Talk:Richard L. Thompson/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Langton

Can anybody confirm that Goel and Thompson’s essay is actually in Langton? The table of contents of that book is available on Amazon, and makes no mention of them. And relatedly, simply having an essay you co-wrote published in a workshop proceedings is hardly evidence of any particular prominence. WP:SECONDARY sources are needed. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The reference in the text was linked to this address: http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/%7Eley/db/conf/alife/alife1987.html. Thompson and Goels' essay is listed about 15 down (5 below Richard Dawkins' presentation) as: Narendra S. Goel, Richard L. Thompson: Movable Finite Automata (MFA): A New Tool for Computer Modeling of Living Systems. 317-340

Does the title of this section say "Merger proposal"? Then why the hell are you trying to discuss the merge here?
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Further, the attempt to merge Thompson into some sort of Hindu evolutionist category continues to confound me for the following reasons: 1. Criticisms of Thompsons' views so far posted sound like a caricature, which to whatever degree he promoted, it was seriously less significant with comparison to the rest of his work - which some of the critics appear unfamiliar, perhaps due to exclusively focusing on evolutionary controversies, (2) his coauthored work with Cremo was, in my view, more a historical analysis of anomalous paleontological and archeological material (and I mean to emphasis ANOMOLOUS when saying that), and (3) what are "Hindu" views on evolution (I'm frankly not sure as "Hinduism" is such a disparate term, nor is it a field of study of mine.)

Please feel free to contact me about any further referencing. Perhaps we can do that in the future before entire sections are deleted due to what could appear to be hair trigger concerns. Thanks, in advance. Sdmuni108 (talk) 12:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Hrafn - upon further consideration, I think you must have been looking at the wrong book on Amazon. There are a few ALife conference proceedings edited by Langton. I had a similar problem when I attempted to track down the correct volume, of which I now own two. As per the citation in our text, it was ALife '87 volume VI published in 1989 (or at least that was the information we attempted to enter via the Wiki template), and not the volume available on Amazon, ALife V published in 1997. (I don't understand the sequencing, either.) An easy mistake, though I thought we also had added a link to the text, as mentioned above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdmuni108 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I went to the Amazon listing on the book whose ISBN is cited in the article (via the 'Book sources' link embedded in the ISBN). That book is listed in Amazon as Artificial Life: Proceedings Of An Interdisciplinary Workshop On The Synthesis And Simulation Of Living Systems (Santa Fe Institute Series). In a conflict over what's in a book, between what some website states, and what a book's own table of contents states, I'll take the table of contents thank you. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall that we cited any ISBN for that reference. But this is an important concern and I appreciate it getting raised, as the two volumes that I now believe are in question look near identical. In fact, I initially ordered the wrong volume, much along the lines of confusion Hrafn seems to be expressing.

The titles are very similar, and the cover is otherwise identical. What is left out of the title Hrafn appears to be mentioning above would be "Artifiial Life II" and "Held February, 1990 in Santa Fe, New Mexico." The balance of the proper title referenced in the bibliography is listed differently: "Artificial Life" (with no roman numeral) and "Held September, 1987 in Los Alamos, New Mexico."

The 1987 conference volume (c1989) has the ISBN number: 0201093561. The site for this volume listed on Amazon for that '87 conference does not offer a table of contents, unfortunately. Meanwhile, the 1990 conference volume (c1991) listed on Amazon that I suspect Hrafn is viewing, lists a different ISBN number altogether: 0201525704.

Without a doubt, Hrafn raises an important point. These two volumes are easily confused, especially with out careful referencing. Along with the full title that has already been cited, the volume will need the correct ISBN. Proper references are crucial. Thanks Sdmuni108 (talk) 16:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Professional Work

Why was this removed?

"During the 1980s, Dr. Thompson pursued research in quantum physics and mathematical biology at the State University of New York at Binghamton, publishing numerous papers with Dr. Narendra S. Goel, of SUNY’s Department of Systems Science at the Thomas J. Watson School of Engineering. Over the next two decades Goel and Thompson also co-authored NASA-funded research papers on satellite remote sensing." 75.91.96.191 (talk) 05:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Because it was unsourced! I am getting very, very tired of the WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT on the need for WP:Verifiability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Again with the dragooning. Speaking human, why is it unsourced? If it says that they wrote some Nasa funded papers, and has links to those papers on Nasa's webpage, what is that a problem? Jiva Goswami (talk) 06:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.

...

All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate.

— WP:Verifiability

WP:Verifiability (i) was explicitly cited by in my comment above (as well as repeatedly in early expressions of concerns over such unsourced material). (ii) It is part of Wikipedia's foundational policy, so really, really needs to be understood and followed.

(i) You provided a mid-sentence link that was (a) very easy to overlook (titled external links look very similar to internal wikilinks -- and I did in fact overlook it) & (b) in violation of WP:MOSLINKS#Link titles. Please provide the citation at the end of the material cited to it, either with <ref></ref> tags (preferred) or an untitled link (like this: [1]) (ii) In any case, search results are not a reliable source. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear Hrafn - I agree with you, the midsentence linking was a poor choice, and all the more so in retrospect. Nonetheless, all of Thompsons professional work is cited in the bibliography. How does the bibliography section: Peer reviewed scientific papers and other professional works, appear to you? I attempted top include all the relevant information, though I am still green using the wiki templates, and the like. Thanks in advance for your advice on these matters. Nonetheless, I am a little concerned with what could appear to be an a priori assumption everything is guilty until proven innocent - and apparently multiple times over! I am also more then happy to discuss any concerns you have directly, if you think that might help - sdmumi108. Sdmuni108 (talk) 13:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It 'appears' ex-ces-sive. Wikipedia articles are meant to be predominately third-party secondary-source commentary/explanation/analysis, and explicitly not indiscriminate data dumps. It also should not be your own synthesis of such information. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Many of the sources I am using come from independently published journals, like Zygon, or on the web by third parties, like NASA. Further, third party, ie, independent commentators like Wigner and others, are fully documentable.

Since this article is a biography, it requires biographical data. Please note specifics where you find the material a sythesis that does not honestly, and verifiably, provide biographical information.

Further clarification of your concerns in everyday language would be most appreciated. Thanks in advance - Sdmuni108 (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

No! Only one source to date has been "from independently published journals" -- for a vague and heavily-elipsised quote (leading to the rather strong impression it was cherry-picked). Search engine results are not reliable sources -- nor are Thompson's own papers third party sources -- wherever they are hosted. I stated my concerns above "in everyday language", as well as linking to the relevant policies. All I got back was still further pleas of comprehension -- so I probably won't bother in future. WP:Competence is required -- and if you're either unable or unwilling to read and comprehend basic Wikipedia policy -- then it is highly unlikely that you'll achieve much more than mutual frustration here. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Please - there were numerous third party reviews in that essay. What your definition of a cherry picked quotation might be - sounds like it could be anything under the sun that rubs the wrong way. Amazing.

In retrospect, the more reviews the merrier - there is more that can be engaged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdmuni108 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Richard L. Thompson's endless bibliography

In response to this edit's edit summary, the majority of this bibliography was removed because:

1. It was ridiculously, mind-numbingly excessive! It was several times as long as the article text itself.
2. In the pieces that were removed, either:
   1. Thompson was not the primary author; or
   2. They were published by Thompson's own Bhaktivedanta Institute.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it as excessive as your prose and markup?? What is the standard for listing published works, and what is the problem with list BI books? Jiva Goswami (talk) 06:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It is an order of magnitude or two shorter -- and I don't put such "prose and markup" on article space. What is excessive is a matter of judgement, but I would suspect that most would judge such an appendix, which is far larger than the article body, to be "excessive". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The first problem is that we aren't a database for BI publications. We also don't list full bibliographies for every minor article written by an academic even if these academics are extremely important. So this guy was a mathematician, and wrote a couple of mathematics papers. This doesn't make him notable for us. If he is notable at all, then for his publication of the most far-out pseudoscientific stuff on "Vedic Creationism". My suggestion would be to create an article onHindu creationism (currently a redirect), or Vedic Creationism, and move anything that is notable here to that topic. This will have the advantage that we will move away from pretending that this is a biography article, while it is in fact an account of a particularly cranky approach to creationism. --dab (𒁳) 08:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

There were a plethora of professional scientific papers, the majority peer reviewed, suggesting a broad interes as well as qualifications for engaging in serious science. While many of the topics were in satellite remote sensing, others were in biological computer modelling with some relevance even to the creation/develoment crowd. As mentioned, one of the leading evolutionists in the past century, John Maynard Smith, commented favorably on two of them, for the quality of their scientific content.

