Talk:Eduard Shifrin

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Eduard Shifrin. 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/20111206233557/http://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/biography/20 to http://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/biography/20
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) 19:21, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This type of relationship promotion is called quantum mysticism and prophetic foreknowledge claims.  Acceptable sources should be independent and secondary (WP:RS, WP:SECONDARY), and will likely refer to it in these terms.  If secondary independent sources cannot be found, it may be WP:UNDUE.  As for press releases in newspapers, they cannot really be considered independent, they are sponsored, promotional.  —PaleoNeonate – 17:30, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. For example, the Times of Israel blog-post review of From Infinity to Man was by a self-proclaimed , which provides exactly zero qualification to write about quantum physics. The Jerusalem Post item is a promotional interview. Due to the poor sourcing, the Kabbalistic quantum mysticism material here fails WP:BLP. XOR'easter (talk) 20:52, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

text: This edit summary is inaccurate, since From Infinity to Man was not a "children's book". Moreover, the other book, Travels with Sushi in the Land of the Mind, was promoted as introducing , so yes, it matters whether the physics in it is remotely accurate, and none of the sources provided come remotely close to establishing that. XOR'easter (talk) 21:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether an author receives coverage for winning a Nobel Prize in Chemistry, for slapping two fish together and calling it art, or for writing a book discussing ideas from physics, mysticism, religion, etc., Wikipedians needn't bend over backwards to omit, lessen, or qualify what sources state just because they think it smells fringey. Discussing views that may be fringe is not the same as promotion of fringe. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: But uncriticially repeating views that are definitely, unambiguously, darn near archetypally fringe is promotion of fringe. The lack of attention paid by anyone resembling an expert in the relevant subject matter also raises serious WP:DUE concerns. XOR'easter (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest your hard physics background is clouding your judgement, making you overly defensive. We don't need to state (in any voice)  that this author's views are correct or widely accepted, merely that they exist and have been noted. And guess, what, his children's book is a fictional novel, not a how-to. His writings have received note by the The Jerusalem Post, The Jewish Chronicle, The Times of Israel,  Financial Times, and possibly others in non-English sources. By removing all reference to the books, as you've previously done, you are effectively saying all those sources can go take a hike. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:23, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: So far, you've accused me of  , said I'm on a  , and now you're accusing me of having a clouded judgment because I actually have professional experience in quantum physics. Can we set the ad hominem remarks aside, please? Repetition without commentary is effectively endorsement, which runs counter to the spirit of an encyclopedia that aims to be a worthwhile reference work. Shifrin's books are presented as teaching science: one an ostensibly nonfiction book for adults, the other a didactic story for children. None of the sources mentioned are reliable for assessing scientific content. And even what they do offer is, to paraphrase 's comment upthread, largely promotional and non-independent in nature. The amount of truly independent, significant coverage is vanishingly small. Given paltry sourcing of this level, we'd have a hard time writing about these books whatever their subject matter. (Travels with Sushi in the Land of the Mind is described as winning the  ... an award that Wikipedia doesn't seem to have an article for ... which announced 140 other "distinguished favorites" that year ... including a book that literally advocates crystal healing ... and those aren't even the winners. Including that "award" in the article amounts to resume-padding.) I'd have no problem writing about them if we had more than thinly-veiled advertisements to base that writing on. All sorts of quantum flapdoodle is noteworthy enough to include, because we have the documentation necessary to cover it properly. Here, we don't. It's as simple as that. XOR'easter (talk) 00:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I call things as I see them, and hey, sometimes I'm wrong. I think you and PaleoNeonate are implying the books to be more than they are, fearsome works of woo that must be squelched before a spark can spread. I'm not saying we need to devote more than a couple sentences to them, or extoll their "scientific contents", or imply they are anything they aren't, especially since there seems to be rather limited coverage so far. Scrubbing them from Wikipedia seems a violation of WP:PROPORTION and WP:NPOV. James Lovegrove in the Financial Times writes of Travels with Sushi:  It would be great if Brian Greene or a Jewish philosopher could take a dump on or contextualize the works. Do we need a zoologist to analyze Peter Rabbit? But speaking of thinly veiled advertisements, check out physicist Chris Ferrie's article. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:48, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Including text that treats them, in wiki-voice, as serious intellectual achievements violates NPOV. Your Financial Times quote rather underscores that, I think. Removing poorly-sourced and promotional material from a BLP is only prudent; likewise, brainstorming more appropriate text to include would be preferable to restoring the POV, poorly-sourced and promotional version. XOR'easter (talk) 00:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physics