Talk:Richard C. Hoagland/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Middle name

Hoagland's middle name in the article was changed by 24.118.150.246 from Caulfield to Charles on 14 May 2006. Can his middle name be verified? Alan G. Archer 10:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

My Google search was a complete bust, including searches for references to those two names specifically. I wouldn't be surprised if C is his middle name. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Caulfield was added again. Anyone have any sources that call him by this name? -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 19:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

His middle name is indeed Charles. I once asked him directly and that was his answer. This admittedly may not be verifiable unless there is some legal record concerning him. -Don Davis

I referenced it from an old Art Bell show, from 17 June 1997; Art mentioned the name a couple times. I'm not sure how to fill out the template though; I only know the date of the show.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Should links to Hoagland's website be here? Should Wikipedia have an article on Hoagland?

Hoagland solicits "donations" on his website. What if someone put an advertisement for a product in a Wikipedia article? I trust that would be deleted.

Since Hoagland's own website is the source for most of Hoagland's biography, this article serves little purpose other than to direct readers to his own website. This is a strategy that Hoagland has tried with social networking sites, without success.

Anyone else feel this article should be deleted? MBarrieau (talk) 17:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Hoagland is notable (at least by some criteria), so deleting this article is not really an option. As regards his website's solicitation for money, well, I guess the Red Cross has something similar on their website. So, again, deletion is not really a straightforward option. However, if you think the article's biography is not neutrally written, be bold and edit it so that it is. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 17:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

He definitely merits an article. He's a notable loon. I recently read Dark Mission and immediately wondered who the heck this guy was, and came to Wikipedia to get the answer.

I have no problem with a link to his site(s), although they should be limited to only two places: the infobox and the External Links section. I don't think it matters that he solicits donations; so does the ACLU and we link to their site.

We should be careful about taking things from his site as though they're fact. His site is not a reliable source. It should not be cited for the truth of the matter asserted. It's okay to cite to it to support a statement that he claims something, but not that that something is true. I recognize that that's a tough line to toe; it is perhaps best to rely on other sources, instead. TJRC (talk) 17:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, all the uses removed were uses where his website was used to source his opinion. I'm puzzled by their removal. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to editwar, but again, I see nothing wrong with citing Hoagland (whether from his book or web site) for the purpose of showing what Hoagland claims. It's worthwhile to have a reader know that we're not making this up; some of his wilder claims are so out there that such skepticism would be justified if left uncited. I think the cites should be restored. TJRC (talk) 03:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The links are just more advertising for his website. It seemed we had consensus that the links within the body of text would be removed, and the infobox would include the link to his website. In my opinion, there is little justification for reprinting Hoagland's biography as it appears on his self-agrandizing website. Too many links to enterprisemission provide legitimacy to this non-entity. MBarrieau (talk) 10:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Whether they "give legitimacy" to him is irrelevant. We need them to source the relevant viewpoints. Per WP:RS and WP:V there's nothing wrong with using sources by an individual to source his own views once the individual meets notability. One doesn't need to like the guy or like what he promotes in order to use his website as a source. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that whether they give legitimacy is irrelevant, but further think that it does not do so. We are providing cites to back up the statement that Hoagland makes these outlandish claims. We are not providing the cites to show the proof of the matter asserted, i.e., that there is a severed head of a robot on the moon, etc. We are providing the cites to provide verification that Hoagland makes these claims. TJRC (talk) 16:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No Angstrom paragraph?

Why is there no mention of Hoagland's self-promoting Angstrom award? It has been a mainstay of his mythological biography, and someone ought to include at least a couple of sentences on his "winning" the medal and how he has used this event to buttress his "credentials." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isoruku (talk • contribs) 03:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It was in at one time, but the explanation of the difference between Hoagland's medal and the ACTUAL Angstrom award became cumbersome. I was not the editor concerned with either writing that nor deleting it, but I'm mildly in favour of the deletion, fwiw. --El Ingles (talk) 22:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Tobias Owen