As for "of no interest to us" - that could appear to be people seeming near exclusively focused on creation/development debates, and apparently from one point of view on the topic.

Most of the BI work is published with ISBN numbers - they can get culled thru a library system, or pulled up in the WorldCat catalogue, among numerous other established and respected third party academic sources.

Further, there were at least two BI themed papers published in third party peer reviewed journals, albeit journals with a somewhat alternate science reputation. Neither paper was on the topic of creation/development.

The article text will expand, as soon as we are allowed to do so without constant, wholesale deletions. Frankly, there appears to be a mood of shoot first, ask questions later, on the part of some of the editors - though I sincerely sympathize with their valid concerns.

Otherwise, there were only a handful of self published papers, and they were included for general interest purposes, to suggest the range of research Thompson interests engaged in.

by the way, if you want to pigeon hole Thompson as something, perhaps "Hindu cosmologist" or even "Hindu UFOlogist" would be more appropriate, as the majority of his "Hindu" work was on ancient cosmology and world view.

I am continuing to update and expand our referencing. I do appreciate your patience, and continued advice. The text will be expanded as well, as soon as we can get beyond what seems to be a hair trigger wholesale deletion syndrome, though I do appreciate the concerns involved. Sdmuni108 (talk) 13:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone disputes that RLT was a mathematician. The question is, why should anyone be interested in this? Being a mathematician does not in itself meet WP:PROF. His being a mathematician is only of interest here inasmuch as he was notable as a mathematician. Which by all appearances is not the case at all. I am not sure why you are telling us that BI publications have ISBN numbers. Every piece of self-published crap churned out by the online print shops these days have ISBN numbers. The point is that these BI publications are {{primary}} sources here and do not add anything in the WP:NOTE department.

Could you please condescend to respect WP:BIO, addressing the question of where there even should be a biography article on this individual, before inundating us with primary sources? All this does is bury what little independent references this article is aware of so far. Let me quote WP:NOTE for your convenience:

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 or stand-alone list.

The "topic" here is the RLT, the person. So far we know that a book by RLT was once reviewed in Journal of Religion & Science, and that RLT once appeared in a TV show which was widely criticized or derided for its poor quality. Then we know that his name was mentioned once in a discussion of ""Vedic creationism in America". That's more or less it, no further evidence of third-party attention has been shown. Note how none of these instances are covering RLT as a "topic", they merely mention him while discussing some other topic. This is a textbook case of an article failing to establish its subject's notability. "Vedic creationism" may or may not be a valid topic, and it may or may not be adequate for such an article to briefly refer to RLT, but none of this goes to show that we should have a dedicated, stand-alone article on the man. Can you please adress this before spamming the page with more irrelevant maths papers? --dab (𒁳) 13:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

A few initial points - Thompson's scientific work was also reviewed in Biochemical Education, a scientific journal.

More significantly, John Maynard Smith enthusiastically commented (in print - Manchester University Press) on the quality of RLT's scientific work. Smith published two of RLT & Goels' coauthored essays in, Organizational Constraints on the Dynamics of Evolution. If interlibrary loan is inconvenient, it can be view online, facilitated by a respected third party. These presentations concerned biological computer modeling, the theory of evolution, and the origin of life. These were NOT math topics. While could say RLT was not a paleontologist, John Maynard Smith, the prestigious evolutionary scientist, noted RLT for his adeptness at engaging high-end issues in evolutionary theory.

RLT has fully documentable online NASA research. None are these papers address math topics. Rather, they refer to bidirectional function reflectance and satellite remote sensing. Thompson and Goel published on this issue in numerous established scientific journals - this reflects well on Thompson's extensive astronomical and cosmology work in other areas.

Concerning Wigner and Josephson, the fact that their comments were published in multiple editions over a thirty year period and have subsequently been widely publicized over the internet - and without any controversy until now - seems to suggest something. As you must know, Josephson remains amongst us on our happy little planet. He is aware of Thompson work, as Thompson worked under him a number of years during the 80s - all documentable.

While RLT's was notably published in the prestigious Memoirs of the Mathematical Society, (also viewable online by a third party) it is a topic rather focused on quantum theory.

Further, there are independent links to RLT's involvement in the notable ALife87 conference on artificial intelligence. This conference was attended by Richard Dawkins, another notable figure.

RLT's books, on a variety of topics, are widely published by multiple independent publishers (point well taken - I can vary the publishing firms utilize in the biblio) including large and respected commercial publishers, like Motilal Banarsidass and Bettendorf. Yes, any "crap" can get self published. But in a majority BI themed cases, we are not talking about self published works. (And of course, neither are the scientific papers or scientific textbooks.)

Further, two BI themed papers were published in peer reviewed independent alternate science journals. The idea of an ISBN being available was only meant to confirm the physical of these works. Apparently, some of our doubters appear vehement!

Overall, while Dbackman raises many considered technical points, perhaps there is also a detectable mood of an inspired hatchet job.

Thompson has written with a proficient scientific background (though he never claimed to be a paleontologist) on a WIDE variety of topics, for a WIDE variety of audiences, over a LONG period of time, and in a very unique and intellectually intriguing way. The idea that RLT does not appear interesting to folks following one certain debate, could be only just that.

The extensive bibliography of documentable works suggests his wide variety of interest, works written with a proficiency in a number of cross disciplines. In my view, they are not confirmed "proof" of any particular worldview, though each work argues a hypothesis. Sdmuni108 (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for any over extended soliloguies - I'm new at this, and rather green!

In short (hopefully) in response to Hrafn's initial comments:

the BI works are not self published, in the sense that they were reviewed and funded according institutional standards of the BI. Whether one feels inspired by their work or not, they represent something of an institution. Further, many of Thompson's BI themed work was published by outside publishing houses, and even large commercial publishers. Admittedly, I could do more with the biblio to bring that out. These works were all published in multiple editions.

Further again, Thompson's BI themed work was published in well established peer reviewed, albeit, alternative science journals.

Most of Thompson's scientific papers where co-authored with Narendra S. Goel, a well established academic and scientist. A number of them list Thompson in the lead, amongst the two.

Again, while Thompson was adept at mainstream science, he certainly indulged in alternative genres - no argument there. But even in his alternative indulgences, hardly the bulk involved paleontology and archeology, which might be the intellectual boogie man for some of the editors analyzing the site (just a hunch - I could be wrong.)

Whatever the case, Thompson was a prolific author, noted by a variety of established intellects and academics - though I admit I am not yet up to speed on wiki specifics concerning technical concerns. He has an wide readership, and intriguing subject matter. Much of it is not orthodox science - but then neither did Thompson claim it to be such. Nonetheless, it is a topic of noteworthy interest to many. Further, his ancient cosmology work might be hardly anyone's specialty here, perhaps myself included.

Well there you have it - I'm hoping for the best. Sdmuni108 (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

1. I did not state that "the BI works" were "self published". But Thompson is affiliated with the BI. And I rather doubt that the "institutional standards of the BI" has much (any?) credibility in the scientific community.
2. "alternative science journals" would appear to indicate WP:FRINGE to those of us not laboring under a WP:COI and thus able to call a WP:SPADE a spade.
3. Goel was the primary author of most of them, so there seems little reason to include them in Thompson's article.
4. We have no third party sources for the claim that "Thompson was adept at mainstream science", only for his "alternative genres". Therefore it is the latter that will get coverage in this article.

I will conclude by stating that Wikipedia is WP:NOT a depository for vast quantities of long-forgotten articles a topic was only a co-author on, or publications in WP:FRINGE sources. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The idea of self publishing was raised, so I addressed that concern. No one is arguing the BI is an organization held in high esteem by the scientific community in general - thus I am listing BI themed titles in a section separate from Thompson's professional scientific work. I agree with Hrafn, the two categories are of a different quality. Perhaps ironic, then, is Hrafn obsession with pecking order on papers listing two authors, since Cremo is listed as the "lead" author for Forbidden Archeology (which I also do not list with Thompson's professional science.)

I have mentioned something several times now, and it is not yet clear why Hrafn chooses to ignore it. We have presented independent assessments of Thompson and Goel's scientific work, in particular from both the ALife conference volume, and John Maynard Smith's conference volume. There is also the Biomedical Educational review of the co-authored college textbook.

