Talk:David M. Jacobs
|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to . If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Using citation templates makes it much easier to view the citations. Please try to use Template:Cite web, Template:Cite journal, Template:Cite book, and Template:Cite news for the footnotes. Thanks. Suntag (talk) 20:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Reliable source material
A biography is not a presentation of the thoughts and writing of David Michael Jacobs as presented by David Michael Jacobs. A biography is a chronological account of the series of events making up a person's life. Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This usually means print newspaper articles and print book, not websites. For Wikipedia, the information should be sourced to the reliable source writings of others who are not Dr. Jacobs. Audio clips of Dr. Jacobs speaking, his emails, and his instant messaging conversations are not third party sources but information generated by Dr. Jacobs himself. While reilable source comment on information generated by Dr. Jacobs himself is valid for the article, information generated by Dr. Jacobs himself is disfavored as source material for the article. -- Suntag (talk) 20:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Blanking and deletion
To conform with biographies of living persons policies, I have deleted this article and replaced it with a version that Moreschi put in place as a stub. The content of the article was in no way proper, and a full rewrite should be performed, in conformation with polices such as WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:BIO, and others.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Removed Jacobs quote on debunkers
I took out the quote from Jacobs on debunkers because it is not suited to a biographical page. The page should just contain biographical details of his life and events relevant to his ufology research which is the area in which he is noteworthy enough to warrant a biographical page on Wikipedia. Ocean33 (talk) 07:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Whether UFOlogy is a field or a pseudoscience depends on how it is handled. If people jump to conclusions pro or con without enough evidence it is pseudoscience. If it is against UFOs it would also be pseudoskepticism. to declare there is nothing to it could be just as bad as to to declare it is aliens from Zeta Reticuli without evidence. People who try to portray science as coming to conclusions before doing the research aren't good scientists. However in Jacobs case much of his work doesn't add up if you look closely so I won't object this time. Zacherystaylor (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Somebody undid the edit without saying why. I reversed it because "pseudoscience" is more accurate to describe it. There are no universities that offer science degrees in ufology. Ocean33 (talk) 21:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
The term "pseudoscience" seems belittling, and should be changed.
There is nothing wrong with having a section noting individuals who are critical of Jacobs methods. But "professional scientist" Carl Sagan had a PhD in astro-psychics, not psychology; ergo, his opinions have no merit in an academic sense. The reference should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 02:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
The problem is if you take that approach there can be no valid criticism of his work. Jacobs is a historian but he is formulating opinions on UFOs. Sagan was an astro-physicist who took an interest in ufology and his opinions have as much merit as any other academic who takes an interest in it. There are no scientific degrees in ufology, and no professional academic ufologists. There is just a collection of interested academics from different fields drawing on their respective knowledge to judge the work in the area, which is a legitimate approach. I think the reference should be kept. Ocean33 (talk) 06:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I've added a couple sentences which explains the nature of criticisms from peers; this "soft" criticism (from peers) is as important as the "hard" criticism (from opponents) in that it provides the reader a sense of where Jacobs' is positioned (in his outlook on the phenomenon) relative to his peers. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 08:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Removed Proposal for Deletion
I have undone the proposal by Simonm223 that this page be deleted because the citations do not indicate notability. This is because Jacobs is, in fact, a very prominent figure in Ufology. He has been interviewed on numerous television and radio shows, and has participated as an expert in the field in many documentary films on the subject. His work has been critiqued by such notable people as the famous astro-physicist, Carl Sagan, and Harvard Psychologist, Susan Clancy, who are cited in the article. Jacobs has participated in debates with Clancy on the subject on radio and television. Ocean33 (talk) 07:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- You say Sagan is refenced in article but there isn't any Sagan in the ref list. Ref list includes primary sources (confirming his academic position but not notability under WP:PROF)and a small number of UFO websites. Neither of these speak to notability. If article can be improved (with specific attention to refs) I won't AfD. If WP:RS refs can not be added I probably