Talk:Eugene Hecht

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) 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 this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Birth date

What is the source of the birth date 1938 ? I was born in 12/2/38 (E.H.) In LCCN and Pamela Kalte etal. American Men and Women of Science, Thomson Gale 2004, its 1931.--Claude J (talk) 20:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal in EJP

Hecht took an unconventional view of energy in Physics Teacher and in European Journal of Physics. Evidently editors of these journals saw fit to publish his ideas. But his views were found wanting by another author in European Journal of Physics, so the contrary view was cited in this article to balance Hecht's stance. However, a Wikipedia editor has reverted this rebuttal for reasons having nothing to do with this article. The rebuttal should be restored.Rgdboer (talk) 05:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The refutation by Peter J. Riggs is also supported by another article he wrote on inference in physics: more on potential energy by Riggs. Hecht's position needs the counterweight of Riggs' work. Rgdboer (talk) 05:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From the edit comment [1], it appears that User Adakiko is concerned with possible conflicts of interest when it comes to referencing of Riggs' articles by anon-IPs. After scanning the links at User_talk:219.90.190.170, I too would be wary about using such references, and I don't see a compelling need to draw attention to Riggs' papers in this article. Yes, there's been some back and forth, with Hecht offering his own rebuttal to Riggs' paper. But the fact that Hecht's perspective is non-mainstream is already evident from the text.—Myasuda (talk) 02:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]