Talk:Bernard Haisch/Archive 1

message: Actually,  has not yet responded to my request that he confirm his IRL identity.  I think this edit and this edit establish my conjecture beyond reasonable doubt, however. ---CH 01:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable Wikipedian

message: I just today discovered your note to me.
I will be the first to admit that my work with Rueda and others on a possible connection between inertia and the electromagnetic quantum vacuum is speculative, and could well be totally wrong in the end. But the analyses we have published have been legitimate physics, funded by NASA (not the Breakthrough Propulsion Physics project by the way) and by Lockheed Martin. We are not publishing unrefereed stuff on the Web. Our papers have appeared in the Physical Review, the Astrophysical Journal, Physics Letters A,  Annalen der Physik, etc. (It is partly gratifying, partly amusing that our recent two papers appeared in Annalen der Physik, which is where Einstein published his famous paper on special relativity. Yes, I know, the Journal has changed in the last 100 years!)
What I object to and which violates NPOV is (1) your selecting only the controversial parts of my career, (2) your adding negative editorial commentary, and (3) in some cases outright misinformation (in the JSE article).
For example, you mention an article I wrote for Noetic Sciences along with editorial commentary on that organization, but never mention that I have also publlished in Science, Nature and all the journals mentioned above. Most of my research has been published in mainstream journals and the bulk of my research was supported by NASA grants and contracts.
As for my editing JSE, I honestly did that as an unpaid public service. I think it is important for science to apply its tools to things that may lie outside the current corpus of scientific knowledge. There is no way to tell in advance where the next discoveries lie, so if most of what has appeared in JSE proves to be wrong (as it might) publishing on those topics is still a valid and, in my opinon, necessary function of science.
If you are going to discuss my editing JSE, then it is also fair to note that I simultaneously served as a scientific editor of the most prestige journal in astrophysics, The Astrophysical Journal, for which I made publish/reject decisions on over 1000 articles. Fair and balanced is the rule.
Your note to me is far less hostile than your articles about me and JSE, so perhaps there is some hope that we might come to a civil agreement on what is fair and  what is not. By the way, I do know the NPOV philosophy quite well. Arguably the originator of the Wikipedia NPOV is my right hand man at the Digital Universe, Larry Sanger.
I admit that I have been sloppy about logging in but it is easy to discover the association between my IP adress and my user name, so I am not trying to hide anything. Also I know nothing about Dr. Morelos posting or the pacbell one you mention that may have been Sarfatti's (whom I try to stay far away from).
Oh, yes, the UFO thing. I am not a UFO reseacher. I've never done any research there, but I have read books, met some of the leading characters (some totally credible, some really deluded) and have tried to see what could be gleaned from occasional peeks into the world of special access programs. I report all this in a pretty neutral way at www.ufoskeptic.org, and it really is my intention to be providing a public service on a topic most scientists choose to avoid altogether. I am simply presenting my best take on what I have learned over the years, there's no promotion agenda, take it or leave it. I make no money on any of this, in fact, it costs me money to host the website.
Haisch 19:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just replied on your user talk page, but just to make sure everyone knows: I will make the factual corrections and address the NPOV concerns you raised ASAP (probably in about four hours).   After my revisions you can take a second look and let us know whether you are satisfied that the revised articles meet WP:NPOV. ---CH 21:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply from Bernard Haisch

message: Unfortunately, I was delayed until now in addressing the users raised by  (Bernard Haisch IRL) about his wikibiography as rewritten by myself.  I don't think it is a good idea to have users edit their own wikibiography, so I am going to revert, add an inuse flag, and try in good faith to address the issues he raised, then compare with his version, and consider similar changes, then summarize changes in a new message in this section of the talk page.  This seems to me a better way to satisfy WP:NPOV.  ---CH 20:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about that — mea culpa! — I was inadvertently editing a previous version of the talk page. Again sorry. Paul August ☎ 12:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New version

message: I feel it is best if I make any neccessary changes, to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest should  edit his own biography.  In the new version, I made some minor changes from my previous version:
#added a phrase about Latin School of Indianapolis as per Haisch, although I must say I am still not sure whether Haish was trying to say that this is a Catholic seminary, or that he attended three seminaries, or what.
# added sentence to quotation of open letter on UFOs as per Haisch.
# corrected Rueda education/job as per Haisch.
# added "employed five postdocs" to brief description of calphysics.org as per Haisch.
# In links, describe UFO skeptic as "website" not "organization" and add and Astrophysics to calphysics.org link, as per Haisch
# removed "Unfortunately, Haisch's own publications and his involvement with fringe science organizations suggest to some that his involvement with Digital Universe might be compromise the percieved reliability of this project." as per Haisch, although this has been mentioned by others and something along these lines should in my view be reinstated.
Bernard, if you still have concerns sufficiently serious to pursue, please describe below the two most urgent concerns and describe what changes you would like to see.
TIA ---CH 01:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Addressing [[WP:NPOV]] concerns of Bernard Haisch