Why is this relevant to the article? Even if sourced, it would only be relevant if Hoagland got the idea from Owen. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it appears I asked this last year, and it wasn't fully answered then. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Arthur, I partially restored that paragraph because without it there is no intro at all to the so-called 'Face.' We cannot assume that a reader will know what is meant by it and I don't think we should force uninitiated readers to use the wikilink. The namecheck for Owen doesn't matter but I think the brief paragraph reads well with it in (Not my work, by the way.) --El Ingles (talk) 14:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I see your point. The paragraph, when last in the article, made sense, but it needs (and needed) to be tagged "according to Hoagland", and needs to have the appropriate citation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Assertion that Hoagland "does not have any scientific training"

I'm bringing this here preemptively in the hope of avoiding an edit war. A statement has been repeatedly added to the article claiming that Hoagland "does not have any scientific training" - a serious allegation that is almost certainly untrue (None at all? Not even seventh-grade chemistry?). Most recently, this has been added with a reference that claims to support it: "[Ralph] Greenberg continues: "I don't think [Hoagland] really has any scientific credentials. He's not a trained scientist in any sense. He knows some facts. I don't think he has any depth of knowledge. But he's a good talker, and maybe gives the impression that he knows more and understands more than he really does." [1]. This does not, in fact, support the assertion that Hoagland has no scientific training - only the assertion that Ralph Greenberg doesn't think he has any. There's no question that Hoagland believes and promotes some wacky things, but unless there's some impeccable reference for the assertion that he has no scientific training at all - not even seventh-grade chemistry - this material needs to stay out of the article, per WP:BLP. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The key passage in the cited source is not what Greenberg is quoted as saying but this: Hoagland did not graduate from college. "I didn't actually get a degree," he said last week. High school chem does not count as scientific training, in my opinion, and we don't even know whether he had that. Thus I contend that the source does support the sentence. Cheers.El Ingles (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the assertion that he has no degree is well-cited throughout this article. The assertion that "Hoagland does not have any scientific training" is not, and the provided reference does not support that. "We don't even know if he had that" is not a good reason for asserting without evidence that he didn't have that, either. As this is a serious BLP-sensitive allegation, I will remove it again. Do not readd it unless you have a source such as Hoagland himself supporting exactly what is being said. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

That source says "He's not a trained scientist in any sense". The disputed text in this article says "Hoagland does not have any scientific training". If you really feel there's an unbridgeable gap between the two, I will try to rephrase.

bobrayner (talk) 21:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it says that Greenberg has this opinion of him. Your version is still not acceptable. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I updated the text again to meet your latest requirement; it clearly puts the words in Greenberg and Plait's mouths.

You could, perhaps, have done that for yourself instead of simply reverting the text away. How many reverts are you on?

bobrayner (talk) 00:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I've just up-updated because double Phil Plait seems ugly. I can't see how Gavia immer can object now to the very narrow statement about lack of uni experience (just think, he missed not only the education but all those hot women and all those all-night poker sessions, too.) El Ingles (talk) 00:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

This edit tells me all I need to know about why User:StuHarris has an interest in editing this article. -- œ^™ 08:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Do you think his numerous mis-statements about Gulf oil should be added to the article? I considered it but demurred. El Ingles (talk) 15:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

We might also add his mis-statements on the ISS ammonia pump problem. (The pump is now successfully replaced and (update 8/17/10) working.) El Ingles (talk) 15:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Your dodgy response doesn't hide the fact that you're editing with an obvious bias and attempting to push your POV into this article. That edit was a blatant violation of NPOV and shows you have no interest in improving this article nor anything to do with Hoagland. By bringing this up I'm not trying to stick up for Hoagland, I'm trying to maintain neutrality where it's obviously needed. -- œ^™ 22:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact that Hoagland doesn't have a degree doesn't seem to appear in the article. I think it's relevant, and has been adequately sourced in the past, in spite of Gavia immer's claims. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. After yesterday's saga with Gavia immer ,OlEnglish came along and deleted it again. El Ingles (talk) 16:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, I have no objection to the article stating that he has no college degree. That is adequately sourced, and I have no issue with it. Likewise with any well sourced statements about Hoagland believing or promoting ridiculous things, if the article stays with the sources. I do have a problem with any blanket statement that Hoagland has "does not have any scientific training". Only Hoagland would be an acceptable source for that, and he's not going to say such a thing. So long as there are other eyes back on the issue, though, I'm not going to continue reverting. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Why is a claim only acceptable can we only accept a claim if it comes from Hoagland himself? That seems arbitrarily restrictive, to me. (And Hoagland is hardly renowned for being a reliable source on any subject). bobrayner (talk) 18:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Because nobody else has the requisite knowledge to make such a broad statement. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

