Talk:Courtney Brown

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 23 May 06. The result of the discussion was keep.

Um, I think that this page should present a more biographical account of Dr. Brown and save the various theories for another page, with heavy warning that this is considered, by many, as pseudoscience. Maybe a link to some skeptics resources, as well.

Contents

[edit] Dr. Brown Hates You All

from http://www.courtneybrown.com/classes/WikipediaWarning.html

While there are indeed some very good articles in Wikipedia, it is nonetheless NOT an appropriate source for students to cite in college papers. The articles in Wikipedia are written by anonymous contributors with no verifiable backgrounds as authorities in the subjects of the articles. Very often, contributors insert their own strongly held views into these articles, and many of these contributors would never be taken seriously if they simply published their information on their own web sites. Wikipedia offers these contributors a sense of Internet "presence" and prestige which the contributors both enjoy and exploit. Wikipedia shields the identities of its contributors, and this has sometimes contributed to its being a significant source of Internet abuse. It has often become a venue for flame and revert wars exploited by all sorts of people trying to manipulate public opinion, including congressional staffers, campaign consultants, and just about anyone wanting to push a particular viewpoint on the public. Public people and controversial issues are the most common victims of this abuse. It is exceptionally difficult for credible people to constantly monitor and correct these abuses because of Wikipedia's on-going revert and revision capabilities. The "point of view pushers" tend win such battles due to their persistence.
No student should cite any Wikipedia article in any written work submitted to me as a class assignment. You might as well cite a conversation you overheard in a grocery store. Don't do it.


[edit] Claims of Extraterrestrial Life

Unfortunately, I disagreed with most of these last changes. Here's why...
I don't think it's appropriate to debate the merits of remote viewing in any detail; remote viewing has its own page, which by the way is mired in all sorts of difficulties that don't even look fixable to me -- if you want to get a detailed defense of remote viewing out there, your attentions are better directed (and more needed) on that page.
As for your other change, I found that it added little -- only a reminder that Brown had received the photo from an outside source and that it was publicized against his will, both of which are already mentioned -- and it subtracted a lot by making the language seem really clunky. So I removed that too. Sorry.
However, I did keep the link in there, because I think it's a good idea to show where we got the info from that last paragraph.
As to your other question: I actually don't think we need to add anything more to this entry. Brown's academic background, and the award he received, are not really important facets of his public persona, nor are they reasons why I suspect people would visit a page like this. (Those details are better suited for Mr. Brown's own webpage or resume.) Actually I think the page looks fantastic as is. It goes into detail about the three things that make Brown most interesting: remote viewing, extraterrestrial life, and Hale-Bopp. Bogging the article down with more detail would just make it dull. Can we keep it like this?--Malvolio80 18:38, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi Malvolio, I did the last edit, I just forgot to sign in. I made some minor changes. 1) it is not accurate to state in this section that there is 'lack of experiential evidence' in regards to remote viewing, because there is, but it seems like you haven't gone to research some of the links, including the one I posted but you took down. So I simply added the simple truth: "According to proponents, RV can be used to access information from any geographic or temporal location; however, it is generally considered a pseudoscience by skeptics." Since you will not allow any references to be posted that provide support for what I am writing.

Also, I made a small change in Brown's last section because Brown did not say anywhere that he thought the photos were a forgery, since he had the negatives, he simply states that he doesn't know for sure. I know I am being meticulous, like you are. Because I find this type of information interesting, if I find additional info, I will post it. It is an open ended process and this article or any other on wikipedia should not be limited based on what one or two people decide. Have you seen Clinton's? Will you go take down data from Clinton's page since it has even more details that Brown's page had before you started editing it? This page should have as much notable data as any other page. Why not? Why would you or someone else choose to be self-elected sensor of what someone's page looks like? It should be open to anyone, as long as the data is notable and is profesionally laid out, shouldn't it? And this is an evolving process that people like you and I can cooperate on and add to each other's entries, keeping each other accountable for accuracy. This is the essence of what makes wikipedia an amazingly powerful 'potentially' accurate database platform. P.S. I also added Brown's two book as external links so people can decide for themselves. --Pierre2012 01:28, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm fine with those changes. I did subtly change that last sentence -- didn't like the structure before, changed it to "Brown suggested that the comet photos were..." which says the same thing really.
As to the rest of your concerns, well...you seem to bring up Clinton's page a lot, but don't you see that Courtney Brown isn't even remotely as significant a figure as Bill Clinton? Someone researching Clinton could be doing so for any number of reasons -- as a prominent politician and world leader, he's made a big impact in a wide variety of areas. Courtney Brown is a relatively obscure college professor who moonlights as a psychic. He doesn't merit a huge, sprawling page, and up to a point if this page keeps increasing in size it'll become completely useless.
As I see it, nobody will come to this page looking for info about Brown's academic career. He's not known for that, and nobody is really interested in that facet. Put a section about it on here, and someone will just have to wade through it to get to the good stuff.
For an example of what I'm talking about, look back to an earlier edit of this page (from before its current incarnation). It's completely bogged down with information about Brown's philosophy. What could be summarized in a few cogent sentences is spread out among multiple sections. When I came here to find research on Dr. Brown, what I found was entirely unusable -- many of the sentences or even whole paragraphs made no sense at all, and certainly didn't pertain to Dr. Brown. And, including his awards and stuff just made this site look like a resume. I really, really think that it would be a detriment to this page to add much more to it.
Also, I don't particularly want to add anything more to this page -- and no offense, but I don't particularly trust you to do it on your own. Can't we just move on to bigger and better things?--Malvolio80 02:39, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Remove NPOV soon

OK, are we ready to remove the NPOV tag? We seem very close. --NightMonkey 20:08, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

I'm definitely ready to stop editing this thing. I think it's finished.--Malvolio80 20:12, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
P.S. -- is it normal to have offsite links on book titles, like how we do in the first section? or is that kind of thing frowned upon? I haven't really seen that anywhere else. --Malvolio80 02:39, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Sigh. No, it is not acceptable, and I'll move the links to the links section. I wish these poeple (or person) would _please_ read the guides on article writing at Wikipedia. And perhaps find some of the better articles to use as examples, other than the hastily cobbled-together New Age/Psuedoscience articles, which are rather poor, not just for their slants, but for their organization and prose. No, I don't claim to have read every guide myself, but I do refer to them when I need to know how Wikipedia is different than other media.
Well, I see the little (but substantive) changes are happening again, so I'm going to wait a bit more before removing the NPOV tag. I don't want to remove it only to put it right back. --NightMonkey 04:02, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)


It's been a few days now, and no edits from the NPOV-brigade. Think we're ready to take this article out of dispute? --Malvolio80 17:04, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, let's go for it. However, if anything resembling the vanity/verbal flood/claims-as-science comes into the article again, I'll slap it right back. --NightMonkey 23:54, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] and I quote...

