Talk:Brian Josephson/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

The famous advice to scientists

I was about to edit this item but could not, since I don't know whether Josephson used the exact phrase "Take nobody's word for it" or whether that is just a gloss by someone else of the Latin "Nullius in verba". This should be checked; and, certainly, it should be pointed out that "Nullius in verba" is the motto of the Royal Society. Axel 05:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I do use that phrase on my home page. I am aware of the connection with the RS motto. At the time I was pretty certain of what that was but had some problem finding an explicit reference so just called it the 'scientists' motto' instead. I had a lengthy discussion with someone once as to what exactly the original (by Cicero) was and the appropriate translation, but the version I used, valid translation or not, was the title of a TV science series.

Changing the subject, inclusion of Randi's attack is pretty bizarre (what kind of authority on quantum mechanics is he?), but I thought that instead of merely deleting it I'd include what Humphrey, who is by no means a supporter of the paranormal, thought of it. The program, which you can find on my home page, was introduced with a recording of Randi's Rant (he was not there at the time) and consisted of a discussion involving Humphrey and myself. Brian Josephson 12:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

While I do agree with Randi on the fact that suggesting Subatomic physics may permit paranormal phenomena in the conventional sense, I don't agree that name calling is constructive. However concerning the mention itself, I think that 1. It needs a source. 2. It's relevant as Randi is very notable in such contexts as that and he has a lot of experience debunking people who support such things. I'm sure there is more criticism out there from Randi and from others, so that section could be expanded. Also the basic biography itself could be expanded, I'd expect much more info out there on a Nobel prize winner. If you are indeed Mr. Josephson, Please put a list of sources on yourself out here and I'll expand the article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 09:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it's very short. I just added a brief publication section. I'll reformat it to the correct style later (if no one else does) i'm too tired to do it now. Xhacker —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.134.54 (talk) 00:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

review of this article

I am new to this subject, but I do feel that the article is skewed towards Prof. Josephson's work on parapsychology, cold fusion, and mysticism/religion. Whilst I think his views on these matters are interesting, I am concerned the article has in fact become a WP:COATRACK for these topics. For example, I am not convinced that cold fusion, based on the sources given in the article, should have so much coverage. His view on science vs religion seems to follow naturally from his stance on quantum mysticism so I don't think it should have its own section. Presumably there would need to be some coverage of the parapychology/quantum mysticism but I can't see that it should be allowed to overwhelm his contributions as a physicist. Do any other editors watching this page have any thoughts on this matter? Alex Harvey (talk) 13:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

i see no problem, compare Roger Penrose --217.10.60.85 (talk) 10:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Cold Fusion Views - Cite does not mention Josephson

The article cited in this section is reproduced here: [1] ...and does not mention him or his views at all. →Stani Stani 04:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I removed the section. I can't read the original article, but am trusting that Stanistani has correctly found it to be not what was represented. I'm suspecting that Josephson may have written a comment somewhere, perhaps to that article on-line, and that's what's being quoted. Not adequate for a biography here, I think. --EnergyNeutral (talk) 23:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

It looks like the original insertion was way back in August 2009. The format at that diff suggests that the IP may have been quoting a comment on the original article, but even if that is the case removal was the best course for reasons of weight - thank you, EnergyNeutral and Stanistani. A decently sourced section of his views on cold fusion could be appropriate, but that was not. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Presence at Wikipedia

Info on his presence on Wikipedia should be included.--188.26.22.131 (talk) 14:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

~~Probably not notable here, but does he have an active account here?~~ Nevermind, saw the note above. a13ean (talk) 14:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

If his editing here is commented on in RS, then it might possibly be relevant for inclusion. Many a notable person has ruined their real life reputation by screwing up at Wikipedia. That's an unfortunate legacy to leave. Better to stop while one is ahead, rather than leave evidence here that one is heading downhill or is fringe. I have no idea whether that even applies in this case, so wait for what RS say. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Reader vs. reader

In UK universities a Reader is the equivalent of the US Associate Professor, the next rank below full Professor. There must be many Nobel Laureates who were not full professors when they were awarded the prize, so saying I was 'only a Reader' seems out of place and I suggest the 'only' be removed.

The article originally spelt 'Reader' in lower case (I've just amended that to conform to normal practice). Possibly the person who put in the 'only' was under the impression that at the time I was 'a teaching assistant in a faculty who grades papers, examinations, etc., on behalf of a professor', one meaning of 'reader' in the US, a much lower position clearly. The two different meanings of Reader/reader can be seen in the Free Online Dictionary. --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:18, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Good catch.

Fixed. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

No Marseilles medal

While it is true that the city of Marseilles offered me a medal in 2004, I declined the offer on the grounds that it was Martin Fleischmann (attending the same conference in the city) who deserved such a medal on account of his important pioneering work related to the conference. This item should therefore be deleted from the medals and awards list. However, I have a number of honorary degrees, details of which can be seen in my Who's Who entry. --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, that seems like a good enough reason to remove it. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Done -- Brangifer (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Paranormal section

This heading and its contents misled me into thinking Josephson applies 'Take nobody's word for it' only to parapsychology. But then I find "Meetings of Nobel Laureates in Lindau: Pathological Disbelief" http://www.lindau-nobel.de/content/view/19/32/ and see that he applies it to other things as well. Section needs to be retitled and expanded. This guy seems to be some kind of critic of the scientific method!! (irony intended).SmithBlue (talk) 03:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The paper Biological Utilization of Quantum Nonlocality, referred to in this section, is available on the web, at http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/papers/bell.html. --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

After reading this I was going to add it and found that it is that link which is used! Thanks anyway. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

BTW, even though you obviously have a COI here (nothing wrong about that), you are still allowed to make uncontroversial edits. Providing sources could be such editing. The "Selected publications" section has no URLs. While they aren't required, they are nice to have. If you can help with that it would be nice. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about that. There's no knowing what reasons editors may drum up for objecting to an edit, (e.g. in this case the fact that the link was on my own web pages), and using this to buttress a case against me, and it is best to apply the 'safety first' principle. Apologies for not seeing the link -- my browser made it invisible as I had visited the page.

By the way, I thought I had reported earlier that I had resigned my position on they Advisory and Editorial Board of NeuroQuantology (which I'd hardly have thought notable in any case), and this should also be deleted.

