Talk:Gary Schwartz

message: Scientist with very controversial views.  This article needs better development of the ideas and experiments that he's done, but I admit I am not as good at explaining out these kind of scientific works.  I also think an entry should be made on The VERITAS Research Program. Bobak 01:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But the controversy is notable.  We aren't saying the skeptical viewpoint is valid or not, but only that there has been a notable controversy involving said skeptics. I'll change the heading. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversial views

message: I added in information on the Geraldo at Large segment as well as that he asked the parents of a dead child for $3.3 million. C56C (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no reason left for removing that important issue. Contrary to the person to removed its claims, Gary did respond and it's included in the article. Having a national TV segment on asking for $3.3 million is not trival. BBiiis08 (talk) 05:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Geraldo is not a reliable source. It is simply a he said-she said accusation by a person known for hyperbole and misdirection. If you can find a reliable source to support Geraldo's claims, the entry should be in a "criticism" section. Tom Butler (talk) 01:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

text: There is more to this mystery if one is curious enough to look for it. Tom Butler, you tickle me to death. Kazuba (talk) 01:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. So the bulk of the article cites Schwartz, but when a news report interviews parents and discusses an investigation it's not reliable. Watch it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drrciHKm7TU The article had Schwartz's response, which seems not to be as nearly negative as your statement above. The article right now is very poorly done. It needs balance. BBiiis08 (talk) 04:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Geraldo at Large and asking for $3.3 million

message: i heard he voiced the demoman and the heavy classes? Yes?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.8.90 (talk) 19:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In case anyone is still confused on this point, it's a different Gary Schwartz... FiggyBee (talk) 09:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: team fortress 2?

message: I was doing a general search looking for more information on Gary Schwartz after seeing him referenced elsewhere. I was glad to see that Wikipedia had an article (flagged with problems tho it is). Me looking for reference material on him is just one bit of evidence for you editors that yes, he is perhaps notable enough. I appreciated getting some basic info about him, anyway. Aaron.michels (talk) 01:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What?  Huh? --Bobak (talk) 17:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

text: What does CSICOP have to do with the notability of this guy?Simonm223 (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability

message: Ok, did this treatment for a different person and accidentally posted under Schwartz.  This time treatment is for Schwartz.
*1 The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. 
No.
*2 The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. 
No AFAIK.
*3 The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE) 
No; unless being the director of the VERITAS project at University of Arizona counts.  I would say no.
*4 The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. 
No.
*5 The person holds or has held a named/personal chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research. 
No;  he served as a professor of psychology and psychiatry at Yale University, director of the Yale Psychophysiology Center, and co-director of the Yale Behavioral Medicine Clinic. None of these are a named/personal chair appointment.  No indication of "Distinguished Professor" appointment.
*6 The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society. 
Depends, if his position as director of VERITAS counts for this category than yes, if not than no.
*7 The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. 
No.
*8 The person is or has been an editor-in-chief of a major well-established journal in their subject area. 
No.
*9 The person is in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g. musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC. 
No.
So basically Schwartz's notability hinges on the importance of his directorship of VERITAS at U of Arizona.  I am not informed enough on that program to comment.  Discuss.Simonm223 (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: After consulting the University of Arizona website:
*3: No.
*6: No.
VERITAS directorship is not a highest level position as it is a project within Psychology department.  Based on this Schwartz is not notable according to WP:PROF, proposing deletion pursuant to this.Simonm223 (talk) 19:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Schwartz and WP:PROF