"A large collection of free remote-viewing training materials are offered from the Institute's web site." Wha..? Pierre, I'm assuming this last edit wasn't your doing -- you seem to have gotten over the phase of putting in revisions nobody in their right mind would allow. This person turned the "Hale-Bopp" section into an absolute quagmire of conflicting POV statements clearly intended to defend Brown and the Farsight Institute. Ridiculous. Allow me to reiterate: this will not be allowed. Any edit made to this page for the clear purpose of falaciously furthering its subject's career and/or reputation will be immediately reverted. Thank you. --Malvolio80 17:13, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Malvolio, the anonymous entry was not mine but after reading it, I realize that linking Brown to the suicide is misleading since the only scandal with Brown was the issue of the photograph, not the suicide. Stating otherwise is defamation of character and is an illegal act. It is true that the photograph's scandal discredited Brown and the Faresight's intitute in the public eye. Brown was never linked to the suicide and the article should not lead one to believe that he was, unless one wants to be guilty of defamation of character, an illegal act. --Pierre2012 20:47, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Brown attempted to provide forged evidence that there was a UFO behind Comet Hale-Bopp; the Heaven's Gate cultists killed themselves because they believed there was a UFO behind Comet Hale-Bopp. When the Heaven's Gate cultists killed themselves, Brown and his story was brought back into media attention. There is a connection, even if it's an indirect one.
As it stands, the article does not blame Brown. It simply states fact: a seemingly minor occurance became a scandal. --Malvolio80 22:57, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you read the Art Bell radio show transcripts, available online or by contacting Coast to Coast, you will see that Brown did not attempt to provide forged evidence, he was asked by Art Bell if he could help provide evidence of Chuck Shamek's photo. It so happened that Brown's websmaster had received a photo from an astronomer. Brown shared this photo in confidence with Art Bell and Whitley Strieber (co-host) but asked them to not make it public. Bell asked Brown to do a show where he asked him about the photos. Brown accepted, as long as the photos would not be made public. Bell and Strieber decided to post a photo, despite their agreement not to do so. Contact Strieber, he admits doing this. An astronomer from Hawaii then contacted Bell saying that it was a hoaxed photo. This created a scandal and discredited Brown and his institute, and Brown never returned on Art Bell. This is where Ed Dames, an independant remote viewer, went on ARt Bell and made claims that Hale Bopp comet's companion was going to create doom on earth. He did several shows on ARt Bell until March 1997, selling a kit to 'save' those who purchased it. Then in March 1997, after Brown had been discredited because of the photo issue, Heaven's Gate members committed suicide.

All this can be verified through direct sources.

By representing the situation while omiting facts, it important to note that one is potentially guilty of committing defamation of character since one is now aware of the verifiable truth. Such defamation is illegal. This is important to understand, as this has been mentioned earlier. I hope we can agree to state factual data that does not damage the reputation of individuals, otherwise, one is committing an illegal act, not just wikipedia slander. --Pierre2012 20:02, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Stop the Madness

OK, Pierre, so I once again had to revert almost all of your edits. Here's the blow-by-blow...

  • String theory is generally considered a protoscience. Remote viewing is generally considered a pseudoscience. There is a difference. And, regardless of what you believe, that particular sentence refers to the believes of mainstream scientists.
  • With minimal online research, you'll find that Brown claimed the object following the comet was "a metallic sphere inhabited by aliens." This certainly qualifies it as a UFO the way the word is used here. (Technically speaking, it's a UFO simply because it's an object, it's unidentified, and it's flying.)
  • The following sentence is factually correct: "This event discredited Brown and his Institute's claim about Hale-Bopp's companion and Brown never returned on Art Bell's show." However, it's also kinda boring and a bit of a run-on. The first half -- that Brown and the Institute lost face -- goes without saying. The second half might be worth inclusion in this article, but not without a little backstory, and I wouldn't know where to put it. (An acceptable revision would be: "Brown, formerly a frequent guest on Art Bell's show, has never been asked to return as a guest since the incident." Or some such. But like I said, it doesn't really fit anywhere, and it's relatively minor.
  • Ed Dames clearly has everything to do with Hale-Bopp and nothing to do with Courtney Brown. Make an Ed Dames page if you want to write about him.

