Talk:Jim B. Tucker/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Obsession with notability tag

As far as I can see the article does cite more than enough relible secondry sources for instance http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/personalitystudies/JimBio.cfm

http://www.visionarylead.org/vl/jim_tucker.htm

http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Ian_Stevenson

http://www.ianlawton.com/cpl2.htm

I can go one giving examples. People far less important than Mr Tucker are there on Wikipedia without notability tag. I think we should approach some third party to decide the future of this page. From the long tedious debates on this talk-page it seems you are obsessed with getting this article deleted ! Something that is a matter of interest and acedmic investigation in itself !! The special treatment Tucker is getting from you...!!!

 Jon Ascton  (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Only the first of those is fro an WP:RS, but it also a bio probbly written by the subject. Verbal chat 22:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Please give some justification based on the wording of our notability policies, rather than rehashing old arguments that have been addressed previously, thanks. Also, the failings of other articles is no reason to also have a low standard here. Verbal chat 19:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, please remember to asume good faith and remain WP:CIVIL. The title of this thread does neither. Verbal chat 19:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Verbal, the definition of WP:GNG is "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." This article meets those criteria:

• The significant coverage is given in references 7 through 16 and other references
• They are reliable, verifiable secondary sources independent of the subject
• This meets the presumption of notability which additionally was confirmed by consensus in the AfD discussion which was brought specifically to raise the question of notability, "If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged or deleted." [1]

Furthermore, if an article meets the general notability guideline, there should be no further argument that it doesn't meet some more specific criterion such as WP:ACADEMIC. Insistence on the article not meeting a more specific criterion appears to be a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, that is, disruptive editing. How do you justify continuing to bring this up in light of these points? --EPadmirateur (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

As shown in discussion above, he fails WP:ACADEMIC. The AfD discussion is irrelevant and was brought in bad faith - the stated aim was to establish consensus on notability, which should be done via an RFC. I dispute that Jim Tucker has recieved significant coverage, only some of his cases have. The long discussions above show that he does not meet any criteria clearly, and the AfD was disruptive and did nothing to help. It's very existence is evidence of the difficulty in showing notability. Please show specific references which you feel show notability via specific criteria, thanks. Verbal chat 21:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You haven't really addressed my points: the references I cited (7 though 16 in the article) establish notability in general news media who cite Jim Tucker for his work with apparent reincarnation cases. Frequently he is quoted directly. When general news media cite a person, particularly quoting them on a topic, particularly with so many instances, then that person meets the general notability guideline. Whether Tucker meets other, more restrictive or narrow notability criteria such as WP:ACADEMIC is irrelevant. In meeting GNG, he is notable. Please address these points. --EPadmirateur (talk) 22:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, and not just by me arguing against. Which of those references (and we'll need several, per GNG) have significant coverage of Jim Tucker (the person, not his cases or books - those would be separate articles, that already exist). Please be specific. He does not meet the GNG. Verbal chat 22:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that he keeps doing this, ignoring the reasons why he should stop. Mitsube (talk) 21:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Please present reasons based on our criteria, not WP:ILIKEIT, and assume good faith. Demonstrate significant coverage of Tucker in WP:RS etc or some other criteria per the GNG. Verbal chat 21:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Verbal, you're trolling now - stop it. Artw (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Please redact that personal attack. There are still valid notability concerns. No one has shown how he meets the GNG or more specific notability criteria. Verbal chat 13:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I will not retract that. You are a timewaster. There is not a hope in hell that tag will stay on the page since the article meerts GNG. This has been demonstrated via the cites which you refuse to look at. On occasions when people have discussed this with you you have simply stuck your head in the sand or tried to change the subject in an inane manner, and at no point have you explained in depth what you believe is wrong with the current cites on the page or even given much indication that you've looked at them. In fact the content of the article and Wikipedias policies appear to be irrelevant to you, and you appear to be placing the tag on the page out of unfounded personal belief. This has gone on for several months now, and I will happily call it trolling. You may call it something else, but it certainly cannot be called useful or productive. Give it up, timewaster. Artw (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Please then demonstrate how the article meets GNG, rather than asserting that it does and making personal attacks (not the first time you've been warned of that today). I have been consistent throughout, and not abused AfD or due process. Please simply provide "significant coverage (of Jim Tucker himself) in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". That has not yet been done. Verbal chat 19:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I see - and in your opinion would the TV documentary devoted to Jim Tuckers work meet your "of Jim Tucker himself" clause? Artw (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not my clause, but the GNG. Whic reference are you referring to? If the program is devoted to Jim Tucker, and not based on his books specifically (they have articles), then it would count as one (we need multiple). So, please demonstrate how he meets the GNG. Verbal chat 15:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