message: According to Schwartz it is significant that the Medium (tv series) is appearing at this moment of history, the first decade of the twenty first century.(ref The Truth about Medium by Gary E. Schwartz, Ph. D., with William L. Simon, Hampton Books, 2005, page 117)                    
I can only guess why Schwartz found this significant. The Medium (tv series), 3 Jan 2005 was the first TV show supposedly based upon the life of a living and tested medium, Allsion DuBois broadcast across the USA.  Schwartz puts it in these exact words,(page 117 The Truth about Medium) "The fact that Medium is mostly entertainent rather than based on actual experience is less important than the fact it is appearing this time in history. Think about this. Millions of mothers and their children are watching NBC's Medium, and soon millions more will be watching other shows ready to capitalize on NBC's success."        
Laurie Campbell, another medium tested by Schwartz, used to claim she wrote scripts and was the inspiration for the tv series Ghost Whisperer 23 sept 2005. She does not seem to say that anymore. Again I can only guess that Schwartz thinks THIS is the time in the USA to expose children to the "reality" and talents of their own mediumship, for next he writes (page 117 The Truth about Medium) that he believes there is a sort of transformation taking place in a subset of paranormal children; the children of mediums and possibly the Indigo children. I suppose Schwartz means that the future and advancement of medium science is in the hands of these special children. ( The pods are opening and they are here! Invasion of the body snatchers Kazuba (talk) 23:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't see why this is worthy of inclusion. please come up with some context or sources for your hypothesis above, then we can talk about adding this material. Verbal chat 14:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

text: I gave you direct quotes. What more can I do. Why do I think it should be added to this material? It shows the that Schwartz has reached some rather odd conclusions about the effects of a tv show on viewers, especially today's children. Kazuba (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Medium TV show and the kids

message: This article is overburdened by narratives of various psychic 'readings' rendered in minute detail, making it a substandard biography. Much of the sources (Schwartz himself) are poor. I'll try to make some improvements to the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Biography

message: This article relies on primary sources for much of it's content. Secondary sources are needed. The lead doesn't accurately reflect the content of the article. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary sources 

message: On the article was this: "On Fox News on the Geraldo at Large show, October 6, 2007, Geraldo Rivera alleged Schwartz had overstepped his position as a university researcher by requesting money from a bereaved father to fund research into mediumship. Schwartz responded that the alleged victim had contacted him after he'd had successful private sessions with a medium Judith Campbell, that he was not a medium and had never claimed to be one, and that Geraldo at Large had not contacted him for a reply"
The source given was Aykroyd, Peter. and Nart, Angela. (2009). A History of Ghosts: the True Story of Seances, Mediums, Ghosts, and Ghostbusters. Rodale, p. 216. On page 216 the above is not found, what is actually found is a mere reference to the Geraldo at Large show controversy, none of the above text. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 18:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Geraldo at Large show controversy

message: I'm tempted to revert all the recent edits to this BLP based on some containing odd editorializing such as this:: . - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:07, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I have edited the text to be more neutral: "The first article in the series has been received on May 12, 2014 and accepted on May 16, 2014 suggesting that peer-review has been very fast." EleOk6e3ih (talk) 17:11, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  What source has made the observation that those dates are "suggesting that peer review has been very fast"? - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear LuckyLouie, Schwartz's article was accepted for 4 days from submission to acceptance. If you are not a working scientist, or have no idea how the peer-review process works, you can consult recent Open Access work for some scientometric data: Janine Huisman & Jeroen Smits. Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author’s perspective. Scientometrics volume 113, pages 633–650 (2017). In particular, take a look of Table 2: Total review duration of accepted papers For Medicine, you can see in the table that the average peer-review process takes 12 weeks = 12 x 7 = 84 days. For Psychology, the peer-review is even longer, on average 20 weeks = 20 x 7 = 140 days. The time period of 4 days for peer-review of Schwartz's article is "very fast" in academic standards. If you deem some of this information as important, you can add it to the article. To put it in perspective, the peer-review took only 2.8% of the time it normally takes for an average accepted paper in psychology. EleOk6e3ih (talk) 20:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  So the observation is not attributable to any reliable source, you simply looked at the numbers and decided you felt it was very fast, and added your opinion in Wikipedia's voice. What you have described above is WP:SYNTHESIS because it expresses a Wikipedia editor's opinion that, given Janine Huisman & Jeroen Smits definition of the average duration of the peer-review process, the time for peer review of Schwartz's article was "very fast". To make your contribution  consistent with the encyclopedia's policies, a reliable source would be needed that specifically comments on the Schwartz paper and makes the same analysis regarding the duration of the peer-review process. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published on Wikipedia. Before editing further, I suggest you review our editorial policies and guidelines, particularly WP:V and WP:OR. - 21:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits