Talk:Philip J. Klass

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Philip J. Klass article.
Article policies
Paranormal Portal
This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.
This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page.

See Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] Old talk

I added { { NPOV } } because these new critizisms of Klass are all one-sided. Bubba73 18:50, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

OK, the NPOV has improved some, but I would still like to get unbiased third-party opinions. Bubba73 03:21, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

This is very POV. Virtually everything that's been added is anti-Klass. -Anonymous

Then I'm putting the NPOV tag back. Bubba73 (talk), 19:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

This is deeply POV. The lead in on the article immediately jumps into the debunker/believer controversy, and the bulk thereafter is devoted to a highly slanted discussion of same, attempting (badly) to masquerade as NPOV. Meanwhile, Klass' foremost secular and professional role in his life was as the editor of Aviation Week...is mentioned practically as an afterthought, although this is significant aspect of his career, which can be easily researched and documented (and some might argue for such constituting the lead-in, since that came before his "debunker" career, AND because his UFO-related activities were an avocation, regardless of the public attention they attracted). Further evidence of POV is the detailed exposition on the "UFO curse," which, while possibly meriting a mention, is certainly not deserving of a section of its own. Same with "The $10,000 offer."

I would offer to turn this in POV, but I know how that goes in Wikipedia: newbie, unregistered, interloper, revert.

I'll venture this. You can't GET an NPOV article in this spot. By that, I mean it's impossible, unless you get a genuinely unbiased writing and then lock everybody out. All the inflammatory dialog below, which reads like your standard heated thread on a UFO board tends to bear this out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.176.237 (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I changed those two sections into subsections. His non-UFO life could be expanded, but he is by far the best known for his UFO work. Bubba73 (talk), 01:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] disparaged?

The article says "The letter disparaged Friedman’s professional credentials as a nuclear physicist".

The actual letter says "He was trained as a nuclear physicist, worked in nuclear propulsion for five different companies in 14 years., before being laid off in the early 1070's and becoming a full-time UFO lecturer. He typically bills himself as the 'only nuclear physicists devoting full time to UFOs'. "

That doesn't seem very disparaging to me. The article Stanton Friedman says that he worked in nuclear physics 1956-1970, for five companies.

The "actual letter" immediately preceding the above quote is a little "introduction" that goes like this:

"...Canada will soon gain a "noted" UFOlogist, full-time UFO lecturer (of the "snake-oil salesman" variety) who will soon move to Canada to become its chief UFO Guru."

And followed immediately afterward by:

"Since the early 1970s, he has earned a comfortable living on the lecure circuit--mostly to junior colleges and the like. His lectures are very colorful, for he is quite a showman... His one-hour lecture is so filled with half-truths and falsehoods that it would take me several hours to offer a rebuttal. And like wrestling with an octopus, when you manage to pin down one leg, the other seven are still thrashing about. I am enclosing a White Paper which I prepared a few years back that illustrates the man's modus-operandi and his distortions of facts."

Now anyone with a little reading comprehension and who isn't disengenuous can see this is as obvious, slimy character assassination, full of all sorts of insinuations, that go something like this:

1. "Noted" is placed in quotes, insinuating this is imaginary, just part of Friedman's "mountainous ego" (a phrase Klass uses twice later in the letter). He's really a nobody speaking on the "junior college" circuit.
2. He is a "showman," a "snake-oil salesman," a "Guru," who distorts facts and spouts "half-truths and falsehoods." In other words, he's a disreputable liar.
3. Yeah, he's a nuclear engineer, but he had 5 jobs in 14 years, so he can't hold down a permanent job, but that's no surprise since he's such a liar. When his last employer cut him loose because of all his character faults, he became the carnival barker he is now, hustling money and speaking mostly to "junior colleges." He's just in it for the money ("earned a comfortable living on the lecture circuit"), probably because nobody will hire him.

And I bet Bubba buys every word of it.

The letter goes on to say: "Freidman and I are 'friends' of sorts ... he can be a quite likable chap with a good sense of humor."

Known as damning with faint praise. Note "friends" is in quotes, meaning "like hell we're friends." And of course it is immediately followed with:

"But since his livelihood now depends on UFOs, and he has a mountainous ego and knows how to make newspaper headlines, I would expect that he will be making waves for you and your associates. Within the UFO Movement in the U.S., Friedman is somewhat of an outcast, in part because of his style (or lack of it) and his mountainous ego. I understand... that his decision to move to Canada is prompted by the fact that his lecture business in the U.S. has fallen off, while that from Canada is growing...." blah, blah, blah

Followed by:

"The foregoing should provide you with a capsule summary of the man and, hopefully, alert you to deal cautiously with him knowing that he is inclined to distort the facts and exploit any ambiguity in your statements."

So the "mountainous ego" (twice), the man lacks style, he's an "outcast", and he is again the carnival barker just hustling money on the lecture circuit. Again he accuses Friedman of distorting the facts and asks the members of the National Research Council to treat him as the enemy who is going to be accusing them of all sorts of things.

