Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph McMoneagle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 14:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph McMoneagle

Joseph McMoneagle is another person involved in the supposed psychic ability known as remote viewing. He has written a book on it, and a couple of volumes of autobiography, all published by a small new-age publishing house. This article makes no discernible case for his being a notable figure, unless you soncider that merely being involved in remote viewing is inherently notable - which I don't, but others might I guess. Just zis Guy you know? 11:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, not sure if the "small new-age publishing house" is with merit, I don't know of many large new-age publishing houses. Regardless, his book the Stargate Chronicles was reviewed by Publisher's Weekly, and his bio indicates he was featured in multiple media outlets, as well as recieving a medal from the military. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 11:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per bdj. Vizjim 12:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep – again, per badlydrawnjeff
  • Keep – again, per badlydrawnjeff – Gurch 13:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Regardless of whether you agree with him or not, he seems to have enough published to render him notable. Paddles 13:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree he is notable, but the POV (supporting remote viewing) seriously undermines the credibility of the article. Arbusto 10:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per badlydrawnjeff. -- Kjkolb 13:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete THis is marginal, and the story of the CIA project sounds fishy. Can't be verified by anyone at all, or can it? (Da da DUM!) Dominick (TALK) 15:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • That article is fishy. There is a claim by proponents of remote viewing that it was developed by the CIA, a claim which appears calculated to lend it a credibility which scientists reject. As far as I can tell the only cited source for the existence of the contracxt which underpins that claim is a (falsifiable) copy on a scientology website which does not actually imply anything much other than funding to investigate and certainly does not imply that the CIA originated the idea; CIA sources indicate that they gave some support to several programmes investigating psychic phenomena but that all such support is long-since terminated. Much use is made of the fact that it's all so secret that of course the Government won't talk about it, but I have never bought the idea of leak-free conspiracies (it didn't work for Richard Nixon and I don't see it working here either). So all articles which make these claims need ot be viewed with a sceptical eye. I think their comment on the remote viewers is along the lines of "the guy died, we haven't heard from him since". As far as I can tell it's a minor if interesting sidenote to the lunacy of the cold war, made out to be a massive endorsement of psychic phenomena by a bunch of scientologists pushing a barrow. I'd say that everythign that can encyclopaedically be said about these characters is already at Stargate Project anyway. Just zis Guy you know? 17:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • So it's verifabile, but fishy. The problem...? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Verifiable from a fishy source :-) Just zis Guy you know? 15:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep on condition of a rewrite. I agree with Dominick, but think the article has notability. SRI is a very shady connection, anyone who knows their past, and is more or less a joke (partially financed by tax dollars better spent on scientific projects or housing the poor). The article reeks of POV to support remote viewing as an actuality and needs to be fixed. Thus, some explanations that the CIA project NEVER revealed anything of value in remote viewing and SRI never proved anything other than parapsy. can be fooled by sleight of hand should counter balance the claims. Arbusto 10:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.