Talk:Chuck Missler

message: This link is to a video - supposedly of Missler - talking about spontaneous generation in peanut butter.
Peanut Butter
First, he is disputing evolution. Unfortunately for him, the origin of life is not addressed by the Theory of Natural Selection, which is what is generally meant by the word "evolution."
Second, I don't believe that there are any theories on the origin of life that state that anything living can be synthesized from peanut butter whether you call it "Matter" or not. This is simply rubbish. It does not rise to the level of a point of view, neutral or not,  because ignorance is just not a point of view. If it were, Wikipedia wouldn't have editors. b_calder 16:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So add a section discussion the video, criticisms, etc. etc. If the man is dead wrong and foolish as he obviously is, then just back it up with a section and VIOLA, no problem. I think the video deserves a section talking about it. --OMG LAZERS 03:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Be free to discuss it. But the OP is dead wrong on spontaneous generation not being part of the greater Theory of Evolution. Well it is, it's just not in Darwin's book. It still is chemical evolution. Missler's argument is that all chemicals required for life would be present in peanut butter, yet no spontaneous generation or abiogenesis does take place. --41.150.173.150 (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

text: A quick google brings up hundreds of references to it.  Meme it may be, but its bold illogic for the purpose of misleading the public is creditable (particularly as it appears to be part of a professionally produced 'item').  His 'contribution' to whatever it's part of might could easily be cited.  http://www.khouse.org/articles/2002/441/ for instance is the 'text' version from his own online ministry.  From the mouth of babes.--Koncorde 14:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Further note - to Hrafn - given that the peanut butter thing is pretty much the only thing the guy is notable for.  It seems bizarre not to include it.  What would qualify as notable?--80.194.170.170 (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that the peanut butter thing clearly isn't notable (no significant coverage in reliable sources, per WP:NOTE), if it is "pretty much the only thing the guy is notable for", then the guy probably isn't notable either, and the article should, eventually, be merged/redirected/deleted. To be "notable" it has to be something more than just getting laughed at, in passing, in marginal sources. HrafnTalkStalk 03:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles (with the exception of lists of people [11]). The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines; instead, article content is governed by other policies and guidelines, such as the policy requiring Verifiability and the guidelines covering the use of reliable sources and of trivia sections." so arguments over verifiability is one thing, removing stuff from a wiki on the basis that you think one part isn't "notable" however isn't covered.Koncorde (talk) 22:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would point out to Koncorde that 80.194.170.170 was defending the inclusion of "the peanut butter thing" on the basis of notability, which was why I was addressing that issue above. I deleted the material on the basis of lack of reliable sources, the trivial nature of the information, and the trivialising treatment that the few marginal sources that could be found gave it. WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. [...]  Routine news coverage and matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as announcements, sports, gossip, and tabloid journalism, are not sufficient basis for an article." (my emphasis) HrafnTalkStalk 03:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Missler talking about spontaneous generation in peanut butter on youTube

message: ===Sources===
# 
#* Attended the United States Naval Academy and graduated with honors
#* Branch Chief of the Department of Guided Missiles at Lowry Air Force Base
#* Worked as a systems engineer at TRW (now Northrop Grumman) after leaving the Air Force
#* Left TRW to work for a non-profit think tank
#* Masters in engineering from UCLA
#* PhD from Louisiana Baptist University (not mentioned in this book, but that's an unaccredited school)
#* In 1966, while working for Ford Motor Company, he created the first international computer network  (This is also claimed at his bio at  - I'd like to see it from a neutral source)
#* Started his own computer company, then did consulting work and worked on various boards of directors
#* Turned Western Digital from Chapter 11 into a profitable company
#* Owned a company called the "Phoenix Group International", which went belly up following a failed $8 billion deal with the Soviet Union.  The company collapsed when the Soviet Union ceased to exist.
#* Started full time Christian work un the 70s, and in 1991, started working full time with Koinonia House
#  (not Victoria Clark the singer, Victoria Clark the author. dave souza, talk 09:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I went back and looked at the book - I misread "brought" as "bought". Long day ... my bad ... fixed. --B (talk) 03:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: An easy enough mistake to make. I can find nothing RS on the web confirming this, and given the plagiarism thing, his own word isn't particularly reliable. Does it list dates for his chairmanship? If we had dates we could (at least potentially) find out definitively if he or somebody else was chairman at the time. HrafnTalkStalk 04:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It just says "early 1980s". They filed for chapter 11 in 1976.   Here is a New York Times article which confirms it.   Incidentally, it says he was the "largest shareholder".  If I believed in Bible codes, I might call my misreading "prophetic".  ;) --B (talk) 04:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