PS: would not the quote re the Nobel Centenary stamps be better as a blockquote? --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I understand your caution, so the safe position is probably best. I was just letting you know my opinion. I'll go ahead and delete that mention of the board position. We do want this to be up to date. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I have fixed the quote issue. The image being on the left made the indentation invisible, so I moved the image to the right. I also just used a simple indent. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Selected works

Hi Barney, I see you've removed the "selected works" section twice in just over a week – on 12 December, a list that someone added in 2008, and on 20 December one that I compiled recently. It was quite a lot of work to put that together, and it's standard to list publications in a biography. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists of works: "Lists of published works should be included for authors, illustrators, photographers and other artists." Published works don't have to be notable in themselves or linked to the author's notability. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

My concern is that the list is (1) somewhat arbitrary and (2) concentrates far too much on his post-Nobel work, which we have seen from the quote you removed and then misquoted, he's not notable for this. He does have somewhat of a reputation for writing letters to any newspaper that will publish them espousing his views. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I haven't included letters (as I recall), except for one to the New York Review of Books, which was mentioned by a secondary source and sparked a discussion. I don't know which quote you mean. Regarding that it concentrates too much on post-Nobel work, that was early in his life, so obviously there is going to be quite a bit after it. I've included several papers before it too (13 so far). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Well if letters are so important why did you drop the one to Nature, in addition to misquoting the Guardian piece? Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Could you say which letter and quote you mean? I don't recall removing a letter to Nature. I may have done it by mistake. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The letter to Nature about Nature's obit of Fleischmann. Also, the Guardian piece isn't quoted about his lack of work since his Nobel, and is misquoted about the "intellectual disaster". Finally, you're treating the "Mind Matter Unification Project" as if it were a research group with a research programme, when it's irrelevant. Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The artice's in flux, so I don't know whether those issues are still there ("intellectual disaster" isn't). Re: his letter to Nature, I thought you were still talking about the selected works. I haven't said much about it in the article because I don't have access to it; if you do, it would be good if you could email it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Anyone interested can see my letter criticising Nature's obituary of Fleischmann at http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/articles/Nature_re_Fleischmann.html (this is there legally: the contract allows me to do that after 6 months have gone by). --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

That's very helpful, thank you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The "intellectual disaster" seems to be a fairly WP:MAINSTREAM assessment because of WP:FRINGE. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Image sizes

WP:IMGSIZE suggests that we leave images unhardcoded so that logged-in users can adjust their thumbnail sizes. --John (talk) 21:19, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The MoS also says we can fix them. Otherwise they're different sizes and look odd. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they look a bit odd to me as well. I'll unhardcode them all so they display at the size I have chosen to view, as per MoS. --John (talk) 21:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Please leave them as they are. I wish you wouldn't go around doing this; I don't see the attraction of it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Go around? --John (talk) 21:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Slim, you haven't explained what you mean there; I can take your presumed misunderstanding of my editing pattern to your talk page if you prefer, but meantime, there's no good reason to hardcode all the images to 250 px and MoS specifically recommends against this. If they don't look right for you on a particular setup, you can adjust your preferences without forcing them on every user who reads the article. That's the point of the MoS recommendation, you know! --John (talk) 21:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

bicycle or bicycle light?

The article says the following, quoting a lecture by Waldram: 'When asked what he would do with the prize money, he told colleagues that he intended to buy a new bicycle.[23]'. In fact, what I told them was that I would buy a new bicycle light, and if you listen carefully to the talk (just before the end) you can hear me correcting the speaker. I had in fact bought a new bicycle fairly recently so there would have been no point in getting another new one, but in the pre-LED era bicycle lights were pretty unreliable. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Damn. I so desperately wanted to revert a Nobel Laureate, but you seem to be right. One day perhaps, you'll do something silly. Could you make some terrible but trivial mistake somewhere that I can revert? --Roxy the dog (resonate) 17:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

So sorry, Roxy, you've missed your chance! People have very busy reverting me on pages such as cold fusion and water memory, but at the moment I'm not wasting my time making improvements that soon get reverted (and some suggest anyway that I'm not allowed to edit these pages because I have opinions on the subject matter!). On the other hand, you sound like a reasonable person and would probably have accepted my reversions, rather than scouring wikipedia pages for excuses for reverting. If you are unfamiliar with that side of w'pedia, take a look at my compiliation of comments that have been made, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Brian_Josephson#The_World_is_Watching.21 --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Payment for SF trip

For the record, a minor correction re "Josephson's trip was paid for by the Physics-Consciousness Research Group": that trip was not paid for by PCRG. They did however put us up at their headquarters.--Brian Josephson (talk) 09:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Noted and changed. Should be OK by everybody I hope. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 12:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks -- I confirm your revised version.--Brian Josephson (talk) 12:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Matthew Manning

On the article is reads:

"The following month he was one of 21 scientists who tested claims by Matthew Manning, a Cambridge teenager who said he had psychokinetic abilities; Josephson apparently told a reporter that he believed Manning's powers were a new kind of energy, although he later withdrew or corrected the statement."

The reference given for this is actually several, but I only have access to this one:

In his book The Link, Manning presented his own story about poltergeists and other strange happenings that took place at home and at school from the age of eleven. Like Geller's My Story, The Link is an autobiographical account and, although it makes fascinating reading is of minimal evidential value. Manning described how, after watching Geller perform on television, he discovered that he too could bend cutlery and other metal objects. Physicists, like Nobel laureate Professor Brian Josephson, F.R.S., and mathematicians, like Dr. A. R. G Owen, flocked to study Manning's miracles. Josephson is reported by the Daily Mail of London to have concluded: "We are on the verge of discoveries which may be extremely important for physics. We are dealing here with a new kind of energy." The introduction to The Link promises a series of learned papers "following research on Manning's powers by twenty-one giants of science" in Toronto during June and July 1974. Twenty-five years later we are still awaiting these publications with great interest. Paraphysicists seem to be perpetually "on the verge of discoveries" and no closer to actually making any.

From David Marks (2000). The Psychology of the Psychic. p. 100.

The article makes a mistake by listing the Marks reference as being page 200, but it's actually on page 100. This is a minor error which can be corrected. But I am lost here as on the article it reads "he later withdrew or corrected the statement." So which is it?

The article gives this reference:

Matthew Manning, One Foot in the Stars, Thorsons, 1999, pp. 57, 59–61, 302. For Josephson's withdrawing or correcting the statement, see pp. 60–61.