So there you are. And no, I'm not worried about a defamation of character suit. Everything I put forth in this article is true; Brown's reputation is linked to Heaven's Gate. No getting around it. When those wackos offed themselves, it brought Brown back into the limelight in a bad way. He's famous for it. So it's on his page. I don't see what the problem is here.--Malvolio80 20:19, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Malvolio, feel free to make small edits online, but please keep in mind that by omiting to put the more complete data about Hale Bopp, and the events that took place after Brown was on Art Bell and the cult suicide, you have been warned that you are misleading readers, and are creating a potential situation of willingly defaming Brown's character by consciously omiting important data that proves he was not linked to the cult. This will be brought to the attention of wikipedia management and others if you willfully create a false picture of reality and change it once again. Defamation through omission will not be tolerated on wikipedia, not after I have independantly confirmed these events. Why not report reality instead of trying to create 'your' reality of how you saw the events. Reading your earlier comments, I sense that you are trying to prove that 'your' version of reality is correct, instead of giving enough data to readers so they can see the larger perspective of this event. Omiting data and willingly creating a false picture of reality cannot be tolerated. The more I research and learn about this case, the more I realize that it requires additional data to explain it to readers, in order to not mislead and to not indirectly defame. Why are you trying so hard to create this link with Brown when data suggests that many events later unfolded months before the cult suicide took place? What is your agenda? If it is to provide non-biased information to wikipedia readers, research the issue directly and do not post rumours that can be seen by some as defamation of character. --Pierre2012 23:16, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Listen, the only "link" I'm suggesting exists between Brown and Heaven's Gate is that Brown provided false evidence for the excuse that Heaven's Gate cultists used to kill themselves. That happens to be absolutely true. Whether the cultists ever even heard of Brown is beyond the point; when they killed themselves, it brought Brown back into the limelight in a negative way. In other words, Brown's seemingly minor events became scandal.
I stand by everything I've written. By all means, bring this to the attention of whomever you please. I'm quite confident they'd side with me. Thus, I'm re-instating the last acceptable version of the page, yet again. I feel like we had almost reached a compromise before you got on this latest kick.
Honestly -- what rumors have I posted? That Brown publicly claimed to have evidence of a UFO behind Hale-Bopp? No, that's fact. That his proof was forged? Nope, that's well-known. That Heaven's Gate killed themselves because they believed there was a UFO behind Hale-Bopp? We have video taped evidence to prove that one. So let me ask you -- by pretending there's no connection between these events, what's your agenda? Not that I don't already know...you're a UFO nut and a remote viewing believer, and you think that if anyone reads anything bad about Courtney Brown, they'll be that much less likely to believe that some people can see Jesus hanging out with spacemen in a UFO in the sky. Well, I don't know what to tell you. It is what it is. I've compromised with you this whole time, probably more than you deserved. If you won't extend the same courtesy, then forget it. I can revert ALL DAY. --Malvolio80 06:58, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

By constantly removing information in regards to the complex story of the unfolding of the Hale Bopp comet event, you are creating a misrepresentation, exposing readers to a very narrow perspective of what took place, in a way that is out of context. Would you be willing to expose readers to this information within a larger context that represents the whole event in order to avoid any misrepresentation?

It simply isn't objective to evoke the Hale Bopp tragedy by only stating limited data that frames it in a way that represent your personal subjective view, even if you read this view on someone's personal webpage. Making this public on the wikipedia media could be seen as defamation of character, just like if any mainstream media tried to misrepresent this event. I want to make sure you understand what you are getting involved with here. You cannot elect yourself as the censor of an entire article based on your internal representation of the events that took place. More verified details of this event must be posted and you cannot prevent information from reaching the reader, such as you have attempted to do. See wikipedia rules: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#Neutral_point_of_view --Pierre2012 17:30, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

By constantly removing information in regards to the complex story of the unfolding of the Hale Bopp comet tragic event, you are creating a misrepresentation, exposing readers to a very narrow perspective of what took place; your personal perspective. It is out of context. Would you be willing to expose readers to this information within a larger context that represents the whole event in order to avoid any misrepresentations?

One cannot elect themselves as the censor of information of an entire article based on one's internal representation of reality and the events that took place. More details of this event must be posted and you cannot prevent information from reaching the reader, such as you have attempted to do. This is not the 1960's and we are not in the Soviet Union. See wikipedia rules: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#Neutral_point_of_view --Pierre2012 18:32, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

One can also not add any old specious information that helps their cause. The Hale-Bopp incident isn't so complex at all. (We give it more detail on this page than they give it on the Hale-Bopp page!) The things you wish to add lack substance, relevance, and sometimes accuracy. As a Wikipedia denizen, I won't allow that. --Malvolio80 18:43, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Seeking external help to resolve this issue with the intent to represent issue in its proper context and avoid misrepresentation from apparent campaign of disinformation through omission of data. --Pierre2012 20:28, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Good. External help is exactly what we need right now. (Campaign of disinformation? Sheesh, if only I was getting paid enough to be part of a conspiracy...) --Malvolio80 20:59, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Not allowing data to be published is disinformation and creates a distorted picture of events that have taken place. My intentions are to bring forth accurate concise data that creates a clear and non-distorted picture of what took place. Why disagree with that intent, with that agenda? --Pierre2012 01:41, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As I'm sure you're aware, I just don't believe that's your agenda. --Malvolio80 03:06, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Take a minute and look at my edits; they speak for themselves, they offer the readers a larger perspective of what took place by providing accurate data that is fully relevant to the Hale Bopp section and Brown that you created. I am working on a solution that I hope will create a win-win scenario, if, of course, you support accuracy and verifiable information. All of this is being recorded for later use for outside observers who can help to resolve this issue. I'm sure we are both learning a lot about the Art Bell show and its connection to the Hale Bopp comet which extands beyond Brown, as we both agree. There sure are many nuances to it. My goal here is to avoid disinformation by omission of relevant information. Your goal might not be to misrepresent but would you like to share your goal, to see if our goals are compatible? --216.86.124.105 18:28, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If your previous edits are, indeed, any indication, then I highly doubt that our goals are compatible.
If you want to write about Art Bell, do it on Art Bell's page. This one is fine as is. --Malvolio80 21:03, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Pierre2012

OK, I leave for a few days, and look what happens ;). Pierre2012, what is your agenda? Are you actually Courtney Brown? These edits you are making are not helpful to creating a good Wikipedia article, and your legal threats are hollow. It is a common, but immature, tactic, when faced with the truth, to start shouting something like "I'll sue you for saying that". Please, play nice, and try to pay attention to the guidelines for writing good Wikipedia articles. It's obvious that you haven't read even the basics of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines - please, take some time and do so. You'll have less WikiStress and stop stepping on other people's toes, like you are doing now. --NightMonkey 21:55, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Added link to article (Hale Bopp comet controversy caused from the Art Bell show) that offers wikipedia reader a more accurate perspective of the complex events that unfolded and involved Dr. Brown. New article is well referenced and corroborated with details. --Pierre2012 22:27, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] It Begins Anew: Aug-Sep 2005

Once again, this article has lapsed into POV territory. Really I'm surprised the article was intact for so long.

Here are the problems as I see them: 1.) "including the former commanding officer of the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM), Major General Albert Stubblebine" -- this is not an article about Remote Viewing and as such we don't need to go into who believes in it and who doesn't. A short description will do fine.

2.) "the source never gave The Farsight Institute permission to disclose his identity." -- This statement makes a lot of assumptions and implications. We don't know who the "source" was, nor if there in fact was a source; we don't know if it was someone totally unreliable and that's why Brown didn't release the identity, or if Brown had just stolen an image and used Photoshop himself. Note that in my version of the article, no claim is made either way. The reader is allowed to make his or her own assumptions.

