| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Institute of Noetic Sciences 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:
1Auto-archiving period: 730 days
 |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
 | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
These sources all say Edgar Mitchell was the founder, not the co-founder:
- Time Magazine [1]
- BusinessWeek [2]
- ABC News [3]
- NY Times [4]
- -- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Those editors interested in upgrading the article with secondary sources so that the tag can be removed may find these books to be good resources: [5] [6] [7] [8] -- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- You need independent sources so those would be fairly crummy to use, IRWolfie- ( talk) 09:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Quackwatch is an award winning website and is perfectly reliable for its own list, IRWolfie- ( talk) 22:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Possibly. Can you elucidate? But first look at
https://en.wikipedia.org/?search=wp%3Aquackwatch&title=Special%3ASearch. Thanks.
GeorgeLouis (
talk) 05:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- if you question quackwatch itself, there are many reliably published sources that cover quackwatch's assessment of IONS .
[9]
[10] --
TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Good starting points for an addition to this article. I am interested, too, in the idea that QW "is perfectly reliable for its own list." Is there a
WP:Policy that applies?
GeorgeLouis (
talk) 13:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- A source is reliable for the existence and integrity of its own list. We aren't commenting on the quality of the list, merely noting that quackwatch lists it. Also note that
WP:RSN has consistently found that Quackwatch is fine to use but sometimes it's tone is an issue (rather than content itself). On the list of the archive, I'd suggest having a look at some of the RSN threads.
IRWolfie- (
talk) 21:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, Quackwatch would be a reliable source for what appears in Quackwatch, but the two follow up questions are: 1) are Quackwatch's opinions /analysis generally considered reliable? and 2) is Quackwatch's opinion about the subject an opinion of note that should be included? Given that other reliable sources have covered Quackwatch's opinion, I would say the answer to 2) is: yes. And apparently the RS notice board has generally stated that the answer to 1) is also yes.--
TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- WP:Otherstuffexists may or may not apply, but somebody could try adding something about the Quackwatch listing and see if it sticks. GeorgeLouis ( talk) 03:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, Quackwatch would be a reliable source for what appears in Quackwatch, but the two follow up questions are: 1) are Quackwatch's opinions /analysis generally considered reliable? and 2) is Quackwatch's opinion about the subject an opinion of note that should be included? Given that other reliable sources have covered Quackwatch's opinion, I would say the answer to 2) is: yes. And apparently the RS notice board has generally stated that the answer to 1) is also yes.--
TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- A source is reliable for the existence and integrity of its own list. We aren't commenting on the quality of the list, merely noting that quackwatch lists it. Also note that
WP:RSN has consistently found that Quackwatch is fine to use but sometimes it's tone is an issue (rather than content itself). On the list of the archive, I'd suggest having a look at some of the RSN threads.
IRWolfie- (
talk) 21:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Good starting points for an addition to this article. I am interested, too, in the idea that QW "is perfectly reliable for its own list." Is there a
WP:Policy that applies?
GeorgeLouis (
talk) 13:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- if you question quackwatch itself, there are many reliably published sources that cover quackwatch's assessment of IONS .
[9]
[10] --
TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
It said Wernher von Braun was one of the founders, with reference ref name="Xiong2009". I see no mention of WvB in that reference, so I have removed von Braun. It is plausible he might have been part of the founding, so I hope someone will provide a good reference. GangofOne ( talk) 21:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Institute of Noetic Sciences. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131012050457/http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/2013/9/17/space_explorer_touches_down_this_weekend.htm to http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/2013/9/17/space_explorer_touches_down_this_weekend.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Institute of Noetic Sciences. 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/20090605210243/http://www.biogenesis.com/corporate_information.html to http://www.biogenesis.com/corporate_information.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061203013528/http://www.noetic.org/about/history.cfm to http://www.noetic.org/about/history.cfm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070513104943/http://www.noetic.org/research/programs.cfm to http://www.noetic.org/research/programs.cfm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061130073352/http://www.noetic.org/about.cfm to http://www.noetic.org/about.cfm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101127145826/http://noetic.org/library/publication-newsletters/ to http://noetic.org/library/publication-newsletters/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101127145941/http://noetic.org/library/publication-magazines/ to http://www.noetic.org/library/publication-magazines/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- C-Class California articles
- Low-importance California articles
- C-Class San Francisco Bay Area articles
- Mid-importance San Francisco Bay Area articles
- San Francisco Bay Area task force articles
- WikiProject California articles
- C-Class organization articles
- Low-importance organization articles
- WikiProject Organizations articles
- C-Class paranormal articles
- Low-importance paranormal articles
- WikiProject Paranormal articles
- Wikipedia requested photographs in Marin County, California
| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Institute of Noetic Sciences 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:
1Auto-archiving period: 730 days
|
|
| This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
|
| This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
These sources all say Edgar Mitchell was the founder, not the co-founder:
- Time Magazine [1]
- BusinessWeek [2]
- ABC News [3]
- NY Times [4]
- -- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Those editors interested in upgrading the article with secondary sources so that the tag can be removed may find these books to be good resources: [5] [6] [7] [8] -- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- You need independent sources so those would be fairly crummy to use, IRWolfie- ( talk) 09:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Quackwatch is an award winning website and is perfectly reliable for its own list, IRWolfie- ( talk) 22:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Possibly. Can you elucidate? But first look at
https://en.wikipedia.org/?search=wp%3Aquackwatch&title=Special%3ASearch. Thanks.