By "several editors disagreeing" in my ES, I mean 3 editors have questioned his notability recently, not including the long discussion above which never came to a firm positive conclusion. Verbal chat 15:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

He seems to meet GNG based on references 5,7,8,9,10,16,19,27, and maybe some of the others. How can someone whose work has been featured on Larry King Live and 2 documentaries not be considered notable? Learner999 (talk) 17:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I think User:verbal is attempting to establish that referenances that mention the research work or writings of an individual are not eligible to convey notability on an individual, and so since Jim Tuckers notability is derived from his work no references can possibkly make him notable? Would that be accurate? TBH it seems like a nonstandard interpretation of notability, and one that would render very few individuals notable. Would I be correct in saying that you have not actually examined any of the references that have been added to the article and have dismissed them out of hand on this basis? Artw (talk) 18:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Also I do not believe that, as you claim, 3 editors have questioned this articles notability recently. You've questioned it, and two other editors have made reverts in support of you when the tag has been repeatedly reverted by a multitude of editors, but no other editors have actually made a case that the current article does not meet GNG in talk. I'd be interested in hearing what those editors have to say about the sources and their assessment of them. Artw (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that references about his works are necessarily about him. I am uncertain whether WP:GNG has been met, and I don't see a consensus that it has been met. What is currently supported by those refs doesn't indicate his notability, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

How would you characterise the content of, say, references 8, the interview with the leading paragraph "Tucker is medical director of the Child and Family Psychiatric Clinic at the University of Virginia. He also works at the university's Division of Perceptual Studies, which scientifically investigates paranormal phenomena such as near-death experiences, ghosts and reincarnation. "? Artw (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how that quote addresses notability. It doesn't say "worlds foremost" or anything. Sounds like normal "academic" boilerplate. Verbal chat 22:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I;d prefer to hear Arthur Rubisn opinion. However I should probanly point out that GNG requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", I don't see anything about "worlds foremost". Artw (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be "significant coverage", but it is only a single newspaper column, and possibly an op-ed, at that. Difficult to tell. I believe I had more coverage than that in the Pasadena Star-News, and possibly the Los Angeles Times, when I was at Caltech (but before they went to electronic archives); if I had known that that was sufficient, I wouldn't have made so much of an effort to verify my notability. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdenting) Would you mind if I asked you the same question regarding the final three paragrapsh of this Discover magazine article?

Psychiatrist and physician Ian Stevenson, who founded DOPS, began gathering stories of past lives in 1960. He also made personal trips to verify and document the details, including reports of children with birthmarks corresponding to wounds the “previous personality” received and phobias related to the cause of death. Stevenson died early this year, but child psychiatrist Jim B. Tucker, author of Life Before Life: A Scientific Investigation of Children’s Memories of Previous Lives, is continuing his work. Tucker has helped build a database of 1,400 cases of possible reincarnation. At his office at DOPS, Tucker explains that with the stronger cases “kids tend to start talking about these memories at an earlier age. They talk about them with more emotion. They give a lot of details, including specific names about the previous life.”

Investigating reincarnation is an even thornier research problem than studying NDEs. Although almost every culture has stories of people whose souls returned after death, the evidence for that return consists mostly of recollections and anecdotes. Tucker does his best to examine as many of the memories in each case as possible. Sometimes he locates family members and consults local historians to confirm information. Nevertheless, Tucker says, “We would never say that we have proved that reincarnation occurs. I think we can only say that we’ve produced evidence for it.”