3.) "They claimed they were leaving their earthly bodies to travel to the space ship following the comet, though on their website, they wrote that whether Hale-Bopp had a companion or not was not relevant to them." -- what? Is it just me, or is the first half of this sentence totally out of step with the second? I've never seen any evidence to support the second half of this sentence, and I think it's just there to further exhonerate Mr. Brown.

4.) The Scientific Research part. So many problems. First of all, it dwells on this Michael Raoul Duval guy for an entire paragraph. Secondly, it has an external link disguised as a Wiki link. Thirdly, and most hilariously, this section tries so, so hard to legitimize remote viewing and Brown's tactics. Examples...

A.) "After a decade of research and scientific experiments, including a four year peer review process of his manuscript,"
B.) "ocused on his 10 years of ground breaking scientific research as per why remote viewing works." (my favorite)
C.) "It is written for the scientific and academic community and endorsed by various scientists." (ooh, various scientists! How interesting)
D.) "In the preface of his book that can be read for free on his website" (free you say? Why I can't afford NOT to visit his website!)

So there you have it. This page has once again totally lapsed into the land of the POV, apparently because of a series of edits made in August. Rather than pick through the pieces and find the parts that aren't POV, I'm just going to go ahead and revert it back to the last January edit. May this revert last as long as that one did. --Malvolio80 20:23, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


Pierre2012, I do not appreciate you harrassing me with personal messages about the Courtney Brown page. If you want to revert to the previous edits, you'll have to make an argument for them here on the talk page, where everyone can see.

In your message to me you describe yourself as a skeptic -- as more skeptical than most, you say, and that this skepticism drives you to dig further than other people, which is why you know that remote viewing has merit. Does it concern you that the nation's leading skeptics -- the Randis of the world -- think RV is bunk?

You also say that "Remote viewing and the issue of life in the Universe can help to change the world for the better." Well, that's not the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is here to spread knowledge without bias. You are trying to inject bias into a page, and I think that's reprehensible.

And I perceived some veiled threats about how Wikipedia's admins will view my actions. Well, I'm doing this because it's what I think they'd want. By all means, draw more attention to this page -- if it turns out what I'm doing is wrong according to the powers that be, I'll stop. The only reason I've been fixating on this page, really, is that all the other pages about things I know a lot about are perfectly well-written and informative, and none of those pages are under attack. If some more attention was drawn to the Courtney Brown page, I wouldn't have to check it all the time to revert your POV edits.--Malvolio80 18:06, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Reverted

To answer what you wrote above:

1) Major General Albert Stubblebine: If you are going to put who is skeptical of remote viewing, such as mainstream scientists, you need to also post who is not skeptical, to balance the article.

2) See the free preface of Courtney Brown's new book, detailing what happened with Hale Bopp: http://www.courtneybrown.com/publications/RemoteViewingTOC_Preface_Chapter1_CourtneyBrown.pdf Dr. Brown is a distinguished professor of political science at Emory University and a very talented remote viewing trainer.

3) Above, you wrote: "They claimed they were leaving their earthly bodies to travel to the space ship following the comet, though on their website, they wrote that whether Hale-Bopp had a companion or not was not relevant to them." -- what? Is it just me, or is the first half of this sentence totally out of step with the second? I've never seen any evidence to support the second half of this sentence, and I think it's just there to further exhonerate Mr. Brown."

Indeed, this proves to wikipedia readers that you have not done your research properly, here is the original website from Heaven's Gate cult saying exactly that: http://www.wave.net/upg/gate/


4) See below:

Malvolio, wikipedia readers should know that your name means: "Malvolio: The name means "evil-wishing in Latin." http://ise.uvic.ca/Library/SLT/plays/tnmelancholy.html

I have nothing against you, I don't wish you any evil. I hope you can realize that you are not being fair right now. Any wikipedia reader can see that you removed the information about the scientific research that was done by Courtney Brown, even if you don't agree with it. If you don't like how the article is written, and believe you can write it better, please do, but don't remove information that is notable, and factual, for the sake of limiting freedom of expression and not fully representing the work of Courtney Brown.

If I was you, I would dig a little deeper to understand who in the intelligence community has endorsed remote viewing. If you do, you will find Major General Stubblebine, a former commanding officer of the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM). If you don't believe me, view: http://www.remoteviewinghistory.com/remote-viewing-research-lecture.html or give him a call.

It is in the best interest of the wikipedia readers to have access to information, and not to have someone delete information about someone's work, for the sake of trying to validate one's belief that remote viewing doesn't work. Courtney Brown's latest book is the result of 10 years of scientific research, and experiments demonstrating why remote viewing works, and wikipedia readers should have access to this information, and it is wrong to delete all references of this, as you have done, and as any wikipedia reader can verify by looking at the history.

For the sake of the readers of wikipedia, do not remove references to the scientific experiments done by Courtney Brown, even if you wish they did not exist. The late Michael Duval, a lawyer and former top advisor to the Nixon and Ford White House, who worked with Dick Cheney before he became Vice-President, was on the board of directors of Courtney Brown's institute, and was talented remote viewer. If it was all bogus, why would he bother? But you can still be skeptical, but have no right to delete notable information as such. Wikipedia readers have a right to know this, and trying to hide it from them paints a partial picture of Courtney Brown's notable work and notable associations.

Also, by removing references to Brown's scientific research, you are removing links to the fact that scientists such as Fred Alan Wolf, Ph.D. physicist, Kyriacos C. Markides, Ph.D., a professor of Sociology, Daryl J. Bem, Ph.D., a Professor of Psychology, William Tiller, Ph.D., a former Professor of Materials Science at Stanford University, and Lyn Buchanan, a unit trainer for the U.S. military's Stargate remote-viewing unit have all endorsed Courtney Brown's new book "Remote Viewing: The Science and Theory of Nonphysical Perception" (Reference: http://www.courtneybrown.com/publications/RemoteViewing.html).