So is it a withdrawal or a correction, or both? Clarification if possible needed. Goblin Face (talk) 02:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The conference was 40 years ago and I'm afraid I can't help you there! One thing I will say is that while some journalists send you their copy for approval before it goes off for publication in general they don't, and it is quite possible I objected to the detailed phrasing in what was published. I might add in regard to what Marks said in that quote above that a number of papers relating to the conference were published in an issue of the journal New Horizons. One was one by myself noting similarities between unusual phenomena in particle physics (if I recall correctly it was a manifestation of symmetry breaking that showed up in a particular decay process), and one was a study by someone called Lloyd of Manning's EEG while performing psychically: at these times there was an unusual peak at very low frequencies. So it looks as if Marks was still waiting after 25 years he had not make the right enquiries to find these papers -- I'm sure Owen would have sent him a copy if he had asked. But then sceptics tend on the whole to prefer making snide remarks to studying the evidence and he probably didn't try too hard.

With a little effort I found this: http://www.islandnet.com/~sric/NHRF/NHJ/New_Horizons_Journal_vol_1_no_5_January_1975.pdf, which is the issue containing the Proceedings, consisting of 17 papers presented at the conference (two by myself it seems). You can get to this page with a search on 'toronto conference psychokinesis'. I'm sure David Marks will be absoutely delighted to be able to read these now! --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Update

Brian Josephson states here in The Guardian in 2000:

In 1974 I attended a conference where Matthew Manning, a psychic who is now involved with healing, gave a number of demonstrations of metal bending under conditions which appeared to preclude their being faked. I also believe that Mr Geller is genuine, though I do not have such strong evidence in his case.

Online here [2] Goblin Face (talk) 02:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I can confirm that I was the author of that letter. --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Flocking

Trivial remark, just to say that 'flocking to a conference' is not only irritating journalese but also a bad metaphor -- conference delegates converge on a conference, which is not what flocking is. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Views on (science and) religion

Some sources could be cited on this topic(s), like: [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.15.45.191 (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Primary sources aren't used as a basis for article content. We generally defer to secondary sources. See WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Aren't persons or organizations reliable sources for their POVs? (I see no change of this wikirule in recent time).--5.15.32.35 (talk) 12:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

google book link about Gieryn text is garbled

I was reading with interest google books link from footonte, "For background on cold fusion, see Thomas F. Gieryn, Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line, University of Chicago Press, 1999, pp. 183–232." The Google books link seems to give pages 183-192 okay, then presents page 93 where page 193 should appear, then goes on to page 194 etc. It severely undermines the sense of the article that page 193 is missing. Is there another source of PDF for this that is coherent? --do ncr am 18:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I shouldn't think there is one. It is commonplace for bookselling sites to provide extracts of a book to give people a feel for what the book is like, but obviously not the whole book as if they did people would not buy it! Perhaps you can get it to peruse via a library? --Brian Josephson (talk) 19:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

That's right. The source in question is the book, not an electronic representation of (part of) a book. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies. F.Y.I. the google book link (http://books.google.com/books?id=GljD3CHbDx0C&pg=PA183#v=onepage&q&f=false) shows the same behavior today when I try again. And also changing parameter PA183 within that call, to try to jump to page 193 or to page 93, both yield the same page 93. So it seems to be a permanent error in Googlebook's scan of the chapter. It also simply omits page 197, then various other pages. Googlebook is deliberate in making the exclusions, but I was confused by the erroneous inclusion. I did read to the end of it all, it was very interesting. The term "cultural cartography" seems to be key, describing how domains of science and truth and politics were perturbed by some with interests (i.e. by proceeding with a press conference) then later and resoundingly moved again by others (also with powerful interests). The language would seem to apply to a quite different field where I know about similar goings-on, but I wouldn't have been able to begin to describe it like Gieryn does. --do ncr am 15:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't paint the cold fusion announcers any differently than does Josephson, in his sympathetic obituary of Fleischmann, published in the Guardian, by the way, FWIW, IMHO. I learned a bunch, thanks. --do ncr am 15:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

apologies to roadislong

I realised too late that I had identified the wrong person as responsible for reverting my correction of the error in the name of my physics master. My apologies to TheRoadIsLong, who had made a subsequent change of an innocent character.

This is a good place to raise a further point in relation to the activity of Murry1975. Apart from re-introducing the error in the name of my physics master which I had corrected, he removed the reference to my maths master which I had added. Mr. A.G. Davies was extremely helpful, dealing with me individually and feeding me interesting bits of maths to work on. Are editors willing to take my word for it that 'the AG' as he was known helped my development as much as my physics master (in fact, I began my undergraduate career doing the maths tripos and because of this help I was able to skip the first year of the tripos as some people with sufficient background could do in those days). --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd be willing to accept what you say about that. Nothing else hangs on it, and it's the kind of thing we would use if you were to blog about it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:33, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Unreferenced content

I removed the sentence "Josephson was known at Cambridge as a brilliant, but shy, student." as the reference here [4] does not mention it? User:Slimvirgin has replaced it, if this article is going to be a Good Article it needs meticulous references and not just Josephson's word. Theroadislong (talk) 17:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, which part do you feel is unsourced? Anderson makes it clear that Josephson was brilliant and says he was shy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

It may be clear to you but I'm not seeing it sorry.Theroadislong (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Anderson says he's a prodigy and shy. "Prodigy" is a synonym for "brilliant":

"Oh he must have been very, very young. He was a prodigy. He was a third-year undergraduate, but third-year undergraduates were normally 21. He would've been more like 18."

"Brian Josephson, whom I already knew about because of his discovery of the relativistic shift in the MOSS??? effect [?], which was already notorious. But he also came up to me. He was very shy of course in those days, shy even for an undergraduate." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.184.17 (talk) 18:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

So can we say something like "At Cambridge, Philip Warren Anderson considered him a shy, prodigy" which more closely reflects the source.Theroadislong (talk) 18:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

It's better as it is. We're meant to read sources and summarize them in our own words, and "brilliant, but shy" is an accurate summary. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Unnecessary blockquote

The long blockquote in the reception section should be removed in its entirety as it doesn't provide any additional insight into the idea that "Britain was at the forefront of research into telepathy". The brief paraphrase introducing the blockquote is sufficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.191.18 (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Belief in a creator

"Josephson argued that meditation could lead to mystical and scientific insights, and that, as a result of it, he had come to believe in a creator."

Is this an accurate paraphrase of the source text? What does meditation and insight have to do with believing in a creator? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.208.37 (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Park's commentary removed

Robert L. Park has written "Josephson has a long history of endorsing claims that most scientists would pass off as pseudoscience."

