Selcarim

Thanks for the reply, I completely understand where you're coming from in regard to the 'muting'. I learned (again, the hard way) to use a different screen name when I contribute to certain entries. Given what people see on the news (extremes on both sides), I always try to make a convincing argument that 'Christian Scientist' is not an oxymoron. Unfortunately though, this often results in attacks from both sides. TgS

TgS, because my perspectives on Christianity, Christ and miracles have served only to exasperate those of the faith in the past, these days I "religiously" exercise the self-muting mechanism when the topics arise. That is not to say that I have no sense of the spiritual (or of what most people refer to as the "miraculous"); but I prefer to "contain" it, and will continue to do so until I feel I have something "truly substantial" to add to the discussion, should that occasion arise. But there's no need to apologize; your assumption seems quite reasonable to me. By the way, thank you for making the effort to answer my questions.Selcarim 01:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Selcarim (or miracleS), I used to contribute to Christian entries and men's rights/divorce on Wikipedia under anonymous handles to avoid harassment and issues with my ex. I looked at your contribution history and given your Selcarim name, assumed we might be in the same boat, at least with the former topic. If so, please take a quick look at my user page when you have the time and let me know what you think about my intro to Lee Strobel. If I've misinterpreted and we don't share the same faith, please accept my apologies for the presumption. TgS

Research and other things

Selcarim, here’s what I found: If you search on the internet, it seems as if everyone claims to have invented this, but the booklet that comes inside the actual Levitron kit, says basically, “The effectiveness of spin in stabilizing a magnetically supported top such as your LEVITRON top was discovered by Roy M. Harrigan.” I’m not a lawyer, but if I read these claims correctly the Levitron patent ALSO credits Harrigan for discovering the gyroscopic effect. Now, there is an earlier (we’re talking WWII early here) patent referenced by both, by a: Neal. Neal’s invention claims include a disk, which may assume rotation, but the details are beyond me. If Neal discovered gyroscopic stabilization, then that’s what it is, however both the Levitron inventors and the company making/selling it credit Harrigan, not Neal for the “effectiveness of spin (stabilization)”. Considering this, I would go with Harrigan over Neal, but I don’t want to influence your conclusion. You brought up a valid concern over the time gap between 1983 and 1995, and that the effect was virtually unknown until 1995. I think this is explained by the Levitron invention being the more marketable (can’t find anything sold by Harrigan, but maybe he envisioned this having another use), and it’s date is 1994. This would explain why it would be known by the public in 1995. Again, I don’t want to bias your independent research, but don’t think you will find gyroscopic stability pre-Harrigan.

Selcarim I just finished this missive to you on the train and when I checked the Levitron entry at home – well, you can see. It seems there are people out there more interested in fiction than verifiable fact. I honestly don’t know what more can be accomplished, other than a revert war and I do have a life beyond Wikipedia and more important contributions on Wikipedia (you know what I mean). Even in those cases, contributors see the need for accurate information over opinion and bias - and we are talking about topics encompassing a wide range of belief. Personally, I think you could create the best article ever, but it won’t stay up and I don’t think you or I will have enough time or influence to change that. I even called the company listed that wholesales it, telling them what was going on. I emailed the link, the revert I was going to use and what to put in the edit summary. Very simple, and they did post, but just what I told them to. I called back to suggest they make contributions of their own. They explained some details about the legal fight (not found in the Court case referenced on Wikipedia) and predicted exactly what is going on here. My daughter’s favorite CD (her mother lets her listen to), is titled ‘Controversy Sells’. I get the impression that’s the corporate viewpoint. Point is, this is a ridiculous fight. I’ve been through lawsuits, divorce and Rita. You seem like an open minded person, though and I don’t want to seem ‘pushy’, but when you have time, I guarantee you would find www.leestrobel.com interesting at the very least. TheGreatScott 05:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

TgS, wow! Thank you so much for the information, and for your efforts. I must agree, there certainly are a lot of names associated with this invention, and the story appears terribly convoluted. But when all is said and done, all indicators (even, as you say, the booklet enclosed with the toy), seem to point to Roy Harrigan as the first to discover this form of levitation. By the way, this is the first I’ve seen the name “Neal” mentioned in this regard. Maybe his is another name we’ll be seeing tossed about.