I would suggest of particular significance is John Maynard Smith, as he well known as one of the leading evolutionists of the past century. He is specifically addressing a paper in which Thompson is the lead author. I will include John Maynard Smith's assessment here:

"For me, one of the high spots of the conference was the account by Thompson and Goel of their biological automata models. It was not only that I was envious of their skill at programming. More important was their demonstration of the process of "self-organization". If you can program something, then you can be confident that the mechanism you propose can actually generate the results you claim, and that is what they have done. Some thirty years ago, I drew a distinction between two kinds of developmental process, which I called "jigsaws" and "penny whistles'. By a molecular jigsaw I had in mind a structure whose final shape depended on the shapes of the molecules that compose it, and which would, in a sense, assemble itself, given that the right molecules were provided (perhaps in the right relative amounts, and in the right order). It is this kind of process that Thompson and Goel have simulated, with triumphant success. (J. Maynard Smith, Organizational Constraints, 434-435)

This is the full citation I have listed for this quotation-

J. Maynard Smith, “Concluding Remarks,” in J. Maynard Smith & G. Vida, eds., Organizational Constraints on the Dynamics of Evolution (NY: Manchester University Press, 1990), pp. 434-35.

Google Books offers a direct link to the paper Smith is commenting upon. I will add it to our discussion page, below.

There were other references from the deleted portions of our contribution to Wikipedia. Surely, suppositions about the quality of a text does not preclude actually having read it (as might appear to be the case for portions of this discussion.) I would like to assume that is our standard editorial policy, especially for an influential forum such as Wikipedia. Sdmuni108 (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Google Books link - Thompson & Goel are listed 2nd and 3rd out of 31 papers. J. Maynard Smith is commenting on essay #3.

http://books.google.com/books?id=pdznAAAAIAAJ&lpg=PA437&dq=j%20maynard%20smith%20vida%20organizational%20constraints&pg=PA33#v=onepage&q=j%20maynard%20smith%20vida%20organizational%20constraints&f=false

Sdmuni108 (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

More irrelevancies:

1. "The idea of self publishing was raised" -- by yourself -- so kindly don't "address" the subject to me.
2. I never proposed removing the Organizational Constraints articles -- so what John Maynard Smith said about them is largely irrelevant.
3. I would point out that there is a considerable difference between being a co-author of an article and a co-author of a book -- in terms of degree of commitment, prominence, etc. but even if that wasn't true, the fact is that the book got noticed by third parties, the articles (by and large) did not. This has a considerable impact on WP:WEIGHT and article composition.
4. Lists of WP:FRINGE publications, unless demonstrated to be prominent, quite simply do not belong in an encyclopaedic article -- any more than do self-published publications, blog posts, or whatever. Whether they are separated out or not isn't really relevant.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Some of this is starting to get silly. (1) If you don't have an issue about self publishing, then I don't either. But there you go again in item four mentioning the issue of self publishing. Its a relevant concern, I feel. (2) I am not against the idea of offering some sort of revised bibliography of his scientific works - there is a lot there. I would want it to be an accurate refelction of his scientific interests, though. (3) The Maynard Smith quotation is a highly respected third party scientific assessment that has to do with the quality of RLT's scientific work, in general. All his professional work appears to be peer reviewed, or peer review quality. His textbook, while not formally peer reviewed, certainly went through layers of professional editing and was further favorably reviewed in a scientific journal. (4) Since Goel and Thompson did A LOT of scientific work as coauthors, they seemed to find each other's input extremely productive. On occasion they traded places as to lead authorship. I do know Thompson considered himself a junior to Goel, as a professional. If Thompson's work was insignificant as you seem to be insinuating, then Goel would not continue the partnership. (5) The scientific articles were geared toward highly specific disciplines - they were cross referenced in other scientific articles. They are relevant - if in moderation. (5) So called fringe, or alternative science should not be promoted as standard orthodox science, I agree. But these works are part of the historical record, and they are of interest for that reason and many others to many, though perhaps not you. I just noticed Graham Hancock's site lists nearly 15 books. T. D. Singh's site list over 2 dozen BI titles.

Unfortunately as we continue our discussions, I am beginning to loose confidence in the accuracy of some of your assessments, due to what appears to be a pattern of inconsistent research and a general bullying attitude. Sdmuni108 (talk) 01:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:Complete bollocks:

1. I mentioned "self-published publications" only as another freaking EXAMPLE of material we don't list in Wikipedia. Have a WP:TROUT and get a clue!
2. That Smith praised one piece of Thompson's work does not make the entire corpus of Thompson's work prominent.
3. With the exception of Smith's very brief interest, no third-party (and even Smith's status as a third party at the time is questionable -- as he was the editor of the collection) has taken any notice of Thompson's "scientific interests". Wikipedia is not a repository for primary-source material that no secondary source has bothered to comment upon.
4. The vast majority of scholarly work is not notable by Wikipedia's standards. That does not mean that the work is not worthwhile, just that no secondary source has discussed it in detail. This does not mean that the work is good or bad, just not very very good or very very bad (or otherwise unusual).
5. I never had much faith in your objectivity -- you appear to be a Thompson fanboy pure and simple -- and largely uninterested in Wikipedia's rules and methods. I have not found such WP:SPAs to be particularly beneficial for this project, so you will pardon me if I regard you rather skeptically.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Amazing once again. The concern about teh self publishing issue was over, long ago. YOU keep bringing it up as something to kvetch about. No one said Smith endorsed RLT's entire scientific career. Rather, it was evidence of general compitence in the face of your constant insinuation there is nothing of scinetific merit to consider here. That's it.

If I sound like a fanboy - boy oh boy - you could tend to sound like an ... well I pass on that.

Your wiki points are well taken. Your content is not the issue, rather, perhaps, its your delivery. Please chill. Sdmuni108 (talk) 15:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The endless tale of "the BI works are not self published"

Back in the dim distant hours (it seems like months) of this thread, Sdmuni108 opined:

In short (hopefully) in response to Hrafn's initial comments:

the BI works are not self published...

The trouble being, as I pointed out to him, my "initial comments" never claimed that the BI works were self published.

Then Sdmuni108 opines:

The idea of self publishing was raised, so I addressed that concern.

Except:

1. "The idea of self publishing" was never "raised" in the context of the BI; and
2. It was raised by Sdmuni108 themselves.

I pointed the second of those two points to Sdmuni108. I also mentioned self-published sources in a completely different context of 'examples of materials we don't list on Wikipedia',

This caused caused Sdmuni108 to huff and puff:

But there you go again in item four mentioning the issue of self publishing.

I bluntly pointed out the idiocy of this attempt to link these two unrelated mentions of self-publication.

Sdmuni108 whines:

Amazing once again. The concern about teh self publishing issue was over, long ago. YOU keep bringing it up as something to kvetch about.

My point to all this is this: WP:Competence is required. And I see little point in continuing to discuss things with somebody who has demonstrated themselves deficient in basic reading comprehension, basic logical reasoning, and judgement (quite apart from a complete lack of objectivity). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

And I would also point out that Sdmuni108's original point is also completely unavailing -- as while "the BI works" may not technically be self-published, they are certainly questionable sources -- and WP:Verifiability treats questionable sources and self-published sources identically. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

What part of "while 'the BI works' may not technically be self-published, they are certainly questionable sources -- and WP:Verifiability treats questionable sources and self-published sources identically" did you fail to comprehend, Sdmuni108? Material written under the pretence that I am arguing (or ever have argued) that it is self-published archived as further continuation of this endless non sequitor.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is amazing. I have little to disagree with Hrafn regarding the relative merits of various publishing strategies. I mention that at the start. Rather, my complaint involves an obsession about looking for dragons where they do not exist, as we are in agreement on this point. All the same, BI publications where NOT funded by Thompson personally. In that sense they were not self published. Rather, they were published by an institution, the Bhaktivedanta Institute, that receives block funding from another Vaisnava orientated publishing firm, the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust. Each book is reviewed by a committee of editors before publishing. It is what it is. A typical self publishing work involves someone funding and promoting their own book. That in itself does not preclude the quality of the contents. Further, I have seen titles such as these listed on Wikipedia. As I stated at the start of this exchange, many of Thompson's BI themed books where published by the BI, but they were also printed by outside publishers, some of them large scale commercial firms like Motilal Barnaridass in Asia, as well as commercial publishers in Europe. In edition, a number of his BI themed papers where published by independent peer reviewed journals. Point being, there is a variety of firms to consider. I agree about the benefit of presenting a broader array of publishers. Ironically, I incorrectly listed many books as BI publications, that where never actually published as BI, or even originally published by BI or BBT. Wikipedia reference BBT and BI publications elsewhere - I hope we are not on another wiki witch hunt with this issue. Whatever the case, no one is attempting to present BI themed works as mainstream science - thus the seperate heading. It suggest an interesting category of literature - that is all. They are either alternate analysis of natural science, or more commonly, analysis of science and religion with a Vaisnava perspective. God forbid. Whatever the case, I agreed early on with our Hrafn (lines upon lines of text ago) about a concern for listing too many titles from one publisher, a publisher that suggests to him self publication. Sdmuni108 (talk) 21:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

For whoever made that last comment, and for Hrafn, I agree with the bibliography is much longer then necessary, and that BI books are not of the same category as books published by, lets say, Oxford University Press. For the most part, they are commentaries on modern science from a Vaisnava (Krishna) perspective, by individuals who, hopefully, have some background to comment on these topics in a competent way. That FA project was one tact among a variety of BI initiatives - I'm only offering that as a point of general interest.