Robert Park (2009). Superstition: Belief in the Age of Science. Princeton University Press. p. 156. ISBN 978-0-691-13355-3

Any reason this was removed? Goblin Face (talk) 04:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, it repeated what the section already said – adding "me too" quotes turns articles into quote farms – so I moved the book to footnote 49. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

publication of thesis work

I've corrected some minor errors in the bio page directly myself, but in view of the CoI issue would like use this talk page to suggest inclusion in the reference list of the paper where I published my less well known experimental thesis work, which you can see the abstract and other details of at http://iopscience.iop.org/0305-4608/4/5/016. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added it to selected works. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

daily routine

I noticed this while I was looking at the changes: "As part of his daily routine (which may include walking, ice skating, photography, and astronomical studies), Josephson also meditates for about two hours." It would be nice if my daily routine could include ice skating but since there is no rink nearby ice skating is a very rare activity for me, and opportunities for astronomy are pretty rare also. That list is actually a list of my hobbies, maybe taken from Who's Who, so it might (possibly) be worth rewording. On my youtube channel (cogito2) you can see some videos related to my involvement in ice skating.
The other thing is that while I still meditate it is not for 2 hours as stated in the footnote as I changed to a different meditation practice in 1984. --Brian Josephson (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I removed the sentence from the footnote; besides being outdated as you point out it really didn't add to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject IMHO. VQuakr (talk) 19:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

No problem. By the way, my interest in astronomy has been on the observational side rather than 'studies' as in the original article. The CUAS magazine, probably not available on line, records two of my involvements: (1) that Jupiter as well as Venus can be seen with the naked eye shortly before sunset (and at sea level, in Cambridge), and (2) that under certain conditions Mercury, commonly regarded as very elusive, can be a conspicuous object that catches the attention and can even be pointed out to passers by. These conditions are (i) the right point in orbit: greatest elongation is not optimal as it is not so bright then as when it is nearer superior conjunction (ii) the right season of the year (iii) the optimal interval after sunset, and, very important since under these conditions the planet will be very low down, (iv) very clear sky right down to the horizon. I became aware of this when searching for a comet and noticing instead a Venus-like object that turned out to be Mercury. Perhaps I should publish these observations somewhere more visible than CUAS's magazine, but I'm not for a moment suggesting that it be included in the w'pedia bio. --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Brian Josephson/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 16:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC) I will be happy to review this good-looking article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	A very readable article
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	lead: is fine (but probably doesn't really need the refs). Layout: ok; weasel: no sign. fiction: n/a; lists: n/a
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Satisfactorily verifiable.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	All claims are cited.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Claims properly cited throughout.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	A concise, summary style article.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Very well focused.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Fair and even-handed throughout.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Recent changes basically indicate steady small-scale improvements.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images from Commons
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	but see minor comment below on one image.
	7. Overall assessment.	I'm satisfied this article has easily reached the level required for GA. I see that fine details are being checked and polished; and the style of some citations may need to be harmonised for FA, but the GA criteria have now been met.

A few small comments

"Unusually, along with Josephson, neither Esaki nor Giaever held professorships at the time of the award." Maybe we could just say that none of the three winners had been profs, if that's what is meant.

It's nice to find some images but perhaps the one of the current Cavendish site needs to be better justified in its caption.

I've added a few wikilinks. ~~A few more might be in order as with "Jungian psychoanalysts" and "cosmic wormholes" for instance.~~ Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

~~"Why a crocodile?" is now a dead link. Would be good to have this fixed.~~

Brian Josephson and Jessica Utts, "Do you believe in psychic phenomena? Are they likely to be able to explain consciousness?", Times Higher Education, 8 April 1996. --- not sure author list is correct here; Utts may be first, and Blackmore may or may not be relevant (perhaps the web version has been changed?).

~~"New Switch is Key to Supercomputer" is already tagged as a dead link: not a problem for GA.~~

Brian Sullivan, "Physics is Often a Young Man's Game", Associated Press, 17 December 1969. --- should perhaps be cited to an actual newspaper. Not a problem for GA.

~~"Cambridge Theory of Condensed Matter group" leads to list of all Cavendish lab group members.~~

~~"George (New Scientist) 2006, p. 56." is a dead link. Needs fixed as untraceable as it stands. Occurs 3 times.~~

"Brian D. Josephson", Lundqvist 1992. This calls out a short ref which is not in the bibliography but embedded in ref 27, not very nice. Would be best fixed.

In sum, this is a fine article and I'm almost ready to pass it once these small items are addressed. There are a couple that don't matter for GA but will need tidying before this goes to FA. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Josephson has asked for the article to mention he has been invited to give lectures. Invited lectures at notable societies might be listed in an 'Awards and distinctions' section. For example: [5] [6] Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Chiswick Chap, thanks for the thorough review. I'll start working on the fixes today. I'll address the issue of the quote and the lectures that Josephson has raised too, but I'll drop a note about those on the talk page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi again,

I've fixed the professorships sentence,
removed the current Cavendish image (I couldn't think of a way to justify it; it was there only to avoid an all-text section),
fixed the crocodile link,
fixed the order of names in the THE article (no idea why Susan Blackmore is mentioned),
removed "New Switch is Key to Supercomputer" dead link,
fixed "Cambridge Theory of Condensed Matter group" link
the George (New Scientist) 2006 link isn't dead for me, and it's referenced in full on first mention,
fixed Lundqvist 1992.

I'm still discussing a couple of points with Josephson on the talk page, so I'll update you when that's done. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I'm happy that the GA criteria have been met. Consider further updates as progress towards FA, which I wish you all the best for. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, that's much appreciated, and thanks again for your careful review. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

GA fixes

Gardner's comment

Does the article really need to include Gardner's ~~inane~~ beside the point comments, which reveal more about Gardner's twisted thinking than about myself? --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:41, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

As the 'Good Article' reviewer, I'd say there was a definite place for critical comments which are properly cited to reliable sources, and in Gardner's case a well-known public figure. I might also mention that now is an inconvenient time to start debates on the article, as stability is one of the 'Good Article' criteria. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree that it is a good article, given the emphasis on criticism. And it is not balanced, either -- a properly balanced article would also cite the fact that notwithstanding the bad reputation that some have sought to heap on me I have been invited to give various special lectures by physics depts., I suspect because I am known for original and coherent thinking, and intelligent people do not uncritically accept the criticisms. I don't have the time to chase up links, but I believe the fact that I have given such invited lectures can be confirmed on the web sites of the institutions concerned.
It is with regret that I have to say that my belief is that you have drummed up the 'good article' criterion purely as an excuse to avoid deletion of Gardner's ~~inane~~ beside the point comment (I'm afraid I have problems 'assuming good faith' as one is supposed to. Making the article better should take priority over your assertions) --Brian Josephson (talk) 19:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The question is whether the criticism is WP:UNDUE. If it is, it should be removed. If it isn't, it should remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.51.152 (talk) 20:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

All in favour of making the article better. As for the GA criteria, they are public and you can see them listed in the table on the talk page. No faith good or bad is required. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm objecting not to the GA criteria, but to your attempt to exploit them for your own purposes. --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Brian, I have no objection to removing that quote. WP:BLP says: "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement ... Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." That quotation arguably violates that advice.