You note that “…there are people out there more interested in fiction than verifiable fact”. I’ve been thinking a bit about this. I’ve got to admit that the vehemence with which some have promoted the “controversial” version of the story – even some scientists and at least one mathmetician/politician; some fairly prominent people who’s reputations could take a significant “hit” for propagating falsehoods on the matter – has me wondering if perhaps we are justified in treating it as potentially verifiable, but unverified. If, indeed the controversial story fits this description, I still go along with you as to how it should be treated for Wikipedia’s purposes; until it is established as fact, it has no place.

TgS, like you, I too have a life beyond Wikipedia and I’m not interested in the reversion wars. As for what could be expected in terms of longevity for “the best article ever”, I couldn’t agree with you more. There seem to be too many agendas and egos overriding the efforts of the encyclopedists who enter solid, interesting and well-presented information – information, the provision and maintenance of which will need to be a part of the mutual objective of Wikipedia’s contributors if the reference is to achieve greater prominence as a credible resource.

By the way, I visited www.leestrobel.com; very interesting indeed. Sometime soon, I’ll have to give it the in-depth look that it warrants. One last note: after the 19th, I’ll be pretty consumed in a couple of projects I’ve got in the works, so it may be awhile before I re-engage in Wikipedia’s goings-on. Take care.Selcarim 15:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

Hi Selcarim – I’m very glad you took a look at Lee Strobel’s work and will review it more. You can’t imagine how that bit of news has made my day! I’m closing TheGreatScott down (even my email’s become a flame-fest – to the point that I can’t even wade through it anymore). I’ll contribute as before in other areas as the need arises (although you should see how heated one statistic can become in a socially-controversial article!). As far as the Neal patent goes, he mentioned a disk, but I didn’t read anything about it rotating (hence, no spin-stabilization). Harrigan referenced Neal in his own patent, so it might be useful to show how inventions are like building blocks, new ones built on the foundation of the old – but that’s the only reason I would see to mention Neal in this context. The Levitron invention is like Post-It notes, talk to enough people and you are bound to find more than a few that “had the idea, but just didn’t have time to develop it, didn’t get to the patent office on time,” etc. You’ve probably seen some of that in your research.

You make an excellent point about the quality of sources. I would hold Wikipedia to the highest standard in terms of accuracy and verification. The UCLA and Bristol (UK) University professor articles would surely conform to the standard. As far as the controversial articles go, I just don’t see an encyclopedia entry as the right venue for that debate. For example, there is another ‘inventor’ claimed (in the current version of the Wikipedia article) to have “independently invented” an “alternate device” (quoted from article) in 1984. It goes on to say that the Driver and Sherlock (history) articles provide “substantial grounds for establishing Roy Harrigan and Joseph Chieffo as the inventors of the first spin-stabilized permanent magnetic levitation devices” (note that the Driver article gets its source material from the ‘history’ authors). The other bit of ‘source material’ comes from the ‘inventor’s’ own web page story. When a Patent issues, the U.S. Government is basically saying, “This person invented this device/method”. Were you to adopt this high standard for crediting the discovery of spin-stabilization, I would have to go with Harrigan. Of course this is all moot. Were you to revise the article to credit JUST Harrigan with the discovery of spin-stabilization, leaving out all the controversy, ‘additional inventors’ and such, your efforts would be nullified within minutes.

You are absolutely correct about the agendas and egos and unfortunately here, those with the most time on their hands, have the power to make only their ‘voice’ heard. A positive though – I’ve done some additional ‘sleuthing’ and it appears that controversy does indeed sell, and each of these Levitron toys that is sold has a booklet that credits Harrigan for discovering the “effectiveness of spin in stabilizing a magnetically supported top.” I’m signing out as TheGreatScott, but will message you if I find a WP entry that could use an open-minded researcher (when you have time). TgS TheGreatScott 17:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Selcarim - here is an article that could use your research/perspective (when you have time): [anthroposophy] TgS