There are a variety of branches of BI commentary - it is not a monolithic program. There a numerous schools on thought on how to approach the subject from within that particular tradition. If you check out T.G. Singh's (Bhaktiswarupa Damodara) Wiki site, you'll find many of his BI books involve philosophy discussions with notable individuals in the arts and sciences. For what its worth.

Again, I agree with Hrafn on a number of his technical and other concerns. (The delivery, and quick triggered research followed by dire conclusions, perhaps not as much.) I'll give the biblio another shot, and try to make it more appropriate according to regular expectations. I am gradually appreciating more and more the general expectations here, as we go over these issues in the discussions.

I will get on this over the next couple of days, for certain. In the meantime I'm tracking down more third party commentary out there on the web, and looking into quick opportunities to make some of these primary documents available for all to digitally see, for additional confirmation.

Unfortunately, I can't spend today behind the keyboard! With that in mind, hope all parties involved enjoy the rest of the weekend. Sdmuni108 (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Sd1.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Sd1.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 14 July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please translate this into human? 75.91.96.191 (talk) 11:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude, but if you click on it it takes you to its page on Commons and the message there makes the issue clear - as does the warning message. It was uploaded with no source specified. As we can't verify the copyright information without a source, it will be deleted in a week if it can't be shown it is free for use on Wikipedia (at least in some fashion). Dougweller (talk) 11:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Roughly speaking: nobody told us who the creator/copyright-owner is, or that it's okay to use it, so we can't accept it, so we're thinking about deleting it. The relevant clause would appear to be commons:COM:SPEEDY#File #1: "Apparent copyright violation. Content is apparently a copyright violation, with no clear evidence of Commons-compatible licensing being issued by the copyright holder. Repeated uploading of copyright material may lead to the uploading user's account being temporarily or permanently blocked." (Which you could have looked up yourself from the above link.) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear Hrafn and Dougweller - would the image on http://www.dandavats.com/?p=9445 work as an appropriate source meeting Wikipedia standards? This image, and many others, can be found on multiple places on the internet. Please let me know what you think, based on your high level of experience negotiating such matters on Wikipedia. Much thanks in advance - Sdmuni108 (talk) 13:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The issue will be dealt with on Commons where I'm not an Administrator, but that page does strongly suggest that this is a copyright violation. Basically we assume something on the web is copyright - text, image, whatever, unless there is clear evidence that it is not. There are times when we can use non-free images but I don't think this is one of them. You could try adding that as a source but as you aren't the uploader I don't know what the response would be, and as it doesn't say it is free to use one response might be to delete it immediately as obvious copyvio. But I can't be sure what will happen as I'm not an Admin there. Dougweller (talk) 14:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a technical issue, amongst a sudden barrage that can be addressed in good time, if required. Surely it needs to be responsibly addressed. Sdmuni108 (talk) 16:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

In a sense it's a technical issue, if it isn't resolved in 7 days it will be deleted. But I don't think it can be resolved, that's the only edit the uploader ever made. I'd ignore it and find a photo that can be used - as you say, in good time. Start by reading this [2]. As for a sudden barrage, remember that the barrage started when several editors started to completely rewrite the page. That usually brings a strong response, especially when the rewrite doesn't follow our guidelines and policies. Dougweller (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

If it has been improperly posted, by whoever posted it - its not a signficant priority right now. But should, in theory, be a minor technical issue to negotiate, amongst the barrage!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdmuni108 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

We replaced studio photo with something that should comply, until we get studio photo issues worked out. Sdmuni108 (talk) 23:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Somebody has put a WP:MERGE tag up on this article, suggesting it be merged into Hindu_views_on_evolution#ISKCON_and_evolution, so I'm creating a section for discussing it. I'm not yet ready to offer a firm opinion, but I'm tending towards supporting it, due to the lack of significant third party sourcing, or indication that the topic meets WP:ACADEMIC. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It takes time for normal people to get this stuff together. 75.91.96.191 (talk) 12:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

But according to this comment, there's been "a gazillion references" sitting around since February. When are we going to see them? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Hrafn - we've begun to insert citations. I can directly send you one version of a draft that lists over 75 citations from my comparatively short biographical essay (I'm currently serving as Thompson's archivist), if you feel that could help. Further, a more finished paper with over 30 citations can be downloaded from the site that appeared to have caused many of the copyright concerns: http://www.dandavats.com/?p=9445. Please click on the "please click here" link at the top. Your comments in advance would be most appreciated. I do sympathize with many of the concerns being expressed, and appreciate the benefit of your experience in this regard.

As for other issues involving merging - the majority of Thompson's work was on ancient cosmology and astronomy, with a specialty on the culture of South Asia. That is what he is best know for in the so-called "Hindu natural science" field.

Further, Thompson published FAR more professional scientific work than anything done in the creation/development area, thus a concern on my part with what could appear to be a creation/development posse focusing near exclusively on that topic. From my view, the merging proposal sounds inappropriate, if not down right agenda driven. Sdmuni108 (talk) 13:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I stated above that "I'm not yet ready to offer a firm opinion". However, what I've seen to date has not been promising -- 'potted quotes' from his own book's dustcover, a search-result-page, and some vague (and apparently cherry-picked) waffle from some mathematician/philosopher in a Science&Religion journal about how "attractive" this book is. And it matters not one whit how much "professional scientific work" he has published, if all the third party sources have noticed is his creationist work. See WP:WEIGHT. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

actually, I would tend to suggest the creation of a separate "ISCKON's Vedic Creationism" article, which would become the {{main}} article for the section linked above. This appears to be what this article is about, weird ideas surrounding creationism flying around Hare-Krishna circles (as opposed to the biography of this particular author).

Also, without wishing to step on any toes, I wish to observe that this isn't the first time I have seen a flurry of redlink accounts invade the wiki, pushing some weird Hare Krishna agenda. I can only assume that some ISKCON gurus have habit of giving trolling Wikipedia as an assignment to disciples. I would just ask the people concerned to have a good and relaxed look at WP:COI. --dab (𒁳) 13:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Ai Carumba! Most of RLT's "Hare Krishna" work had little, if anything to do with "Vedic Creationism" - however it is defined. Rather, works like Mechanistic dealt with physics, and Vedic Comsography and other similar later works - all ancient cosmology and worldview. His scientific work, also noted by a number of prestigious and highly respected professionals, also had nothing to do with Vedic Creationism (whatever that is, I am not clear. Perhaps I need to read further in Wikipedia.)

I personally knew RLT - I found his work intriguing. Among many other numerous intellectual works in the great big world of thought. Sorry to disappoint the conspiracy theorists, but that is about it.

Perhaps that this idea was mention by a critic in itself suggests a latent agenda that needs to be considered. Who amongst us is completely innocent?

