has to meet more stringent guidelines for notabiity - is that correct? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 23:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, never mind Teahot, the other editors have agreed that Tucker is notable now. I hadn't quite picked that up from my first reading of their responses. Thanks again for your input. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 00:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

For completeness, you can find an earlier more detailed response to the above third opinion at User_talk:Teahot#Tucker. I am concerned that you appear to be concluding that a consensus has been reached on notability, apparently without taking into account the results of the on-going RFC on this page.—Teahot (talk) 05:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

OK thanks for that, I'll have a look. Your concerns are very valid, I did indeed conclude consensus was reached!! I'm unfamiliar with the niceties of such processes, but am keen to learn. I'd assumed the RfC had run it's course because it only generated a single response a week ago. The debate seems to have moved on, in my view, so that was indeed my conclusion. Maybe here isn't the place, but I'd appreciate being set straight on what constitutes the appropriate sequence of events. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 05:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

In fact I am mistaken. None of the comments under the RfC section here are by independent editors. All had been contributing previously. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 06:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The RFC has been open for 9 days. It is not abnormal for an RFC to run for 30 days. For a bit of fun, you might want to add this countdown on the RFC: This RFC is closed. —Teahot (talk) 06:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, I hadn't realised the timescale. Thanks for that. I'll give the counter a go! Cheers, Blippy (talk) 06:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice tweak! I was going to reapply the new version of the counter, but it's been automatically overwritten by a bot anyway. Oh well. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 13:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Three little observations: 1, no consensus has yet been reached. 2, 3O should only be used for a dispute involving two editors. I don't mind Teahot's joining in, but the use of 3O was improper. This should have been clear from the 30 page, the RfC started by a (at least) fourth party, and the fact you discussed it with a user sharing your views on your talk page. 3, Editors already active on a page are free to contribute to an RfC. Verbal chat 15:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawn I think you are right, I should have just pointed to the RFC (which I did) and not added a separate 3O (which I did and shouldn't have). I am withdrawing it on that basis and freely admit it was a poor call on my part. It should be noted that the clarification as requested on my talk page was later added as a link above, though I would have done better to copy it here at the time. Please note, that withdrawing this 3O is not intended in any way to prejudice the RFC in progress.—Teahot (talk) 13:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

These are not mere book promotions

These are clearly not mere book promotions. Tucker is being interviewed about his work and questioned about his area of expertise. [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31]

Noirtist (talk) 10:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Academic?

No evidence has yet been presented that his reincarnation studies were done at the University as an academic function. Evidence has been presented that his research was done while he was at the University, but not that is was part of his duties, nor that it qualifies as "academic" research. If I were a mathematician at a major university, and were to do research on comparative linguistics, it probably wouldn't qualify as "academic", unless I was working with an expert in that field. (Equations of phoneme use propagation? I could run the numbers, but I wouldn't know whether they mean anything. ) Similarly, a psychologist working in reincarnation research may also not be academic.

For example Immanuel Velikovsky fails WP:PROF, but may pass WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. I now believe Tucker may pass WP:ENT. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I have provided the evidence twice here and in the article. There is nothing more to "academic" research than research being undertaken professionally within academia. Since the University of Virginia is an academic establishment research conducted at the various units, divisions and departments of that university is academic. See Academia for example. Just to be clear, Tucker is assistant professor at the University of Virginia's Division of Perceptual Studies where conducts research into stories of claimed past lives. Noirtist (talk) 16:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Arthur on both counts. The source you have provided doesn't show that Tucker's reincarnation research is part of his academic role. Cheers, Verbal chat 16:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

What do you think is missing?Noirtist (talk) 16:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

See also this which lists Tucker's academic research interests at University of Virginia. [32]Noirtist (talk) 17:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Or just look at the research division's website: [33] Learner999 (talk) 20:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Or it's founding principle: "conducting scientific empirical investigation of phenomena that suggest that currently accepted scientific assumptions and theories about the nature of mind or consciousness, and its relationship to matter, may be incomplete."[13] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blippy (talk • contribs) 23:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad that we now have consensus for removal of the tag and that Tucker is notable. Perhaps we can get down to some collaboration on improving the page now? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 00:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Also you may find this reassuring; "Dr. Jim Tucker, M.D., is a board-certified child psychiatrist and directs research into children’s reports of past-life memories at the University of Virginia, Division of Personality Studies." Cheers, Blippy (talk) 04:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

and this "Dr. Tucker is a child psychiatrist who directs research which has been conducted for the past 40 years at the University of Virginia medical Center: here he presents evidence based on 2,500 such cases and studies, describing stories backed by scientific evidence - but he lets the reader draw the conclusion from this research." Cheers, Blippy (talk) 04:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

