Talk:William A. Tiller

message: Tiller has been tagged :Category: Pseudoscientists but surely he is only half of one. His career work in Materials Science at Stanford is not pseudo, only his work in pseudoscience is pseudoscientific. GangofOne 00:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I undid the pseudoscience text about lacking sufficient plausibility.  To label a well-known scientist as a pseudoscientist, you better actually be able to show his methodology is bogus.  I've read his papers.  They are not easy to understand.  He's a terrible writer.  But to dismiss them any more than one would dismiss another obscurely dense scientific writer is nothing more than imposing one's personal POV against the topic.  --Mbilitatu (talk) 01:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the lack of notable, reliable sources which cite his work is very telling. It's plainly clear that he is not a notable researcher and that the field of his research is not notable. --Salimfadhley (talk) 15:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: A professor emeritus is merely a retired professor. (JosephCampisi : "Stanford University thought it fit to make him a professor emeritus, not merely a professor") Rgelpke (talk) 00:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Sufficient Plausibility

message: Could somebody explain the basis for the current selection? We have a number of mainstream papers (which may have been widely cited and considered important in the relevant field), along with Tiller's esoteric papers which from what I can tell have no importance at all. I think this selection gives a misleading impression of the importance of Tiller's later publications by including them in a list alongside publications which arguably are important. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, by all accounts he's not notable for his esoteric papers and no reliable sources discuss them. Until reliable sources discuss them they seem undue. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerns about selected papers section 

message: The guggenheim fellowship is a grant of around $40k awarded to around 200 people a year based on around 4k applications. Hardly something that would be mentioned in a biography unless you can get a secondary source to mention it and give it some due weight. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guggenheim Fellowship 

message: We have a complete lack of secondary sources. Put any secondary sources you find in this section and I will integrate them in. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secondary Sources 

message: I note with some dismay that links to tillerfoundation.com have been re-added. It is never acceptable to use self-published sources in a WP:BLP article. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you actually read WP:SELFPUB? It says that Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, provided they are not unduly self-serving or "exceptional" in nature. Everything you have removed meets these criteria to be included, for the very reason that you have used to justify removing them. --EPadmirateur (talk) 02:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The material in the source is unduly self serving, such as claims that "the field of psychoenergetics which will very likely become an integral part of "tomorrow’s" physics". Considering that is his claimed field of study it is self serving against Clause 1. The idea in mind with the WP:SELFPUB guidelines is for non-contentious information, not for links to fringe claims which aren't directly related to the individual. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

text: I think we can use the self-published sources to establish what the subject has said. We cannot use these self-published sources to establish credentials or scientific "facts". Given that The Tiller Foundation seems to exist for no purpose other than to promote the idea and career of the subject we should be be very cautious about how it is used--Salimfadhley (talk) 19:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strong concerns about use of self-published sources in a BLP article 

message: Currently it reads: "William A. Tiller, Ph.D. is the author of Science and Human Transformation, which proposes the existence of subtle energies" - this seems bizarre to me. Surely he is most notable for his early work which received wide citation in peer-reviewed journals. The book 'science and human transformation' received no such recognition. I propose that we make the introduction lead with is most notable works. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This reasoning also fails because notability applies only to the article topic itself, not the content of the article, per WP:NNC: Notability guidelines do not limit content within an article. Actually this book did and does receive recognition, namely in the book on parapsychology noted earlier and in the What the Bleep movie. --EPadmirateur (talk) 03:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: EPadmirateur, I think you misread my statement above. I was not arguing that this information should be excluded from the article, only that we should mention his most notable works in the introductory paragraph. Are you suggesting that his entire scientific career is less notable than the very limited coverage his parapsychology has received? --Salimfadhley (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerns about the introduction 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on William A. Tiller. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140115191304/http://php.aaas.org/about/aaas_fellows/list.php to http://php.aaas.org/about/aaas_fellows/list.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)