I am honestly proposing RLT is a widely published and intellectually intriguing individual of interest to many. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdmuni108 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose merger. Thompson and his work has got significant coverage (a dozen or more pages) in this book. The book was written before Thompson and Cremo published the first edition of Forbidden Archeology. So the coverage in the book is unrelated to his work as Hindu creationist.Gaura79 (talk) 19:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• "ISKCON has gone the other way, rejecting the scientific worldview altogether." would appear to indicate that this book may well be discussing anti-science/creationist worldviews. What does it in fact say about Thomspon? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll check it out. The copyright date appears to be 1996, though. Whatever the case, should be of interest. Sdmuni108 (talk) 20:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

At this point, I'm well aware what I'm about to post will count for didley squat (it being primary historical material) with our editorial brethren, but here's an excerpt I cited in that essay, from RLT's introduction to his last book - God & Science. This is the side of Thompson I'm most familiar with, having worked with him for a period in the late 90s, early 2000s, and having maintained a friendly acquantance since. It doesn't sound to me like someone "discussing anti-science/creationist worldviews." But then that could just be naive little old me. Here is the quote:

"What is the relationship between science and religion? Some see it as one of inevitable conflict, others see it as harmonious, and still others see differences that they hope to reconcile. For many years, I have been one of the latter. I have felt that science has fundamentally challenged the very roots of religion, but that this challenge can be answered in a way that agrees with basic scientific and religious principles. Framing such answers was the purpose of the essays in this book. However, on reviewing these essays, I have come to realize another potential relationship between religion and science. Both religion and science can cross fertilize one another with inspiring new ideas that may ultimately culminate in a synthesis that goes beyond our understanding of either science or religion. (Thompson, God & Science, p. vii) Sdmuni108 (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose merger (is it a roundabout way to delete the article?), but may consider a section of the article that deals with it represented on the proposed page. Having said that the article should be cut to a stub, as any bio stub it should be carefully monitored on what is added to it and material should be verifiable.Don't get what Sdmuni108 is saying and how it is relevant. (User) Mb (Talk) 22:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Look, I have never even heard of RLT. But I know how Wikipedia works. I see an account "Sdmuni108" saying "I knew the man" and touting his notability. That's enough for a WP:COI problem, I don't need any "conspiracy theories" beyond that. Sdmuni108 should just step down and edit some article where they are not personally involved.

As for "Vedic Creationism", I have no idea what this is supposed to be. All I know that the 'only thing for which RTL is verifiably "notable", based on the sources so far in this article, is his endorsement of "Vedic Creationism". If you take that away, we can just speedy-delete this article, as it will be about some random mathematician who wrote some papers. --dab (𒁳) 10:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

What specific interest or expertise would Dbachmann have, that would lead him to know RLT? This is a religion and science philosophical topic, with specific reference to Gaudiya Vaisnavism and physics, astronomy, cosmology, as well as ancient culture and modern worldview, and of course biology (and not just evolutionary biology.) So what is the general interests you share with these issues. It sounds like you all are involved in creation debates, near exclusively.

Since when is not knowing a topic a qualification for "knowing" a topic? How silly is that? Objectivity is important, but being ignorant is not the same as being objective. Sdmuni108 (talk) 17:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Given that the 'Biography' section still contains not one single third party source, but in spite of this still cannot verify most of the claims made, I am supporting merger, as there is clearly and unambiguously insufficient third-party coverage to merit a separate biography article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Hatchet job. The biographical data also published on BI, Iskcon, and publishing sites has been verified by primary materials culled from obviously independent professional sources. Sdmuni108 (talk) 18:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• What part of "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it" (WP:V) do you fail to comperhend? Third party sources: BI, Iskcon, and publishing sites ... sources actually cited: independent professional sources. And how you can pretend to know that the sources this material was purportedly "culled from" were "obviously independent [and] professional", I don't know. Wishful thinking? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The primary sources verify the information - that is one argument. The notability issue seems to rather obsess on the voluminous FA reviews - your point well taken.

I'll be frank - I never put this article up on RLT. We first thought it must have been written by people like you, Hrafn (we were surprised that was not the case - an apparent confirmation that "genius" thinks alike!) My interest is whatever is on Wiki is maturely written and balanced. 174.131.119.108 (talk) 20:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

IN SUMMARY - CONSISTENTLY WHAT WE ARE FINDING -

• any outside 3rd party review suggesting THAT Thompson was not a creationist - all deleted.

• any remotely sympathetic 3rd party portrayal of Thompson - all deleted as work of either creationists or simpletons bewildered by their devilry

• any primary source statements suggesting Thompson was not a creationist - all deleted

• any professional scientific work suggesting Thompson understood Darwinian theory in detail - all deleted

• any high level professional accolades of Thompson's work, especially in artificial intelligence (Langton) or evolutionary biology (Smith) - all deleted

• meanwhile, hypercritical adjectives - that's the God honest truth prominently displayed

Perhaps our discussion, Hrafn, is less about establishing the healthy autonomy of the natural sciences or maintaining high editorial standards for Wikipedia. Rather, it might be about a dogmatic religious belief in metaphysical naturalism, and an ideological intolerance for any alternative point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.131.119.108 (talk) 20:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Material that has become increasingly completely unrelated to the merger proposal

Apparently, a reference by Meera Nanda trumps all. Due to the controversy surrounding the Vedic Creationism issue, and due to that topic being an obsession for Dbackman, the rest of the citations and references, a number from respected individuals outside of mathematics, are ignored. I also have published reviews for other works. Sdmuni108 (talk) 18:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

No "a reference by Meera Nanda trumps" zero, zilch, nada -- that being the sum total of third party citations on Thompson's work outside Creationism. And I would point out that we also have Brown's Zygon articles which also place Thompson's work within the context of Verdic Creationism. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be appropriate to say critics such as Nanda and Brown have accused Thomas of being a "Vedic Creationist" (whatever that is). One the other hand, personally, I would feel more inclined to agree with Sheldon R. Isenberg's statement, published in his "Foreword" to Thompson's God & Science (2004): "In a sense, [Thompson's] work is withing the same overall movement that, in the highly Christian West, includes the debates about Creationism." (v). Sheldon is a Professor of Religion at UF, and at the time he made the statement, chair of the Department of Religion.

Nonetheless, Thompson's "Introduction" to God & Science, which I already posted in this discussion, seems to suggest otherwise.

First I might need to define how I am using the word "Creationism." Both fundamental creationists and a wide variety of so-called Intelligent Designers expect that natural science should prove their metaphysical worldview. Or even further, it "must" prove their worldview. Alternately, atheistic preachers of Scientism, a sort of metaphysical belief in absolute chance, do the same. These two metaphysical camps of ideologues feed of each other in the name of science. I would suggest that is not a good thing.

Considered this way, Thompson's "Introduction" is anything but "Creationism," and he is certainly not advocating "Scientism." True, his "Introduction" is a primary document, but it is a direct testimony by Thompson as to his personal beliefs at the time they were published in 2004. They are the clearest evidence of his views at the most mature stage of his scholarship.

My obvious argument is that such statements are not advocating "Creationism" - by anyone's definition that I am currently aware of. I already posted the first paragraph to his "Introduction" stating his thesis to God & Science, his final book, but here I'll post his concluding paragraph. Perhaps it even more strongly restates his thesis -

"In summary, by bringing together modern scientific ideas and Vedic literature, many interesting ideas arise. It is widely believed that there is a fundamental conflict between science and religion, and that this can be reconciled only by either drastically editing religion to agree with science or drastically doing violence to science in order to bring it in line with religion. However, these essays suggest a different approach. Science and religion can cross-fertilize one another and give rise to possible fruitful ideas that might not have been thought of from the standpoint of science or religion, taken separately." (Thompson, God & Science, xiv.)

Frankly, I can't faithfully define such a statement in terms of "Creationism." Meanwhile, Nanda and Brown are respected scholars who have published according to their own convictions. Personally, I have no problem with that. More significant for our purposes, that makes their statements notable references.

But I would add that their statements are easily challenged by primary evidence of what Thompson has actually written.

I don't recall claiming the term "Vedic Creationism" is outside our discussion. But I would strongly suggest that it needs to be sensitively qualified, based on direct primary historical evidence that Thompson published and is thus freely available for citation.

Beyond all that, I think Thompson is an intriguing historical subject as a polymath bridging many genres within the sciences, as well as religion and philosophy. I am arguing there is already sufficient evidence in the public domain to support that view. I don't think RLT is the most notable subject on Wikipedia, by any means. But there does seem to be sufficient interest and notability for an appropriately balanced biography on this forum.

My background puts a premium on primary sources. For that and other reasons due to my inexperience with Wiki, I overstepped in my strategy for introducing new material. For that I apologize. But I do feel much of the concern expressed here can be adequately addressed, in time. Sdmuni108 (talk) 00:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

1. Calling Brown a "critic" would appear to be extremely inaccurate -- given that I've seen his coverage of Thompson described as overly sympathetic.
2. Thompson is a creationist -- a purveyor of religiously-motivated pseudoscientific anti-evolution arguments, per Chapters 5 and 8, and Section 6.3 of Mechanistic and Nonmechanistic Science.
3. "In summary, by bringing together" the rejection of the modern science of evolutionary biology "and Vedic literature" a very banal and uninteresting twist on prior Christian Creationism has arisen. In doing so, he's further elevated the conflict between science and religion (which many scholars do not believe to be "fundamental").
4. Thompson would appear to be a workmanlike, if unexceptional mathematician, whose religious beliefs unfortunately led him to spend a not-inconsiderable amount of time tilting at windmills embodied by well-established and well-founded science.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing another list.