text: I saw that too and added it above.  I didn't realize it was actually anti-Calvary Chapel.  I was thinking/hoping that Calvary Chapel had actually realized that UFOs and Bible Codes are unbiblical.  Oh well. --B (talk) 04:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I didn't notice that you'd added it -- I was working off your earlier version.  Although it's not a Calvary Chapel product, it does seem to be by someone whose main concern about those fringe topics is indeed that they're unbiblical, and that Missler's immersion in pseudoscience hurts the Christian cause.  So perhaps it's a small basis for hope. JamesMLane t c 05:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never understood why he is so prominent there.  There's plenty with Calvary Chapel that I don't agree with, but they are, for the most part, pretty Biblical.  Missler is a glaring exception. --B (talk) 06:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

text: To clarify, it was previously listed when I looked at the linked author Victoria Clark the singer, which seemed rather odd, and having found that it was by another Victoria Clark who's written three books, removed the link and added an explanation in parentheses. It does give an indication of him as an example of a preacher of Christian Zionism and gives a couple of examples of his ideas and style, if similar reliable third party sources can be found that would establish his notability and provide a basis for an article. . dave souza, talk 13:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Am I missing something?  Is notability even in question at this point?  Based on the articles I have linked above, it looks like he was a major technology executive in the 80s and even if he had retired/died/whatever after the Soviet Union deal and never been heard from again, he would warrant an article on that basis alone. --B (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would tend to agree with you B. The problem, as I see it, is not so much 'underlying notability' so much as a lack of sources to be able to present Missler as anything more than a series of bizarrely-disjointed snapshots. We have, for example, nothing on how he came to become a major shareholder/chairman of WD, or how he became a (generally regarded as fairly wacko) religious teacher/author. At a lesser level, we have nothing on how a  Naval Academy graduated ended up working for the Air Force. This seems to be the sort of thing that WP:ACADEMIC (slightly off-point, I know) had in mind with its "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to ['underlying notability' standards], and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject" clause. It may be possible to create a legitimate article at this point, but it will certainly be a very disjointed and confusing one. YMMV o'course. HrafnTalkStalk 02:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Article sources

message: # 
#* Attended the United States Naval Academy and graduated with honors
#* Branch Chief of the Department of Guided Missiles at Lowry Air Force Base
#* Worked as a systems engineer at TRW (now Northrop Grumman) after leaving the Air Force
#* Left TRW to work for a non-profit think tank
#* Masters in engineering from UCLA
#* PhD from Louisiana Baptist University (not mentioned in this book, but that's an unaccredited school)
#* In 1966, while working for Ford Motor Company, he created the first international computer network  (This is also claimed at his bio at  - I'd like to see it from a neutral source)
#* Started his own computer company, then did consulting work and worked on various boards of directors
#* Turned Western Digital from Chapter 11 into a profitable company
#* Owned a company called the "Phoenix Group International", which went belly up following a failed $8 billion deal with the Soviet Union.  The company collapsed when the Soviet Union ceased to exist.
#* Started full time Christian work un the 70s, and in 1991, started working full time with Koinonia House
#  (not Victoria Clark the singer, Victoria Clark the author. dave souza, talk 09:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: I created this section to start listing potential sources for recreating the article from scratch.  (Obviously, some of them, like his own book, don't establish notability, but they provide basic who what where facts that we can use to create an article.) Please add to it.  Things that I think are important to cover - (1) more on his UFO views - the New York Times piece is just a "look at the funny UFOers" bit rather than a serious article on what he actually believes, (2) his Bible code views, (3) basic biographical facts like where and when he was born, dates for his various notable jobs, (4) something about K-House--B (talk) 01:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I went back and looked at the book - I misread "brought" as "bought". Long day ... my bad ... fixed. --B (talk) 03:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: An easy enough mistake to make. I can find nothing RS on the web confirming this, and given the plagiarism thing, his own word isn't particularly reliable. Does it list dates for his chairmanship? If we had dates we could (at least potentially) find out definitively if he or somebody else was chairman at the time. HrafnTalkStalk 04:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It just says "early 1980s". They filed for chapter 11 in 1976.   Here is a New York Times article which confirms it.   Incidentally, it says he was the "largest shareholder".  If I believed in Bible codes, I might call my misreading "prophetic".  ;) --B (talk) 04:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