And yet some sources say they do know that. You might not agree with sourced content, but that is not a reason to exclude it (why, have you second-guessed everything that any possible source might know or not know?). Sources are important. Sources are doubly important when contributors disagree. bobrayner (talk) 21:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Early life?

Anyone knows anything about his early life? I think this should be added to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.187.66.39 (talk) 07:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Walter Cronkite

There is one wrong fact in the article where it says:

"Walter Cronkite has since called Hoagland's views "hocus pocus nonsense."[14]"

The source of that claim is an audio from Coast to Coast - April 25th 2005...But in fact that was not a Walter Cronckite that called in but it was popular radio host and impersonator Phil Hendrie. And he later also admited in his show and broadcast the same clip. Even on the Coast to Coast page, Walter Cronckite name is quotation mark. I can supply the audio from Phil Hendrie show if there will be need so that error should be corrected —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.129.121.10 (talk) 23:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm in favor of deleting that sentence, then. El Ingles (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok I uploaded relevant clip in question only for research purposes-here is the link: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=DVESPYZR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.129.126.25 (talk) 22:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice spot. I think that this is a good example of how we need to be familiar, and somewhat critical of the sources we use on Wikipedia. If no one had ever heard that Hendrie clip, and had just continued to follow the C2C website to the letter, then we'd still be spreading misinformation.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I am always happy to help. In fact it shows us how the world is becoming more and more complex with many variables that are coming in to the picture. It was pure luck for me that I even found that clip in the first place. Actualy I was searching for something else until I found that. After I listened to it I was curious...well you know now the rest of the story. Best wishes. Archivist1947@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.129.120.28 (talk) 15:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Hyperdimensional Physics?

This man has actually claimed to have predicted the election of Obama? Really? I predicted Obama would be elected president the day he spoke at the democratic convention in 2004. Guess that makes me an alien! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.5 (talk) 15:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Error in 'Hyperdimensional Physics' paragraph?

"Wikipedia's list of largest volcanic eruptions does not include a single one that occurred at 19.5°." The list linked to is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_volcanic_eruptions, and spans millions of years. Can it truly be said with certainty that none of these eruptions occurred at 19.5°, when they occurred, taking continental drift into account? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.6.215.86 (talk) 19:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

No, it cannot. Neither can it be said with certainty that no larger eruptions happened before anyone was making lists. The point is that the list, for what it's worth, offers no support whatever to the three people out of the 8 billion on this planet who hold that hyperdimensional physics is real and important. El Ingles (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

- :If the statement cannot truly be said, then surely it does not belong in an encyclopaedia, and needs to be amended, or scrapped?

No, I think the sentence is useful as it stands. It would be different if you had any actual evidence that continental drift had placed one of the volcanic events at a surprising latitude. As it is, you don't. You're merely grasping at tiny straws. El Ingles (talk) 00:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It looks a bit synthy to me. The article doesn't actually say that Hoagland claims that volcanoes on Earth are located in a specific region. So us saying that they aren't located in a specific region, as some sort of counter to Hoagland, is introducing a new idea - and we're not supposed to do that. I think that we should be careful of making observations that are designed to counter something in an article - especially when we don't have a source that specifically says 'no volcanoes are located at xxx', and are only relying on a Wikipedia article (Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source). Maybe we should turn the observation into a footnote.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess that'd be OK. El Ingles (talk) 13:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm in favor of deleting these sentences entirely: Hyperdimensional physics is not taught in any recognized institution of learning anywhere in the world, and 19.5° energy on planet Earth has never been demonstrated. Wikipedia's list of largest volcanic eruptions does not include a single one that occurred at 19.5°. Neither does the list of largest earthquakes by magnitude.