and another "Norma decides to investigate the possibility of reincarnation, contacting leading expert Dr Jim Tucker at the University of Virginia." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blippy (talk • contribs) 04:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

one more "investigating cases of the reincarnation type are Jim Tucker (Assistant Professor of Psychiatric medicine) " —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blippy (talk • contribs) 04:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

somebody stop me! "Dr. Jim Tucker, a psychiatrist at the University of Virginia who has carried on research in the field pioneered by the late Ian Stevenson".Blippy (talk) 04:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

even Scientific American seem to think he's worth quoting regarding reincarnation!! Cheers, Blippy (talk) 04:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

None of those show it is his academic field. When mentioned, they say child psychiatrist or similar. Leading expert could just come from his books. There probably is a source for this somewhere, but none of these are it. His reincarnation publications are either books or in the scientific explorations fringe publication. Has he any reincarnation research in real journals? Verbal chat 09:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I have added some articles that should satisfy your question re: mainstream puclications, and thereby put this whole thing to bed hopefully. Although I'm struggling to understand how the RS's above saying such things as "child psychiatrist and directs research into children’s reports of past-life memories at the University of Virginia", "leading expert Dr Jim Tucker at the University of Virginia", "investigating cases of the reincarnation type", "carried on research in the field" can be read as not saying he's an academic who studies reincarnation. But the articles should do the trick. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 11:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Because they don't say that? Just a note: Parapsychology journals, EXPLORE, and "scientific exploration" etc are not respectable journals. Verbal chat 12:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Many of the sources, this for example, clearly show that Tucker's research at the University Virginia is on reincarnation.[34] Quote: "Jim B. Tucker, M.D., Assistant Professor of Psychiatric Medicine. Research Interests: children who seem to remember previous lives; prenatal & birth memories". Noirtist (talk) 12:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

This is so bizarre. As Noirtist points out, the university's own website says he does this research there. What reference could be better than the university itself? This page, also from the university's website, ([35]) lists all the articles he's published in academic journals. Learner999 (talk) 21:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. That's HIS page on the university's site, not the university's page on him. It's self-published, under our interpretations. (I know who wrote my late mother's page on her university's site, and the university had no responsibility for it.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

But it's clearly not his personal page; it's the division's page. I don't know if his doing this research at the university makes him notable or not, but it's preposterous to say it's not part of his official work. It's all over the media references and the university's website.Learner999 (talk) 13:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) On the contrary, it clearly is his personal page on the university's web site. Perhaps you're less familiar with academic web pages than I am. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

However, http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/personalitystudies/ is the division's web site, which suggests that it's within the scope of the division. However (2), that page is titled "Ian Stevenson home", which means it might be his personal page. A paradox. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty familiar with academic web pages, since I work at a university. I don't see how you can construe a division's staff listing ([36] to be someone's personal web page. I also found this article from the University of Virginia's medical center's newsletter ([37] that talks about how Tucker will continue the line of research with children who remember previous lives. Surely anyone can see that it's part of his work there.Learner999 (talk) 19:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Jim Tucker's Role

So we have sources that say Jim is a Child Psychologist that, amongst other things, investigates "children who seem to remember past lives". This seems to be different to saying he investigates reincarnation professionally, and is also different to "children who remember past lives". The article probably needs a rewrite to address this perspective change. Verbal chat 15:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

In fact, there's nothing to say that "Jim Tucker" is actually the same as "Jim Tucker MD" or "Jim Tucker (Associate Professor)". We could be dealing with three completely different people here. Also, in some cultures Jim is associated with being female, so there could be up to six of these Jim Tuckers, and if we factor in the ones who investigate children who *seem* to remember past lives, as distinct from those who investigate reincarnation professionally, and the others who investigate children who *remember* past lives, we start to run the risk of global Jim Tucker over-population. Would the real Jim Tucker please stand up? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 11:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

So you don't have an argument against the change. It should be made as the article as it stands doesn't appear to be factual. Verbal chat 14:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Media appearances