message: Here are the main differences between Chris Hillman's version (02:00, June 11, 2006), and the crrent version (as of 04:50, June 11, 2006 (UTC)). Perhaps we could discuss these one at a time?
#First sentence:
#:Old: "…  speculative theory proposing that a hypothetical "zero-point-field inertia resonance" might provide …"
#: New: "… speculative "quantum vacuum inertia hypothesis" which might provide … "
#First sentence:
#:Old: "… might be used for spacecraft propulsion."
#:New: ""… might be used for spacecraft propulsion someday (perhaps in the far future)."
# Next sentence:
#:Old: "…  his interest in UFOs …"
#:New: "… his interest in the UFO phenomenon …"
#Next sentence:
#:Old: "Haisch attributes his spiritual interests to his educational experience at the Latin School of Indianapolis,St. Meinrad Seminary and Archabbey, a Catholic seminary.
#:New: "He attributes his interest in "spiritual" matters to his early days in a Catholic seminary environment (the Latin School of Indianapolis, St. Meinrad Seminary and Archabbey)."
#"career" section title:
#:Old: "Scientific career"
#:New: "Academic career"
#Next sentence:
#:Old: "… in Madison, WI."
#:New: "…  in Madison, WI and thereafter did three years of postdoctoral research at the Joint Institute for Laboratory Astrophysics at the University of Colorado at Boulder."
#Next sentence:
#:Old: "He has been a visitor at the Max Planck Institute …"
#:New: "He has been a visiting scientist at the Max Planck Institute …"
#"Speculatice proposals …" section, first sentence and following:
#:Old: "… with Alfonso Rueda, a physicist currently teaching in the Department of Electrical Engineering, California State University, Long Beach, CA, have developed a version of stochastic electrodynamics. In these papers, Haisch and Rueda have elaborated a controversial hypothesis, …"
#:New: "… with Alfonso Rueda which concern their version of stochastic electrodynamics, Haisch and Rueda have pursued a controversial hypothesis, …"
#Second Rueda reference:
#:Old: "… Alfonso Rueda (who is apparently an electrical engineer by training ) …"
#:New: "… Alfonso Rueda (Ph. D. in physics from Cornell who teaches in the Department of Electrical Engineering at California State University, Long Beach) …"
#Next para, last sentence:
#:Old: "This casts doubt upon the "inertia modification drive" concept which Haisch and his coworkers have proposed can in fact be used to propel spacecraft (including alleged UFOs)."
#:New: This casts doubt upon the "quantum vacuum inertia hypothesis" concept which Haisch and his coworkers have proposed can perhaps be used to propel spacecraft someday.
#"Fringe publications" section, first sentence:
#:Old: "Haisch is a former editor of the Journal of Scientific Exploration, …"
#:New: "Haisch served as the second editor of the Journal of Scientific Exploration, founded in 1987 by Stanford professor Ronald Howard, …"
#Next sentence, and following:
#:Old: "Since the editorial board of JSE apparently consists entirely of academics who themselves publish such papers, often in JSE itself, one must presume that the referees are also drawn from this population. For these reasons, JSE is often regarded as a 'fringe science journal' …"
#:New: "JSE is often regarded as a 'fringe science journal' …" 
#"Fringe publications" section, last para:
#:Old: "…  published by Institute of Noetic Sciences, which says that it "sponsors leading-edge research into the potentials and powers of consciousness". In particular, it sells videotapes of lectures on such topics as faith healing, Gaia, and life after death.
#:New: "… published by Institute of Noetic Sciences, which says that it "sponsors leading-edge research into the potentials and powers of consciousness".
#"Other ventures" section:
#:Old: "At one time Haisch apparently had a startup company called Starspot Exploration Enterprises of Redwood City, CA."
#:New: (sentence deleted).
#"California Institute for Physics and Astrophysics" reference:
#:Old: "… California Institute for Physics and Astrophysics, also in Redwood City, CA, which formerly employed five full time physics postdoctoral students doing research on stochastic electrodynamics and related topics."
#:New: "… California Institute for Physics and Astrophysics. During the dot com era this Institute employed five full-time postdoctoral physicists with expertise in string theory, general relativity, astrophysics and stochastic electrodynamics."
#"UFO Skeptic" section, first sentence:
#:Old: "Haisch has also founded an organization called UFO Skeptic, which promotes the investigation of UFOs …"
#:New: "Haisch also has a website called UFO Skeptic, which promotes the investigation of the UFO phenomenon …"
Paul August ☎ 05:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Differences between the last version by CH and the current one