The question comes back: What kind of evidence counts? For science, case studies like Tucker’s are never going to be enough to prove that a human soul survives death and is reborn. Like the rainbow body, they will remain as nothing more than folklore for those who require empirical proof. As the Buddhist holy man Lama A-chos told Father Tiso, “This is not a matter for the eyes; it is a matter for the heart.” The ongoing search for the soul may require both."

Cheers, Artw (talk) 23:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It depends on the rest of the article, but I would say "no". Even those paragraphs are not about Tucker, but about "past life" research in general. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Macaulay or Tucker

As far as I can tell, the TV programme was about Macaulay, with any comment about Tucker or his work being incidental. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Note that the documentary is available in it's entirety on Youtube, you cna see part one here: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]

Jim Tucker appears briefly at around the 1 minute mark, then back at 7:56. Over footage of Tucker in his office we hear the following, "At the university of Virginia a department has been set up to investigate these stories. Psychiatrist Dr. Jim Tucker is the director of research." then tucker talking then "Jim records the child's memories and investigates if there might be a connection to an actual person who has lived before." - we're then on to a case previously investigated by Tucker with no connection to Macaulay for some minutes. Then Chris French for a bit, and so on until we return to Macaulay and then back to Jim Tucker at the 6 minute mark on the second video ("For Jim, to follow the case as it unfolds is a unique opportunity"). At that point the two meet and Tucker is on screen pretty consistently for the rest of the documentary.

It is, absolutely, about Jim Tuckers work - the bulk of it following him through an investigation. It's about Macaulay as well of course, but I remind you of this section of the GNG: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". Artw (talk) 01:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that coverage of his work is necessarily coverage about him, nor is interviewing him about Macaulay necessarily -- or even likely to be -- coverage about him. The sources provided still seem inadequate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. Obviously his work pertains to him. Mitsube (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The "Jim Tucker" versus "work of Jim Tucker" thing is a weird, artificial distinction I've not seen made anywhere else on Wikipedia. I'd be very interested to see any policy that it is based on. Artw (talk) 05:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:ONEEVENT? (In this case, his book.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

In any case, him talking about his work in a documentary does not make the documentary about him. We only know that the filmmaker thought he was an expert; but the filmmaker is not a reliable source for Tucker being an expert. (I'd appreciate a transcript; I'm not going take that much time watching the video to verify something which seems to me to be irrelevant to the article.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

As per EPadmirateur, given that the "his work" vs "him" distinction is not based on policies, he meets the GNG. Mitsube (talk) 00:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Even if his work is notable, the documentary is not evidence of it. If the description above is correct, it primarily consists of him talking about his work about Macaulay. That is not about him or his work. There may still be evidence of notability, but the documentary is not it. And there is still no consensus to remove the {{notability}} tag. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You're ignoring my post. I drew attention to the many sources listed by EPadmirateur above. Please try to engage on the talk page wholeheartedly. It seems like your post here is an excuse for adding a critical tag for which there is no consensus. Mitsube (talk) 00:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

There's no consensus against the tag. Even if discussion of his work is about him, he discussing his own work is not. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

He is not the source, it is the conveyor which is the source. So if he is interviewed by Oprah, then Oprah's production company is the source, which is one of the many which establish notability. Mitsube (talk) 07:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that appearing on a show (such as Oprah, which I did not refer to, this time) is evidence that he's interesting, not that he's notable. If he or his work were discussed by unrelated third parties on the show, that would be evidence of notability. (In the case of Oprah, appearing on the show might make him notable, but that's a different issue.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

On quantum handwaving

The statement "Such appeals to quantum mechanics as an explanation for New Age or paranormal beliefs have been criticized by physicists who are experts in quantum mechanics as being based on incorrect or pseudoscience." is currently backed uo by 3 sources, one of which predates Tuckers work entirely and the other two which do not appear to make any direct reference to him. Does this have any place in the article? Artw (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems ok to me as it is related to his research. The problem is probably to do with his lack of notability. Verbal chat 14:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Verbal. If he disregarded previous literature that quantum mysticism is not science, it's relevant. We have to be careful to avoid WP:SYN, but the statement seems generally OK. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:SYN would be one potential issue here, and TBH I am not sure the complaint as worded is specific enough to get around that. The other would be WP:BLP since a pejorative term is used here without a source that directly supports it's application to Tucker. Artw (talk) 16:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I used quantum mysticism, which may be a perjorative term. The original text did not. It would be nice to have a source specifically referring to Tucker's or Steveson's theories, but I don't consider it necessary. It is necessary, per WP:FRINGE, to include something along those lines, if Tucker's reference to quantum mechanics is to be included in the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