text: I saw that too and added it above.  I didn't realize it was actually anti-Calvary Chapel.  I was thinking/hoping that Calvary Chapel had actually realized that UFOs and Bible Codes are unbiblical.  Oh well. --B (talk) 04:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I didn't notice that you'd added it -- I was working off your earlier version.  Although it's not a Calvary Chapel product, it does seem to be by someone whose main concern about those fringe topics is indeed that they're unbiblical, and that Missler's immersion in pseudoscience hurts the Christian cause.  So perhaps it's a small basis for hope. JamesMLane t c 05:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never understood why he is so prominent there.  There's plenty with Calvary Chapel that I don't agree with, but they are, for the most part, pretty Biblical.  Missler is a glaring exception. --B (talk) 06:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

text: To clarify, it was previously listed when I looked at the linked author Victoria Clark the singer, which seemed rather odd, and having found that it was by another Victoria Clark who's written three books, removed the link and added an explanation in parentheses. It does give an indication of him as an example of a preacher of Christian Zionism and gives a couple of examples of his ideas and style, if similar reliable third party sources can be found that would establish his notability and provide a basis for an article. . dave souza, talk 13:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Am I missing something?  Is notability even in question at this point?  Based on the articles I have linked above, it looks like he was a major technology executive in the 80s and even if he had retired/died/whatever after the Soviet Union deal and never been heard from again, he would warrant an article on that basis alone. --B (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would tend to agree with you B. The problem, as I see it, is not so much 'underlying notability' so much as a lack of sources to be able to present Missler as anything more than a series of bizarrely-disjointed snapshots. We have, for example, nothing on how he came to become a major shareholder/chairman of WD, or how he became a (generally regarded as fairly wacko) religious teacher/author. At a lesser level, we have nothing on how a  Naval Academy graduated ended up working for the Air Force. This seems to be the sort of thing that WP:ACADEMIC (slightly off-point, I know) had in mind with its "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to ['underlying notability' standards], and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject" clause. It may be possible to create a legitimate article at this point, but it will certainly be a very disjointed and confusing one. YMMV o'course. HrafnTalkStalk 02:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I've nominated the article for deletion again. The one source, besides the LA Times story, does not seem very notable to me for potentially harmful information on a living person. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: AfD

message: Redirects are working as of today - Porjo (talk) 05:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirects need attention

message: After the IP reverted the description of Missler as conservative, I took another look at this article and realised that there had been unexplained deletions and some stuff from the talk page not added. I've mentioned that he is a Christian Zionist (and a well known one among the movement) with links to the Patriot Movement. I think something should be added about his views on aliens given the NYTimes article and this . Dougweller (talk) 14:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Expanding

message: FYI,. I deleted a para about Missler believing in ancient astronauts to a mere footlink in Nephilim, in doing so I sidelined 3 sources attached which may or may not be WP:RS. If they belong anywhere it'd be here, but I'm not adding them to a BLP I know nothing about. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Nephilim]] = [[Ancient astronauts]]

message: We need to add content about his education - where he did undergrad and grad work. 71.212.60.44 (talk) 06:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Education