Talk:Stargate Project
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Sources? Bias?
Yeah, what is this horse manure? There are several assertions of a *scientific* nature, not historic ones, that have no support WHATSOEVER. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.107.69.109 (talk) 06:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Where is all this information coming from, if not the sources listed at the end of the article? Seems like this is primarily non-peer-reviewed information, into which bias has been added to make the technique seem more factual than the lack of quality information suggests. Indeed, the authors of those sources cite... their own work to prove their own points.
Also, I added the npov tag because there are history edits that specifically added bias to the page.
Chieftain 01:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Have you read The Men Who Stare at Goats ? Read any of Joe McMoneagles work? Read Buchanan's book? If not, I don't quite see the point. This may surprise you, but in history, much of the information cited and from which history derives, is in the form of personal eyewitness accounts of events. This is called a primary source. What historians do is sift these, take what is known, and weed out the misinformation, to provide e a balanced narrative. You misunderstand the nature of history, if you think it can be boiled down to a series of repeatable, peer reviewed, statistically significant experiments. If you want to flag any part of the text, I'll set out where the information comes from. But line by line referencing makes for pretty dull reading and is not accepted practice in any history department I ever worked at........... Timharwoodx 10:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
The problem was largely fixed since the time I flagged it by the addition of sources beyond... www.biomindsuperpowers.com. I have no problem with history and historical methods--though patronization is unappreciated. I wasn't looking for experiments, as such, but something better than a purely internet sourcelist on what is otherwise a somewhat esoteric and easily manipulated topic. I definitely think the work you've done, Tim, is well put together. I'm going to remove the tag, since the article seems to be better referenced now. Chieftain 03:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm just used to multiple rounds of arguments about whether RV should be in the WIKI. All these sorts of things have been up for deletion several times over. My point has always been the government admits it spent millions of dollars on it, multiple biographies have emerged, clearly Stargate was a real project, run by real people, and such is covered under 'history.' I tried to focus what I wrote on the persons, background, rather than making claims for the accuracy of what was undertaken. If the article said RV was proved to be 80% accurate under Stargate, I would agree that would be grounds for dispute about the neutrality. Timharwoodx 22:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Chieftain
It behooves anyone writing an earnest attempt to describe a purported paranormal phenomenon to exercise a healthy dose of skepticism. Regrettably, I see little of that here. Contrast the content and writing style of this article with other ones on wikipedia for, say, the Philadelphia Experiment or Mesoamerican crystalline skulls. - MF
I'm marking the "Key project personnel" section as NPOV, because of this passage: "Dean Radin, a well respected PSI researcher who has held positions at top universities (and who also holds a doctoral degree in this field of study) has confirmed both his participation in the project, and the positive results that were uncovered. You can read about this further in his recently released book Entangled Minds: Extrasensory Experiences in a Quantum Reality. The meta-analysis of over 50 years of psi research have proved well beyond chance (and the best efforts by some to desperately seek out excuses to refute the results) that psi is a measured, studied, scientific phenomenon." It pitches Radin's book, and states -- without any justification -- that psi is "measured" and "scientific". 67.101.2.18 21:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Removed stupid heinous comment above. Sangwyn (talk) 03:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)Sangwyn
[edit] Category change
Categories were changed in accordance with the recent Arbitration decision on the paranormal, specifically Adequate framing and Cultural artifacts, though other sections may apply. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] External Links
Are they all kosher under Wikipedia guidelines? We allow Youtube as a reliable source? And at least one of the references (22) is a dead link.Doug Weller (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Stargate Project and Paul H. Smith's personal correspondence with Kazuba
Why do you believe a book or a recorded interview tells you the truth? Just because it is in black and white? It is a question of probabilities, research and motive. The study of history is not a study of what really happened. It just doesn't work that way. It is the question of objectivity. Did Paul H. Smith have something to gain by giving me his side of the story? Should the outside testimony of one who has written an autobiographial account, Reading the Enemy's Mind : America's Psychic Espionage Program by Paul H. Smith, Tom Doherty Associates, LLC, 2005 and been interviewed many times about the the Star Gate Project have value? All the material is on my user discussion page for any one to see. And of course, you can check with Paul H. Smith yourself if you so desire. You see I really have a passionate curiosity. Sometimes getting a fuller picture requires getting answers to the questions maybe no one else has asked. (I seem to have a knack for that.) Is the desire to want to learn more wrong? Is this information give to me personally from Paul H. Smith invalid? It means nothing? What pleases you? Is there a right way and a wrong of collecting data? What are your boundaries? What are my boundaries? What are the boundaries for the Wikipedia and perhaps truth? The ancient "story" goes every document that passed through the gates of Alexandria was copied and preserved in its great library. Should Wikipedia do less? Kazuba (talk) 03:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- My opinion doesn't matter. See WP:Source The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiability" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source.Doug Weller (talk) 17:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