These sentences just serve to undermine the credibility of the theory - whose doubtful credibility should already be quite clear to a discerning reader - rather than add any helpful new information about the topic. The first sentence makes various claims that are both unprovable and could be already presumed from common sense, given that Hoagland has insufficient academic credentials. This sentence says basically the same thing as "Hoagland's theories are not generally accepted by the academic community," while clothing this point in aggrandizing language of "recognized institutions," to be found "anywhere in the world," etc. Further, "19.5° energy on planet Earth has never been demonstrated" adds no clarity or new knowledge whatsoever to an already esoteric and unfalsifiable concept. Finally, Hoagland's hyperdimensional physical theories don't (at least here) seem to be related to the size or measured intensity of historical eruptions or earthquakes, just to the presence of remarkable terrestrial features on various planets. These sentences, therefore, commit the straw man fallacy.

Wikipedia's policy toward pseudoscience should be one of objectivity. Relevant articles that expand on, reframe or contradict content in the article should be added for reference, or in the form of information added to the body of the article as encyclopedic context. It is not wikipedia's role to editorialize its content and include damning information if it does not contribute to necessary encyclopedic context. Therefore, I've deleted these sentences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.72.201.33 (talk) 09:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

So, someone doesn't like that I have deleted these sentences twice. Care to discuss? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.72.201.29 (talk) 07:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Your last three edits look OK to me - we can't come up with our own arguments, they should be points raised by others. At the same time, I don't that this article should be just a collection of everything Hoagland has every claimed. The majority of the current refs are just links to his own website, and that's not a good thing. I think that the article should be built around what others have written about him; how others regard him. If a particular claim isn't noted by an independent source, then maybe it shouldn't be included in the article. That'd make for a much shorter article, but it'd be a more balanced article.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Other claims-new material added

For this edit [2], which the editor has finally provided some kind of sourcing for [3] a Youtube video of the broadcast of the show. Any thoughts on its status as a WP:RELIABLE source? And exactly how much of the material added is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR? Other input please, if anyone has the time. Heiro 19:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

As we know, wikipedia frowns on Youtube as a source -- but sometimes it's all we have. I think this additional material is weak, but I'm not inclined to oppose it. El Ingles (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Since the material was removed for not being to a reliable source[4], and User:Doc Holliday360 has once again inserted without an edit summary, discussion here or at their talk, I've started Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Richard C. Hoagland to help clear this up. I'm inclined to think it is not reliably sourced as well. Heiro 04:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Wrong "Project Camelot" linked

In the Background section, third paragraph, the article states that "Project Camelot" released an interview. The "Project Camelot" hyperlinks to a wiki article on "Project Camelot," which was a U.S. Army project in the 1960's.

However, footnote 8 links to projectcamelot.org which is a conspiratorial / paranormal website.

The hyperlink in the Background section should be changed to projectcamelot.org

75.64.248.231 (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. El Ingles (talk) 20:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

this is why NPOV sucks

I recently made an edit about Hoagland's views on the spectrum of Mars. 21st century spectrographic equipment is available even to amateurs. If the spectrum were red with green patches, anyone with sufficient motivation could detect it.

NPOV does not require that pseudoscience be given equal weight. If Hoagland believed the Earth was flat or that the sky was green with pink polkadots, would you report this without qualification? Why then would you report that Mars is red with green patches? This is something that anyone with a reasonable interest could verify for themselves. It doesn't take the billion dollar budgets of NASA to do so. 70.116.91.46 (talk) 03:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

BBC programs

In the Background section, Hoagland is said to have appeared on the BBC programs "UFO Evidence & Conspiracy" and "Mysteries in Space." There is no supporting citation. Are these two programs actually BBC productions or something else? Alan G. Archer (talk) 10:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I am the user from IP 50.53.157.45

