Talk:Courtney Brown (social scientist)

message: OK, I leave for a few days, and look what happens ;). Pierre2012, what is your agenda? Are you actually Courtney Brown? These edits you are making are not helpful to creating a good Wikipedia article, and your legal threats are hollow. It is a common, but immature, tactic, when faced with the truth, to start shouting something like "I'll sue you for saying that". Please, play nice, and try to pay attention to the guidelines for writing good Wikipedia articles. It's obvious that you haven't read even the basics of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines - please, take some time and do so. You'll have less WikiStress and stop stepping on other people's toes, like you are doing now. --NightMonkey 21:55, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
Added link to article (Hale Bopp comet controversy caused from the Art Bell show) that offers wikipedia reader a more accurate perspective of the complex events that unfolded and involved Dr. Brown.  New article is well referenced and corroborated with details.  --Pierre2012 22:27, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pierre2012 

message: Once again, this article has lapsed into POV territory.  Really I'm surprised the article was intact for so long.  
Here are the problems as I see them:
1.)  "including the former commanding officer of the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM), Major General Albert Stubblebine" -- this is not an article about Remote Viewing and as such we don't need to go into who believes in it and who doesn't.  A short description will do fine.
2.)  "the source never gave The Farsight Institute permission to disclose his identity." -- This statement makes a lot of assumptions and implications.  We don't know who the "source" was, nor if there in fact was a source; we don't know if it was someone totally unreliable and that's why Brown didn't release the identity, or if Brown had just stolen an image and used Photoshop himself.  Note that in my version of the article, no claim is made either way.  The reader is allowed to make his or her own assumptions.
3.)  "They claimed they were leaving their earthly bodies to travel to the space ship following the comet, though on their website, they wrote that whether Hale-Bopp had a companion or not was not relevant to them." -- what?  Is it just me, or is the first half of this sentence totally out of step with the second?  I've never seen any evidence to support the second half of this sentence, and I think it's just there to further exhonerate Mr. Brown.  
4.)  The Scientific Research part.  So many problems.  First of all, it dwells on this Michael Raoul Duval guy for an entire paragraph.  Secondly, it has an external link disguised as a Wiki link.  Thirdly, and most hilariously, this section tries so, so hard to legitimize remote viewing and Brown's tactics.  Examples...
:A.) "After a decade of research and scientific experiments, including a four year peer review process of his manuscript,"
:B.) "ocused on his 10 years of ground breaking scientific research as per why remote viewing works." (my favorite)
:C.) "It is written for the scientific and academic community and endorsed by various scientists." (ooh, various scientists!  How interesting)
:D.) "In the preface of his book that can be read for free on his website" (free you say?  Why I can't afford NOT to visit his website!)
So there you have it.  This page has once again totally lapsed into the land of the POV, apparently because of a series of edits made in August.  Rather than pick through the pieces and find the parts that aren't POV, I'm just going to go ahead and revert it back to the last January edit.  May this revert last as long as that one did.  --Malvolio80 20:23, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  It Begins Anew: Aug-Sep 2005 

message: To answer what you wrote above:
1) Major General Albert Stubblebine: If you are going to put who is skeptical of remote viewing, such as mainstream scientists, you need to also post who is not skeptical, to balance the article.
2) See the free preface of Courtney Brown's new book, detailing what happened with Hale Bopp: http://www.courtneybrown.com/publications/RemoteViewingTOC_Preface_Chapter1_CourtneyBrown.pdf  Dr. Brown is a distinguished professor of political science at Emory University and a very talented remote viewing trainer.  
3) Above, you wrote: "They claimed they were leaving their earthly bodies to travel to the space ship following the comet, though on their website, they wrote that whether Hale-Bopp had a companion or not was not relevant to them." -- what?  Is it just me, or is the first half of this sentence totally out of step with the second?  I've never seen any evidence to support the second half of this sentence, and I think it's just there to further exhonerate Mr. Brown."  
Indeed, this proves to wikipedia readers that you have not done your research properly, here is the original website from Heaven's Gate cult saying exactly that: http://www.wave.net/upg/gate/ 
4) See below:
Malvolio, wikipedia readers should know that your name means: "Malvolio: The name means "evil-wishing in Latin."  http://ise.uvic.ca/Library/SLT/plays/tnmelancholy.html
I have nothing against you, I don't wish you any evil.  I hope you can realize that you are not being fair right now.  Any wikipedia reader can see that you removed the information about the scientific research that was done by Courtney Brown, even if you don't agree with it.  If you don't like how the article is written, and believe you can write it better, please do, but don't remove information that is notable, and factual, for the sake of limiting freedom of expression and not fully representing the work of Courtney Brown.  
If I was you, I would dig a little deeper to understand who in the intelligence community has endorsed remote viewing.  If you do, you will find Major General Stubblebine, a former commanding officer of the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM).  If you don't believe me, view: http://www.remoteviewinghistory.com/remote-viewing-research-lecture.html or give him a call. 
It is in the best interest of the wikipedia readers to have access to information, and not to have someone delete information about someone's work, for the sake of trying to validate one's belief that remote viewing doesn't work.  Courtney Brown's latest book is the result of 10 years of scientific research, and experiments demonstrating why remote viewing works, and wikipedia readers should have access to this information, and it is wrong to delete all references of this, as you have done, and as any wikipedia reader can verify by looking at the history.
For the sake of the readers of wikipedia, do not remove references to the scientific experiments done by Courtney Brown, even if you wish they did not exist.  The late Michael Duval, a lawyer and former top advisor to the Nixon and Ford White House, who worked with Dick Cheney before he became Vice-President, was on the board of directors of Courtney Brown's institute, and was talented remote viewer.  If it was all bogus, why would he bother?  But you can still be skeptical, but have no right to delete notable information as such. Wikipedia readers have a right to know this, and trying to hide it from them paints a partial picture of Courtney Brown's notable work and notable associations.
Also, by removing references to Brown's scientific research, you are removing links to the fact that scientists such as Fred Alan Wolf, Ph.D. physicist, Kyriacos C. Markides, Ph.D., a professor of Sociology, Daryl J. Bem, Ph.D., a Professor of Psychology, William Tiller, Ph.D., a former Professor of Materials Science at Stanford University, and Lyn Buchanan, a unit trainer for the U.S. military's Stargate remote-viewing unit have all endorsed Courtney Brown's new book "Remote Viewing: The Science and Theory of Nonphysical Perception" (Reference: http://www.courtneybrown.com/publications/RemoteViewing.html).  
You wrote months ago that it shouldn't be a page about whether or not remote viewing works since there is already such a page, but that it should be about Courtney Brown and his work. This is exactly what this article is right now, as I have reverted.  If you don't like the grammar, feel free to improve it.  Other than evil wishing, what would be the purpose of deleting notable work done by Courtney Brown?  Is it really fair to only have part of his work posted so wikipedia readers can think that there is no science behind it?  Or should information about his latest book not also be posted, including accurate representation in regards to Hall-Bopp?  
You are dealing with scientists here, as well as former CIA/CIA intelligence community people.  The opinion of a magician, Randi, is really irrelevant, he is not a scientist and he is not a former intelligence community member, and is not a remote viewer, he is a magician, he gets paid to entertain people.  Remote viewing is not entertainment, it was one of the most classified programs in the DIA (Department of Intelligence Agency), until Clinton's Executive Order 12958 made it possibe in 1995 to declassify it, because of the efforts of the late billionnaire Laurance Rockefeller and the efforts of John Podesta, Clinton's White House Chief of Staff.  Are you interested in being fair?  If so, is not only fair to have notable accurate and verifiable information about Courtney Brown and his work posted so wikipedia readers can have access to it?  --Pierre2012 08:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted 

message: I was going to leave the book section alone, and then I noticed the wording.  Each link had the word "free" next to it.  Very solicitous.  Free book!  Free download!  Free chapter!!  Honestly, Pierre.  Then I noticed they're also links to Courtney Brown's website, which we already have.  So I took the books off entirely.
Let that be a lesson to you, Pierre.  If you'd left well enough alone, I never would have noticed the smaller offending materials you slip into this article.  But you gotta go overboard every time and bring in the crazy POV crap.  --Malvolio80 18:09, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Book Section 

message: This is what's great about wikipedia, we can move towards balance.  Perhaps using the word 'free' can be seen as promotional, the intent was to let wikipedia readers know that they can further read without cost.  People who come to Courtney Brown's entry are interested in reading about him and his work, and these links allow wikipedia readers to get further information.  Please refer to my posting above, as I reverted, while accepting your recommendations by taking out the word 'free'.  I agree with you in this case.  Perhaps by working together, using the best of both of our ideas, we can create the most professional entry possible without limiting freedom of expression.  --Pierre2012 18:36, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think one link to his page is enough. --NightMonkey 09:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fairness 

message: The Emory Report section was my addition. I felt it was important as it contains quotes form Brown's fellow professors at Emory who object to his science, and it is an official University publication. I do agree, if I get your meaning, that this might be placed in a better context, such as mentioning what the Emory Report is. It basically is the official campus newspaper of Emory, from what I can gather. From the "About the Emory Report": "It is published by the Office of University Marketing Communications, a division of the Office of Public Affairs.". I think if we can say that "various scientists" support his work, we need to cover those who don't. I should think this is noteable, as not often do major universities have public condemnation of a collegue's work in Administration-approved periodicals. Take a look at the article, if you have time. I welcome discussion on this. --NightMonkey 08:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emory Report discussion 

message: 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)
thread_title: Category change

message: Deleting all unsourced material, per WP:BLP.  ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Delete

message: Among a variety of factual inaccuracies in previous versions of this page, the issue of whether or not Dr. Brown can list his Emory affiliation whenever he speaks on any topic should be settled. Shermer's note in his book is simply incorrect. No professor at Emory or any university is contractually prohibited from listing where they work. This should be obvious. Dr. Brown has long listed Emory as his place of employment whenever he speaks on any subject. For example, 
http://www.neugalu.ch/pdf/programme_broch_07.pdf
There are many other examples. He does not do remote-viewing research at Emory, obviously. He never claimed he did.   --Turushoop (talk) 22:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correcting a longstanding factual inaccuracy 

message: "The Farsight Institute" redirects here, and this page lists The Farsight Institute as an external link, but the article itself doesn't say what The Farsight Institute is or Brown's relationship with it.  I assume he founded it/is synonymous with it?  A single sentence at least would be a good idea. Morfusmax (talk) 14:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Farsight Institute