This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Jasmuheen article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dear article editors/authors,
I would like to bring to your attention my recently published scientific review article on cases of claimed inedia / breatharianism / bigu: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.explore.2020.05.015 It is the first critical, in-depth review of all investigated cases where claimants where monitored around the clock. It also includes an evaluation of the investigation of Jasmuheen (see Supplement 6).
I required a high methodological standard for such extraordinary claims to be considered verified. None of the studies were able to meet that standard. Yet, there are curious cases and results that justify further research.
You may want to consider citing the article on this page. I think it can give readers some orientation in this controversial field.
Best regards,
Marcus H. Mast
Marcus H. Mast ( talk) 14:14, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
@ User:Psychologist Guy: When you publish on such a controversial issue, you will find it practically impossible to get your article published in a mainstream journal. Certain topics are basically banned. I suggest you give it a try ;). Explore journal isn't dodgy. It's open-minded. It is a proper scientific outlet for topics outside of the mainstream. The best you can aim for as an author writing on this. Think about it. What would you do as an author? Publish a book instead? Then everyone would go "Oh, it's not peer-reviewed!" Not publish at all? If that's where we're at, then goodbye knowledge. Marcus H. Mast ( talk) 15:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Jasmuheen article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dear article editors/authors,
I would like to bring to your attention my recently published scientific review article on cases of claimed inedia / breatharianism / bigu: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.explore.2020.05.015 It is the first critical, in-depth review of all investigated cases where claimants where monitored around the clock. It also includes an evaluation of the investigation of Jasmuheen (see Supplement 6).
I required a high methodological standard for such extraordinary claims to be considered verified. None of the studies were able to meet that standard. Yet, there are curious cases and results that justify further research.
You may want to consider citing the article on this page. I think it can give readers some orientation in this controversial field.
Best regards,
Marcus H. Mast
Marcus H. Mast ( talk) 14:14, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
@ User:Psychologist Guy: When you publish on such a controversial issue, you will find it practically impossible to get your article published in a mainstream journal. Certain topics are basically banned. I suggest you give it a try ;). Explore journal isn't dodgy. It's open-minded. It is a proper scientific outlet for topics outside of the mainstream. The best you can aim for as an author writing on this. Think about it. What would you do as an author? Publish a book instead? Then everyone would go "Oh, it's not peer-reviewed!" Not publish at all? If that's where we're at, then goodbye knowledge. Marcus H. Mast ( talk) 15:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC)