Talk:Lynne McTaggart

Pseudoscience

The use of the word "pseudoscience" here is potentially libellous. It should either be removed, or more justification for why the work should be classed as pseudoscience should be included, including citations. Solri (talk) 14:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Psychokinesis

In this interview, McTaggert states "...there is evidence that our thoughts have the capacity to change physical matter." Later, she replies: "Dr. Gary Schwartz and I are building an ecosphere with a glass terrarium. It's a little mini Gaia, with primitive animals and plants in it. We're going to try to change CO2 levels or the temperature with our thoughts." That is what psychokinesis is (ignoring where the extra BTUs and molecules of C02 will be coming from). If the work "psychokinesis" has some kind of bad connotations, then can anyone suggest some other word that we have an article on? If not, I will later remove the "fact" tag.--Afteread (talk) 23:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for posting that, Afteread. At the same time, I think that to meet Wiki standards we need a secondary source that specifically says that McTaggart is a proponent of psychokinesis rather than it being the conclusion of an editor. WP:OR This is especially necessary for a WP:BLP which is held to a higher standard and also the lead of an article should also be highly sourced WP:LEAD. So I am going to remove it for now. If we can find a good source then we can put it back in, OK? Thanks, -- — Kbob • Talk • 16:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed Unreliable Source

I removed a citation to a blog from the article. For more details pleas see this link to a discussion on Reliable Source noticeboard. [1]-- — Kbob • Talk • 18:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The sentence attached to the above citation became obsolete and so I removed it also. However, the Times Online source is a valid one and so I added some criticism from that article to this Wiki article. If there is notable criticism from reliable sources we can and should include it in the article. Thanks everyone.-- — Kbob • Talk • 18:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Potential Sources

• http://books.google.com/books?id=1rIwsyWjaU4C&pg=PA23&dq=lynn+Mctaggart&hl=en&ei=Sc_BTIHmMIP88Abp7dG_Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=lynn%20Mctaggart&f=false
• http://books.google.com/books?id=lCcgD4eg4NcC&pg=PA6&dq=lynn+Mctaggart&hl=en&ei=8M_BTPzzNcGC8gaKgcnuBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CFEQ6AEwBjgU#v=onepage&q=lynn%20Mctaggart&f=false
• http://books.google.com/books?id=lcWuuzs3dLwC&pg=PA100&dq=lynn+Mctaggart&hl=en&ei=8M_BTPzzNcGC8gaKgcnuBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CFYQ6AEwBzgU#v=onepage&q=lynn%20Mctaggart&f=false
• http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=lynne+mctaggart&scoring=a&sa=N&sugg=d&as_ldate=2010&as_hdate=2014&lnav=hist8
• http://www.harpercollins.com/authors/13886/Lynne_McTaggart/index.aspx
• http://authors.simonandschuster.com/Lynne-McTaggart/31595088/biography
• http://www.intent.com/lynnemctaggart/profile
• http://books.simonandschuster.com/Intention-Experiment/Lynne-McTaggart/9780743276962
• -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

More potential sources:

• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1284843/Just-safe-X-rays-dentist.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
• http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-02-11-the-power-of-intention
• http://www.coloradodaily.com/ci_15016800?source=most_viewed#axzz13CVf14OJ
• http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article20822.html
• http://www.vitalhealthbooks.com/author/2384969968.html
• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lynne-mctaggart/why-dan-browns-science-fi_b_325906.html

• -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Book Reviews:

• http://tarotcanada.tripod.com/TheField.html
• http://www.spiritualityandpractice.com/books/books.php?id=16711
• http://www.basilandspice.com/mind-and-body/book-review-the-field-by-lynne-mctaggart.html
• http://curtischappell.com/blog/archives/639
• http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Field/Lynne-McTaggart/e/9780060931179
• http://www.enlightenment.com/media/bookrevs/thefield.html
• http://www.flipkart.com/intention-experiment-lynne-mctaggart-using-book-0743276965
• http://www.spiritualitybookshop.com/bookcategories/scienceandspirituality/the-field-by-lynne-mctaggart/
• http://www.reviewcentre.com/reviews23759.html
• http://www.spiritualityandpractice.com/books/audios.php?id=18748
• http://www.merrynjose.com/artman/publish/article_720.shtml
• http://dmitrybrant.com/2007/09/05/the-non-science-of-lynne-mctaggart
• http://www.harpercollins.com/books/Field-The-Lynne-Mctaggart/?isbn=9780061471131
• http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=62-0060931175-0
• http://jennymannion.com/healpain/2009/06/intentionexperimen/
• http://www.merliannews.com/Books_6/The_Intention_Experiment_by_Lynne_McTaggart.shtml
• -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

"The McTaggart group . . . "

Who or what does the "McTaggart group . . " refer to? If there is no such group, then the description should be removed, as it would factually incorrect. Whether or not one agrees with her views is not a valid basis for launching would could be perceived as personal attacks. Chris saloschin (talk) 15:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I have revised the text to give it a more neutral tone to summarize the criticism given in the cited article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Similar results

• Similar results are reported by Prof. William A. Tiller, PhD, an Emeritus professor of Materials Science at Stanford University in a recent book describing similar controlled experiments of his own design.
  • http://www.amazon.com/Some-Science-Adventures-Real-Magic/dp/1929331118/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1303196348&sr=8-1-fkmr0

I checked the cited book and it does not appear to mention McTaggart. It would be a violation of WP:NOR to add studies which we think corroborate or disprove McTaggart's work unless the sources themselves draw that conclusion.   Will Beback  talk  09:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Opinion presented as fact

This phrasing: "research in the field of human consciousness that supports the theory", presents it as factual that there was research and that it did support the theory. This is not adequately sourced. I've tried to change the phrasing to put some kind of proviso in. I didn't make a very good choice of words and my edit was reverted, but this problem needs to be fixed. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

There's a dislike of terms like "claims" or "alleges" because they have connotations. See WP:WTA. I've replaced most of your edits with "says", which is non-judgmental but still conveys that these are one person's opinions.   Will Beback  talk  20:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Martin I understand your concerns but I think as long as we identify the source for these kinds of statements ie Taggart's books, then we are neutrally representing the source and letting the reader know that these are Taggart's statements and not established facts that have wide academic acceptance.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Since health claims are involved I think we need to make very clear who is asserting what.   Will Beback  talk  21:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Will, and very much agree. Keith, I'm not sure you got the point of what I said above, but Will has made the change I was after. MartinPoulter (talk) 08:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

WDDTY (What Doctors Don't Tell You), Lynne McTaggart, Bryan Hubbard, and Jurriaan Kamp

5/26/14

Dear Whomever this may concerns:--Jessica A Bruno (talk) 15:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Where is the rest of WDDTY (What Doctors Don't Tell You), Lynne McTaggart, Bryan Hubbard, and Jurriaan Kamp? I for one really love to know the rest of the story because I had it enough of the magazine and the people associate with it. Especially, Ms McTaggart, Mr. Hubbard, and Mr. Kamp.

Think thats it for now.

Thank you, again, in advance.

Yours truly,

--Jessica A Bruno (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)