Regarding the lectures, if you have a list and we can source it (or if it's on your webpage), I'd be quite willing to add it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for noting the WP:BLP guideline, SlimV. In this connection, you'll see that I've changed my characterisation of G's comments to 'beside the point', since the investigations that were cited in our letter have no connection with the ones G cited for the purpose of ridicule -- it is a different era and, whatever G may have tried to persuade people with his rhetoric, standards are different now.

I had in fact already prepared a list of lectures but not saved my edit, so here are the associated URLs from which you may glean the details:

While you're at it, perhaps you can include reference to the Proceedings of the Cordoba conference referred to in the article, this being the entry on the publisher's web site: http://www.elsevier.com/books/science-and-consciousness/cazenave/978-0-08-028127-8 --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

CC suggested these be added to an 'Awards and distinctions' section, but I don't think these lectures really merit being classed as a 'distinction'. The essential point was to show that reception was not entirely negative as the section tends to suggest in its present form. So I think the reception section is the place to refer to the lectures, say at the end saying something along the lines of 'Josephson was invited to give lectures on his research by ...', giving the details and links.

By the way, in the interests of balance I added to the article Rennolls criticism of Wiseman's criticism of my critique. Rennolls' letter is in fact already included in the references but for some reason (I can't imagine why!) it is only Wiseman's comments that currently feature in the article. --Brian Josephson (talk)

I've removed the Gardner quote; will look at the lectures soon. Re: Wiseman, it didn't seem worth going into. The point is that you supported the girl's claims and were criticized for having commented without having a background in parapsychology research. Everything else seems a bit off-topic for a bio. I'll re-read the correspondence though. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not convinced this is a meaningful criticism on Wiseman's part. For one thing, notwithstanding what Wiseman said I do have a background in parapsychology, having been involved in it for many years even if I have not done formal experiments myself and been to a number of parapsychology conferences so I understand what the issues are. My comments were not ill-informed, layperson's comments. More to the point, my training in experimental design is enough to be able to see that Wiseman's procedure is distinctly dodgy -- and if you look at Rennolls's letter you will see that my understanding as per my web analysis, and my claim that Wiseman's methodology is dubious, is confirmed by a professor of statistics. That seems to me to be a very important factor in helping the reader to assess Wiseman's comment. --Brian Josephson (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I've rewritten the Wiseman paragraph. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:13, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for improving that. Maybe I can note a couple of further points. Firstly, since the first Canadian conference on psychokinesis is mentioned, here is a link to the Proceedings (which include a couple of talks I gave). Secondly, I've uploaded a photo of a demonstration by Manning at the conference (though I'd accept that this is not that appropriate a place to include it if that is your view, though you might be interested to see it anyway). --Brian Josephson (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Trip to California

Brian, I have a question about this edit, made at your request. The source says (as I recall) that you stayed at Sarfatti's apartment and that his group paid for the trip. Is the source wrong on those points? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I certainly stayed at his apartment (better referred to as his institute), but he did not pay for the trip (I've an idea this was already discussed some time in the distant past).

There's another error in the article that was I recall dealt with in the distant past but has now crept back through editors' unfortunate habit of treating anything in print as gospel truth, but I'll bring that up in a new section. --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I tightened this so that it doesn't mention payment or where you stayed (the latter doesn't seem worth mentioning if the former doesn't apply). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

page charges

It's probably not worth trying to fix this error again. When considering where my work on the junction should be published, Pippard said he favoured Physics Letters rather than Phys. Rev. Letters, as the former was a new journal that he wanted to encourage (I got the feeling also that he was not that keen on things American). Anderson, whose memory is not that reliable, mentions this preference in an interview but also attributes the preference to Phys. Rev., unlike Phys. Letters, having page charges. I have no recollection of Pippard saying that, and I don't believe pages had been invented then (it seemed obvious that authors should not have to pay for their valuable contributions and that the beneficiaries (readers and libraries) should bear the cost instead). It is not much use fixing this as some editor not familiar with the history will think Anderson was right and restore the error, so with regret I'll just leave the article as it now is. --Brian Josephson (talk) 18:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

It would be nice if there were a way to protect just a section of text to avoid this problem, though am I right in thinking there's no mechanism for protecting just part of a page? --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm afraid it's all or nothing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:13, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Brian, it would be better if you were to leave the editing of the article to others. You can post requests or corrections here, and I'm sure someone will act on them pretty quickly. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Anderson's incorrect speculations of no interest to anyone

The article currently says

Philip Anderson, Josephson's former teacher, believes that Josephson was motivated by an interest in the paranormal when he discovered the Josephson effect.

Perhaps Anderson believes that — I have no idea why, as I can't recall any discussions of the paranormal with him at that time, though I tried to discuss it with him when we met on a later occasion (unsuccessfully, as he retreated rapidly down the corridor when I offered to explain to him our theoretical work on the subject). I did not have any interest in the paranormal until introduced to it by a colleague, Dr. George Owen, some years later. The interview with Anderson was 37 years later of course, so it is maybe not surprising that his recollections were unclear. My actual thought processes, as opposed to the speculations of Anderson which have no place within a GA such as this, are described in my Nobel lecture. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Anderson admits that it's speculation, so perhaps we should remove it. Is there any truth at all to what he says?

I'm sure that if you looked deeply into his motivations it was his interest in paranormal phenomenon which led him to be interested in ways in which weird things could happen due to quantum mechanics – ways in which you can actually study the strange phenomenon of quantum mechanics on the macroscopic level. So he was hoping that somehow this would tell him how to read minds, but that's really a speculation.

