Jump to content

Talk:Philip J. Klass

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Aerospace writing

[edit]

I am surprised that the Wikipedia review of Phil Klass's life and work contains nothing about his work as a writer with "Aviation Week and Space Technology" where his articles were always put together with authority. In correspondence with me in the early 1980s he said that he considered that his book "Secret Sentries in Space" was far more important to him than his UFO books. "Secret Sentries" was the first book to give an authoritative review of the American and Soviet reconnaissance satellite programmes. Although very out of date by today's standards, I consider that it is still essential reading and an essential part of anyone's library about space programmes.


Phillip Clark (philclark1950@hotmail.co.uk), 10th July 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.52.230 (talk) 10:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Time for cleanup

[edit]

I'd like to clean up this page and make it more complete. The external links are almost all dead now and several citations are needed throughout. Furthermore, on reading the page I was struck that if I were the topic, I'd be happier if it started off discussing my accomplishments rather than opinions others held of me.

I'll be working on the page in my sandbox. If anyone has any additional information which should be included in the page, please leave it here on the talk page and I'll incorporate it.

Thanks Valis55 (talk) 17:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Valis55 I've had this page on my watchlist for sometime. It has needed so much work and I feel bad that I can't seem to find the time. Super glad you are taking this on, looking forward to seeing your results. Sgerbic (talk) 04:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion:"The two engaged in a bitter, months-long debate..." The implied antecedents of "the two" appears to be "those" and Klass rather than McDonald and Klass. McDonald was last referred to in the previous paragraph. Orthotox (talk) 20:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Philip J. Klass: career and concerns

[edit]

This entire section seems to be larely devoted to commentary b y thoses who are most interested in Philip J. Klass's investigations and writings on the subject of UFOs.

However, as his sister, I can confirm that Phil's career was primarily and most importantly as a writer on avionics in his capacity for more than 30 years as senior aviation electronics editor [not "the" editor] of Aviation Week and Space Technology. Indeed, I have been told that he was considered to be the world's leading avionics writer/reporter.(I have met his admirers as far afield as India.) His book "Secret Sentries in Space" was ground-breaking in its revelations of then-unknown intelligence satellites.

All you folks out there may think of him mostly as the critic or the defender of your own views on UFOs -- but that was not the primary focus of his career. He was first and foremost an engineer, and an expert reporter on aviation and rocket/space technology. His eyes were always fixed on the skies. I remember how thrilled he was, in his teens, when he won a ride in a helicopter (then called an auto-gyro) at the county fair. As a young engineer, he spent the war years at GE working on electronics for the U. S. air force.

Aside from his avid love of skiing, for some years after he moved to Washington, his chief recreational interest was Civil War battles around D.C., and as a hobby, he built electrical maps of the battles of Gettysburg, Antietem and others and donated them to the battlefields. It was not until the mid-1960s that he became interested in UFO claims and this gradually, unexpectedly, became his major personal interest.

I think he thought that his first book answering such claims would settle those questions. As a lawyer's son, a trained engineer, and an experienced investigative reporter attuned to technology and facts, he was dedicated to hard evidence, careful research, scientific data and accuracy; his career was focussed on technology -- planes and rockets and satellites that were dependent on the laws of physics, and that had to work. He was a dogged investigator and internationally known and respected for his accuracy. I have been told (though I cannot verify this) that on one occasion, when he criticized a major planned European rocket program, it was postponed and re-examined in the light of his criticisms.

So, being accustomed to working on the basis of scientific evidence, he was initially surprised and, I think, dismayed at the ease with which much of the public accepted unproven, unscientific, and sometimes fantastical UFO claims. This led him to pursue these claims further in another book, and then still further, and this developed into the major interest for which you folks seem to know him best.

Following his nominal retirement from Aviation Week, he turned his attention increasingly to the investigation of such claims, and that more or less developed into a second career. But his first career was aviation and avionics, and it was very distinguished, as indicated by the respect and honors he received along the way.

So you folks only know the half of it.

Rosanne Klass71.183.21.246 (talk) 08:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

[edit]

The category Avionics should probably not have been removed as the subject of the article is credited with coining the term. Regarding other categories deleted, please point to a WP policy on categories. I was under the impression that all possible appropriate categories should be applied.MrBill3 (talk) 09:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia categories are not applied on the basis of broad subject keywording, but on direct characteristics of the topic itself. Category:Avionics may be a subject area that has some relationship to him, but it isn't in and of itself a characteristic of him as a person. If there were a category for "People associated with avionics", he would certainly belong in that, but people go in categories for people associated with subject areas, not in categories for the subject areas themselves. Individual entrepreneurs don't go in Category:Entrepreneurship, individual poets don't go in Category:Poetry, individual musicians don't go in Category:Music, and on and so forth — they go in categories for "people associated with this field" (i.e. Category:Poets, Category:Musicians, etc.)
"Appropriate categories" on Wikipedia, as a rule, are those which can literally complete the sentence "Philip J. Klass is a(n) (CATEGORY)" — so while you're right that all appropriate categories should be applied, you're not correct about what is an appropriate category.
As far as other categories go, the rule at WP:DIFFUSE is that people go in the basic undifferentiated "Occupation" category (Category:Writers, Category:Engineers, etc.) only if a nationality subcategory (e.g. Category:American writers or a more specific subcategory for the particular type of writing he did, Category:American engineers, etc.) does not exist — if one does, then they go only in the national subcategory and are not filed in the undifferentiated parent either simultaneously with or instead of the more specific one. And for that matter, both of these rules together are the reason he doesn't belong in Category:Scientific skepticism — that's the broad subject area category, not the one for specific individual skeptics, and he was already in Category:American skeptics anyway.
You can see Wikipedia:Categorization for further information. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Avionic engineers does not exist. It should be created under Category:Engineers_by_specialty, with at least two other avionics engineers (categories with less than 3 entries are usually up-merged into a more general category). --Enric Naval (talk) 12:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Properly cited material restored

[edit]

I have restored material that an editor (User:WalterHuston, contribs) removed diff1, diff2 without discussion on this page and without support other than a statement of personal opinion. The material was properly cited material from reliable sources. MrBill3 (talk) 18:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Auto Archiving

[edit]

I have set up auto archiving for this page. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Philip J. Klass. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The second external link "Articles by Philip Klass" is broken. Netsivi (talk) 12:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Philip_J._Klass&oldid=1233799605"