"pseudoscience" would be the pejorative here, as well as the implication that Tuckers work has been criticized (which it is not backed by the sources)

I can certainly see the WP:FRINGE argument that something should be said about the handwavyness of hypotheses that misuses quantum theory - if he has in fact misused it, but that statement is runs into a number of problems with WP:SYN, WP:BLP, possibly even WP:UNDUE despite WP:FRINGE. It should be made more relevant to the article and Jim Tucker rather than being left as a boilerplate criticism that may or may not apply to him. Artw (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Jim Tucker uses QM in exactly the same way as all other quantum quackery. He cites all the same studies and uses all the same buzzwords. This is the same as when an when a creationist parrots the arguments of other creationists or when a perpetual motion enthusiast uses the same arguments as others. How is it synth if it is verifiably exactly the same ideas? Are you saying that we shouldn't be allowed to read the text to determine what it says? Is it synthetic to criticize a person who has himself synthesized his own opinion from sources that are criticized? If we know Abe Lincoln was in Washington DC, can we also say that Lincoln's left foot was in Washington DC, or is that a synthesis? In other words, I see this as an obvious red herring. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP specifically precludes guilt by association, and unless you can show via the sources that he has made the same studies and made the same arguments that argument falls down. Show me sources, or take it out. Artw (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The source is already included. Have you read his book? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I'm not sure I agree with SA; I do see some SYNTH issues. However, if the reference is not included, then neither can any reference to quantum mechanics be. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

However, I haven't read the book. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

If his work is worthy of critisism then you should provide sources that critise the work, or demonstrate that his work contains something worthy of critisism (for instance, if he cites flawed studies and ignores their flaws, per ScienceApologist). I don't see anything that mandates that his work can only be described if it is critised and I'd take removal of content on those grounds as a strong example of the abuse of WP:FRINGE. Artw (talk) 18:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

His work is clearly WP:FRINGE. If we cannot find criticism of the specific pseudo-scientific usage (quantum mechanics), we shouldn't include the usage.. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

You'd have to show that a pseudoscientific usage of quantum mechanics has actually occured. I do not believe that merely mentioning Henry Stapp or discussion of Quantum Mind qualify for that. Again, you're going to have to show that are specific problems with his work that are unaddressed, that he is citing sources that are unacceptable or misusing those sources in some way. Artw (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't show directly that Tucker's claims are pseudoscience, but the quantum mysticism article seems to have useful references. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

("Tucker suggests that quantum mechanics may offer a mechanism by which memories and emotions could carry over from one life to another.") Per WP:FRINGE, we should indicate that his view on this matter is not supported by majority scientific opinion. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, if yiou can do it in a manner that does not violate WP:SYNTH and WP:BLP, knock yourself out. If however you can't don't be using WP:FRINGE as a shield to hide behind with regards to sloppy editing. Artw (talk) 20:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Good job doing some actual work on this, User:Fences and windows, consider my concerns addressed. That is how you do it folks. Artw (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Notability

Look, I know you don't like the guy and dsaprove of his work, but that's not the same thing as "not notable". The guy is meets the iclusion standards, the sources are there. Quit messing about. Artw (talk) 18:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm neutral about the notability tag, but please be more careful when wholesale reverting, Artw. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it again, also reverted some changes that misrepresent the content of a source (out of ignorance of what that source actually contains or simply to cause trouble, I could not tell you). At this point it is pretty clear that the repeated addition of the tag is not about Wikipedias policies or the actual sources, and that kind of disingenuous editing merely serves to underline that point. Artw (talk) 14:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I've corrected misleading statements about the source by weakening it appropriately. If you want to strengthen the text you will have to bring WP:RS supporting your preferred version, per WP:BURDEN or propose an alternative formulation. The tag can be removed when notability is established per our criteria. Verbal chat 14:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The documentary in question, which is the source here, is easily findable online and I've pointed you in it's direction previuously. Have you watched it? I do not beleive it would be possible for you to honestly make the edits you are making having watched the thing. BTW, the subjetc of what the documentary is and isn;t about has been extensibvely discussed above. Artw (talk) 14:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