You wrote months ago that it shouldn't be a page about whether or not remote viewing works since there is already such a page, but that it should be about Courtney Brown and his work. This is exactly what this article is right now, as I have reverted. If you don't like the grammar, feel free to improve it. Other than evil wishing, what would be the purpose of deleting notable work done by Courtney Brown? Is it really fair to only have part of his work posted so wikipedia readers can think that there is no science behind it? Or should information about his latest book not also be posted, including accurate representation in regards to Hall-Bopp?

You are dealing with scientists here, as well as former CIA/CIA intelligence community people. The opinion of a magician, Randi, is really irrelevant, he is not a scientist and he is not a former intelligence community member, and is not a remote viewer, he is a magician, he gets paid to entertain people. Remote viewing is not entertainment, it was one of the most classified programs in the DIA (Department of Intelligence Agency), until Clinton's Executive Order 12958 made it possibe in 1995 to declassify it, because of the efforts of the late billionnaire Laurance Rockefeller and the efforts of John Podesta, Clinton's White House Chief of Staff. Are you interested in being fair? If so, is not only fair to have notable accurate and verifiable information about Courtney Brown and his work posted so wikipedia readers can have access to it? --Pierre2012 08:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


In response to your responses... 1.) "If you are going to put who is skeptical of remote viewing, such as mainstream scientists, you need to also post who is not skeptical, to balance the article." So you're saying, if we put the phrase "Mainstream scientists think RV is bunk," we have to balance that out with "This one specific crackpot thinks it's all true." I'm going to have to disagree.

2.) So in order to prove Courtney Brown is not lying, you send me to...Courtney Brown? Not good enough.

3.) You got me on that one. I'm not 100% convinced it's relevant, but I'd let it slide. I do think it's notable, however, that on their website they clearly indicate that they believe a spaceship is in some way involved. (And, of course, that there was something fundamentally messed up about their reasoning processes in the first place.)

4.) Way to use my username against me, guy. Yes, I am aware that US Intelligence has been involved in RV's history (after all, it's on the RV page). I'm also aware that US Intelligence has done all kinds of stupid things that lead nowhere (ie MK ULTRA). If Michael Duval is so important, and Wikipedia readers have a right to know!, put his information on the Michael Duval page. And if you want to talk about Courtney Brown's scientific method, you're going to have to do a lot better than "after exhuastive scientific research, he wrote another book."

I brought up James Randi because he's a real skeptic. You described yourself as a skeptic in the caustic message you sent me. Would a skeptic fall so easily to ad hominem reasoning? You just a.) defended Courtney Brown on the grounds that he's a professor at Emory, and b.) attacked James Randi on the grounds that he was once a magician.

I'll re-revert (of course), but I'll leave in the link to the third book, which is updated information and actually belongs in the piece. Pierre2012, I don't mean you any ill will. If you're a truly open-minded and reasonable person -- and for all I know, you are -- take a step back and really think about your word choices and your motivations. Is it possible that you're trying to legitimize Remote Viewing? Is it at all possible that you're slanting the language in that direction? Read over the edits you made and really think about that. I'm not the enemy, Pierre -- if it wasn't me reverting your edits, it would be someone else. It just happens to be me. --Malvolio80 18:02, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Book Section

I was going to leave the book section alone, and then I noticed the wording. Each link had the word "free" next to it. Very solicitous. Free book! Free download! Free chapter!! Honestly, Pierre. Then I noticed they're also links to Courtney Brown's website, which we already have. So I took the books off entirely.

Let that be a lesson to you, Pierre. If you'd left well enough alone, I never would have noticed the smaller offending materials you slip into this article. But you gotta go overboard every time and bring in the crazy POV crap. --Malvolio80 18:09, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Fairness

This is what's great about wikipedia, we can move towards balance. Perhaps using the word 'free' can be seen as promotional, the intent was to let wikipedia readers know that they can further read without cost. People who come to Courtney Brown's entry are interested in reading about him and his work, and these links allow wikipedia readers to get further information. Please refer to my posting above, as I reverted, while accepting your recommendations by taking out the word 'free'. I agree with you in this case. Perhaps by working together, using the best of both of our ideas, we can create the most professional entry possible without limiting freedom of expression. --Pierre2012 18:36, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I thank you for that consideration. I'm still a tad concerned that we have four separate links to Courtney Brown's website. If anyone besides you or me cares about the content of this page, I'd like to hear their opinions.

Of course, the rest of the page is still right out. --Malvolio80 19:15, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think one link to his page is enough. --NightMonkey 09:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Final step

Dear Malvolio, or let me just call you by what your name means, "evil-wishing" (see above). I've tried to be fair with you, and you keep sabotaging information, this is ABSOLUTELY AND COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE ANYMORE. PERIOD. This page will be reverted every single time you try to change it, I've lost all patience with your ways of controlling information and sabotaging this entry. All steps will be taken to report your past info sensoring activities as they have been recorded in the history section, and the more you do it, the stronger my case will be with wikipedia authorities/management. This is not a threat, this is simply what is happening. No more discussion with you is necessary, as you've discredited yourself above, as any wikipedia readers can read by your lack of research and lack of cooperation. --Pierre2012 05:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Pierre2012, you may think it is not a threat, but to 1) threaten to abuse Wikipedia policies just to prove a point against another user and 2) to participate in Name-calling (whether others "started it" or not), is definitely not acceptable here. If you wish to file grievances, there are established guidelines and policies to assist you, but I must tell you that if you make charges against someone through Arbitration, you are not in control of the consequences of the final decisions, and can sometimes backfire on the filer, especially if it is a weak case. --NightMonkey 06:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


