Talk:Richard C. Hoagland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Shortening Edits[edit]

Based on consensus above, I've made some initial edits to shorten the article by summarizing various "Claims" sections into one claims section. Please leave comments and suggestions here. These edits take the article from 69,357 bytes to 39,328 bytes, which I believe is a great improvement and follows the consensus of the RfC. Thanks for everyone's great constructive feedback. Nasa-verve (talk) 21:24, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

So I had complained before that "out of the 112 items in the references section on this article, 40 of them are from Richard's own site". I just checked now and there are only 19 references. Progress! :) Nasa-verve (talk) 21:56, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that you've left in a lot of trivia such as the satellite collision and the Ares 1-X, and obliterated the far more important claims such as NASA worshiping Egyptian Gods and the behavior of his 40-year-old wristwatch. Stu (talk) 22:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Go head and reorient it how you think it should be then. Nasa-verve (talk) 01:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

No way! I'm not going to participate in this exercise. DELETE IT. Stu (talk) 02:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Go ahead and nominate it then. It seems that you are taking this whole thing personally. I understand you have put a lot of work into this article, sorry it turned out this way. Nasa-verve (talk) 03:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

This isn't quite a shortening edit, but suggestion: Astronomer (Ph.D. astronomer) Stuart Robbins has done a lot of work addressing some of the very specific claims made by Richard Hoagland, and many of the External links at the bottom of the page are to his work. Should those be put into the Responses by scientists section? Astrostuart (talk) 04:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Could you please explain what you mean "isn't quite a shortening edit"? My edit halved the size of the article. Thanks for pointing out the shows by Robbins. Unfortunately, I probably won't have time to listen through a lot of these podcast mp3's. If you want to and incorporate the content, feel free to. I believe it could easily go in the Responses section. Nasa-verve (talk) 05:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I meant that my suggestion would not shorten, but rather it would lengthen the article. Not that what you did wasn't to shorten it, but my suggested addition. Astrostuart (talk) 16:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Gotcha. Now I understand. Nasa-verve (talk) 23:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Nasa-verve: How can you tell the difference between "taking it personally" and "objecting on rational grounds"? Stu (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe if we did a new RfC there would be a different consensus? Otherwise... Nasa-verve (talk) 23:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
A PhD astronomer isn't necessarily particularly impressive as a source. There are a few people with PhDs who believe some pretty crazy things.

This whole sentence is WP:OR. Gosh this needs serious work.

Hoagland has proposed a form of physics he calls "hyperdimensional physics"[22][23] which, supported by the work of pseudoscientific overunity claimant Thomas E. Bearden,[24] he claims to represent the full implementation of James Clerk Maxwell's original 20 quaternion equations,[25] instead of the reduced Maxwell's equations as amended by Oliver Heaviside commonly taught today. These ideas are rejected by the mainstream physics community as unfounded.[26]

Speak up if you have any suggested edits, otherwise I will take a stab at it. Nasa-verve (talk) 19:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, the last 4 paragraphs of the "Claims" section is all referenced by Hoagland 1st hand sources. I've tagged them appropriately. I've looked hard and cannot find any WP:RS sources. If someone does not come up with appropriate sources soon, I will have to remove that content. The topics are: NASA destroying evidence of life on Mars, STS-133 first "post-Newtonian mission", details about Lunar Receiving Laboratory, and solar system warming. Thanks. Nasa-verve (talk) 22:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay, made some edits on the hyper dimensional physics sections of Claims by Hoagland. Let me know what you think. Also, if no one can provide reliable 3rd party sources for all the claims made in the last 5 paragraphs (over 70% of the text) of Claims by Hoagland then those paragraphs have to be removed. As repeated over and over again above, we can't insert content that Hoagland says himself, we need someone else to pick up his claims, otherwise they do not belong on WP. I have looked extensively (web, pub search, book search, etc.) and cannot find any other 3rd party sources to utilize. Nasa-verve (talk) 20:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay, based on no response for over 3 months to my original request for reliable references and my plan listed in the above comment from last week, I'm going to remove the last 5 paragraphs of Claims by Hoagland, because I could find no reliable 3rd party sources. Nasa-verve (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I also took off the {{third-party}} template, since the references to primary sources have been reduced dramatically. Previously primary sources accounted for roughly half of the original 112 references. Now its only around 9 references out of 41, or just under a quarter. I think my work here finally is done! Nasa-verve (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

the dude's clearly a nutter, but...[edit]

what does his lack of a university degree have to do with anything? i've known a few total flaming mentalists with degrees that believe this sort of thing without evidence. a degree, or lack thereof, doesn't imply sanity, or otherwise. in the intro it states "His writings claim that advanced civilizations exist or once existed on the Moon, Mars and on some of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, and that NASA and the United States government have conspired to keep these facts secret. He has advocated his ideas in two published books, videos, lectures, interviews,[5][6] and press conferences.[7][8] His views have never been published in peer-reviewed journals.[9] Hoagland has no university degree.[10]". pretty much does the job if it stops at "peer-reviewed journals", would it be there if he held a degree? I think not... So why not just mention his education level in his background section? or is there a purpose for that data point being in the intro? if so please let me know what that is... cheers for reading anyway dudes! (talk) 19:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC) teknotiss cannot access my old email (yahoo changed the password after a hack, and they changed my security question too! so forever lost my mail i guess, bummer!)

I am reading a book "la conspiración reptiliana". He is mentioned as one "among other scientists od high level". It is very informative to the reader that he doesn't have any scientific degree.
Hoagland's a professional speculator and his penchant for attracting the label of being a psuedo-science comes mostly from his unfounded theories which have yet to be tested under peer scientific review. He's a fun read though and has a knack for articulating bizarre theories about ancient aliens and structures found on both Mars and the Moon. (talk) 02:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Article is an unencyclopedic hatchet job[edit]

I don't know what to make of RCH, but my first impression as both a Wikipedian and a casual reader is that someone has gone pretty far to trash the guy. It's over-the-top, and in my view deeply unencyclopedic, so much so that in my view it makes him look like the victim of some kind of campaign to discredit him. Jusdafax 12:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Funnily enough, that is Mr. Hoagland's own opinion too. He once wrote "My wikipedia page has been edited and re-edited by NASA, and it's full of lies about me and my work."
He never, however, stated which parts are lies. I think in criticizing the page you have the same problem -- namely, which parts are false? If you'd simply like a rosier picture of this strange individual, please search for positive appraisals of his "work" by qualified people. Lots of luck. Stu (talk) 15:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
You don't have to be a genius of a Wikipedian to recognize a egregious violation of WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. For starters I have deleted the last two paragraphs in the lede. This is one of the worst examples of slant I have seen in my years here. I came to the article to do some research and am aghast. Next stop will be the BLP noticeboard if it's added back in. Jusdafax 21:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
You may have a case for removing "His views have never been published in peer-reviewed journals. Hoagland has no university degree" from the lead (which I've done, since one is clearly WP:OR, and the other needs a proper context as a criticism from Phil Plait). But as for the remainder of the paragraphs, excising notable attributed criticism and notable sourced descriptions of his eccentric views isn't supported by WP:BLP or WP:UNDUE. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Wrong university[edit]

The third paragraph of the intro says that Ralph Greenberg teaches at Washington University (St Louis), but he is actually at the Univ of Washington (Seattle). Can someone fix that? Isoruku (talk) 07:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Radio/podcast show[edit]

I've banned myself from editing this page, so please could some other editor bend to the task of creating a section about RCH's efforts at being a radio/podcast chat-show host? The Rational wiki has some guidance. Cheers. Stu (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2017 (UTC)