227:
made sure of that before allowing the person to post it), and there are NO claims included in it (and that was done intentionally) about the efficacy of remote viewing or my abilities concerning it (though all this in fact can be documented both on and off the Web -- the remark above about remote viewing being discredited is in fact false, though there is no space to argue that here). The comment about the article existing to promote my business is a non sequitur. There is only one line about my business, and it is strictly factual about its founding and present existence. If that is disallowed then you would have to take any mention of
Microsoft out of the Bill Gates entry, or delete the entire entry for "promoting" Gate's company. Further, in objecting that no "non-skeptical" sources were cited, there is a question begged: How is a skeptical source relevant to a biography? Are you going to challenge on skeptical grounds my military service, that my book was published in 2005 or the fact that I even exist? The comment about the rank of major is irrelevant. There are plenty of cases of generals who played no lasting role in anything, and on the other hand privates, sergeants and lieutenants who make all the difference (Sergeant Alvin York being one of many examples). What matters is what was actually done, and in that category I count at least as much as several other remote viewing-related notables who have undisputed pages on Wikepedia. As a final note, I have thus far only published one book, and it was not a best-seller; however it WAS selected as the Book Bonus Feature and Editor's Choice for the March 2006 issue of Reader's Digest...and yes, that can easily be verified. -- rviewer
335:
argue for the validity of it here or in the article. It would be such an amazingly useful skill that I imagine Nature or
Scientific American is full of such research. There's also the one million dollar Randi prize for demonstrating this sort of skill, which I'm sure Mr Smith is going to pick up any day now, just as soon as he gets round to it.
321:. As for "remote viewing" being discredited, the only reliable source cited, from CBS News, says "After 20 years and $ 20 million, the CIA dropped the program in 1995, concluding that Stargate "has not been shown to have any value in intelligence operations." That CBS feature story is in no way a balanced scientific look at the claims.
453:-curiously titled in that there is little if any reference to purported mind reading- is consistent with Schnabel's account, though detailing a narrower timeframe and from an obviously non-independent perspective. I'm not sure what constitutes "non trivial" in this arena, but I think it is not unreasonable to call
449:(Amazon has the index). In it, Schnabel characterizes Smith as an instructor in (and the de facto historian of) the INSCOM/DIA remote viewing program, as well as writer of the Ft. Meade remote viewing unit's "how to do coordinate remote viewing by the numbers" army training manual (not the actual title). Smith's
226:
If one questions what is on my biographical page (full disclosure -- I AM Paul H. Smith), then one has to wonder exactly what counts as factual for
Wikepedia. I did not write the article, but the person who did asked me to vet it. Every statement in the article can be shown to be completely true (I
425:
There are three sources listed. one is by the subject of the article, one is a book for which I can find no published reviews, and the third is CBS news, but it mentions Smith only in passing. Thus it fails the standard criteria of two independent non trivial sources. "Remote viewing" is notable,
334:
The CBS story was quoting the official government report which noted that remote viewing was useless. I used that example because the media report gave 'both sides of the story' as they always do. If remote viewing isn't hooey I'm sure Edison can quote all the peer reviewed scientific papers which
444:
I have read the first two sources listed: the Smith and
Schnabel books. In addition to the assuredly non-skeptical material in Smith's book, they both also describe verifiable historical information associated with the U.S. military-sponsored foray into remote viewing for intelligence. It's been a
395:
I agree there should be an article on remote viewing, so long as it points out that remote viewing is bollocks, but as I was reading about remote viewing to review what I thought about this article it was noticable that Mr Smith's name didn't come up at all. He didn't seem to play a major role in
122:
subject area is largely a walled garden anyway, most of the articles have no significance except by reference to other articles in the same group. No objective independent sources are cited for this biography, and it contains no evident assertion of encyclopaedic notability. The rank of Major is
347:
Even if I stick my neck out, violate NPOV and declare that I for one am fairly certain Remote
Viewing is a steaming heap of bullshit, that's neither here nor there; if the US government were willing to throw money at something so patently loopy, that makes it more notable not less. We have
445:
couple years since I've read his book, but
Schnabel was a science writer for Newsweek magazine. In the book he represents himself as attempting to be objective and beginning research for the book as an independent skeptic. He refers to Smith 14 times in
396:
project
Stargate, so I don't see how he's notable for that. We don't hold marines who die in battle notable simply for participating in a war, so why is a guy who says he played what seems a very minor role in a small failed project notable?
412:
as the subject seems to be notable given the cited references. The article does need some work, including cleaning out the spam in the
External links section, but that does not mean the article should be deleted.
117:
This article appears to serve primarily to promote the business now run by the subject. There are no evidently independent sources (the sources cited are "non-skeptical", i.e. pretty much uncritical). The whole
166:
per nom. Sounds like part of a walled garden promoting a claimed psychic abiility which has a l-o-o-n-g history of being repeatedly discredited by skeptics, and lacking independent and reliable sources.
110:
83:
78:
87:
70:
146:
Even with the greatest possible credence given to the wider subject matter, there's still no assertion of great notability for this individual. --
426:
as a successful work of the imagination, but that does not mean that everyone --or anyone--connected with it is individually notable.