Dear Night Monkey,
You and Malvolio have been working together against my entries on this page from months ago, as you both share a clear bias against Dr. Brown and his work. The information I am posting in this page are verifiable facts, period. Malvolio demonstrated earlier that he does not research properly, as he did not know that the Heaven's gate cult posted on their website that they didn't care whether or not Hale Bopp had a companion. We all made mistakes, but is it right to only post information and frame it in a way that shows a clear bias against Dr. Brown? The page must be non-biased. No one is perfect, and I don't claim to write perfect articles. But to delete information from this page in order to justify Malvolio or Night Monkey's belief against Dr. Brown's work is biased against him.
I am seeking advocacy and dispute mediation and will not be posting further comments since it is a waste of my time to keep repeating myself at this point. Read my previous postings, and remember that even if Malvolio doesn't believe in the work of Dr. Brown, as he probably hasn't read it since he hadn't read about the issue of the Heaven's gate cult, it doesn't give him or anyone else the right to try to impose their beliefs onto others but deleting notable information about Dr. Brown's research. It's a waste of everyone's energy to argue over this, and I hope that we can come to an agreement through dispute mediation. I do appreciate that this is both your intent as well, as we all have more important things to do, I'm sure. Take care guys. --Pierre2012 07:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Your revert was commented "Revert - see discussion, scientific section is notable to Dr. Brown". Now, to answer that edit comment - just because you believe that the additions are noteable to Dr. Brown does not necessarily merit inclusion of information here, since this is a biographical encyclopedia entry, but not a true biography itself. This article must reflect a well-written non-biased account of noteable and verifiable information about the subject and how the subject is generally percieved. While this page should not be a "smear campaign" against Courtney Brown, it also should not be a breathless endorsement of his work, especially in light of strong criticisms of his non-PoliSci hypotheses (PoliSci being the field within which he recieved his Doctorate and is a professor of).
Also, it is important to remember that careful use of descriptive language is important. Writing here is not the same as writing a press release, or a book cover blurb. Language used should be dispassionate, only covering the noteable statements and positions of others, as they represent the broadest views on a subject - including subjects involving individual people. Your edits might contain information that should be included, but you have an uncanny ability to rewrite large swaths of text at once, often with a very biased tone, just to include a few new links or references. This is what presents a problem for other editors, who cannot easily seperate out the individual items from the breathless language you often substitute for other parts of the text. While editors should carefully look over every edit, it is also prudent for editors to be judicious in their changes, and not rewrite the entire article just to add a few changes. You don't work in a vacum when you edit on Wikipedia. --NightMonkey 09:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey guys, Sorry I've been away, had a major computer crash. Anyway, first of all, Pierre, let me say that you're being entirely unreasonable as usual. My username comes from a Shakespeare play -- Romeo & Juliet I think, but I have no idea at this point. I decided on it seven or so years ago and I've just stuck with it because it's easy to remember. If you honestly believe you can make people think I'm "evil-wishing" because of my username's Latin root, well...that's just nutty. I'm not a cartoon, Pierre. I'm a person, and I'm a reasonable one. That being said, I'm not a huge fan of this new edit. I'm not against the idea of bringing the Emory reaction into the article, but the current wording is just too caustic for my tastes. I don't know, maybe it needs more info -- was this, as the section title implies, a report sanctioned by Emory? Who was president of the university at the time? Maybe I'm just nitpicking. Personally, I liked my edit...but I guess that's obvious. --Malvolio80 08:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

After a slightly closer reading, I see that you're quite clear that the article in question came in an issue of the Emory Report, a kind of staff newspaper. Unfortunately I think it's too easy to confuse this with the kind of official report Emory has required in cases like that of Michael Bellesiles. I guess I'm not 100% convinced that Courtney Brown's work at Emory is important to anyone outside of Emory. Also, a Google search informs me that Malvolio was in fact a character in Twelfth Night. --Malvolio80 08:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Emory Report discussion

The Emory Report section was my addition. I felt it was important as it contains quotes form Brown's fellow professors at Emory who object to his science, and it is an official University publication. I do agree, if I get your meaning, that this might be placed in a better context, such as mentioning what the Emory Report is. It basically is the official campus newspaper of Emory, from what I can gather. From the "About the Emory Report": "It is published by the Office of University Marketing Communications, a division of the Office of Public Affairs."[1]. I think if we can say that "various scientists" support his work, we need to cover those who don't. I should think this is noteable, as not often do major universities have public condemnation of a collegue's work in Administration-approved periodicals. Take a look at the article, if you have time. I welcome discussion on this. --NightMonkey 08:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

It might be noteable, but I'm not sure it merits an entire section with quotes. If it was a quote from the president of the university that would be something, but this is just an exerpt from an editorial...maybe not appropriate.

I would also like to take this time to chastise Pierre for marking his edit "minor" even though it adds content. I'd like to do a revert, but to which version?--Malvolio80 23:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The problems I'm seeing and the edits I'm making

Reverting is just so much easier, but here goes.

In the Remote Viewing section: I notice the sentence about RV being considered a pseudoscience by mainstream scientists has mysteriously disappeared. I'm putting that back. Not sure why the sentence about Brown's books is gone, except that it's out of date now that he has a third. I won't add that back because I don't know enough about the third book to verify that the sentence is correct any longer.

Exopolitics section: gone. Obviously. I'm not that interested that Brown wrote a preface for some book on some subject that these other people also believe in. Couldn't be much less relevant.

Hale-Bopp section: I like the original wording better. If you really feel it's necessary to include the line about the companion not being a deal-breaker, we can find a way...but right now it feels like an attempt to defend Brown.

Scientific Research: I believe I've commented on this one before. It tries so, so hard to make Brown credible. It refers to his book as "his science book" -- every attempt is made to make his research seem somehow more "scientific," when in fact this very adjective is in extreme dispute. If we're to have a Scientific Research section, I'd like it to have some actual content -- maybe going in depth into how Brown gathers data. Instead, this section does nothing more than name-drop. It's pathetic and it's gone.

Emory Report: As I said above, the problem I have with this section is that it's just quoting an editorial. I don't mind the idea of mentioning that Brown's extra-curricular activities are frowned upon (but not punished) at Emory, but I think that could be compressed into a sentence or two. Plus there's the obviously-written-by-Pierre paragraph at the end, who reminds us that Brown's work is non-profit...even though that has nothing whatsoever to do with this section. That being the case, I'm going to go ahead and remove this section. If someone can come up with a sentence that sums it up and put it near the top perhaps, I think that'll work.

Speaking of the top, I'd like to know where Dr. Brown was trained, or by whom. We're unclear on that.