I think it's important we include Tucker's media coverage since it must only be a tiny percentage of academics who are featured as frequently and as widely as he is, and given that media appearances are one of the specified ways to meet notability for academics, policy would suggest these appearances themselves are noteworthy. Noirtist (talk) 15:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It is WP:TRIVIA and wikipedia is not a repository WP:NOT. Verbal chat 16:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:TRIVIA has to do with the organization of content rather than the content itself. For example, it says: "This style guideline deals with the way in which these facts are represented in an article, not with whether the information contained within them is actually trivia, or whether trivia belongs in Wikipedia." It's not obvious why you cited this guideline at all.Noirtist (talk) 17:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It applied to the material I removed. Verbal chat 17:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Not according to the guideline. You removed the section based on the fact you regarded the content as trivia, while the guideline explicitly says it is not concerned with whether the content is trivia or not.Noirtist (talk) 17:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Please stop wikilawyering - I also referenced WP:NOT. It was also in improper form. Verbal chat 21:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The media section was not a repository of links, rather a chronology of notability. How do you suggest we better present the chronology, and how does your argument not apply to the publication links? And since you think he is notable as an entertainer then media appearances would be part of his body of work. Perhaps it's worth putting a copy of the list in the RfC section to make it easier for visiting editors to grasp the salient RS's. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 11:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Notability II

OK Verbal, why do you wish to leave the tag there now? You have already conceded notability, so this is starting to look petty and obstructionistic. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 10:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Erm, no I haven't. Assuming good faith, that is another misleading mischaraterisation. I haven't seen any good evidence that he meets any notability criteria. I said he was unlikely to WP:PROF so maybe others would be easier to show. Also, your removal of the tag with reference to the RfC was misleading and implied the RfC supported your edit. Not so. What criteria does he meet and why? (ruling out PROF due to all above)Verbal chat 11:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

You agreed with Arthur above that he met WP:ENT. Do you now dispute this? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 11:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you please point that out? He is more likely to meet WP:ENT than PROF. What shows has he hosted? What regular columns does he write? Verbal chat 11:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Verbal, you are the one who said he met it so you are best placed to answer your own question here. Noirtist (talk) 12:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Pleas don't lie. Verbal chat 12:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

{outdent} We've done this. You want the tag, you justify which bit of the following doesn't apply;

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.[1] "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompasspublished works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.[2] "Sources,"[3] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.[4] "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.[5] "Presumed" means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a standalone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not.[6]

Cheers, Blippy (talk) 12:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

So, no evidence he meets any of the guidelines? He 100% does not meet GNG or PROF. Try again. Remeber, significant coverage of Jim Tucker, not Jim Tucker appearing or talking about his work. Verbal chat 12:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed where you spelled which bits don't apply and your justification thereof. I just sort of saw this vague, waffley answer again... Cheers, Blippy (talk) 12:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I missed your justification with WP:RS. Please don't be rude. Verbal chat 12:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The debate was settled once it became clear that Tucker investigates claimed past life memories in his academic capacity. That means that all his media appearances ARE about his academic work and he therefore sails past WP:Prof. That is, multiple TV, radio and newspaper appearances as an academic expert in his field is almost identical to the definition in the criteria, which is: "if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area". Noirtist (talk) 13:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Verbal, please be reasonable. Spell out which of the points you consider Tucker to fail the GNG and why. Cheers Blippy (talk) 13:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

See WP:BURDEN. Please spell out what criteria you think he meets, and why. Going on about PROF criteria when discussion has dismissed that idea is disruptive, another hallmark of Noirtist's editing. Verbal chat 14:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN says "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Since you, Verbal, are the one adding material (a tag about notability) the BURDEN would appear to be on you to make your case. Noirtist (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

{outdent} So are you unwilling to be reasonable, is that the take away message here? After thousands of words where you appear to be simply ignoring requests to be specific, are you now point blank saying - by omission - that you are unwilling to answer the direct question I have posed four times in this single sub-section? To be clear, would you be kind enough, even if you think the burden lies elsewhere, to please specify in sufficient detail so your justification is obvious, the ways in which you think Tucker does not meet the criteria pasted above. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 14:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Ahem. I don't think I said he met WP:ENT. I said he may meet WP:ENT, in spite of the lack of evidence in the article. And WP:BURDEN doesn't apply to tags. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

If it doesn't apply to tags then why does Verbal keep citing it. In any event, now we know his media appearances are in his capacity as an academic expert he clearly meets WP:PROF through criterion 7 via example 14. Noirtist (talk) 15:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to speak for Verbal, but I suspect that he's talking about the programmes that Tucker appears in being used a source for his notability, without determining whether he's appearance is notable or the source is reliable.

