Talk:Bernard Haisch

message: This talk page discussion had gotten very confusing (repetitive and messy) so I archived almost all of it.  Please see next section for discussion of current version (14:31, 13 June 2006). ---CH 22:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archived discussion

message: Our published scientific papers are about a "quantum vacuum inertia hypothesis" which would be an alternative to the Higgs explanation for mass. That terminology, "quantum vacuum inertia hypothesis," is in fact in the title of our last paper. The concept of modifying inertia for propulsion is purely a popular article type of speculation. So why is our work on inertia couched in terms of propulsion instead of in terms of what it is on the basis of our refereed papers: a proposal for a possible alternative to the Higgs? Why are you ignoring the terminology we actually use? Choosing the former for discussion in place of the latter merely serves to sensationalize, which is why I still claim that this is not yet neutral.
Haisch 18:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why Propulsion Speculation over Physics?

message: I created the original version of this article and had been monitoring it, but I am leaving the WP and am now abandoning this article to its fate.
Just wanted to provide notice that I am only responsible (in part) for the last version I edited; see User:Hillman/Archive.
I emphatically do not vouch for anything you might see in more recent versions, and given an obvious conflict of interest on the part of , I have reason to believe that POV-pushing will be a particular problem with this article for the foreseeable future.
Good luck in your search for information, regardless!---CH 22:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For Haisch's take on the controversy (again!) see LA Times Op Ed - which (in my view unnecessarily) puts blame on the Wikipedia community for the initial problem - and fails to credit it for a resolution which has allayed many of his concerns.Eh Nonymous 19:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In his OpEd, Haisch accurately notes that he now bears a Damoclean Sword:  the "resolution" is subject to random editorial whim.  Let's be brutally honest here:  how would you like it if someone parked a howitzer in your front yard, aimed it into your living room, loaded it, and left the trigger open to use by random passers at their sole discretion?  Would you feel better if, when you complained, someone just flicked the safety on and called it a "resolution"?  Far better, more fair, equitable, etc, would be to simply give the subjects of biographies the same absolute veto you have over the contents of your frontyard.   mdf 13:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, but I shudder to think what would remain of the George W. Bush article should we grant him absolute veto.  =)  Powers 13:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just came to this discussion after reading the article in a local paper. My first thought is that everyone involved is way too close to the argument and should take a breather. Maybe Bernard should write an autobiography if this article doesn't suit his self-perception- that has been the traditional solution. I thought that the article gave ample credit to his mainstream endeavors while deliberatively contextualizing his other pursuits with statements like "within internet culture" etc. If this was my first exposure to the subject, I would come away thinking that Bernard was a serious scientist with a remarkable range of interests. YOu would think that this would be satisfactory. Richardjames444 15:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you talking about the current version of the article, or the version as Haisch first found it? Paul August ☎ 15:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Students beware

message: Looks like contrary to my fears, this article hasn't changed much since I left the wail of dismay in the preceding section (one of many similar messages--- possibly not my wisest comments on record!).  One thing which wasn't clear to me from the L. A. Times piece was whether Haisch is still unhappy with his bio, which actually looks quite reasonable to me as I write.  In any case, I share his frustration with the fact that the hard work put into this article by several people can be undone in an instant by any anon. Be this as it may, curious readers can see User:Hillman/Media_commentary_on_Wikipedia for my running compilation of criticism of Wikipedia in the mainstream media.  I think many of these critics make some telling points and I'd like to see the Wikipedia community acknowledge this.  ---CH 00:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Department of Time: Healing All Wounds Division

message: Just a quick reminder that we have a living person policy. I strongly encourage folks to adhere to it! - Ta bu shi da yu 22:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also a quick reminder that we have a neutral point of view policy. Just because a living person criticises the article about himself in the media, or because WP:LIVING applies, does not mean that we should exclude well-sourced negative information, or that we should adopt a sympathetic POV. --Philosophus T 19:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Finally a quick reminder from one of the authors of the neutrality policy: neutrality as a principle states that the article be written in a way indeed sympathetic to all parties to the dispute, as far as that is possible.  This straightforwardly implies that the article as a whole simply cannot be a negative one, for the simple reason that Bernie and his many colleagues (i.e., the people who actually know him, unlike most of you writing about him) take a decidedly positive view of his life and work. -- Larry Sanger 19:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Living person policy 