And, as per NightMonkey's suggestion, the books section is gone -- it's just 3 more links to courtneybrown.com, which is silly. --Malvolio80 23:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'd just ask that if, in the future, you have an idea for condensing a portion down to a few sentences (not a bad idea for the Emory Report section, I just didn't see how to do it), then, by all means, execute that idea, don't delete it entirely. Thanks. I think you and I (maybe lurkers here, too?) probably share the thought that this article in its entirety is not really noteable, and also might share the idea that the Remote Viewing article is 2-3 pages longer than it should be (and this is an extension of that), but, this article is here, and linked to from a number of places, so we need to cover the subject well. Of course, I may be wrong on both counts about how you feel. ;)
I'll try to whittle it down to brass tacks. I'm thinking I'll just mention that the article is a condemnation of Brown's non-academic work, and that, especially important since it was pubished with the saction of Emory's administration, it discusses how the writer and other professors state that Brown's work has brought discredit to Emory's academic reputation. Sound good? --NightMonkey 00:56, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
As to the article's length -- yes, exactly. This thing just doesn't need to be so long. Less is more, as they say.
Back to the Emory Report. Disclosure: I have had a long relationship with Emory. The Emory Report is a little weekly that who-knows-who puts out, which usually went straight from my box to the recycling bin because I'm like that, but I get the impression it had a certain level of autonomy.
I think it's true that the Powers That Be at Emory were (are?) embarrassed by Courtney Brown, but as that article says, there's just nothing they could do about it -- he's tenured, and the (presumed faulty) research he's famous for has nothing to do with his field of expertise, so he's in the clear. That's why you probably won't be able to find any kind of official condemnation.
So in other words, I think it's a mistake to consider the EP and its editorials as if it was sanctioned by the administration (any more than the editorials in the Emory Wheel, the student-run paper). I think the administration would stop either paper from printing outright lies or objectionable material, but that for the most part it keeps them on a long leash.
The only kind of statement I think is noteworthy is an official one. You could find all kinds of quotes, for example, about Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, a former Business School professor famous for alledgendly vandalizing school property after being passed up for tenure; or Michael Bellesiles, as I mentioned before, whose scholarship was brought into question. But, like I said, I don't think you'll find any official statement on Brown, partly for legal reasons.
So the only kind of sentence I would replace that section with would be something like this: "There has been speculation that Brown's activities are frowned upon by the Emory administration; but, since remote viewing falls outside the subject of his academic career, his tenure has remained intact." But of course the entire sentence is based on speculation, so it's not worth much, and there you go.
But yeah, once again I want to emphasize, let's keep this thing SHORT. Too long and it'll be unreadable, like the RV page... --Malvolio80 08:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Comments on the process of how this article appears to be written

I'm glad to know that Malvolio didnt' choose his name because he saw himself as 'evil', but sees himself hopefully as someone who wants to write professional wikipedia articles. I invite Malvolio to consider understanding my viewpoint for just 30 seconds.

I find it interesting to read both of your comments. They seem to focus almost exclusively on validating your beliefs that Dr. Brown's remote viewing work is not credible, and you seek to try to find all references to prove your point of view, while deleting any references that claims the opposite. Anytime I try to add balance, you call it 'trying hard to defend Brown'.

Ideally, shouldn't wikipedia writers offer wikipedia readers both viewpoints of issues? It seems like I always have to step in to post some data that balances the article. As I look at the history, it seem like I've had to fight to keep a certain balance of accuracy, and a balance to prevent you guys from painting a distorted picture of Dr. Brown and his work.

It would be nice if you both decided to offer a balanced point of view on your own, without trying to validate your beliefs that his remote viewing work of the last decade is not credible by only trying to find references that says so. I know it's difficult to not write through the lenses of your subjective perception of how reality is, but you could make an effort to represent both sides, could you not?