will proceed with an AfD. Simonm223 (talk) 20:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- I had a look at the Wikipedia notability guidelines. In the Wikipedia:Notability (people) page it says "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." I think this is the case with Jacobs. He is widely regarded in the field of Ufology as having made a substantial contribution to the body of research, regardless of whether his ideas are accepted by everyone or not. Academic research on the area frequently cites his work. For instance, the academic journal Cognitive Neuropsychiatry, 2002, 7(3), 163-178, at http://www.neoreader.com.br/item/doc/529/pdf/HoldenFrench.pdf. Within the field of Ufology itself, see the Journal of UFO Studies, n.s. 6, 1995/1996, 29-78. His work is cited in "The Lure of the Edge', by Brenda Denzler, which is a history of 'Ufology' published by the University of California Press. In 2000, Jacobs published the edited book, UFOs and Abductions: Challenging the Borders of Knowledge with ten expert authors writing about the UFO and abduction phenomenon with the academic community as the target audience. It was published by the University Press of Kansas. The book was critiqued by a number of experts who are quoted at http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/jacufo.html. These include: "This impressive book should make academics think twice before simply dismissing or ignoring the subject and, indeed, should help legitimize this controversial field of inquiry."--Bernard Haisch, California Institute of Physics and Astrophysics, science editor for The Astrophysical Journal. Also, "A valuable source for members of academe who wish to take on the challenges posed by the UFO phenomenon."--Peter A. Sturrock, emeritus director of the Center for Space Science and Astrophysics, Stanford University, author of The UFO Enigma and Plasma Physics. And, "A provocative volume on a controversial subject that should invite much debate from a wide range of scholars."--David H. Devorkin, Curator, Department of Space History, National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution. Jacobs is widely interviewed on radio and television programs as an expert. Any search of the net will bring up many examples. one example is his interview with Jerry Pippin, at http://www.jerrypippin.com/UFO_Files_david_jacobs.htm, in which he is interviewed about his participation in the UFO Abduction Phenomena Symposium held in New York City at the Regency Hotel, that was sponsored by the SCI FI Channel in June 2003. Everyone within the field of Ufology knows about Jacobs and his work. He is clearly a notable and influential figure within the field. Anyone who wants to learn more about the field, and the leading figures within it, will find the article very relevant and useful. I think that the article should be kept. Ocean33 (talk) 01:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Removed references to Marion apparitions
I removed the references to Marion apparitions as they are not part of Ufology, which is the area Jacobs is notable in. User:Sift&Winnow put it back, but later acknowledged that Marion apparitions have nothing to do with Ufology. I have taken it out again for this reason.Ocean33 (talk) 00:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Although User:Sift&Winnow put a note saying balance was needed on the history log, it should have been raised for discussion on the talk page first. The article is about the area that Jacobs is notable in, which is Ufology. He might have lots of views on any number of things, but they are not relevant to this page. If User:Sift&Winnow wants balance on the page, it needs to be something related to his ufology work. Could User:Sift&Winnow please put an argument here why you think it should be included. If not, I will remove it again. Ocean33 (talk) 00:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- This article is a biography of Jacobs, not an article on ufology. As a biography, the article needs to present a well-rounded picture of the person, encompassing all facets of his life. A unidimensional biography of a person is nothing more than fancruft. Jacobs specializes in the history of American popular culture. Surely Marian (note spelling) apparitions fall within that realm. By the way, my reference to Marian apparitions not being part of ufology was in response to Ocean33 placing the Marian apparitions paragraph under a Ufology heading, where it clearly didn't belong. I'd appreciate not having my remarks taken out of context. --Sift&Winnow 01:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Jacobs does not have a biography page because of his academic field of the history of American popular culture, because he is not notable in that field. The field he is notable in, which is ufology, is where he is notable enough to warrant a page. American popular culture is a huge area where anyone can all sorts of views, including Jacobs. However, those views are not relevant in an encyclopedia page about a person who is included in that encyclopedia for a particular subject area. What is relevant are basic biographical facts about his life, and some detail about his theories specific to the subject area in which he is notable. His theories on other areas of life are irrelevant.Ocean33 (talk) 02:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. BTW the leadership of the Catholic Church understands well that you can not just take what people say about their spiritual experiences at face value; which is why they have such a long procedure to name a person a saint. So I don't see how Mr. Jacobs could run into any problems for pretty much saying the same thing. But still not really worth mentioning. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I reversed an edit by Mistereyuz which was unsourced and contained libeleous statements about another person. I've restored my edit which was factual and properly sourced. Mistereyuz, please do not make unsourced and libelous edits in future.Michaela181 (talk) 23:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Michaela181/Mr. Vaeni, You're incorrect. Your edits are part of an ad hominem smear campaign. I corrected your defaming edits which would were re-routing readers to your podcasts that were repetitive personal attacks on David Jacobs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mistereyuz (talk • contribs) 02:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
I am not Mr. Vaeni. You've reinstated unsourced libelous material about a living person. As you've contniued to do this I'll report it to the relevant noticeboard. Michaela181 (talk) 07:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
And you, "Michaela181", have repeatedly linked unsourced libelous, slanderous, defamatory materials in the way of childish, ranting R-rated Podcasts as well as Forum and/or Group and/or Bulletin board posts that are not factually based; but are low-brow personal attacks against David Jacobs. Perhaps you should create a Wikipedia page on "Emma Woods" - thus revealing her true identity and leave your ongoing character assasination of David Jacobs behind. ( BTW, You will be reported, as well.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mistereyuz (talk • contribs) 08:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- I have removed unsourced and contentious material about another person in accordance with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. Such material must never be added without being supported by independent reliable sources, and even then may not be acceptable for other reasons. It must be discussed, and consensus obtained here first. Cusop Dingle (talk) 08:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for removing the unsourced and libelous material by Mistereyuz (talk · contribs). Regarding my own edit, I added factual information about the controversy over David Jacobs' research in the area of Ufology with nine sources, including the False Memory Syndrome Foundation newsletter, an article in UFO Magazine which is a leading magazine in the field, and a number of radio shows including the Dreamland show which is a leading radio show in the field with a large audience, and contrary to Mistereyuz (talk · contribs)'s statements above I have never referred to forum and/or group and/or bulletin board posts as sources. Anyone with knowledge of Ufology knows about the controversy over David Jacobs' work and the article should refer to it. David Jacobs has a numer of devoted fans who attempt to cover it up and I believe one of them was responsible for the unsourced edit containing libelous statements. My edit is simply factual, sourced by reputable sources, and informs readers of the article of an important controversy over David Jacobs' work. I believe it should be included in the article. Michaela181 (talk) 10:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- We can only include material supported by reliable secondary sources -- that is, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Is there any reason to suppose that this is true of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation newsletter, UFO Magazine, or the radio shows you mention? Cusop Dingle (talk) 12:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- The False Memory Syndrome Foundation is a longstanding organization which has addressed the contentious issue of false memories created by hypnosis, including cases of false accusations of sexual abuse and the creation of false diagnoses of Multiple Personality Disorder, resulting in law suits. They would have to be extremely careful to fact check everything that they published. In regard to UFO Magazine, the publisher has said that David Jacobs threatened to sue them if they published the article about his research. They were obviously very careful with what they published and went forward with it in confidence that it was accurate. The article in Paratopia magazine was written by an experienced documentary filmmaker who has made award-winning documentaries for PBS, cable, and commercial distribution for over two decades, and the publishers of Paratopia Magazine say that they checked all the facts in her article to cover themselves legally. They have also been been careful to obtain evidence to back up what was presented on the Paratopia radio shows. The host of the Dreamland radio show has had experience with a law suit in the past and would likewise be very careful with what was aired on the show. I believe that all my sources are reputable and have a reputation for fact checking. Michaela181 (talk) 01:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Cusop Dingle -- Thankyou for removing the reams of links and ad hominems against David Jacobs which "Michaela181" had added with the inappropriate insertion of "Emma Woods". This recent tampering with Jacobs wiki page was done as a 'dare' from the Paratopia Facebook Group to continue their obsessive personal attacks on Dr. David Jacobs. I think the David Michael Jacobs Wiki entry, as it now stands, is quite fair to all involved.