message: Well, this is rather upsetting.  I thought my version had made all the factual corrections, but I now see that in two places, I failed to make the corrections consistently, which I have just fixed.  That was an oversight, but I apologize.
For the record, I feel that I have bent over backwards to
# promptly and fairly address concerns raised by Haisch in this and other articles,
# tried to help him as a newbie,
# not over-react to violations by  of WP:CIV and WP:NLT on my user talk page.
I also feel (I think Paul might agree) that the differences between my version (as corrected to fully implement the factual corrections regarding Rueda and UFO skeptic) are minimal, but there is a principle at stake: I don't think subjects of wikibios should edit their own wikibio.  I think there are plenty of safeguards in place to prevent anyone from being slandered or unfairly slammed here, but on my user talk page Haisch himself raised the issue which most conerns me: a financial incentive to slant this article to portray the theory/proposal of Haisch and Rueda in a highly favorable light.  As he put it:
I think WP must resist POV-pushing in the interests of our readers.
Here is how I summarize the diffs between my version and Haisch's version (almost identical to Paul's version):
#The introduction mentions "hypothetical zero-point-field inertia resonance" rather than "quantum vacuum inertia hypothesis"; both of these terms have been used by Haisch and Rueda; the one I gave seems more frequent in their own writings (which I recently studied while writing this bio!!) but I insist only on the adjective hypothetical just to emphasize that this alleged effect is not accepted even in theory by all researchers; later I point out that Bill Unruh has claimed that the alleged explanation of the phenomenon of inertia rests upon a miscomputation
#My version moves the bit about Latin School of Indianapolis to the next paragraph, which I think improves the organization of the introduction.  I changed the phrasing because I don't think Haisch's version is very clear: is the Latin School part of St. Meinrad Seminary and Archabbey?  Or are the Latin School and St. Meinrad Seminary two separate institutions?  When was Haisch a student there?  If he can clarify on this talk page, I would be happy to make another change, but I think it is best that I (or Paul) make any changes to the article itself.
#: St. Meinrad is a Benedictine seminary and archabbey. According to our article Latin School of Indianapolis, it was a pre-seminary boys high school — not a seminary (I've now corrected this) — Paul August ☎ 04:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't used any of Haisch's words (verbatim or otherwise), my only edits have been minor copyedits, see ,  — Paul August ☎ 03:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: These inconsistencies crept in because of the edit war.  Ironically, one reason I was trying to work from my latest version was to prevent this kind of error creep.  In any event, I think I have addressed them all. ---CH 21:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well Issues 2 and 3 have been resolve to my sastisfaction, but not so far 1, 4, and 5. As my comment indicates I'm particularly concerned with 4. Paul August ☎ 21:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This talk page has become very confusing (primarily because Haisch has not been playing by our rules and thus messing up our attempts to address multiple concerns) but I think these have all been addressed.  Please discuss at bottom of the page if this is not true. ---CH 21:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New version

message: The following lists other differences not listed by Hillman above. These are essentially taken from  my list above:
#First sentence:
#:Current: "… might be used for spacecraft propulsion."
#:Old: ""… might be used for spacecraft propulsion someday (perhaps in the far future)."
# Next sentence:
#:Current: "…  his interest in UFOs …"
#:Old: "… his interest in the UFO phenomenon …"
#::These mean different things to me, the current version tends to imply belief in UFOs, the older does not. Chris, do you mean to imply that Haisch believes in UFOs? If so what is the source for this? Paul August ☎ 18:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These inconsistencies crept in because of the edit war.  Ironically, one reason I was trying to work from my latest version was to prevent this kind of error creep.  In any event, I think I have addressed them all. ---CH 21:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well Issues 2 and 3 have been resolve to my sastisfaction, but not so far 1, 4, and 5. As my comment indicates I'm particularly concerned with 4. Paul August ☎ 21:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This talk page has become very confusing (primarily because Haisch has not been playing by our rules and thus messing up our attempts to address multiple concerns) but I think these have all been addressed.  Please discuss at bottom of the page if this is not true. ---CH 21:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other differences

message: I have added the postdoc as per Haisch above.  (I trust he will be willing to let me choose the wording, whcih slightly differs from his.) ---CH 19:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More changes suggested by Haisch

message: Chris why do you keep reverting my edits: , , ?  They are all minor, the first a grammar correction (I think this is the third time I've tried to make this particular correction) the other two I discussed above.  Well I will try again. If you have a problem with any of my edits could you say what exactly the problem is before reverting. Paul August ☎ 20:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please let me review them and incorporate them into my version, OK? ---CH 20:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I'm confused, can you please show me where you had incorporated those changes? Paul August ☎ 20:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok you incorporated my grammatical edit ""a astrophysicist" to "an astrophysicist" , but not the other two  , ?. Did you have a problem with those? Paul August ☎ 20:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Chris: I like you're recent edits, and you have incorporated many of my previous edits as well, so thanks. And please don't misunderstand, I'm not upset. So long as we end up in the right place I don't really care, so much, how we get there, It's just that I've made eleven edits to this article so far, and you've reverted each one. My ego would like to see at least one of my edits go unreverted ;-)   Paul August ☎ 21:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chris why did you revert my changes?