If you post a reference that attacks Dr. Brown, should you not also post a reference that defends Dr. Brown? I've had to work hard in the past to move you guys in that direction, as any wikipedia reader can see in the history. Wikipedia rules are that articles should not be biased, but deal with verifiable facts. One way to be biased is to ignore some facts, while emphasizing on other facts, and I think everyone is guilty of this to some level, we're all human, and aren't perfect. Would it not be fair to ask you guys to look into both sides and try to be a little more objective in the future? Are you willing to represent both sides on this wiki page? --Pierre2012 16:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey I'm with you -- kind of. I don't think we should go to great lengths pointing out who disagress with Brown, OR who agrees with him. Unless it's someone really and truly interesting -- like Brown's employer, or someone with whom he had a public feud of some interest, or the President of the United States -- it just doesn't belong here. (I don't care to read "one of his supporters is Random Guy In the Military Who Never Did Anything Interesting." I also don't want to see "Random Newspaper Editorial thinks he's a crackpot." Neither is particularly useful.)
As for emphasizing some "facts" more than others, that's exactly my problem with a lot of your edits. You tend to overuse the words "science" and "scientific," which suggest that Brown is a valid scientist; I'm not saying he's not, but you have to admit there's a large amount of debate on that subject. So you can't suggest it.
If you want to tell both sides of the story, you have to do exactly that. A perfect example is the first paragraph of this article: "According to proponents, Remote Viewing can be used to access information from any geographic or temporal location; however, it is generally considered a pseudoscience by mainstream scientists." Everything about this sentence is undeniably and verifiably true. Yes, that is what proponents believe; yes, that is what mainstream scientists believe. The sentence doesn't take one side or the other, and the sentence presents both sides. That, my friends, is a perfect sentence. We need more of those.
I don't know if we'll ever be able to come to an agreement about what should and shouldn't go into the article. Pierre, I know you think it needs more information, and you surely know that I think it's good as it is. Part of the problem is that the wording in the sections you add tend to be heavily skewed in Brown's favor, even though the facts aren't necessarily so black and white; and I tend to just revert your edits, since I think the article is complete as is. Obviously we need to work together on this...but honestly I doubt our abilities. --Malvolio80 07:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
From Pierre
I think that by discussing the process and principles of how this article should be written, that we can gradually get to a compromise, where my concerns are addressed, and your concerns are addressed. Instead of me writing the article, which will be most likely reverted, how about we try this approach. I can suggest what I feel should go in the article in this discussion page, we can discuss it together, agree on an objective way to present the info so it doesn't negatively or positively distort Dr. Brown's work / image, but just states balanced facts. Through this process, if others make changes that neither of us agree with in the future, we will have created a precedent of fairness as per the article, though you and I (or the Monkey guy :) can't claim exclusive ownership to what should or should not go on this page, it's public, we can't control it. Perhaps in the process, some good can come out of it.
There are numerous points I would like to bring to your attention, to move towards resolving this, and I think that you appear to have the desire to resolve this.
Let's do it one step at a time.
First, Brown's latest book and the fact that he did 10 years of scientific research and experiements is a major issue and is notable. There should be a section that discuss this because his results and conclusions explain, for the first time, why remote viewing works. By the way, if you have not seen it demonstrated, I can see why you or anyone would be skeptical.
The fact that there are people who are sceptical about remote viewing should not prevent the disclosure of Dr. Brown's research via wikipedia.
I know you'll probably criticize me for using the example below, and you'll say it's not about Dr. Brown, but it is since the entry about Brown is focused mostly on remote viewing. Remote viewing works, and anyone who says it doesn't work hasn't seen it demonstrated before.
It's not unlike trying to explain to a person who has been blind their whole life, the difference between the colour 'red' and the colour 'blue', since such person would have no reference for what colours look like. If there was a society with only blind people, say a society of 1 million blind people, such a society might even be sceptical that colours exist if a new comer came to town and told them about colours. To prove that colours exist, this new comer would have to scientifically provide data that colours exist, since the million or so people in that society would be blind. At first, only a few of the blind scientists would pay attention, while others would dismiss it, and some would even want to censor this information for their own reasons.
In the case of remote viewing, there are two ways to prove it works. One is if a sceptical person takes a course, and has the direct experience, the other, is through scientific experiments that can be duplicated and analized.
Remote viewing is very paradigm shifting. This is not related to the article, but on a personal level, I can provide you with video footage proving that it works, such as an ABC News TV crew (or Fox, I'll have to check) who investigated it and did a TV news segment on this issue. Of course, before the journalists did the show, they were skeptical, but after the demonstration, that they controlled, they were blown away. I have this footage.
Again, the fact that there are people who are sceptical about remote viewing should not prevent the disclosure of Dr. Brown's research via wikipedia. I'm sure you'll agree that it is not right to ignore such important research that Brown did, as revealed in his new book and as the scientists who have read his work agree.
So how do we go about putting a section describing Brown's claims of scientific discoveries that explain why remote viewing works? Dr. Brown claims to scientifically not only prove that it works, but claims to scientifically explain WHY it works for the first time in human history, using scientific and duplicable methods. This is notable, as it is the foundation of his work. We can't choose what goes on a page based on what 'we think' wikipedia readers would be interested in. It must be an objective process based on what the person has done that is meaningful to their field.
Let's discuss this, and work together at making this page representative of Dr. Brown's work, while providing a balanced view. Does this sound fair? --Pierre2012 23:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree that this is a better way to go about adding to the article. So, let's get started.
First of all, I appreciate that you believe in RV. However, as a "science", it has very little credibility in the scientific community. I'm not saying it doesn't exist or that you're mistaken; merely that RV is not accepted by the mainstream scientific community, nor by the community at large in general. It is treated with the same skepticism as any other psychic power.
I'm sure you'll agree with me that Wikipedia, a resource meant to combine the knowledge of all of its users, should not appear to believe in RV, any more than it should appear to believe in the existance of Egyptian gods, for example. And, even if a person fervently believed Egyptian mythology was right all along, they'd get nowhere trying to craft a Wikipedia article that reflected their beliefs.
That being said, I think it's important that we acknowledge something right now. Scientists don't disregard RV because it's a color they can't see yet, to use your metaphor. Scientists disregard RV because they have alternate, and less outlandish, explanations for the phenomena RV enthusiasts attribute to RV. They're scientists, and they use the scientific method to draw their conclusions.
Think about it logically... if even a handful of truly reputable scientists looked into the claims of RV and found there was something to them, while no scientists looked into it and found that it was false, then belief in RV would have to spread throughout the scientific community. And a handful of reputable scientists MUST have looked into it, almost by the law of averages. Therefore, since belief in RV is not widespread, that must mean that scientists have reason to believe RV's claims are false -- even the claims in Brown's new book.
Now, onto Brown's book.
In the section about that book that you originally wrote, you were very vague on the details. You repeated again and again (as you have in the comment above) that Brown spent years doing "scientific" research before publishing it; and that he "scientifically" explains how it works using "scientific methods."
The problem, of course, is that your readers have no idea what "scientific research" means. Nor does your reader have a clue how he "proved" RV worked using undisclosed "scientific methods". And, of course, there's this very thorny issue -- these claims would seem to be the absolute most important thing to ever happen in RV, and yet Courtney Brown is a mere footnote on the RV page. A footnote, I might add, that I added. This does not speak well of Brown's research.
Here's what I propose. We know that reputable scientists can make skeptical claims about Brown's findings (or else Brown's book would be getting more press than it is). I want to once again stress that I am NOT SAYING BROWN IS WRONG. Only that there is some reason, beyond ignorance, that scientists don't believe him.
Therefore, we can add a section detailing -- DETAILING -- Brown's scientific claims. We'll actually go to the trouble of describing his scientific methods and his theory of how RV works. But then -- and I know you hate this -- we have to counterbalance it with the beliefs of mainstream scientists, specific to those scientific claims.
Here's an acceptable example (ignore the content, it's just an example of correct form). "Brown says that after his classes, remote viewers were able to draw a likeness of a photograph they had not seen. Detractors claim that Brown is identifying similarities in some drawings where there is none, and that he is ignoring those viewers whose drawings don't match the photograph at all."
As you can see those sentences don't profess to agree with either side, and they portray both sides truthfully (assuming the content of those sentences is true, of course) and without judgment.
I would also accept separate paragraphs for Brown and his detractors, ie Paragraph 1 talks about Brown's claims, paragraph 2 talks about detroactors' counterclaims. That way, if you have a lot of Brown's claims in there, it won't seem too choppy to keep switching back and forth between Brown and his detractors.
And I also want to emphasize that you must protray Brown's claims as CLAIMS. You can not write "Dr. Brown has proven that RV is real." You'd have to write, "Dr. Brown claims RV is real." or soemthing to that affect.
So, what do you think? --Malvolio80 07:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


Just wanted to add -- I see that the Remote Viewing article now has a subsection, written by you, about Brown. My point remains -- only you and I have seen fit to mention Brown on the RV page. Doesn't speak well of him. --Malvolio80 07:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/o/u/Talk%7ECourtney_Brown_4e38.html"