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely no truth! As I said, I had no interest until Owen started telling me about his investigations into the paranormal over dinner in Hall. And another thing — it is incorrect to describe Anderson as my teacher as is done twice in the article. We had a number of discussions, and I picked up some ideas from his lecture course that I attended, but my research supervisor was Pippard, and my interest in the subject stemmed from the latter (e.g. he had encouraged me to study the complicated theory, and made me aware of Giaever's work which he had doubts about, which led me to ponder the relevance of coherence factors in this context and hence the significance of the phase in an accessible situation (see my Nobel lecture again). In the interests of GA status, can some editor delete the term teacher. You could argue, I suppose, that anyone you learn anything from is a teacher, but the wording does kind of set him up as the teacher, which misrepresents the situation — I was largely self-taught in fact. I have no objection, of course, to some alternative form of words that does not misrepresent. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't see all the New Scientist interview anymore, but you do say in that: "In the late 1960s I found my area of research less interesting, so I looked elsewhere for problems to work on. Investigating the mathematics of how the brain works is a much more difficult challenge. I also became interested in eastern philosophy and how that might fit in with physics. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, that fits. Several years later would be the late 1960s. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I've removed it, and also the later reference to him as your teacher. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! My interest in altered states of consciousness and E. philosophy came initially from contact with another subversive colleague, Brian Nicholson, who would buttonhole his neighbour over dinner, point a finger at him, and ask him 'do you know who you really are?' No answer that you gave to this question was considered valid. He in turn had been inspired by contact with the ideas of Krishnamurti while on sabbatical in the US. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion for inclusion in article

Would it be good for reference to my composition Sweet and Sour Harmony, which has been played at various times at a handful of events, to be included in the article (I have included it in my Who's Who entry)? At the bottom of my home page there are links to versions of it on Myspace (and it is available at amazon.com also for people who prefer paying for it to listening legally free :-) ). --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not notable without reviews in reliable sources. By now you understand that, right? Joja lozzo 15:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see the relevance of your comment. Please take a look at Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. Thank you. --Brian Josephson (talk) 15:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

You titled this paragraph "Suggestion for article", which could lead people (me, for example), that you were suggesting a separated article.--cyclopia ^speak! 17:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, the accompanying text should have made it clear what I meant, but I've changed the section title to avoid confusion in future. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Implementation of IBM 3033 Josephson computer

Regarding this statement in the article: IBM used Josephson's work in 1980 to build a computer that was up to 100 times faster than that of the IBM 3033 mainframe. The result was known at the time as a Josephson computer. The paper cited in the article discusses work toward implementation, though no implementation is apparent. The article reads as though the Josephson computer has been implemented. Via Google scholar, I find mentions of work being done, but no actual computer. Has such a system been implemented? Ref please. Jim1138 (talk) 16:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

This probably depends on what one defines as a computer, and there's such a thing as hype (cf. current work on quantum computers). The IBM paper promises more in ref. 21, what does that say? I think they got some way towards an actual computer but the project was abandoned as it would (at that time) need liquid helium, and also transistors got faster so the speed benefit wasn't as great. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

My reading of it is that a JJ 3033 or at least a working prototype existed at some point. It should be rewritten to clarify that the system was being developed but abandoned and that a 3033 was never built. Hype does not belong on WP. Any suggestions for a rewrite? Jim1138 (talk) 17:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The statement The result was known at the time as a Josephson computer. would seem to imply the existence of a system. Perhaps "A computer constructed around Josephson Junction logic circuits would be a Josephson computer.? Jim1138 (talk) 18:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

If you add 'prototype' to the search you come with things like

Fabrication process for Josephson computer ETL-JC1 using Nb tunnel junctions, and it looks from the abstract that they made a computer of sorts. I'd guess then that the present wording is OK.
By the way, can I suggest that if you are changing an article on the basis of something already in talk you say something like 'see talk', as I didn't get the message from your wording the first time round. --Brian Josephson (talk) 19:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Something that was up to 100 times faster than that of the 3033 mainframe was not constructed as stated? The IEEE article does not state anything about execution speeds. I would say the sentences needs rewording then.

BTW: the {{dubious}} template - ^{[dubious – discuss]} - is the proper way to point one to the talk page. It may not be used correctly all the time. Jim1138 (talk) 22:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to make a big issue of this, but I would think that the correct procedure would be to raise a subject like this on the talk pages first of all, and then wait for some time before assuming consent. In this case both changes were made at the same time. --Brian Josephson (talk) 19:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

~~Which IEEE article are you referring to?~~ The IEEE article that I referenced may not refer to the speed, but the IBM article by Anacker, referenced at the end of the sentence, says quite clearly 'could provide mainframes with 10 to 100-fold higher computing rates', and the citation in the ref. list even tells you which page this is on.
To raise a different issue, shouldn't the 1st. reference in that list (to an AP news release) be removed? As far as I can see, there is neither a link nor a reference number that would enable anyone to view the original (and surely AP would have released hundreds of news items on the day concerned, 15 July 1980?). Since no-one has objected, I'll now make these changes. I'll also remove the sentence saying it is known as a Josephson computer. If the project had come to fruition, that might have been regarded as notable, but it didn't so I don't think it is notable enough. --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Awful pic

Honestly, If I were Brian, I'd be mortified to see that pic on a BLP of me. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 09:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm somewhat inclined to agree, though it is not nearly as bad as the one put up by someone who took lots of bad pictures of Nobel Laureates at a meeting a few years ago, and replaced all the lead pictures in the corresponding articles with his own ('to be more up to date', he said when challenged). Perhaps it would help if the context for this picture were added, i.e. that it was taken on the walk that preceded the meeting, which is why I was wearing that raincoat, but that may not be feasible as there isn't much space for that (update: I have managed to fit the information in). ~~I would not particularly object were you to revert it~~. --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not really a consensus all on my own, so I'll wait and see if anybody actually has contrary opinion - I'm all for up to date pictures, but that one is hardly flattering. Have you got anything like the one on the Talk:Spandex page (just scroll down a bit) - the leggings would suit you, don't you think? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that's a very nice photograph. It's someone wearing a raincoat, Roxy – in England in the autumn drizzle. Not sure what Spandex has to do with it. Brian, if you don't like it, for whatever reason, we can easily remove it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

There is honorable precedent for this kind of weather protection, after all. Charles, the leader, was lucky -- despite 0.23 mm of rain having fallen in half an hour in the morning (see http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/research/dtg/weather/), he had not brought a raincoat, but fortunately very little rain fell during the walk (my raincoat is not the exact kind worn by world leaders, but it keeps the rain out).--Brian Josephson (talk) 15:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

For the record, Harold gave me my (unremarkable) degree. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 00:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

If it's good enough for the Royal corgis ... Still, Brian, you've been forewarned. Next time you go to a meet-up, please get out the Hugo Boss. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

This is really nit-picky, but is there a version of the main portrait that's slightly less cropped on the left side by any chance? a13ean (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Poorly sourced, unfair criticism of Nobel Prize winning Dr. Josephson's "controversial" theories. Galileo and Einstein were controversial too.