message: Hi, Paul, I don't think anyone can discuss anything with Haisch until he calms down and agrees to play by our rules WP:CIV-WP:AGF.  I think I have bent over backwards to be helpful to him as a newbie but his childish insults are beginning to grow tiresome.  Please note that I have urged him several times to review our policies for talk page behavior.
I made a good regarding the version of Bernard Haisch I cited in my previous message.  This would be too confusing to try to explain, so let's start again.
I have reverted to my most recent version and am willing to discuss line by line, but only after Haisch has taken a few days to calm down.  I don't think the differences between my version and his are really that huge, but I resist the idea that he should be given license to rewrite his own wikibiography in his own words, since I think this compromises WP:NPOV.
In the service of our readers, I think it is important that our articles should strive to be readable as well as fair and factually accurate, and that is why I think it is best that I implement any changes the WP community feels are neccessary in Bernard Haisch: comparing his versions and mine I think it is obvious that I am the better writer, at least on this subject, and since I wrote the original version I also can more easily see where to fit in new material in a way which respects the flow of ideas.
Just to be clear: do you disagree with the principle that the subject of a wikibiography should be discouraged from himself writing or rewriting his own wikibiography?   Please note that everyone appears to agree that the subject can contribute on the talk page to express concerns, suggest factual corrections, or describe changes he desires.  However, as I say, I think it is best if more neutral editors make any changes to the article itself. ---CH 18:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Chris. I have no major disagreements with the guidelines set down in WP:AUTO. But I don't think we should prohibit an editor from making any edits at all. At any rate I have some concerns of my own about the Bernard Haisch article, as expressed on Talk:Bernard Haisch. Can you please respond to my talk page posts there? Thanks. Paul August ☎ 19:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh?  I specifically said that I don't deny Haisch the right to suggest changes in the talk page.  And   of course he has the right to make edits to articles on topics which are not controversial or in which he is not directly invovled.  I am saying that it would be best if he confine his participation regarding his own wikibio to the talk page, however.  Hope this is clear now.---CH 19:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I meant any edits at all to Bernard Haisch. Anyway I don't think we really disagree about this. I'm perfectly happy to ask and encourage Haisch to refrain from editing that article, and as you suggest, instead make suggestions for changes on the talk page. However at the moment I'm really more concerned about the changes that I want to make to the article. Can you tell me why you have reverted the changes that I made to the article? Did you read my comments posted on the talk page first? Paul August ☎ 19:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Well it's back now, and Chris has also added your postdoc info, so let's see what developes. Paul August ☎ 19:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, and you are welcome. Paul August ☎ 21:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Bernard Haisch]]-[[Journal of Scientific Exploration]]

message: Once again, thank you for your intervention.
Could you clarify the issue regarding Hillman's proper name. I believe I am using her correct name.
All necessary biographical information on me is available at CV. With regard to your suggestion that "as much as you think Chris' behaviour has been inappropriate, I think saying so is probably unhelpful" that is part of the problem. No one should be expected to sit back and be passive when one's carrer is being inappropriately misconstrued. I have tried and will continue to be civil, and indeed appreciative for assistance from you. But I maintain that Hillman has shown enough bias to warrant ceasing further involvement with my entry. But once again, thank you.Haisch 18:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And again you are welcome. As far as I know Hillman is this person, and is a "he". In any case Hilman goes by "Chris". Paul August ☎ 21:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can confirm that I am this mysterious entity, and that I generally go by "Chris" :-/ ---CH 02:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply from Haisch

message: I came across the op-ed piece in the LA Times and I still think
that there is a dash of value judgement here:
::In internet culture, Haisch is also known for his interest in the UFO phenomenon and his willingness to seriously consider a wide variety of unorthodox topics.
That to me is a sentence that is way too short. It immediately implies that he has a personal interest in and is a willing (impulsive) believer in quack topics. To the neutral reader who is reasonable, yet time-constrained, such a sentence should be enough to turn her/him off since it conveniently appears at the top without qualification. It fails to mention that he advocates the rigorous use of the scientific method in studying phenomena outside the scope of science. 
Even a recently declassified Ministry of Defence document judges that UFOs are real, offering up a conservative estimate that they are a natural phenomenon worthy of scientific study, and potentially dangerous to aviation. So even if UFOs are not of extra-terrestrial origin, there is clearly a need to study them scientifically. In light of this, Haisch in my view is simply being a good scientist---as he clearly is. But you have to look below the "turn me off" phrase to get to the meat of it.
The phrase "in internet culture" is also deceiving as it implies that his "unorthodox work" is somehow disseminated or born of that incarnation of the internet where "you shouldn't believe what you read". Or that only "people on the internet pay attention to that stuff".
Finally, what is this business with the "bizarre saga with Joe Firmage"? How is it related to Bernard Haisch's biography? It seems more like tabloid journalism than an encyclopedia entry...especially since Haisch's comments in that article are more level-headed than Firmage's outbursts. Granted, it is entertaining---however it feels more like a smear campaign of what are effectively the leaders of a Wikipedia competitor.
Trelayne 09:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "His Willingness"? 

message: Was the Calphysics institute mainly funded by Joe Firmage? Considering , the timing seems about right. Iin  I read that Firmage served as "chairman" of the institute, and in  he claims that the Calphysics institute is the "theoretical studies division" of his Motion Sciences Organization. AxelBoldt 16:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Funding of Calphysics?

message: This article has been editted by the subject in clear conflict with WP:AUTO. It is also clear that the article is filled with meaningless accolades and legitimizing remarks in an attempt to thwart WP:NPOV. Many of the statements are not backed up by sources listed and lack WP:V (ie what the subject is best known for). If you want to see how to treat controversial fringe scientists such as this, look to Eric Lerner, currently undergoing a major reworking. This kind of posturing is WP:NOT for Wikipedia. --ScienceApologist 21:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article was almost completely written by User:Hillman, who is not sympathetic to Haisch. I don't see how the article fails to be neutral, but please list specific statements here that you find questionable. I removed the "best known for" part; the other 's you added were supported with evidence further down in the article. For instance, does anyone dispute that he is an astrophysicist, that he is involved in ManyOne, or that he wrote a book attempting to reconcile scientific belief with religion? AxelBoldt 18:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Totally disputed tag

message: User:Sammyterry is still removing sourced material, and I don't want to exceed 3rr. I reported it here and here, and given the subject of the article edits himself here, also noted it here. Please pay extra close attention on this BLP article. · XP · 21:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourced material removal 

message: See Wikipedia:Footnotes for an explanation of how to generate footnotes using the <ref(erences/)> tags Nhl4hamilton (talk) 07:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations & References

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Bernard Haisch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060510020812/http://www.ufoskeptic.org/ to http://www.ufoskeptic.org/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425074915/http://rr0.org/personne/h/HaischBernard.html to http://rr0.org/personne/h/HaischBernard.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)