17:
457:
book "independent," and to say that it portrays Smith as a noteworthy figure in the military's remote viewing program. So, there's
465:
432:
417:
400:
388:
339:
325:
305:
289:
269:
250:
231:
216:
171:
157:
136:
52:
282:
74:
480:
36:
66:
58:
479:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
318:
378:
313:
agree with dropping the disputed claim that he has "remote viewing" powers from the title, just as we have
206:
179:
Smith is a fairly significant figure on the crankier end of the conspiracy spectrum - he's been covered by
397:
228:
462:
366:
194:
361:
352:
336:
286:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
184:
119:
262:
180:
131:
125:
414:
314:
302:
154:
147:
104:
322:
241:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
168:
266:
247:
49:
428:
349:
153:
I am withdrawing this comment, pending further digging on the subject. --
285:
to avoid any confusion of his claims with anything approaching reality?
355:
183:, Anomaly TV etc and he's probably the name best associated with the
301:. Seems like he's notable, but the article is utterly imbalanced. --
473:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
358:
123:
not generally indicative of a pivotal role in strategic events.
191:
specialist market - it shouldn't be too hard to dig up sources
48:, I note that the strong argument of DGG is not refuted --
100:
96:
92:
246:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
483:). No further edits should be made to this page.
261:: I suggest the article, if kept, be renamed to
187:. His books were all pretty big sellers on the
265:, as there is no neeed to disambiguate it. -
8:
283:Paul Smith (utter fraud and charlatan)
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
1:
67:Paul H. Smith (remote viewer)
59:Paul H. Smith (remote viewer)
500:
232:19:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
217:17:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
172:16:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
158:16:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
150:16:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
137:13:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
476:Please do not modify it.
451:Reading the Enemy's Mind
32:Please do not modify it.
466:09:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
433:03:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
418:21:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
401:01:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
389:17:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
340:16:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
326:16:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
306:14:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
290:14:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
270:13:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
251:13:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
53:03:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
319:Jeanne Dixon (psychic)
447:The Remote Viewers
151:
385:
253:
213:
142:
135:
491:
478:
387:
384:
379:
376:
371:
245:
242:
215:
212:
207:
204:
199:
185:Stargate Project
129:
108:
90:
34:
499:
498:
494:
493:
492:
490:
489:
488:
487:
481:deletion review
474:
380:
372:
367:
364:
240:
208:
200:
195:
192:
81:
65:
62:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
497:
495:
486:
485:
470:
469:
468:
436:
435:
420:
406:
405:
404:
403:
398:124.176.67.208
393:
392:
391:
329:
328:
308:
295:
294:
293:
292:
273:
272:
255:
254:
244:
236:
235:
234:
229:71.145.166.155
220:
219:
189:lunatic fringe
174:
161:
120:remote viewing
115:
114:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
496:
484:
482:
477:
471:
467:
464:
460:
456:
452:
448:
443:
440:
439:
438:
437:
434:
431:
430:
424:
421:
419:
416:
411:
408:
407:
402:
399:
394:
390:
386:
383:
382:(talk to me!)
377:
375:
370:
363:
360:
357:
354:
351:
346:
343:
342:
341:
338:
333:
332:
331:
330:
327:
324:
320:
316:
312:
309:
307:
304:
300:
297:
296:
291:
288:
284:
280:
277:
276:
275:
274:
271:
268:
264:
263:Paul H. Smith
260:
257:
256:
252:
249:
243:
238:
237:
233:
230:
225:
222:
221:
218:
214:
211:
210:(talk to me!)
205:
203:
198:
190:
186:
182:
181:Fortean Times
178:
175:
173:
170:
165:
162:
160:
159:
156:
149:
145:
141:
140:
139:
138:
133:
128:
127:
121:
112:
106:
102:
98:
94:
89:
85:
80:
76:
72:
68:
64:
63:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
475:
472:
458:
454:
450:
446:
441:
427:
422:
409:
381:
373:
368:
344:
337:Nick mallory
317:rather than
315:Jeanne Dixon
310:
298:
287:Nick mallory
278:
258:
239:
224:My comments:
223:
209:
201:
196:
188:
176:
163:
152:
143:
124:
116:
45:
43:
31:
28:
463:Cal Jimenez
353:of articles
455:Schnabel's
281:How about
356:on things
111:View log
442:Comment
415:ElKevbo
362:believe
359:I don't
345:Comment
311:Comment
303:Dweller
279:Comment
259:comment
155:Dweller
148:Dweller
84:protect
79:history
423:Delete
369:irides
350:plenty
323:Edison
197:irides
169:Edison
164:Delete
144:Delete
88:delete
46:delete
461:. . .
374:centi
267:Nabla
248:Nabla
202:centi
132:Help!
105:views
97:watch
93:links
50:Samir
16:<
410:Keep
299:Keep
177:Keep
101:logs
75:talk
71:edit
459:one
429:DGG
365:—
193:—
126:Guy
109:– (
413:--
103:|
99:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
77:|
73:|
134:)
130:(
113:)
107:)
69:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.