I was the user who made the edits on 12 Sept. 2012. Alan G. Archer (talk) 10:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

yu55

The two sentences concerning YU55 hitting the Moon and his advise for his followers to store subsistence should be properly referenced or be removed. Hoagland did speak of the possibility of YU55 hitting the Moon on the Collision Course Internet radio program (see note 4), but to the best of my knowledge, he did not say anything about public panics or the need to gather survival goods. Alan G. Archer (talk) 20:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I am viewing the Project Camelot livestream video interview, "YU55 - With Richard C. Hoagland and David Wilcock," but I will not be able to finish viewing it until later tonight. Alan G. Archer (talk) 22:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, Hoagland did address the possibility of panics after a lunar impact on the Collision Course interview, but he did not urge people to stock up on supplies. The Project Camelot interview was a tremendous waste of anyone's time. Alan G. Archer (talk) 10:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Alan, he did, he really did. However, I can't provide a citation so I'll be content with your version. What a lot of work you've put in on this page -- Bravo! El Ingles (talk) 21:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It's moving along slowly, but surely. The page feels a bit top heavy with the more recent events in Hoagland's career. It could be structured better. I am also becoming concerned about bloat. It won't get Larry Norman size, but still.... Alan G. Archer (talk) 07:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I suggest looking at the WP:FRINGE guidelines. Particularly about handling primary sources on fringe issues. Be careful not to base sections or paragraphs solely on primary sources. On wikipedia we only give due weight to what has significant coverage in (ideally) independent secondary sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Move here from lede

It is not lede material: "Claims from his personal biography and publication include having been curator for a science museum in Springfield, Massachusetts at age 19 in the mid-60s."

This comment added with signature and time stamp to facilitate archiving. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

naming Enterprise

The link given is just hoagland claiming he started the letter writing campaign.... any other valid link? Or is it just something else hoagland just made up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.39.63 (talk) 07:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Please refer to the cited report prepared for NASA by Archaeological Consultants, Inc., chapter 2.5.2: The Orbiter Enterprise. Alan G. Archer (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

This Article is a Hit Piece.

How did all these closed minded people come to wiki? It's one thing to point out he's beyond mainstream science, but many of his theories are derived from a sound "connecting of the dots" logic and he is not uneducated. This whole article smells of bias. It should be scrapped and written over with a more professional bent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.92.212.113 (talk) 07:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

As an editor who has devoted some research time to this article, I would strongly resist scrapping it as you suggest. However, I'm always ready to attempt improvement. Please provide some examples of bias in the text and let's go from there. If you have details of Hoagland's education, as you imply, that would be a very welcome addition to the article. Do please share what you know. El Ingles (talk) 14:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Well I'm a professional scientist and I think that Hoagland's work sure sounds like nonsense, but I agree that this article is mostly a hit piece. F'r instance, "Hoagland has never said how many of the 135 Space Shuttle launches and 133 landings satisfy his criteria for "fanatical, relentless" worship." (no reference) "Hoagland has commented at length" ("at length" shades meaning in a subjective and derogatory way) "Hoagland spoke and wrote extravagantly" (ditto, more blatant) "... but he has offered no explanation. He has not said what units a torsion field would be measured in." (no reference: not appropriate for an encyclopedia, go prove me a negative) The article is full of this stuff. If you treat Hoagland's work more neutrally, I believe the entirely reasonable criticisms will sound condescending rather than the current bitchy editorializing, and that's more appropriate. And as for Hoagland's "training as a scientist" (where comments confuse training with qualification)... Stu, I appreciate your polite and open-minded tone on this talk page and don't mean to offend, but the user page says you have "expertise in spaceflight" which suggests more of an engineer/astronaut career path than you admit to... glass houses. Raspw (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Responding promptly to Raspw's comments, I've expanded the Egyptian Gods section to include a citation, and changed "extravagantly" to "comprehensively." Both of those passages were originally composed by me. I must say, two lectures, both of which ran over their three-hour allotted time, plus at least three further hours on Coast to Coast AM, seems extravagant to me, but OK that's perhaps subjective.

I'd have no objection if someone else deleted "but he has offered no explanation", but I don't feel like doing it myself.