1. Have you read Brown's article through? Otherwise this sounds like quote fishing. For certain, Brown is a critic writing after the hysteria surrounding Forbidden and swirling around the ID debates of the early 2000s. Please cite where you have gotten your quotation.

I respect Brown's opinion, even if I don't agree with it. Mechanistic and Nonmechanistic Science, a work written 20 years earlier, is hardly the focus of Brown's analysis. Mechanistic is a very technical book. Obviously, Brown can still get cited as a secondary analysis of Thompson's work.

2. Have you read actually ANY of Mechanistic and Nonmechanistic Science? You said you found a copy online. Nonetheless, reading titles from the contents and imagining the rest is something different from reading a book. I have my doubts about your grasp, as many parts of Mechanistic are highly technical and philosophical. Even with the benefit of professional training in the history of these disciplines, it is still difficult follow all the technical arguments. They are laden with mathematics, physics, and arguments from the western and eastern philosophical traditions. One needs to be familiar with these genres in order to maturely deal with the content. That is why Thompson received opinions from two Nobel Prize winning Physicists - they could understand the science.

3. Have you read Granville C. Henry's 1984 four page review of Mechanistic in Zygon? Henry is a professor of philosophy and mathematics at Claremont McKenna College, ranked as one of the top American liberal arts colleges. Henry has been a professor at Claremont McKenna for decades - apparently he knows a thing or two about philosophy and mathematics. That was something brought out in his four page review in the prestigious journal of religion and science, Zygon. I am not at all clear why you feel confident Dr. Henry is more of a fool then you.

whatever your disagreements with Granville Henry's analysis, please cite specific examples from his analysis, with reference to examples from the book under review. Further, please cite your specific objection to my use of Henry's work. Then, perhaps, we can begin to have an intelligent discussion. After all, it is Henry's analysis that I cited, and it my citation of him that you object to.

For general information's sake, I now have another long review of Mechanistic in front of me, over two full pages of text. (we continue to find more material, some easily accessible.) This review is by a Dr. Leonard George, who at the time held a position at the University of Western Ontario in the Department of Psychology. It is from a publication called "THETA", with volume numbers listed as 12(2) 1984. It is a thorough, and somewhat more critical review then Henry's. It finds issues both to compliment and criticize - that is the nature of mature scholarship. I need to look into this one further.

I appreciate that you have a vehemently critical opinion of people who do not share your views on religion and science. Nonetheless, quick, sloppy google searches followed by quote fishing tirades is not a replacement for thorough research and a mature analysis.

The quality of some of the analysis aired sound reminiscent of the convictions expressed by the very same people you claim to be defending us from. The flip side of the coin - a regular mirror image. I have seen a lot of indulgent vitriol based on quick superficial research. Thank you for sharing your opinions, of course, but please couple them with thorough, thoughtful research before spouting virulent platitudes. 174.131.46.135 (talk) 20:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

In Chapter 5 Thompson launches forth:

In this chapter we use information theory to show that the laws of nature, as understood by modern science, are insufficient to account for the origin of life. The basic argument is the following: The laws of nature and the corresponding mathematical models of physical reality can all be described by a few simple equations and other mathematical expressions. This means that they possess a low information content. In contrast, there is good reason to suppose that the intricate and variegated forms of living organisms possess a high information content. It can be shown that configurations of high information content cannot arise with substantial probabilities in models defined by mathematical expressions of low information content. It follows that life could not arise by the action of natural laws of the kind considered in modern science.

This argument bypasses the proposition made by many evolutionary theorists that even though the steps leading to life are improbable, they are nonetheless likely to happen, given the immense spans of geological time available. We show that no period of time, from zero to billions of billions of years, wil l suffice to render probable the evolution of life from matter by known physical processes. Indeed, we show that over periods many times the estimated 4.5-billion-year age of the earth, the probability of the evolution of higher life forms remains bounded by upper limits of 10^-150,000, an almost infinitesimal number. This implies that the entire history of the earth would have to be repeated over and over again at least 10^150,000 times for there to be a substantial chance that higher living entities would evolve even once.

Given that I know that:

1. Thompson has no particular background in Information theory.
2. Genuine Information Theorists, such as Jeffrey Shallit, have repeatedly eviscerated Information Theory-based arguments against evolution.
3. Thompson's argument has never been published in any peer-reviewed Information Theory journal.
4. Neither Brown nor Henry appear to have any particular background in Information Theory, or any background at all in Evolutionary Biology.
5. Such arguments tend to be turgid and ambiguous -- even to experts. A subject-matter expert stated "All one can do is squint, furrow one's brows, and then shrug" in describing a similar effort.

...why would I want to read more? If I had access to Brown's or Henry's pieces, I would probably have read them -- more out of sense of obligation than belief that they'd be informative -- but (per above) I don't think their lack detracts from my understanding.

As to Thompson's misrepresentation of Niles & Gould in Chapter 8, I will simply quote Gould's own scathing rebuke of such efforts:

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups.

— Evolution as Fact and Theory Science and Creationism, Stephen Jay Gould, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1984), p. 124.

This clearly demonstrates that Gould does not accept his work as 'officially' (or otherwise) rendering evolution 'invisible' in the fossil record.

Nothing I have seen indicates that this work is in any way scientifically valid or particularly prominent or "interesting". It is simply a largely-forgotten screed by somebody who allowed a major religious obsession to get in the way of a minor mathematical talent -- and attempt a Procrustian effort to make science fit his beliefs. Such efforts have along history in the relationship between science and religion, and are the primary causes of the conflict thesis view of that relationship. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

This is all interesting - but do you recall when Thompson wrote the book? Its 30 years old - Shallit would have still been a kid, practically speaking. This book also predates much of the heavy punctuated equilibrium debates in the early 80s. If this book came out in '81, it would have been written beforehand. You expertly quote Gould, but there is nothing here that suggest you understand the work beyond an ability to remember, perhaps, the title of a Chapter.

Amazing. The book is about science and religion, by debating mechanism as an ultimate causal explanation and suggesting alternative perspectives with reference to Eastern thought. At least, that is what two winners of the Nobel Prize in Physics appreciated in the book. They reviews and original signed copies of their letters of appreciation are available out on the web.

Agree or not - that is a side issue. Rather, its the level of sophistication in their analysis that is absent here. Its simplistic.

And actually irrelevant. Thompson was recognized as a competent scientist and philosopher of religion - but how could anyone tell, with the information deleted once again, and before completion.

Heck, I put up Henry's third party quotation - a respected philospher and mathematician from a prestigious institution appreciating Thompson competently handling the material, if not handling it adeptly - deleted. John Maynard Smith - who Thompson had previously criticized in print - noted Thompson's work as among the best out of a large field of peer reviewed papers at his conference, in his conclusion to the proceedings. Another prestigious acknowledgement, deleted as irrelevant.

Nobel Prize winners, they fair worse, they are irrelevant.

Sounds almost knowledge filter-eque! But I would rather say, overtly, or perhaps blindly agenda driven. Everything to y'all is black and white, right and wrong - no gray. Either infallibly brilliant, or hopelessly incompetent. All very dogmatic. Always right, everyone else, never the possibility for consideration - especially if they should look at things from an alternative perspective. That would be of the devil.

Thompsons science is relevant in that he maturely understood the issues and knew how to discuss them intelligently. The point is not that he was infallibly right. No intelligent scholar would think like that, unless they were an ideologue. The point is discussion, and not indulging in a delusional childish infatuations with infallibility.

Amazing stuff that goes on in discussions here. Childish might be the word that comes to mind. As Dbackman seems to put it, ignorance is the only sure sign of objectivity! If that's true - boy, there sure is a lot of "objectivity" going down here! Sdmuni108 (talk) 18:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

1. A quote that says little more than 'I liked it' is not worth including, particularly as the sole piece of information on a book. -- whoever wrote it. It tells the reader nothing useful.
2. Why on earth do you think I should care about your blatantly partisan and unsubstantiated claims about Thompson's 'relevance' and 'understanding'. What the sources appear to demonstrate is that he is largely ignored (from the dearth of sources) and largely despised by those who do not ignore him (from the considerable imbalance towards negative commentary on his work).

