Talk:Neurophone

message: At first I thought this was talking about devices that work through the well-known mechanism of bone conduction.  However, this is something different, and between the claims in the article about the NSA confiscating the device, and the claims made by the inventor that "The Neurophone is really an electronic telepathy machine. Several tests prove that it bypasses the 8th cranial nerve or hearing nerve and transmits sound directly to the brain. This means that the Neurophone stimulates perception through a 7th or Alternate Sense!" it seems very unlikely that the description of the "neurophone" as it now exists is the mainstream view of the device. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, thank you for assisting with this article even if only through discussion. As well, I suspect some of the claims about the neurophone as dubious and so my research (based on the articles under the external links section) involved cautious selection of information which would not be too far-fetched. Anyhue, what do you impugn: this Wikipedia article or the externally linked articles? Please, if you have any further data, insight, or knowledge of more unambiguous references on the neurophone, I welcome discussion on this device and of course contribution to the article would be respected even further. --JimmyT 03:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Antaeus' comment seems to be based on his incomplete and ORIGINAL RESEARCH, as he doesn't even know what the "mainstream view" of the device is. --JimmyT 13:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I presume you mean of the device, not the advice.  As far as the mainstream view, I can tell you that it does not regard "telepathy", electronic or otherwise, as ever having been documented to exist.  If you have information on the neurophone from reliable sources, provide it.  If all you have is information from unreliable sources (such as http://www.worldtrans.org/spir/neuro.html, which actually presents "popularized by Hulda Clark" as if this was a recommendation) then prepare to have it treated as unreliable information. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: "The Neurophone is really an electronic telepathy machine. Several tests prove that it bypasses the 8th cranial nerve or hearing nerve and transmits sound directly to the brain. This means that the Neurophone stimulates perception through a 7th or Alternate Sense!" (emphasis added) -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh goody, you're including a quote of a quote of a quote, completely rid of any context, and from a very reliable source (Nexus magazine o_O) none the less, but ignoring the official information presented on the Neurophone website. Riiiiiight. Good job! Just the stuff that makes Wikipedia tick. Just BTW: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=telepathy+site%3Aneurophone.com&btnG=Google+Search -- [Orcinus] 17:47, 19 March 2006 (CET)
===What is disputed=== 
What exactly do you impugn? In discussion you foster suspicion over the article's portrayal of the neuorophone, contending that you doubt the description matches a "mainstream view" but in your first edit summary (and immediately prior to adding disputed tag) you question the report about the NSA. Please clarify and clearly discuss all your disputes on the neurophone talk page or kindly leave the article to someone who's intent is inclined toward knowledge rather than irresolute enforcement. --JimmyT 21:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Factual accuracy disputed

message: What exactly do you impugn? In discussion you foster suspicion over the article's portrayal of the neuorophone, contending that you doubt the description matches a "mainstream view" but in your first edit summary (and immediately prior to adding disputed tag) you question the report about the NSA. Please clarify and clearly discuss all your disputes on the neurophone talk page or kindly leave the article to someone who's intent is inclined toward knowledge rather than irresolute enforcement. --JimmyT 21:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What is disputed

message: Antaeus, I would value your compos mentis in contention apropos. --JimmyT 20:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is your point? 

message: This article needs to be written around a peer-reviewed source. There's no reason to believe that any of this is accurate. User:Tenebrous 14:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it doesn't.  This is Wikipedia, not a Scientifically approved journal or anything like that. --JimmyT 08:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Bye. --JimmyT 08:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, Jimmy?  Was "Bye" supposed to be your signal that you wanted the kind of "continued discussion", the lack of which you claimed as your justification for removing the  tag?  Is "Bye" how you usually continue discussions? -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. A quick review will show that I have been willing to discuss things more than you or Tenebrous. "Bye" is just my exclamation of prognostication of Tenebrous' inability to carry on with a neutral and intelligent discussion.  His POV and OR contention of BAD SCIENCE may have its place in a Scientific Review Journal or $keptics blog, but not Wikipedia. --JimmyT 16:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Thats right. And since Wikipedia isnt a scientific review journal, its users shouldn't be making original research to whine "bad science" or "pseudoscience" like a couple kooktics have tried to do without showing verifiability. --JimmyT 14:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a scientific review journal. However, Wikipedia is also not a random collection of information. Wikipedia places a great deal of value in reliable sources, and considers peer-reviewed sources to be just about the best ones available. The LIFE magazine article I'll accept as a reliable source--I'm also going to track down that issue and see if it actually says what Mr. Flanagan's website says it does. The rest of the information in this article does not come from reliable third-party sources, as per WP:V: "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed. Sources should also be appropriate to the claims made: outlandish claims beg strong sources." Please produce sources which meet this standard. Tenebrous 08:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not paying attention. We need to get a copy of a report from Tufts University and one of the Wikipedia editors has said that he can probably to dig it up. Receiving sound without the use of ears or human hearing senses is not an outlandish claim. It's just new to YOU and you don't know anything about it or understand it, so you're apparently afraid of it for some reason or another. --JimmyT 12:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And you're assigning opinions to me that I do not hold. I could really care less about telepathy, electronic or otherwise. What I want are sources which meet the standards of Wikipedia. Why is this such a problem? Tenebrous 13:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for peer-reviewed sources 

message: The primary source would be a report written by Dr. Wayne Batteau in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Tufts University. We should get a copy of this for verification. --JimmyT 09:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tufts University