It is inappropriate, in the first paragraphs about Dr. Brian Josephson to include: " and have made him a focus of criticism from fellow scientists" with a so-called "source" of the Encyclopedia Britannica, which does not have any details about this. It merely states that the topics of the physics of consciousness are controversial. E.B. does not name a single physicist who disagrees with Dr. Josephson's theory. To be fair, Wikipedia should state "His work has also made him the focus of praise from fellow scientists" such as Dr. John Hagelin of Harvard. Let us remember that Dr. Josephson is the Nobel Prize winning laureate, not the un-named author of the Encyclopedia Britannica, and certainly not us. Galileo's and Einstein's theories were controversial as well. So let's have a little respect for what he knows about physics that we may not. So Wikipedia should refrain from making judgmental statements about a scientist's work, and swaying public opinion, until experiments either prove or disprove the scientist's theories. 67.55.221.15 (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Lots of other sources for the criticism, some of it from physicists, can be found below in the chapter Brian Josephson#Reception, views on science. The sentence in the introduction is just a condensed form and need not be further sourced.

Do you think that a Nobel prize should force us to remove all criticism from the article about the Nobelist? If so, an Ig Nobel should also force us to remove all positive aspects in the article on John Hagelin, right?

I do not think we should pretend that Josephson's ideas are mainstream by keeping mum about the controversy. Also, the articles about Galileo Galilei and Albert Einstein do extensively explain the controversial nature of their ideas and who their opponents were. Are you proposing to remove the controversy parts from those articles too? (The difference, of course, is that Galilei and Einstein have won and become mainstream. This has not happened to Josephson yet.)

Another point: You should rethink your attitude to scientific authority. The meaning of a Nobel prize, or, to a lesser extent, of an academic title, is not that those who hold them are in charge and those who lack them must be silent, must believe everything they say without question, and must lick their boots. It means that the holder found a narrow field of knowledge where it was possible to find something new, and succeded in finding it. It does not impart them magical superior authority on all other subjects. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The Enchclopedia Britannica doesn't mention its sources for anything (with maybe a few exceptions). Neither do most newspapers and broadcast outlets. That doesn't diminish their standing as reliable sources. Lou Sander (talk) 14:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Copyright situation re lenr.org

The article has cited my lecture on Pathological Disbelief, giving initially a link to the web site lenr.org. JzG removed the link claiming it violated copyright. He was not to know this, but I had in fact provided the file to the web site administrator for public access myself, so there can be no question of copyright violation -- it was not a question of the administrator having downloaded it from somewhere himself. I therefore restored the link, with a note that I gave permission. JzG then reverted again, giving a different reason: The site is full of copyright infringements, we can't link to it. My first point is that this cannot be a reason for not linking to an individual web page, because if it were it would not be possible to link to any youtube videos and as far as I know this is allowed.

The second point is that lenr.org policy is to include only items where there is no copyright violation, and where copyright violation is validly claimed said item is removed. Where copyright does apply, only details of the item concerned are included on the web site. I must therefore ask JzG to back up his claim of extensive copyright infringement, or failing this to withdraw said claim.

Pending resolution of these issues, I reposted the article to a site where an explicit licence permitting reuse is incorporated in the access page, and included a link to that site in the article. The terms of the licence ensure that the copy on lenr.org cannot be in violation of copyright, but I will allow time for discussion of the question here before restoring the original link to the article. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The page here http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/JosephsonBpathologic.pdf clearly states that it is copyrighted NOT free?Theroadislong (talk) 10:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

You are correct, the slides are my copyright, so in principle I can sue anyone who falsely claims to be the author, or who tries to make money out of the material without my permission. None of this applies here, so what is the point you are trying to make; a large proportion of w'pedia articles link to copyright material? In the majority of cases articles on the web don't explicitly assert copyright, but that doesn't in fact affect the legal situation.
If you want to know more, go to the copy on the CUL depository, which indicates the conditions under which it can be used by others. Since linking to a web page is not regarded as publication or copying, linking thus is not restricted. I trust this clarifies things for you. --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

OK understood, it would help enormously though if you refrained from editing the page yourself and make suggested edits here on the talk page. Theroadislong (talk) 11:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh! In what way was what I did not helpful: it saved other people having to do the job? For what it's worth, I was even thanked by JzG, so maybe you should take it up with him.
Since you have raised the question, I must say that I consider your pointless comment concerning copyright extremely unhelpful, and I am quite frankly amazed that someone with so much editing experience as yourself seems to be so unfamiliar with the rules that apply, and one wonders why it was made. --Brian Josephson (talk) 13:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Apologies. My mistake. Theroadislong (talk) 14:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Fine, not to worry! --Brian Josephson (talk) 15:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

N-dash vs. hyphen

Someone in an edit changed the separator in 'Norwegian-American' from a hyphen to an N-dash, as in Norwegian–American. Is that correct in this case? It looks wrong to me, and http://www.thepunctuationguide.com/en-dash.html#compoundadjectives tends to confirm this intuitive judgement. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Some people on Wikipedia are quite particular about which particular "short horizontal line" should be used in different circumstances. I have previously asked User:Chris the speller to comment. Hopefully this notification will attract his attention, but AFAIK he is on the West Coast of the USA so it may be some time ... - Arjayay (talk) 11:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Brian Josephson: @Arjayay: Banedon (talk · contribs) should not have changed the hyphen. WP:MOS clearly covers this: "An en dash between nations; for people and things identifying with multiple nationalities, use a hyphen when applied as an adjective or a space as a noun. Japanese–American trade; but a family of Japanese-American traders or a family of Japanese Americans". No need to look to external style guides when our own guide is so clear. Chris the speller ^yack 15:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I have changed the punctuation back to a hyphen. Thanks go to Brian Josephson for the sharp eye in spotting this error. Chris the speller ^yack 16:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I was about to make this change myself, but had got diverted by trying to set up a new printer. My reading of the web page that I cited corresponds precisely with what you have written above, the N-dash case being covered by the section 'conflict or connection'.
Actually, I've changed my mind on looking at the reasoning you cite. Trade between two countries according my source would merit an N-dash because it is a kind of movement or connection, whether it is a noun or an adjective has nothing to do with it. My source seems to be written by someone who knows what he is talking about and I'm afraid I regard WP as an URS (unreliable source). Fortunately, since fortuitously the two sources agree here, we needn't have a fight (over which kind of dash to use, at least)! --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