At the end of the day, this comes down to reliable sources -- you have very few, and appear wholly unwilling to make extensive use of the ones that you have (making me suspect that they may hold a 'sting in their tail'). The result is that this article will give due WP:WEIGHT to what the majority of sources do say -- that Thompson is a Vedic Creationist whose claims have been largely rejected (to the extent that they have not been ignored) by the scientific community. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The fact that the outside reviews - all removed by others from the text - were offered by reliable third party sources that have no love for promoting creationism, suggest their positive assessment would preclude endorsing said views. Yes, its already been agreed, Henry's review can be analyzed further in terms of commentary on the creation/development debate. After all, he is both a professional philosopher and mathematician, so his thorough review surely would detect as much. The challenge then is, there appear to be no mention in his THOROUGH 4 page review in a top notch journal of Thompson's pre FA work having anything to do with hinting of the promotion of creationism. Sdmuni108 (talk) 19:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Reviews redux

We don't use reviews from Amazon, the backs of books, etc as editors need to be able to (even if with some difficulty) see the entire review to verify it exists and that it is being fairly represented. It's possible that these might have been part of an oral interview for instance with no verifiable record of what was said. Dougweller (talk) 14:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the comment - we also have hard copies of many of these reviews that were not formally published in independent journals. Among them, notably the Noble Prize winner Eugene Wigner's letter, along with numerous others. The fact that these Noble Prize winner reviews have been in print for over 30 years without any controversy until now, might suggest something.

The fact might suggest something but this is Wikipedia and you are going to have to follow our sourcing policy which is one of our fundamental pillars. If it isn't formally published in a reliable (by our criteria) third party source we can't use it. Dougweller (talk) 17:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I have a few ideas how to work this - will see how it goes over. Appreciate how the primary referencing is not the thing here - a bit of an eye opener. Nonetheless, I'm confident these quotations are valid based on their historical track record, and more significantly, the primarily documentation I have access too. We'll see... Sdmuni108 (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Mechanistic and Nonmechanistic Science

I've been looking for third-party coverage of this book in Google Scholar. What I have found is:

• A couple more articles by Brown in Zygon: Mackenzie Brown, C. (2009). "Hindu Responses to Darwinism: Assimilation and Rejection in a Colonial and Post-Colonial Context". Science & Education. 19 (6–8): 705–738. doi:10.1007/s11191-009-9197-3. ISSN 0926-7220. & Brown, C. Mackenzie (2002). "Hindu and Christian Creationism: "Transposed Passages" in the Geological Book of Life". Zygon?. 37 (1): 95–114. doi:10.1111/1467-9744.00414. ISSN 0591-2385. This makes me question how the lengthy quote from Brown's review just happened to omit the evolution/creation aspect of this book. I would strongly suggest that this cherry-picked quote be removed, pending replacement with a more representative summary.
• A couple of pieces by the execrable David Berlinski.
• A brief description as "One of the most recent additions to the list of scientific pleas for a non-physi­cal, non-mechanistic explanation of the origin of living organisms" in The nature and extent of criticism of evolutionary theory. (I'm not sure how reliable this is as a source.)
  • I would point out that "a non-physi­cal, non-mechanistic explanation" would seem to fall outside most definitions of "science".

(There are other passing mentions, mere citations, etc -- but nothing that appears particularly informative.) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

These recent references where published after Forbidden, and thus back-reference in light of that debate. In contrast, Mechanistic, and its reviews, are around 30 years old.

Bakar's "worldwisdom" piece - it is what it is. Intriguingly, he also cites Huston Smith, Gillespie, Hoyle, Polanya, and numerous other prestigious scholars and scientists. Sdmuni108 (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you claiming that Mechanistic and Nonmechanistic Science makes no mention of evolution? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't bother answering -- I just found a copy online here -- and it has a full chapter devoted to the 'Doctrine of Evolution' -- guess which side of the debate Thompson takes? Also other chapters include sections such as 'Information-theoretic Limitations on the Evolution of Complex Form' which sound remarkably like some better known creationist arguments (e.g. those promoted by William Dembski) and 'Chance and Evolution' (also a well-known creationist argument). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Mechanistic offers its critique just as the title suggests. It is with a quality and tone noted in the reviews at the time it was published. I do have these Noble Prize winning commmentaries, and understand I need to do something more with them to make them Wiki usable. The Zygon review of Mechanistic, written at the time publication, was similar sophisticated. But among other issues, after the publication of Forbidden in the 90s, I would suggest a certain hysteria tended to overshadow later analyses.

Mechanistic was published prior to RLT's professional work at LaJolla and Cavedish Labs, as well as the majority of his peer reviewed scientific research. Apparently, main line scientists did not take offense, as you seem to be doing here. At the time, Mechanistic would have been RLT's one published book - something tough to miss.

Hopefully this is not another example of superficial research quick to judgement. Sdmuni108 (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Those of us working in the area of Creationism have seen an endless stream of such religiously-motivated 'critiques' of science. Not infrequently they win a little superficial praise from a few scientists (even occasionally some prominent ones) and more detailed, but generally more doctrinaire, praise from the woolier regions of science-related academia -- 'Science and Religion', 'Sociology of Science', etc. That does not prevent them from being (almost without exception) WP:FRINGE claims, lacking any genuine scientific merit. And I've seen nothing to date to suggest that Mechanistic and Nonmechanistic Science is any different. And I've certainly seen nothing whatsoever to suggest that it's had any lasting impact on any sphere of academia. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Did you read the full Zygon review of Mechanistic - it is a thorough 3-page detailed review discussing complex philosophical issues, and it is available online. Among other commentary we have posted, it was written by a high end experienced academic. You seem to wish to remain in ignorance and assume everything you dislike is dreck. Anything that can't be googled in less then 30 seconds appears beyond comprehension.

What, pray tell, is your expertise in science, philosophy, and religion? I question that, based on the tone and content of some of these posts.

Thompson did not write academic books - who is claiming he did? He did publish highly competent scientific research that was professionally acknowledged by others - got it? He was a competent scientist. He also explored non traditional topics in natural science. Further, he did extensive work in ancient astronomy and cosmology and worldview, with a specialty in South Asia. He may not be the most fascinating person on the planet - for you that much is clear - but has been extensively published and commented upon.

NOTE: I had problems getting the font correctly formatted in this post. I hope I didn't do anything wrong attempting to repair that situation. Sdmuni108 174.131.46.135 (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

La Jolla Institute

A little searching revealed that the "La Jolla Institute" appears to be the La Jolla Institute for Allergy and Immunology -- making it more than a little doubtful that Thompson "conducted research in quantum physics and mathematical biology" there. I am removing the claim unless/until a WP:RS confirming/clarifying it can be found. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

This is the wrong institute. Apparently, a pattern for finding the wrong book is spilling into other areas.

Please look up: Division for Applied Nonlinear Problems, La Jolla Institute. This is the organization mentioned in the text.

I do not know the institutions history, but I do see it referenced in numerous professional papers.

Please reinsert the text. Sdmuni108 (talk) 19:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I searched for "Division for Applied Nonlinear Problems, La Jolla Institute" -- it returned an address of "3252 Holiday Court, Suite 208, La Jolla, California 92038". Google Maps reveals this address to be a low-rise office black or similar. Other tenants of this building include a plastic surgeon and similar (one wonders whether the other 'divisions' even exist, and if so, where they are housed). I therefore have no reason to believe that this "La Jolla Institute" is a substantive organisation, so I will not be restoring this material -- particularly as it's unsourced. If you want this material restored then you will need to provide WP:RS verification that (i) this is a substantive organisation & (ii) that Thompson worked there. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

And I eventually tracked down this La Jolla Institute -- website & an office in a small complex that includes a car dealership & a rental car operation. From the blurbs, this "Institute" appears to be merely a small economic/public-policy consultancy or think-tank, not a substantive research institute, let alone a scientific one. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

That is once again not the right LaJolla institute. The immediately obvious problem, this website also offers no mention of a Division of Nonlinear Problems, or anything close to it.

Your google map doesn't reveal the history of the address from a quarter of a century ago. Further, the LaJolla Institute I have documentation for is mentioned in numerous professional papers.

The letterhead I am looking at lists Elliot W. Montroll as director from 1979-1983. Montroll has a bio in Wikipedia. As one of a number of examples of third party evidence linking Montroll with a LaJolla Institute, see: http://www.springerlink.com/content/tn557703u0977168/

Bruce West, the director who employed RLT, was an understudy of Montroll's. West also published in connection to the LaJolla Insitute. According to the following paper authored by West, the LaJolla Institute had an affiliation with UC San Diego. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0167278985900041

Michael F. Schlesinger, who similarly benefits from biography in Wikipedia, is also listed online for research in connection to the LaJolla institute. Schlesinger wrote an essay on Montroll that includes additional references to both West and the "real" LaJolla: http://www.ipst.umd.edu/aboutus/files/elliott_waters_montroll.pdf

I can't help indulge in a little snark - please forgive me. But should we also consider Brian Josephson a plastic surgeon, and Cavendish Labs an allergy clinic?