"Emma Woods", as I'd mentioned in my previous entry, is a public figure (who continues to hide behind a pseudonym while attacking people who use their true names and addresses). She continues to be very active writing letters/posts/commentaries to multitudes of online entities; as are her few, but vocal, supporters (ex."Michaela181"). "Emma Woods" has a very public website, which is obsessively devoted primarily to attacking Dr. Jacobs. It also includes other inappropriate oddities she publishes -such as her monthly menstral cycle charts! http://www.ufoalienabductee.com
The "documentary filmaker" that "Michaela181" references, is the ex-spouse of the late Budd Hopkins, who has a wiki page (and was a colleague and friend of David Jacobs). That filmaker negatively discusses her ex-spouse and barely mentioned David Jacobs. "Michaela181" is also against the work of the late Budd Hopkins, thus his/her attempt to include it as a source. And the interview was in the Paratopia e-zine which had but *one publication*. "Emma Woods" personal friends, who initiated this latest 'dare' to change the Jacobs wiki site, ran the e-zine.
As for the "host of the Dreamland radio show"- He is an alleged alien abductee and bestselling author who has claimed to be "anally raped" and "time-traveled" by and with aliens. [ Communion (1987), The Secret School (1996)] He has his own wiki page - Whitley Streiber. It appears "Michaela181" tries to spin this from every angle to re-insert links that are nothing more than personal attacks on David Jacobs, regardless of the veracity and background of the people making the criticisms. As long as "Michaela181" can find even a bit of criticism of Jacobs, he/she wants to source it, though the source itself may have serious credibility issues.
Regarding "Michaela181" referencing the False Memory Syndrome Magazine - that publication can be read online and addresses people and topics that have nothing to do with alleged alien abductions.
Also, it's heresay and speculation for "Michaela181" to claim that Dr. Jacobs "threatened a lawsuit" against the editors of UFO Magazine for publishing a cover story of "Emma Woods" and her attacks on Dr. Jacobs. One can also easily say, from the various rumor mills online, that the UFO Magazine editors have utilized such litigious tactics against some competitors in the publishing field over the years. Again, all speculation from various angles in online discussions.
Thankyou once again for returning the Jacobs wiki page to what it was before "Michaela181" altered it. And, if I posted anything wrong in attempting to correct those alterations, I apologize Cusop Dingle! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mistereyuz (talk • contribs) 04:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- For the record, my edit on the David Jacobs Wikipedia page was not part of any dare. I had been meaning to do it for some time. After seeing comments on Facebook about the article (which in fact were not a dare but simply a reference to the fact that the article is missing information about the controversy over David Jacobs’ work, and a suggestion that it be addressed), it reminded me of it.
- None of the sources I referenced have engaged in any personal attacks (unlike Mistereyuz.) They are all reputable sources regarding a controversy over David Jaocbs’ research.
- The highly experienced and reputable documentary filmmaker I referenced was indeed the former spouse and research collaborator of Budd Hopkins. She wrote an important article that, contrary to Mistereyuz’s claims above, contained expensive coverage of the work of David Jacobs. That is why I have used it as a source.
- The False Memory Syndrome publication is likewise a reputable source that has an important article about the work of David Jacobs.
- I cannot comment on the personal experiences of the host of the Deamland radio show. However, it is a long standing reputable show that has a large audience, and the host would be very careful to fact check what is broadcast for legal reasons.
- In regard to Dr. Jacobs’ threats to sue UFO Magazine if they published the article on his work, that is most certainly not speculation. The publisher of UFO Magazine himself wrote about it in the issue of the magazine concerned. He also spoke about it during a radio interview. UFO Magazine went ahead and published the article, and they were clearly confident that it was accurate before doing so.
- David Jacobs has a a few devoted and rather cult-like followers, and I believe that Mistereyuz is one of these people, trying to cover up the controversy over his work in Ufology.
- The article on as it stands now is missing a much needed reference to that major controversy over David Jacobs’ work. I believe my edit is properly sourced and is a valuable addition to the article, and that it should be included. Michaela181 (talk) 07:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Opinions on whether any given source is reliable can be obtained at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Arguments based on whether or not the subject of an article might have sued for libel are very weak. What we want is evidence that the source has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. What we do not want in this talk page are comments on the alleged motiviations or behaviour of other editors. The sole purpose of this page is for discussing how best to write the article. Cusop Dingle (talk) 08:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)