Then at the end he says, "Please treat this letter in confidence, sharing it with appropriate associates as you see fit."

Or another words, please spread this dirt around with your associates, and for Godssakes don't let Friedman know that his "friend" is stabbing him in the back.

Anybody with any intelligence can see that Klass was smearing Friedman here and trying to destroy his reputation. This isn't an isolated incident either, as other examples of Klass' character assassination make clear. He even went after fellow skeptics who disagreed with him on occasion. (examples also given in article). There are numerous instances of this, the most infamous one being when he went after Dr. James McDonald for having the temerity to criticize his UFO theories as being unscientific. He tried to destroy the man professionally. Maybe Bubba and other skeptics don't like to have this rubbed in their face, but it's pretty obvious what sort of man Klass was. You can try to paint a pig with lipstick, but it's still a pig. The man wasn't a particularly nice guy and usually played dirty.

This article needs to be NPOV, not less. Bubba73 (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

It's a simple fact that there is a definite and very strong POV out there, based on the things Klass repeatedly wrote about UFO witnesses and UFO researchers, that Klass resorted to character assassination. NPOV doesn't mean you have to sugar coat this, though it should be documented with well-cited examples, as the article already is.Dr Fil 03:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the UFO field is full of frauds, full of incompetent writers, and full of really disturbed persons. Why should Klass pretend that such people are serious researchers? --Hob Gadling 15:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
If you would bother (or dare) to read the article and the references, you would discover that Klass's character assassination wasn't directed at just questionable UFO witnesses and flaky UFO writers but at reputable scientists, ironic because Klass himself was no scientist. Their collective "sin" was daring to disagree with Klass. Among the scientists Klass tried to smear and ruin was Dr. James McDonald, Dr. J. Allen Hynek, Stanton Friedman, and even fellow CSICOPians Richard Kammann, Tom McIver, and Dennis Rawlins. And this is a short list. God help anyone who dared cross the great Philip J. Klass. The many, many instances when Klass resorted to such dirty tactics clearly indicates he was a textbook sociopathic personality. He was like Richard Nixon and his long "enemies list".
That you would fail to address the actual facts and instead resort to calling all these people "frauds", "incompetent writers", "disturbed persons", and not "serious researchers", sounds like you are taking a leaf out of Klass's book of dirty tricks and smear tactics. Dr Fil 22:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Now that's a dirty trick. I didn't "call all those people" "frauds" etc. You mentioned "the things Klass repeatedly wrote about UFO witnesses and UFO researchers", and I think that this is a very broad brush. In most cases, calling UFO researchers "incompetent" is absolutely correct, and Klass could back it up. That's all I'm saying here.
Being a "reputable scientist", in reality or in Dr Fil's personal opinion, is no guarantee for being smart, being competent, or making no mistakes. McDonald, Hynek, Friedman frequently used bad logic to justify their UFO beliefs, and Klass was often right to chastise them for it. I guess he was also often wrong, though I don't know any examples except maybe the McDonald misusing public funds affair.


The Mars effect affair was botched by Kurtz, Abell, and Zelen, as well as the Gauquelins. Both groups split samples, which they shouldn't have done. But you need to read and understand a lot of statistics to find that out, and I guess that it went over Klass' head. So he should have kept silent. He didn't - another big mistake.
But maybe that what you are doing here is just what you are accusing Klass of? The "Criticism of Klass" section is longer than all the remaining text. --Hob Gadling 19:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reference section is very bad and needs editing

The reference section is useless. There is no way of knowing which reference is being cited. This is going to need a clean up. If people here can not match the references properly then the whole article might have to come down.

The way to do this is as follows.

(1)Click edit page above and see what the text source for the next quote looks like.

"Dr. xxxxx and the editors of the Oxford & Harper Collins translations, contend that the number of Roman Emperor Nero is 92. [1], a view that is also supported by Elvis [2]."

This way the reference will automatically be given a number and entered into the notes section at the end of the article also automatically. I have prepared that notes section already. Whatever gets into that notes section stays in the article and whatever doesn't needs to be cited in the above manner or will eventually go. (Simonapro 07:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC))

You might want to see how these changes look on Unidentified flying object (Simonapro 08:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Criticism section

Looks like almost the whole section was removed... I'm not sure how I feel about that...

Balanced is not always neutral and criticism isn't always negative. I really wish I knew more about Philip's life so I could chime in with more authority. ---J.S (t|c) 22:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I added the POV tag to this article. It's all praise and no criticism, now that the criticism section has been removed. There is a LOT of criticism of Philip Klass out there, and it should be included for the sake of neutrality. 159.178.251.46 06:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
It isn't "praising" him - it is factual. Bubba73 (talk), 15:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
It's factual, but all the facts given are one-sided. Why is there no mention of the fact that the FBI considered Klass a crank? That fact was presented in an earlier version of this article, but it's since been removed, no doubt by some pro-Klass editor. 159.178.251.46 11:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
It is not one-sided, it is encyclopedic. Please read: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Bubba73 (talk), 05:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Having just reviewed the previously-included criticism section, I'd say it's pretty insubstantial. There's a lot of criticism of his plasma theory of UFOs (the basics of this criticism are still in the article), and beyond that, there's a lot of evidence that he had disagreements with various people (hardly surprising). One of those people was the editor of an FBI journal, but based on the material there, it's far from correct to say that "the FBI" considered him a crank. It might be good to include some of the back-and-forth quotes from the criticism section, to give an idea of how Klass was often embroiled in conflicts and disagreements. But there's really nothing there other than a few people expressing negative personal opinions of Klass. That doesn't count as substantial criticism, and it's exclusion doesn't make the article POV. KarlBunker 11:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I added a quote criticizing Klass directly after the favorable quote in the second paragraph of the introduction. Now both poles of opinion on Klass are equally represented, and I think showing a favorable quote followed by an unfavorable quote exemplifies the point made in the second paragraph, that "Klass tends to inspire strongly polarized appraisals." In the interests of neutrality, I also removed the quote at the end of the article, which was really just a POV holdover from a previous revision. In my opinion the article is now completely neutral and encyclopedic. 159.178.251.46 09:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I knew Phil Klass--I brought him to speak at Arizona State University when I was head of the Phoenix Skeptics, I had dinner with him, spoke with him, and corresponded with him. He was incredibly gracious with his time (he appeared at ASU for free, without even being reimbursed for travel--he made changes to a trip that brought him to New Mexico in order to make a short trip to Phoenix, and stayed at the home of a Phoenix Skeptics member). He was very witty and quick. But he also could be incredibly stubborn, and I became personally involved in one of the back-and-forth correspondences with him that he has sometimes been criticized for by believers. His correspondence when involved in an argument could resemble that of a crank--with lots of bold, underlined, and uppercased text and numbered points and questions. He quickly cut me off and refused to even receive letters from me (returning them unopened) after I questioned his interpretation of the CSICOP "Mars Effect" controversy, though for some reason he continued a similar argumentative correspondence for years with Tom McIver. Lippard 15:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UFO Watchdog

This organization says that Philip Klass did NOT investigate anything, smoked butts and snoozed, yet can tell "YOU" what "YOU" have seen. Hall of Shame 1, 7th or 8th on the list. Martial Law 21:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Currently, site is moving to a new server. Will check status. Martial Law 21:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Site is now Operational if anyone wants to examine this matter. Martial Law 21:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey ML, they do NOT want this in the article, since it serves to make the Holy Klass look like the Ass he is. Skeptics actually work for the government, so that "UFO shit" does'nt become known at all, or there will be hell to pay. Hell YOU might be a govt agent yourself. The only way those idiots will allow the Great Klass to be criticized is that aliens find this planet, and "have us all over for lunch". You might look good covered on mayonnaise as a "McHuman" burger. 65.163.112.128 (talk) 05:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Don't be surprised if some ass of a skeptic does revert what I've placed here, or that YOU remove it yourself to protect those CISCOP asses. 65.163.112.128 (talk) 05:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

UFO Watchdog is used to criticise pro paranormal people and investigators, yet is NOT allowed to be used to criticize the Holy Skeptics. The criticisim is in the site's "Hall of Shame 1, 7th on that list". How the hell do I place a notice of Bias: Skeptic here, since evidence criticizing this skeptic is not permitted here ? Shit like that will certainly damage Wikipedia's credibility. 65.163.112.128 (talk) 07:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This should help:

{{POV|Date= January 11, 2008}}

Now if I can get someone to place this on that article itself. 65.173.105.225 (talk) 03:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The user above already got an outside Third opinion, see User talk:65.163.112.128, and the third opinion was that Watchdog definitely does not belong here. Bubba73 (talk), 04:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't belong on Linda Howe and Richard C. Hoagland, is anon's concern. If it can't be used here, then it can't be used there either. Perhaps a compromise might be a criticism that Klass actually practiced a form of criticism that wasn't informed. I believe I've heard so elsewhere. Benjaminbruheim (talk) 07:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
"I believe I heard it somewhere" isn't exactly a reliable source, or does it meet Wikipedia:Verifiability. Bubba73 (talk), 22:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
That is obvious. Anyway, UFO Watchdog is not a reliable source. And the bigger issue is that other articles are using this source which is not very verifiable. And I "believe I heard it somewhere" and the article accepts Verifiable sources. :) --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
It should be taken up on the talk page of the other articles then. Bubba73 (talk), 00:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
May I say something here? I have read books of both Klass and Robert Sheaffer. They are the most rational UFOlogists I have ever read & met personally. In fact, I dare to say that without the literary input of these two full-time UFO researchers the data on the subject doesn't make any sense. Any serious study of the field must start with them. —Cesar Tort 01:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)