We don't know that his media appearances are in his capacity as an academic expert. The statement that reincarnation research is part of his academic subject seems to be only his statement, not that of the university. That one's a bit subtle, and I could easily be wrong. His bio at the university may be his statements, rather than that of his employer and web host. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you agree that if we can show that he is employed as an academic to study claimed past lives then the media appearances in that capacity would mean he meets WP:PROF?Noirtist (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

{outdent}Maybe you should speak for Verbal more often! OK, I think I see what you're getting at. First, we do know that he is appearing in his capacity as an academic expert for at least most of the appearances cited because you can listen/view many of them and also read several summaries produced by the media outlet - several of which have been reproduced further up the page. We can't force people to explore the sources properly, but they can't then claim that the sources might not be acceptable simply because they haven't bothered to check them out. And as for the second possible Verbal issue, it hadn't entered my head that the straw could be as flimsy as that. So, in addition to the many listed above already, here are some other descriptors of Tucker that come from another couple of independent RS's:

"Dr. Tucker, a board-certified child psychiatrist, directs research there into children's reports of past-life memories, and he worked with Dr. Ian Stevenson, its founder, for several years before taking over the research upon Dr. Stevenson's retirement." http://www.enlightennext.org/magazine/bios/jim-tucker.asp

"In this interview with WIE's Carter Phipps, Dr. Jim Tucker, assistant professor in the Division of Personality Studies at the University of Virginia, discusses his personal journey from child psychiatrist to full-time reincarnation researcher traveling the globe in pursuit of children who recall previous lifetimes."http://www.enlightennext.org/magazine/unbound/media.asp?id=106

"Dr. Stevenson has inspired a new generation of researchers in the field, among them Dr. Jim Tucker (University of Virginia)" http://www.psican.org/alpha/index.php?/20080911117/Psychical-Phenomena/Remembering-Dr.-Ian-Stevenson.html

Cheers, Blippy (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we need an academic source to support the research as being part of his academic career (as suggested in WP:PROF note 15), although the first one is close if EnlightenNext is a reliable source, which I have not confirmed.

I actually can't agree that he necessarily meets WP:PROF unless the programs are credible in some sense (WP:PROF note 14 uses the term "conventional media") IMHO, an appearance on Unsolved Mysteries reduces any weight that WP:PROF might otherwise provide. Also, read carefully WP:PROF#C7 and notes 14 and 15 (with additional emphasis added by underlining, as other emphasis may already have been used.

• C7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
• N14 Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark.
• N15 Criterion 7 may also be satisfied if the person has authored widely popular general audience books on academic subjects provided the author is widely regarded inside academia as a well-established academic expert and provided the books deal with that expert's field of study. Books on pseudo-science and marginal or fringe scientific theories are generally not covered by this criterion; their authors may still be notable under other criteria of this guideline or under the general WP:BIO or WP:N guidelines.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems you think that 7 cannot be met due to 15 even though it is about authoring books and not media appearances. If that is so please state that plainly. If not, please state plainly what needs to be produced here in order for the tag to be removed.Noirtist (talk) 18:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Nope. "Substantial" in C7, "conventional" in N14, and the two clauses in N15 have not yet been justified. I can't any other note in WP:PROF which potentially applies to Mr. Tucker. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It may be that the clauses in N15 are not needed for C7, but "substantial" has clearly not (yet) been justified. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

What, you don't think media coverage the world over amounts to substantial? You don't think Channel 5, The Daily Mail, the Discovery Channel, and Oprah are conventional media? I'm glad the tag will remain, because as long as it does people may be directed here to see what you were reduced to writing.Noirtist (talk) 00:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

{outdent} Hi AR, the JSE is an applicable academic source for Tucker, don't you agree? The SOCS stuff helps demonstrate that his research is part of his academic career. Are you now satisfied with EnlightenNext? I think Noirtist has a good point about the media - the coverage is far beyond the 'few quotes in local media' level, even if they aren't all from the media mainstream - but many are. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 11:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The boy who lived before

What is it that is supposed to be lacking to justify the "verification needed" tag at the end of the lede? The source seems very clear that Jim Tucker is involved in this documentary.Noirtist (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the {{verification needed}} tag was attached to a reference which is no longer there. I don't oppose removal of that tag, although I'm not sure it (the sentence) belongs in the lede. Tags which apply to a reference, such as that one, normally follow the reference, so that one is, at least, misplaced. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The tag was because I don't think the text was supported by the reference. I toned the text down, but I agree it shouldn't be in the lead. I've left the tag as we have a lot of problems with people misrepresenting sources here. Verbal chat 17:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Who are you accusing of misrepresenting sources? Which sources do you claim are being misrepresented? How are those sources being misrepresented? I ask because I see you making these unsubstantiated allegations all over the place and yet you are never able to specify any actual example. Noirtist (talk) 17:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what Verbal had in mind, but I can name 3 or 4 which I fixed last month, but they had been there for some time. We had links to Tucker's site or to sites where books/articles/videos would be available for sale, where the reference would have to have been the sold object itself to be usable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Tag removed since no justification has been provided and the editor who added admits to confusion on the issue and thinks the tag might actually relate to other unnamed sources. Noirtist (talk) 18:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Noirtist, I have given several direct examples of you both lying and misrepresenting sources. Also, I have justified the tag above. More evidence that you continue to edit war to remove all edits by those that do not agree with your POV. Verbal chat 19:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