My bad, didn't read the sentence carefully enough. Banedon (talk) 00:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

On looking again, maybe the WP advice is not that bad, it's just that the first sentence is a bit hard to follow, but Norwegian-American would seem to be covered OK with the 'multiple nationalities' item. It would be interesting though what would apply to 'French-Canadian', which is not two nationalities, but a designation of a part, i.e. the French part of Canada. Someone with time to spare could perhaps research this! --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Brian Josephson. 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:

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) 13:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Brian Josephson. 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:

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) 03:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

User:Brian Josephson has self-identified on his user page as "Professor Brian Josephson", subject of this BLP, and has made nearly 6% of the total edits to this page, most recently on 2 October 2018. Since readers must be aware of this potentially troublesome conflict, I have tagged the page accordingly. KalHolmann (talk) 23:20, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect, I suggest that people actually look at my edits and decide if there's a genuine CoI before rushing to put up such a notice. If you actually look, you'll see that my edits have almost entirely consisted in fixing problems (and very often I may be one of the few people in a position to recognise the presence of a problem, as for example when someone misheard the name of my physics teacher in a lecture I gave and I corrected this). Take for example my addition of 'initially' to 'he read maths at Trinity'. That suggests to the reader that I did maths the whole of the period concerned whereas, as the article correctly explains, I changed to physics half way through. Adding 'initially' corrects this false impression.
I do wish people would act more thoughtfully before writing and not waste my time in this way. People may edit their own pages either to fix problems, or to give a good impression, and the difference is crucial. --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Just to note that I have removed the tag, Brian understands what to do here, and what not to do. Roxy, in the middle. wooF 08:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks, Roxy. It looks like you are OK with my making minor corrections or improvements to the text directly, rather than suggesting them on the talk page as indicated in the box above. I am well aware that I should not be 'puffing' myself with my edits. --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Reason for interests in cold fusion etc.

The article states: He set up the Mind–Matter Unification Project at the Cavendish to explore the idea of intelligence in nature, the relationship between quantum mechanics and consciousness, and the synthesis of science and Eastern mysticism, broadly known as quantum mysticism. Those interests have led him to express support for topics such as parapsychology, water memory and cold fusion, That isn't correct as far water memory and cold fusion are concerned. The actual explanation for my support is that open-mindedness led to my actually looking at the evidence despite general opinion being against, and concluding that there is good evidence in favour in these cases. In the case of parapsychology, the reasons cited in the article are indeed part of the explanation. --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I think we should replace "Those interests have led him to express support" by "He has expressed support". The reason given in the article does not make much sense (since there is little connection between water memory and cold fusion on one hand and the interests named above on the other) and your own view of the reasons is slanted by your own stance. Skeptics would say that "actually looking at the evidence" is not enough to arrive at the same conclusion. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that the reason I gave above should be included in the article, as I accept it would be disputed by some. My point is just that, as you agree, there is no particular connection between mysticism on the one hand, and cold fusion and memory of water on the other, and the article should be edited to reflect that. I guess your suggestion would deal with that. It looks good, so do go ahead and make the change (CoI guidelines prevent me doing it myself).--Brian Josephson (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Done. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Good! However, the edit didn't read quite right and I've fixed that, as you will see if you go to that page (I trust no-one is going to shout 'CoI', it seemed to be the least fuss just to make that minor edit).--Brian Josephson (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Matthew Manning claims

Would someone like to add this picture, which has been on the Matthew Manning article for some time, to the article comments relating to Manning? (and maybe remove the picture of me on a wikimedia walk at the same time?) --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Meditation

In the interests of accuracy: re TM, I've not practiced that for more than 30 years now, having switched to a different kind of meditation in 1984. Also, for some months now I've been doing Qigong (related to T'ai Chi).
PS: if, as the qigong article notes, 'A 2011 overview of systematic reviews of clinical trials concluded that "the effectiveness of qigong is based mostly on poor quality research" and "therefore, it would be unwise to draw firm conclusions at this stage" ', then it would be equally unwise to conclude that qigong is of no real benefit! --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

bdj50 conference

Someone should add the link https://talks.cam.ac.uk/show/index/12216 in connection with this conference, as it has lots of useful information which is not on the existing link (which should be kept though): e.g. to recordings of the talks and slides (I'd have done it myself but including two links for a piece of text seems to be a bit tricky). --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

There is a link to the same info in the "Further Reading" section. Is that OK? -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 10:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that (I guess you meant that the page in Further Reading has links to the other items). I wonder who decided to remove the article from the Cavendish web site, or was it just an accidental product of 'improvements'? --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Trip to California 1976

There are some inaccuracies in the article, in particular in connection with the assertion In 1976 Josephson travelled to California to meet the laser physicists Russell Targ and Harold Puthoff. In fact I travelled there because I had had an invitation from Jack Sarfatti (also a member of the Fundamental Fysiks Group, though not listed as such in the article), and during our visit he introduced me to Targ and Puthoff, and also I believe Henry Stapp and other members of the FFG (and besides that, the paragraph includes far too much about T&P: the article is not about them and they have their own pages anyway). Can I suggest that paragraph be amended accordingly?--Brian Josephson (talk) 09:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Erroneous statement by Wiseman

The article states 'Richard Wiseman, professor of psychology at the University of Hertfordshire, responded that Josephson had no record of publishing on parapsychology'. Wiseman is wrong: see for example the article 'Biological utilization of quantum nonlocality' published in Foundations of Physics in 1991. As I'm not allowed to do this myself, can someone please include in the article the fact that Wiseman's comment is incorrect? --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I had a look, and it seems that the claim was not attributed to Wiseman in the source, but could be better read as a statement by the author. Given the ambiguity I've replaced it with what I think is a more accurate description of Wiseman's concern. - Bilby (talk) 09:46, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's good and I'm happy with that part of the page as it now is. Brian Josephson (talk) 10:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)