Talk:Bernard Haisch/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Notable Wikipedian

Actually, Haisch (talk • contribs) 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)

Haisch has now responded in a message (on my user talk page) and I have promised (in a message in his user talk page) to make some factual corrections and address some NPOV issues he mentioned. ---CH 21:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It is natural to conjecture that Haisch attended the Latin School of Indianapolis (see the file history of the images and the article). Can anyone verify this? The stuff about the University of Wisconsin and the quotation comes from the amazon.com blurb for the book. ---CH 12:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


Reply from Bernard Haisch

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)Bernard Haisch

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)

New version

Unfortunately, I was delayed until now in addressing the users raised by Haisch (talk • contribs) (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)

OK, I have reorganized and rewritten this wikibiography. Summary: my new version retains most (maybe even all) of the changes requested by Haisch in his talk page message. The major difference appears to be these:

  1. Following the model of similar biographies elsewhere in the WP, I reorganized the material to present Haisch's more mainstream activities/accomplishments first and to summarize more controversial activities later on.
  2. My version quotes Haisch in what is intended to provide a more balanced portrait in his own words. In particular, it is important to note that he recognizes that his work with Rueda is controversial. OTH, I retained the long quotation from his "open letter" regarding UFOs and U. S. government conspiracies.

Regarding a quotation from WP talk page: before anyone objects that this violates WP:SELF, let me point out that the quotation is talking about Haisch, not the WP, and in addition, WP:SELF states in the second paragraph

Wikipedia can, of course, write about Wikipedia, but context is important. If you read about Shakespeare's works, you are not interested in reading about Wikipedia's policies or conventions. If, however, you read about online communities, the article may well discuss Wikipedia as an example, in a neutral tone, without specifically implying that the article in question is being read on — or is a part of — Wikipedia.

– from WP:SELF

To avoid any question of violating WP:AUTO I think it is best that I correct any remaining factual errors or address any further WP:NPOV concerns myself, but I am willing to consider further modifications suggested by Haisch (talk • contribs). In fact I solicit further information (please provide it in this talk page and let me figure out how to incorporate into the bio, however) on:

  1. Can you provide some standard biographical information (birthplace/date, early education)?
  2. Can you provide subject of Ph. D. thesis and perhaps advisor's name?
  3. Can you confirm that Rueda is an EE by training?
  4. Please provide more details on forthcoming experiment on stochastic electrodynamics: Does this directly address the alleged explanation of the origin of inertia? What "U. S. government" agency precisely is providing the funding? Where will the experiment be carried out? When will results be available?
  5. Would it be correct to say that calphysics.org essentially consists of yourself?

I think it is important to avoid pasting a C.V. into an article like this, but a direct link to a complete publication list would probably be helpful to our readers. It might be nice to ask Haisch to choose one or two examples of noncontroversial publications in presitigious journals to add to the list, to balance it out.

Comments?---CH 21:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Paul August: indeed, I forgot to add my sig, and thanks for noticing that, but why did you alter the wording of my comment, even altering a few words so that they became misspelled? ---CH 08:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

Comments by User:Haisch

(Apparently User:Haisch moved the following comment by myself from my own user talk page and then added his reply ---CH 01:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC))

Hi, Bernard:

First, you don't need to cc identical comments to my user talk page and to article talk pages. Usually Wikipedians just leave a note in a user talk page saying something like this:

Please see my comment in [[Talk:Whatever]]. ---~~~~

Because I have this article in my watchlist, even this is probably redundant unless you are wondering why I have not continued some previous in some article talk page.

Second, I moved Additional comments to Talk:Journal of Scientific Exploration because this comments seems to concern this article, not your wikibio.