Suffice to essay, please reinsert the text.

I know Wikipedia has a bewildering set of standards that I am unaccustomed too, but sloppy research is never a good thing. Sdmuni108 (talk) 21:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

1. It seems to me highly unlikely that two organisations, using the exact same name could coexist in the same locality, without one or other insisting that the other change its name. So it would appear likely that this is in fact the same organisation.
2. That Montroll & Schlesinger worked for it does not preclude it being "a small economic/public-policy consultancy or think-tank" -- I worked for a similar organisation that had an astrophysics PhD on its staff -- such people are often very useful for heavy-duty economic number-crunching. I would note that neither's article mentions this organisation -- so it would appear not to have been a prominent part of either's careers.
3. No source = no reinsertion -- "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate" -- remember?

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

This line of reasoning sounds odd, to me. The LaJolla Institute Thompson worked for in the 80s involved high end physicists, and they did not work at the same address as mentioned on these current websites you have identified. At an earlier period, there were multiple physicist named on numerous scientific papers, all involving high end scientific topics and published in scientific journals, and all mentioning the LaJolla Institute as their affiliation. Montrell and Schlesinger where two out of a variety of names on these papers associated with the LaJolla institue that did scientific research in the physical sciences - as per numerous published papers. According to Wikipedia, these two were very prominent physicists. Perhaps the rest were considered simply respectable physicists.

DID YOU LOOK AT ANY OF THE CITED EVIDENCE? All the articles I cited mentioned the LaJolla Institute - that is why I cited them. There were others.

The LaJolla Institute Thompson worked for was a respected institution, involving respected scientists, that did respectable science that was published complex scientific papers in respected scientific journals. That is the issue here - that is all.

Thompson was a physicist. He got the position in order to do research in physics. He knew nothing about economics or social policy or immunology - he never published on these topics. He did publish quite a few scientific papers in the 80s, but not one of them had anything to do with those topics.

Your institutions are not the right kind of institution. The fact that you found a similarly named institution doing different things at a different address at a different time - two decades later, it seems - only means that. LaJolla is an attractive name of a prestigious city - if available, perhaps someone took it on at a later date; but that is irrelevant to the institution Thomas worked for in the 1980s.

I am beginning to wonder why you are commenting on these topics. You seem to know only one thing - something apparently found no matter the historical evidence. I am finding I am running into a lot of huff and bluff, consistently.

The text needs to be reinserted. I appreciate your concern, but it is misapplied. (I am again having a posting issue - my name did not show up when did a preview) sdmuni108 174.131.46.135 (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

1. No WP:RS (or any other source for that matter) for the claim that Thompson worked there. So, per WP:Verifiability, it's dead in the water right out of the gate. But further:
2. No evidence that this institute had any substantive existence (it's left little paper trail and I can't find any evidence -- mention in CVs, Wikipedia articles, etc -- that any of the "respected scientists" considered it an important part of their careers).
3. I'm really not interested in "the right kind of institution" -- I'm interested in institutions that can be verified to have had a substantive existence (i.e. have received funding, had laboratories, etc). A P.O. Box or Suite number really doesn't count.

I really don't know why I'm bothering either -- too much of this is WP:DEADHORSE on the basis of clear interpretation of basic policy: particularly WP:V, WP:NOR & WP:WEIGHT. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

It was but a factoid - the guy worked at this particular institute affiliated with well known physicists during the 1980s. Further the institute was affiliated for a time with UC San Diego. A number of papers were published with the institute's name on it along with all this other information, and they are readily available online. I have La Jolla Institute paper work in front of me with a variety of names, some notable, on the letterhead, one of them being Thompson's. That's it. Whether it can be used in Wiki is another thing.

btw, Thompson's paper dealing with information theory was published in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Any idea that Dembski may have engaged information theory arguments 20 years later - that's an interesting thought. But like Mech, Dembski's books were not peer reviewed. Either way, both id & atheism are philosophical constructs that defy confirmation via scientific methodology. Sdmuni108 (talk) 12:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.

— WP:Verifiability

Unpublished=unacceptable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

RfC: What is Thompson notable for, and does the article accurately reflect the level of scientific acceptance of his ideas?

Is Thompson notable other than for WP:FRINGE scientific claims (such that other areas of his career should be given significant WP:WEIGHT in the article)? Does the article accurately reflect the level of scientific acceptance of these ideas, as WP:FRINGE requires? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

He appears to only really be notable only for fringe claims. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

It also appears to be completely unnecessary to have every book/journal he was involved in over his whole life, that can probably be reduced to selected publications like most other articles. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

As far as I am familiar with the topic, Thompson did not make the outrageous claims posted in that article - billions of years. Rather, as in Mechanistic, current theory is not as tight as often advertized. Whatever the case, I agree the biblio is excessive - due to my own inexperience, and I plan to shorten it considerably.

Thompson has published and been commented upon for a number of projects. The FA archeology project is one, and needs to be addressed. A much shorter article is far more appropriate (certainly then the one I naively posted.) But what was there before looked like an out of context stub.

I am not making a claim that Thompson was an influential scientist. Rather, I would like to have a balanced article that notes Thompson hss been acknowledged by notable figures for his competency as a scientist, and that he to varying, and intriguing degrees synthesized that with philosophical commentary influenced by his practice as a Gaudiya Vaisnava - by eastern philosophy. I most definitely am not, and neither do I recall Thompson attempting to claim his science proved anything metaphysical - it is but natural evidence to philosophically consider. It had been noted by Nobel Prize winners, as well as experienced academics, as well as in a broader public commentary.

I agree, he was not a celebrity figure. Sdmuni108 (talk) 17:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Let me make this point as concise as I can (at present) - Thompson is notable for his competency discussing science (based on his science background) and religion from a Gaudiya Vaisnava perspective (based on his background a practitioner Gaudiya Vaisnavism.) He has been noted as a more then competent scientist, and noted as a prominent member of Iskcon with a science background. Everything else is of interest, though with in that context. The controversies surrounding the FA project, a study in anomalous historical "archeological" and paleontological evidence are also of interest to creationist debates, not doubt, but Thompson was personally not an active creationist as per his personal writings, especially in his later works. His work on ancient South Asian cosmology and astronomy are fairly unique, some of it highly mathematical, and widely distributed in India, more references forthcoming. He also did noted work comparing parallels between modern so-called UFO incidents and ancient cultural paranormal accounts, with specific interest in the Puranic and Vedic traditions of ancient India. In other words, it is an intellectual study of contemporary paranormal accounts, with that ancient worldview. Again, some references already cited, more references to come.

Thompson had a unique skill set and intellectual background that offer unique commentary on these issues of topical interest. His work had been commented upon by third party authorities - I unfortunately did not have my duckpins lined up before realizing the standards that are norm on Wikipedia. Sdmuni108 (talk) 18:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• A bunch of vague claims, with no basis in reliable sources, from an editor with a blatant conflict of interest on this topic, who has already argued their POV at great length, but very little effect, on this page. Why should we care? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

It may only be of nominal interest to someone with an ax to grind in a highly charged debate, and who feels Thompson does not support their agenda. All the same, Thompson's work had been notably involved in that debate too, however misrepresented Thompson'a personal views may have been. Sdmuni108 (talk) 21:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:Verifiability and specificity are of interest to all editors. Long-winded commentary lacking either has a very small audience. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor thoughts

I dont see much of an issue here. The RfC asks two questions (1) does this article have too much emphasis on his scientific endeavors, to the exclusion of other topics, thus violating the UNDUE policy? and (2) does the article adequately mention that his scientific views are fringe? The article seems okay at first glance. It is clear that his writings come from mostly a religious viewpoint. There is no need to, when religion is obviously involved, make a huge point of "this is not hard science.. this is fringe!". Otherwise every preacher that preaches Genesis would need such a disclaimer. The key question is this: Was he expressly claiming that mainstream scientific views were wrong, and using his scientific background to do so? If so, then yes, the article should expressly mention that his views are fringe. But if he was primarily elaborating on his religion's creation mythology, and the religious aspect is clearly stated in the article, then there is no reason to emphasize the fringe-ness. --Noleander (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)