You're continuing to revert despite not answering this question? Artw (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Notability is not established; there's more support for it than there was when it was first tagged, but it's not established. Even if the documentary were mostly Tucker talking about his work, and if his work were a major subject of the documentary, then it still would only be one source of his notability. We normally need more than one. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually during the previous excercise of me dragging you by the nose through various sources you admitted at least one represented "significant coverage" [7]. It had to be dragged out of you with considerable effort, but you did indeed admit it.

BTW, do you consider the source recently added to the section on quantum mechanics to solve it's BLP issues to be reliable? Because if not then there are some problems. Artw (talk) 23:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not happy with it. It's a book review, for censored sake. It is sufficient to indicate that we should not use Tucker's statement on QM without a disclaimer, but it doesn't seem to be an adequate disclaimer, per BLP. Even if the reviewer considers Huelga a reliable source, it doesn't necessarily mean we should. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you've got an admin to chime in on your side, so the tag will be remaining there irrevocable regardless it;s legitimacy or of any sourcing on the actual page. I now consider myself done with the thing and leave you to it. Artw (talk) 20:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Notability III

Please not that this article has just passed an AfD debate which was explicitly on notability grounds, on the grounds that it has cites showing significant coverage in independent sources. Artw (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you'll have to establish notability following our criteria. By which criteria and how does this subject (rather than his books, department, etc) meet our criteria? Verbal chat 21:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The notability dispute was clearly just raised because skeptics hate anything on wikipedia to cast doubt on the materialistic view of the universe. That's all.

I saw Jim Tucker on television and wanted to find out more. He has been on a bunch of tv programs and so thousands of others will want to do the same, therefor this article is useful, notable, and should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.187.75 (talk) 07:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

End of Notability Silliness

Tucker's appearance on Larry King live seems notable to the University of Virginia: http://www.medicine.virginia.edu/clinical/departments/psychiatry/news/jim-tucker-on-larry-king-live

They also include a partial transcript which begins: "You're watching LARRY KING LIVE. I'm Jeff Probst, sitting in for Larry tonight. We're joined by Dr. Jim Tucker, assistant professor of psychiatry and neuro-behavioral sciences at the University of Virginia. He is a child psychiatrist, and he has studied over 2,500 cases of reincarnation memories in kids. He's also the author of "Life Before Life." And here to explain reincarnation memories and what he's learned from years of research."

Note that he is there to "explain reincarnation memories and what he's learned from years of research", he is not there to promote a book. Unless others have crystal balls which enable them to impugn hidden motives to Jeff Probst, I would suggest that this puts an end to the vigilantism going on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.229.234 (talk) 06:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Verbal should stop this petty insistence on keeping the notability tag. AfD has failed twice, there's a bio about the guy, get over it. Fences&Windows 21:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Please state with reference to WP:NOTE or WP:PROF and reliable sources how our notability criteria have been met. Verbal chat 09:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring on these articles and discuss the issues first to reach a consensus. --EPadmirateur (talk) 11:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, see WP:NOTE "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, so 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."

Well, that's what we've got here with multiple independent references to him in media, the last one in New York Times august 27. Hepcat65 (talk) 10:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

D.N.A. EXPLAINATION It is much better expalinaing those cases with D.N.A. rather than talking about "reincarnation", something ridiculous for a scientist. Information comes with the D.N.A.--81.38.241.68 (talk) 02:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

74.106.198.166 recent edit

When attempting to find the modification which might have changed "media" to "medial" I found a general edit from 74.106.198.166 (namely [8]). While I would agree with some of the changes, others are dubious or appear to confuse by confounding consciousness, awareness and possibly other terms with a substitution to "the self", which might distort the interpretations. As I'm not invested in the article (and subject) and have no interest to more closely study the implications, I thought I'd leave this note for editors who know Tucker's literature. Thanks, 76.10.128.192 (talk) 01:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)