Third, you should avoid editing your own wikibio; see WP:AUTO. More generally I at least feel that you should avoid editing articles on controversial topics in which you are directly involved, although if you feel you simply must do that, you should certainly use your user account to at least alert readers to possible bias. I think you grasp the idea that historically Wikipedia is governed by concensus and tends to give equal weight to all opinions no matter how ill informed. The latter is not always desirable but you should be aware of it. With patience and tact sometimes articles converge via successive approximation to a state acceptable to a small number of editors (right now I am not sure anyone but you and I is even reading this discussion). Then someone else comes along and undoes previous work. Not always desirable but part of the wiki philosophy. But there is strong community support for reverting slander or misinformation when the subject of a wikibiography raises concerns in the talk page. As I understand it, the current version contains no misinformation about yourself; please speak up if you spot any errors of fact.

I reverted to my version and then added back the information about Latin School of Indianapolis. Bearing in mind that

  1. this is an encyclopedia article and not a C.V. or academic eulogy,
  2. you have enjoyed a long career,

I am not sure that I see that all the details like postdoc and titles are really necessary. It seems to me that the article makes it clear that you have held mainstream posts and published in presitigious journals, and have also been involved in some nonmainsteam organizations and have published in some unusual venues. It seems to me that this is adequately balanced without becoming boring for Wikipedia readers, whose interests are ultimately paramount. In addition, concise articles are easier to maintain against "edit creep" and similar problems. ("Edit creep" occurs when some user adds new material without regard to previously existing organization, thus breaking up the flow of ideas, or even making nonsense of nearby material.)

If anyone strongly feels that the information about postdoc, exact titles, etc. are urgently important please speak up.---CH 14:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


I would like to pose a simple question that might warm you up ever so slightly to the possibility that we may be onto something promising --- could be wrong, of course -- with respect to a connection between the electromagnetic quantum vacuum and inertia. You are a GR expert and even known for your non-mathematical relativity explanations. Let's assume that GR is correct that light rays travel on curved geodesics in the presence of matter. Fine and good. Now when you stand on a scale, is there a physical explanation for the force, i.e. weight, you feel? You say, well I am prevented from travelling on a geodesic, therefore the force merely reflects my inertia. Okay... but is there a more physical reason?
I propose the following. The (very short) trajectories electromagnetic quantum vacuum photons follow are geodesics. This means that to the observer fixed in a gravitational field, the quantum vacuum is falling, i.e. accelerating past. But this is identical to having the observer accelerating through the quantum vacuum. Thus if we are correct about the quantum vacuum acquiring an asymmetry from the perspective of an accelerating observer and that being the cause of inertia, then we have implicitly explained the principle of equivalence, since the two situations are identical. Thus inertial and gravitational mass become two different names for a single phenomenon. Have I raised your temperature by even half a degree. Download and read our [Annalen der Physik 2005 paper ]. I would genuinely like to hear your thoughts.
Haisch 02:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I have briefly semi-replied to this and other duplicated messages from Haisch (talk • contribs) on my user talk page. ---CH 01:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Addressing WP:NPOV concerns of Bernard Haisch

I feel it is best if I make any neccessary changes, to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest should Haisch (talk • contribs) edit his own biography. In the new version, I made some minor changes from my previous version:

  1. 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.
  2. added sentence to quotation of open letter on UFOs as per Haisch.
  3. corrected Rueda education/job as per Haisch.
  4. added "employed five postdocs" to brief description of calphysics.org as per Haisch.
  5. In links, describe UFO skeptic as "website" not "organization" and add and Astrophysics to calphysics.org link, as per Haisch
  6. 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)

Differences between the last version by CH and the current one

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?

  1. 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 … "
  2. First sentence:
    Old: "… might be used for spacecraft propulsion."
    New: ""… might be used for spacecraft propulsion someday (perhaps in the far future)."
  3. Next sentence:
    Old: "… his interest in UFOs …"

    New: "… his interest in the UFO phenomenon …"
  4. 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)."
  5. "career" section title:
    Old: "Scientific career"

    New: "Academic career"
  6. 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."
  7. 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 …"
  8. "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, …"
  9. Second Rueda reference:
    Old: "… Alfonso Rueda (who is apparently an electrical engineer by training [citation needed]) …"

    New: "… Alfonso Rueda (Ph. D. in physics from Cornell who teaches in the Department of Electrical Engineering at California State University, Long Beach) …"
  10. 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.
  11. "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, …"
  12. 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' …"
  13. "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".
  14. "Other ventures" section:
    Old: "At one time Haisch apparently had a startup company called Starspot Exploration Enterprises of Redwood City, CA."