You have provided none of these things, and I have done none of what you claim. Above you say the tag was maybe about that source and maybe about other ones and you don't even seem to know yourself why you added it. Noirtist (talk) 19:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It was added as I would like verification that the source supports the text in the way it is formulated, as it clearly didn't support the previous formulation. Verbal chat 19:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Paragraph on SOCS

A recently added paragraph was removed by Arthur Rubin as "(1) JCS reviews, at best, for interest, rather than accuracy. Removing SOCS again as not notable". I agree with these reasons, yet I see other editors have edit warred it back in without justifying it here per WP:BURDEN and WP:BRD. This material should be removed for the reasons AR gives, or justified. Verbal chat 17:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

What are the notability requirements for bits of articles you seem to be referring to?Noirtist (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

All we need is a verifiable source which is ideally a reliable source. We have both. JCS is a peer reviewed academic publication, not a blog. It is an inter-disciplinary journal so naturally caters for the interest of academics in diverse fields - that doesn't mean the reviewers turn off their brains. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 03:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

AR your claim that JSE is NOT reliable, is not reliable! The JSE's editorial board is made up of professors and academics from such institutions as the Sorbonne, US Naval Observatory, Johns Hopkins, Princeton, Harvard, Stanford, JPL, and Cornell. So let's not confuse it with something that is not reliable, like a blog. If you have EVIDENCE to the contrary, please share it. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 06:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

We've gone through this before on other articles. There is no evidence other than their statement that JSE (I don't know why I called it JCS, if I did) is peer-reviewed, and the fact that they issued an editorial denying the value of "conventional" peer review strongly suggests that is not what they do. The fact that the time from receipt to publication is usually less than 2 days suggests that it is not peer-reviewed at all, but we would need it to be peer-reviewed in the conventional sense for it to be reliable for Wikipedia purposes. I have no idea whether JCS is is peer-reviewed in the conventional sense, although I tend to doubt it. However, fringe journals (that is, journals on fringe topics) require a higher standard of verification. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You're placing some extraordinary demands there AR. The credentials of the editorial board are sufficient to warrant what they say is true. And what they say is "The JSE is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, published by the SSE since 1987". If you wish to hire a private detective to research the matter further is entirely up to you, but WP can surely accept the word of 18 professional practicing scholars most of whom are employed in highly prestigious institutions. And as for requiring higher standards of verification (as if the editorial board doesn't do that!), you are actually wanting your cake and eating it too - if Tucker is a Fringe dweller and JSE is a Fringe source, then per WP:RS it "may be used, especially in articles about [fringe]...individuals, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field", so in fact the standard is lower, not higher. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 07:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't find the search code for WP:RSN archives. But WP:CONSENSUS is that JSE articles are considered self-published for the purpose of WP:RS, as seen here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

{edit confilct} I just clashed with your edit - I'll have a look.I'll be keen to see it when you find it, I was doing some searching myself and couldn't find much. Of course if you've got a dozen or so scholars willing to back you up on that I'll take your word for it!! :-) Do you disagree that JSE is a suitable source for information about Tucker's prominence within his field? Given his field has been relegated to JSE, and obviously JSE satisfies verifiability as an absolute minimum, isn't show ponying him (certainly not in this article at least) and so on - where else are we to find information to present on how his work is received by his peers? I don't feel any particular attachment to the SOCS material, but I think it helps to locate him within his field. No? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 07:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a tough one. I don't know if JSE is mainstream within the fringe fields, or even fringe among the fringe. It's hard to tell. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

{outdent}OK well my take away from that discussion - apart from a genuine guffaw from the "thank you for that proof by verbosity" line  :-) - is this one "For the purposes of being a source of information - yes the JSE is a reliable source. For being a reliable source for scientific statement - no - it's considered to be a fringe journal." I don't have a problem with that, and I think there was a little bit of hysteria in the verbose response (I'm still chuckling a little), so I'd say "self published" is a rather harsh interpretation. Let's not forget the people who are putting their names to the credibility of the publication - that's miles above my self published tome "Mermaids stole my tin foil hat: a proof that I am Jesus" (available in every good book store - shame there aren't that many good book stores). Cheers, Blippy (talk) 07:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)