GeorgeLouis (
talk) 05:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- if you question quackwatch itself, there are many reliably published sources that cover quackwatch's assessment of IONS .
[9]
[10] --
TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Good starting points for an addition to this article. I am interested, too, in the idea that QW "is perfectly reliable for its own list." Is there a
WP:Policy that applies?
GeorgeLouis (
talk) 13:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- A source is reliable for the existence and integrity of its own list. We aren't commenting on the quality of the list, merely noting that quackwatch lists it. Also note that
WP:RSN has consistently found that Quackwatch is fine to use but sometimes it's tone is an issue (rather than content itself). On the list of the archive, I'd suggest having a look at some of the RSN threads.
IRWolfie- (
talk) 21:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, Quackwatch would be a reliable source for what appears in Quackwatch, but the two follow up questions are: 1) are Quackwatch's opinions /analysis generally considered reliable? and 2) is Quackwatch's opinion about the subject an opinion of note that should be included? Given that other reliable sources have covered Quackwatch's opinion, I would say the answer to 2) is: yes. And apparently the RS notice board has generally stated that the answer to 1) is also yes.--
TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- WP:Otherstuffexists may or may not apply, but somebody could try adding something about the Quackwatch listing and see if it sticks. GeorgeLouis ( talk) 03:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, Quackwatch would be a reliable source for what appears in Quackwatch, but the two follow up questions are: 1) are Quackwatch's opinions /analysis generally considered reliable? and 2) is Quackwatch's opinion about the subject an opinion of note that should be included? Given that other reliable sources have covered Quackwatch's opinion, I would say the answer to 2) is: yes. And apparently the RS notice board has generally stated that the answer to 1) is also yes.--
TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- A source is reliable for the existence and integrity of its own list. We aren't commenting on the quality of the list, merely noting that quackwatch lists it. Also note that
WP:RSN has consistently found that Quackwatch is fine to use but sometimes it's tone is an issue (rather than content itself). On the list of the archive, I'd suggest having a look at some of the RSN threads.
IRWolfie- (
talk) 21:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Good starting points for an addition to this article. I am interested, too, in the idea that QW "is perfectly reliable for its own list." Is there a
WP:Policy that applies?
GeorgeLouis (
talk) 13:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- if you question quackwatch itself, there are many reliably published sources that cover quackwatch's assessment of IONS .
[9]
[10] --
TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
It said Wernher von Braun was one of the founders, with reference ref name="Xiong2009". I see no mention of WvB in that reference, so I have removed von Braun. It is plausible he might have been part of the founding, so I hope someone will provide a good reference. GangofOne ( talk) 21:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Institute of Noetic Sciences. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131012050457/http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/2013/9/17/space_explorer_touches_down_this_weekend.htm to http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/2013/9/17/space_explorer_touches_down_this_weekend.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Institute of Noetic Sciences. 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/20090605210243/http://www.biogenesis.com/corporate_information.html to http://www.biogenesis.com/corporate_information.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061203013528/http://www.noetic.org/about/history.cfm to http://www.noetic.org/about/history.cfm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070513104943/http://www.noetic.org/research/programs.cfm to http://www.noetic.org/research/programs.cfm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061130073352/http://www.noetic.org/about.cfm to http://www.noetic.org/about.cfm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101127145826/http://noetic.org/library/publication-newsletters/ to http://noetic.org/library/publication-newsletters/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101127145941/http://noetic.org/library/publication-magazines/ to http://www.noetic.org/library/publication-magazines/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- C-Class California articles
- Low-importance California articles
- C-Class San Francisco Bay Area articles
- Mid-importance San Francisco Bay Area articles
- San Francisco Bay Area task force articles
- WikiProject California articles
- C-Class organization articles
- Low-importance organization articles
- WikiProject Organizations articles
- C-Class paranormal articles
- Low-importance paranormal articles
- WikiProject Paranormal articles
- Wikipedia requested photographs in Marin County, California