    New: (sentence deleted).
  15. "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."
  16. "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)

Reply from Bernard Haisch

I am ready to present justifications for each of those changes, but sincerely hope you and Hillman might simply accept them as reasonable so that I don't need to waste more hours on this. There is one additional change that I think is fair: to substitute "non-mainstream" for the pejorative, value laden term "fringe."

Otherwise I think we have come to an entry that is accurate and fair. Haisch 16:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I have no serious objections to any of "New" versions listed above. And I could support changing "Fringe" to "non-mainstream", but I want to wait and see what Hillman (and others) have to say. I will say that at the moment, many of the assertions of fact in the article are unsourced, which I think is a problem. Paul August ☎ 17:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Paul: if you are referring to the comment by Bill Unruh, I quote the post by John Baez in Stochastic electrodynamics. I'd prefer to quote Unruh directly, of course, but we have a problem here because as you probably know, very often academics are reluctant to publish critiques of papers by their colleagues, but simply warn off their own students and their friends in the field, who warn off their own students, etc. This practice is understandable (just look at the grief we are getting on this talk page!) but it does tend to mean that people can misleadly claim that their proposals have been "accepted". Someone WP needs to avoid leaving this impression (if there is good reason to think it is not true, as I am confident is the case here).
Bernard: I do not feel that fringe is inaccurate in any way, and I feel that is more appropriate that non-mainstream here.---CH 01:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Chris, as our article on Fringe science points out, the term "fringe science" is often considered to be pejorative. Is that the connotation you want to express here? On the other hand If you are instead suggesting that the term "non-mainstream science" is not just a non-pejorative way of referring to the same thing that "fringe science" does, can you give examples of non-mainstream science which are not fringe science? Paul August ☎ 16:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

New version

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

  1. promptly and fairly address concerns raised by Haisch in this and other articles,
  2. tried to help him as a newbie,
  3. not over-react to violations by Haisch (talk • contribs) 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:

Your words could deprive my organization of a million dollar grant because of your implicit judgment of my scientific career.

– Haisch (talk • contribs), in a comment in User talk:Hillman

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):

  1. 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
  2. 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)
  3. In the next section, my version leaves out some details of Haisch's career. I think my version is more readable and more focused, and I think it actually makes Haisch's own point better than his version because it is more focused: namely, that Haisch has held mainstream positions and published in some prestigious journals. There is another point at stake here: this wikibio should read like a general encyclopedia article, not a C.V. Haisch can write his own wikibiography and post it at his website, which this article already links to. Rather than having multiple links to that site, he should have an index page or whatever to help visitors find whatever they might be looking for there.
  4. My version did in fact describe Rueda as Alfonso Rueda, a physicist currently teaching in the Department of Electrical Engineering, California State University, Long Beach, CA, as per Haisch's correction, but apparently I failed to remove the EE thing from a later section. I have fixed this goof in the current version.
  5. Likewise, I did change "UFO Skeptic, an organization founded by" to "UFO Skeptic, a website founded by" as per Haisch's request, but failed to notice an earlier instance of "organization". I have fixed this goof in the current version.
    I've changed the section title for that section from "UFO Skeptic organization" to "UFO Skeptic website". Paul August ☎ 04:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  6. My version does say that calphysics.org once employed five postdoctoral students. I prefer my wording because I think it is more readable. In any case, Haisch should really not be rewriting his own wikibiography line by line.
  7. I removed one sentence from discussion of the JSE, but Haisch should not be allowed to insert a statement that papers are peer reviewed because this is misleading for the reason I mentioned in my earlier version; see also Journal of Scientific Exploration and its talk page.
  8. I have now quoated the critique by Unruh as summarized in the post by Baez in Stochastic electrodynamics and refered to that article in the wikibiography.
  9. My version mentions starspot.com; I don't understand Paul's rationale for removing this since I take it there is no question that the information is accurate.
    I didn't remove this (see below). Paul August ☎ 03:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  10. I retained the section title Scientific career rather than Academic career (is Lockheed Martin an "academic" employer?)
    OK Paul August ☎ 04:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think my version should be the basis for further revisions, and I don't think Paul (or anyone else) should use Haisch's wording verbatim; I feel that persons directly involved in controversial topics should not edit WP articles on those topics, although they are welcome to raise concerns, request changes in the talk page.

I haven't used any of Haisch's words (verbatim or otherwise), my only edits have been minor copyedits, see [1], [2] — Paul August ☎ 03:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

---CH 00:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Other differences

The following lists other differences not listed by Hillman above. These are essentially taken from my list above:

  1. First sentence:
    Current: "… might be used for spacecraft propulsion."
    Old: ""… might be used for spacecraft propulsion someday (perhaps in the far future)."
  2. 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)
    Ok,, Chris has now changed "UFO"s to "UFO phenomenon" Paul August ☎ 21:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. "career section, 2nd para, second sentence:
    Current: "He has been a visitor at the Max Planck Institute …"
    Old: "He has been a visiting scientist at the Max Planck Institute …"
    I prefer the old version, the current one sounds like he dropped by the institute one day. In any case what is the source for this and other biographical information? Paul August ☎ 18:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    Ok, Chris has now changed "visitor" to "visiting scientist" Paul August ☎ 21:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. Speculative proposals section, 3rd para, last sentence:
    Current: "… have proposed can in fact be used to propel spacecraft."
    Old: "… have proposed can perhaps be used to propel spacecraft someday.
    These statements are in conflict. Which is it? Did they propose that it "can in fact" propel? Or that it was merely a possibility? What is the source for this? Paul August ☎ 18:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. "Fringe publications" section, first sentence:
    Current: "Haisch is a former editor of the Journal of Scientific Exploration, …"
    Old: "Haisch served as the second editor of the Journal of Scientific Exploration, founded in 1987 by Stanford professor Ronald Howard, …"

Paul August ☎ 18:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


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)
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)
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)

More changes suggested by Haisch

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)

Reply from Haisch

Our physics papers, i.e. those in real physics journals are all about the origin of inertia. It is only the popular articles that speculate on inertia-free propulsion and I always make it clear, I hope, that such an applciation could be very far off. The physics, not the hypothetical technology some day, is the substantive part of our work and thus "quantum vacuum inertia hypothesis" should be used.

I am interested in the UFO phenomenon, not UFOs. There is a big difference which we can discuss if necessary.

My 3 years at the prominent Joint Institute for Laboratory Astrophysics were a big part of my career and I objecct to Hillman's suppressing this.

Starspot Exploration Enterprises was an LLC formed purely for liability reasons. Students were employed in the JSE editorial office and some of this involved working in my home office so I formed an LLC to protect me from personal liability. The name is whimsical and the LLC was closed when the editorial office shifted to Allen Press.

I ask your backing, Paul, on the neutral "non-mainstream" as opposed to "fringe." It is like the difference between "fag" and "gay." Hillman is not applying NPOV principles.

It is simply not true that the editorial board of JSE publishes such papers. Richard Henry's single paper was on his experience as a NASA HQ scientist whose job was to respond to Pres. Carter's request to his science advisor Frank Press to NASA administrator Robert Frosch that NASA investigate UFOs. Henry was the poor young junior scientist who had to deal with this and that is what his JSE article is all about. Without spending hours finding and reviewing resumes I have to make an educated guess, but I would estimate that at least half the editorial board has not published anything promoting anomalies.

A person whose reputation is being attacked (and Hillman's first version was a hatchet job) has every right to intervene, ethically and legally. Wikipedia has gone from a curiousty to a widely used first and often only source of information. Letting anonymous contributors say what they want and attempting to prevent the subject from correcting errors and slanted information is unethical.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Haisch (talk • contribs) 16:18, June 12, 2006 (UTC)

Bernard:
  1. UFO phenomenon: I have made this change as per your request, with an internal link to UFO, but this umbrella article does discuss the concept I think you have in mind.
  2. You wrote "It is only the popular articles that speculate on inertia-free propulsion". The paper by Haisch, Rueda, and Puthoff would appear to be a counterexample. ---CH 21:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Joint Institute for Laboratory Astrophysics: I have added this information as per your request.
  4. Starspot Exploration Enterprises: I have deleted this information as per your request, although I am not sure I entirely see why you would not want this mentioned.
  5. You wrote "It is simply not true that the editorial board of JSE publishes such papers." The contents of JSE are available at their website, so this claim is easily verified. I have however changed that section to try to shove any controversy over whether or not JSE is a "fringe journal" to Talk:Journal of Scientific Exploration. Same rules apply there: please discuss on the talk page and let me (or some non-Haisch-sock) make any changes.
  6. This article has never been a "hatchet job". No-one is trying to prevent you from discussing accuracy and fairness concerns, but we do require you to play by our rules. To repeat: WP has an extensive repertoire of social mechanisms in place to encourage accuracy and fairness in biographies of living persons, which have been tested in practice and generally work pretty well. In particular, I feel that they are working here, although not nearly as smoothly as they would if you had refrained from edit warring and confined yourself to civil talk page discussion as I requested. Basically, being polite and patient and playing by the rules is a much better way of trying to get what you want here.
Fair enough? ---CH 21:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Paul August's revert of Haisch's last edit

For now I would prefer if we all could discuss any substantive changes on the talk page and try to attain consensus first before editing the article. In particular I suggest we discuss each of the points addressed above in the section titled "New version" above. To that end I have reverted the last edit by Haisch. Paul August ☎ 17:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Haisch reverted Paul August and has made more edits without discussing them here.
To repeat: I am willing to discuss my version line my line, but I do ask that Haisch (talk • contribs) take a few days first to calm down and learn our rules. (I have repeatedly requested him to obey WP:CIV.)
Newcomers (if any) please note: I wrote the original version and I'd prefer to use my latest version as the basis for any changes. I think it is best if I make any further changes myself since I can more easily see how to insert material or remove old material without breaking up the flow of ideas, and I am also a much more experienced editor than Haisch, who has an obvious conflict of interest, so I don't think he should be allowed to choose the exact wording of his own wikibiography.
Following is my summary of what has happened so far:
A new user, Haisch (talk • contribs), who is in real life fringe physicist Bernard Haisch, is edit warring regarding his wikibiography Bernard Haisch and some articles in which he has an interest, Journal of Scientific Exploration and Stochastic electrodynamics. Please see also his user talk page, my user talk page, and the Paul August's user talk page.
Usually I'm just referred to as "Paul August", sans definite article, but I do think "The Paul August" has a nice ring to it, and as far as I know I'm the only one. Paul August ☎ 21:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Haisch also edits as an anon from
  • the pltn13.pacbell.net domain (Southwestern Bell InterNet Services; geolocated in San Jose, CA)
  1. 69.107.150.126 (talk • contribs) adsl-69-107-150-126.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net
    1. 5 June 2006 removes internal link to Bernard Haisch from List of UFO researchers
    2. 12 June 2006 confession of IRL identity
    3. 25 April 2006 implicit confession of IRL identity
    4. 26 April 2006 example of edit adding citation to his own book (I think this is linkspam, although some of these are more justifiable than others)
  2. 69.107.144.172 (talk • contribs) adsl-69-107-144-172.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net
  • the pltn13.sbcglobal.net domain (SBC Internet Services; geolocated in the Bay Area)
  1. 71.146.176.178 (talk • contribs) adsl-71-146-176-178.dsl.pltn13.sbcglobal.net
    1. 10 June 2006 implicit admission of IRL identity
Important note: the pltn13.pacbell.net domain has also been used by Jack Sarfatti, who as you all know has been permabanned. I'd like to avoid that kind of mess from repeating itself with Haisch. In any case, be aware that Sarfatti continues to occasionaly edit as an anon, and ironically he has also used this domain. Even more ironically, Sarfatti doesn't care for Haisch and myself have sometimes reverted sarcastic comments by the Sarfatti anon in various articles mentioning Haisch! (Just to add to the confusion, another user (apparently), DrMorelos (talk • contribs) apparently also edits as the anon 69.109.222.23 (talk • contribs) and claims to have earned a Ph.D. from an American University and mentions other things which fit both Sarfatti and Haisch. However, DrMorelos appears to have distinct fringe science interests.)
Returning to the edit war by Haisch: I feel (see the talk pages) that I have bent over backwards to
  1. not overreact to some questionable anon edits by Haisch
  2. be helpful to Haisch as a WP newbie (despite Digital Universe)
  3. not overreact to violations by Haisch (talk • contribs) of WP:NLT-WP:CIV-WP:AGF
Remarkably, in a comment on my user talk page and without any prompting from me, Haisch himself raised the issue which most concerns me about allowing persons to edit articles about controversial "scientific" topics in which they are directly involved:

If I go and seek funding from a philanthropic organization for the Digital Universe Foundation, as I am doing, and they look me up on Wikipedia, your negativity may cost me a grant... and I will never know that. Make no mistake about it. Wikipedia has tremendous influence, and that is precisely why must be both accurate and fair. The Wikipedia is perceived as no mere gossip sheet. Your words could deprive my organization of a million dollar grant because of your implicit judgment of my scientific career.

Needless to say, the issue which troubles me is that Haisch implicitly admits to a million dollar :-/ financial incentive to slant the WP in a pro-Haisch manner. I find this deeply disturbing.
In the matter of Bernard Haisch, the original version of which I wrote and which Haisch keeps rewriting, I told him several times (and followed through on my promise) that I am willing to discuss his objections line by line. I told him that I feel it is in the best interests of WP readers (and even himself) that he restrict his comments on articles on controversial topics in which he is directly involved to the talk page, but let me implement any changes in the article itself. I have been through several iterations of this with him already, and have made a handful of minor factual corrections he suggested and also made other changes. However, Haisch seems to insist on editing his own biography, an despite repeated polite warnings, he continues to leave insulting messages in various talk pages, which makes discussions with him unpleasant. He also continues to edit his own biography (breaking up the flow of ideas and adding a pro-Haisch slant). I have asked him to take a break for a few days to calm down but he also appears unwilling to try this. Please help me discourage him from edit warring until he calms down enough to respect WP:CIV. TIA ---CH 18:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I propose that Haisch and Paul August and everyone else try to confine further discussion of this article to this talk page, as far as possible, since the discussion is getting spread out and hard to follow.
Yes that's a good idea. Paul August ☎ 20:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I have added the postdoc as per Haisch above "major part of my career". I don't intend that "fringe science" as pejorative but as descriptive. I agree that term can be said to have a pejorative connotation, but so can "non-mainstream", so we need to agree on some term even if some feel that it is perjorative. Actually, I thought that "fringe science" was a good way to avoid more inflammatory concerns; e.g. someone objected when I tried to recat Electric universe (concept) as fringe science rather than pseudoscience since I feel some ingredients of the claims of "plasma cosmologists" are less controversial than others.
Once again, I am more than willing to make changes, but I would ask that everyone commenting on this talk page (or on my user talk page) try to respect WP:CIV and other guidelines.---CH 19:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Oops, forgot to say that I changed the flag back to {{disputed}} from {{totally disputed}} because as far as I can see, no-one is disputing any factual information in the current version. Please speak up here if that is not true. ---CH 20:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Oops, that flag only mentions "factual", doesn't it? I'll change the flag to the NPOV flag in a moment.---CH 20:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't believe that Haiisch has reverted any of my edits, Chris can point to the edit you are referring to here? Paul August ☎ 20:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

No, because I am getting tired of this, so let's just let that one drop and focus on discussing the current version of the article. I feel that you have I have edited this article good faith but have stepped on each others toes because of confusion caused by Haisch's edit warring. I wish to work from my own most recent version and suggest putting discussion of my most recent version in a new section at the bottom of this page. I ask Haisch to discuss on this talk page rather than rewriting his own biography. ---CH 21:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok fine but I just want to make it clear for the record that, although you claimed that Haisch reverted me he didn't. I think that to be fair to Haisch, the right thing to do would be to strike that statement out. Paul August ☎ 21:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this is getting a bit absurd but I have slashed that "without prejudice". ---CH 22:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
(referring to apparent financial incentive)
This is a misinterpretation. At one time I said to Hillman that I felt that I was on trial. She countered "First, let's maintain some perspective. No-one is on trial here. No-one is in danger of being involuntarily confined or even paying a fifty dollar fine. The worst that can happen here is that you are not completely satisfied with a biography about yourself written by others." My response about a million dollar grant was a direct reply to that showing that there could potentially be huge consequences for a misleading article.Haisch 20:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Chris why did you revert my changes?

Chris why do you keep reverting my edits: [3], [4], [5]? 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)

Please let me review them and incorporate them into my version, OK? ---CH 20:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Paul, I know this is getting confusing, but in fact I had already incorporated the second two changes you just cited and I just now incorporated the first (a -> an) so this is now done, exactly as you wanted.

Yes I'm confused, can you please show me where you had incorporated those changes? Paul August ☎ 20:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason for working from my version is that I felt my version is better written and better organized and more readable, so I prefer to make changes based on that version rather than Haisch's version. In addition, I don't think Haisch should edit the article itself directly or indirectly, so I have tried to find my own wording. ---CH 20:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok you incorporated my grammatical edit ""a astrophysicist" to "an astrophysicist" [6], but not the other two [7], [8]?. Did you have a problem with those? Paul August ☎ 20:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

And now you reverted my last edit again!? This is getting frustrating. Paul August ☎ 20:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Paul, I have fixed them. Please calm down and let me finish, OK? ---CH 20:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

Just to be clear: the reversions involved working from my latest verson rather than Haisch's latest version. I am in fact trying to implement the changes you suggested, in some cases using my wording in cases where you used Haisch's wording.

I agree that this kerfluffle was the result of misunderstandings and a few goofs on my part (incomplete implementation of changes) which however would probably not have occurred if Haisch had kept his cool and avoided an edit war as I requested.

I think I have addressed all the concerns you raised in the previous section. ---CH 21:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments from Haisch

"Fringe" is a pejorative term. It would be like calling a "gay" newspaper a "fag" newspaper. Please use a more neutral term that conveys the same information. "Non-mainstream" or "unorthodox" would serve that purpose.

I am not interested in "UFOs." I am interested in the "UFO phenomenon." There is a huge difference. No one can dispute that a "UFO phenomenon" exists even if it means nothing more than millions of people believing nonsense. But "UFOs" invokes a whole, cultish, UFO-conference attending circus that I try to have nothing to do with. Please be fair to me and draw this critical distinction.Haisch 20:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I am about to make those changes, but please take a break for a few days from editing this article, OK? I don't agree with your analogy but I do think it is inflammatory.
Please note that WP:DR suggests some useful things you can do at WP which would also be a good way to gain more experience here in subjects which do not directly concern yourself. ---CH 20:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Starspot Exploration Enterprises is completely irrelevant. It was an LLC my wife and I formed when part of the Journal of Scientific Exploration editorial work was taking place in our home office. So we formed this LLC to protect our personal property from liability and to legally deal with consulting income.Haisch 20:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'll probably take that out too, but please calm down and take a break from this for a few days, if for no other reason than to let Paul August and myself calmly verify that the article is self-consistent re minor improvements he and I tried to make. ---CH 20:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
As already mentioned above, I have taken Starspot out, although I am not entirely sure I understand why Haisch wanted this information removed. ---CH 21:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/e/r/Talk%7EBernard_Haisch_Archive_1_b2c0.html"