Sure, Raspw, I have expertise in spaceflight. That's why I reckon myself qualified to edit this page. What's "glass houses" about that? El Ingles (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, wait, I think I get it. You're insinuating that I'm just as lacking in qualifications as the subject of this article. Not so. My 2nd class honors degree in Electrical Engineering and Physics may not be the bees' knees but it's a great deal more than Richard Hoagland can claim. El Ingles (talk) 22:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

So, based on the evidence presented, you "may be knowledgeable" about spaceflight: that's good. It's a technical subject, right? I hire people, and for technical expertise I would look for a PhD in a relevant topic, postdoctoral experience, articles in peer-reviewed journals, conference presentations, patents, leadership of teams, service on committees, appearances in the media, etc. If NASA wanted to investigate the discrepancy between the number of shuttle launches and subsequent landings, mentioned sarcastically in the article, would they call you? Is knowledge about spaceflight even relevant for editing this article? Seems it would be good to have someone qualified in the philosophy of science, or with degrees in both psychology *and* parapsychology. But if I wanted to know about Nazis in space, I know who I'd call! Hoagland seems like a harmless and rather amusing crank - is it really necessary to try to deconstruct his life with a disproportionately long and partial article? And if you don't want to delete sections once people have pointed out problems, even after you've accepted them, because of the work you've put in- how exactly is that different from Hoagland and his claims?

In fact I had three theories. One is that El Ingles is none other than... Richard Hoagland! What better way to defend your theories than to create a Wikipedia article "ranting extravagantly" against yourself (note the similarity in style: coincidence?), as if being deliberately discredited by the Men in Black. Come on, admit it! "Comprehensively" is almost as subjective as "extravagantly" by the way, in the wholly objective International Scale of Subjectiveness, but I guess you double-bluffed us into changing it to a positive one this time, Richard.

I realize mine is a disproportionate response too, but there's a point: science is conservative (which is good), and new theories are often not just criticized impartially but even derided right up until the evidence is overwhelming. Plate tectonics and the asteroid extinction of the dinosaurs were subjected to derision, and it delayed acceptance of (probably) correct theories. I see it happening all the time in science. It's highly unlikely that Hoagland's stuff is going to contribute to the good of humanity - except for some amazing ideas for movie plots, of course - but who are you to go through his life looking for evidence of a lack of qualifications, and present this research in a supposedly impartial encyclopedia article? Why not work on Einstein's: apparently he "failed to reach the required standard in several subjects" of the entrance examinations for the Swiss Federal Polytechnic - don't you think we should list which ones? Or deconstruct the lives of the prophets, there must be plenty of instances where they "offered no explanation." If you think "NPOV sucks" then you should write a blog instead. Raspw (talk) 20:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Just a few points, if I may, in response.

1] I am not Richard Hoagland.

2] It was not I who opined that "NPOV sucks." It was a Roadrunner client in Austin, TX.

3] I don't think NASA would ever need to investigate the discrepancy between the number of launches and landings of space shuttles. They have two missing spacecraft, and 14 dead astronauts, to lavishly (perhaps even extravagantly) account for that.

4] With respect, both to you and to my fellow wikieditors, if you think this editorial task requires someone qualified in the philosophy of science, or with degrees in both psychology and parapsychology, you do not well understand this entire project.

5] I hope you do not truly mean to compare Richard Hoagland with Alfred Wegener and Walter Alvarez. Both those gentlemen were highly trained and brilliantly insightful scientists.

El Ingles (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I think this article clears all this up right here: http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/credentials.html Nasa-verve (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Section removed until it gets proper citation

I removed this section until it gets proper citation:

In November 2006, Conscious Media Network interviewed Hoagland. He has made numerous claims about the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life, supported by digitally reprocessed photographic evidence from planetary exploration and testimonials by former government and military officials. During guest appearances on Coast to Coast AM, Hoagland references longstanding friendships with scientists from NASA and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) who, according to Hoagland, provide him with inside information. On August 21, 2008, he said, "We over here at Enterprise, except for a couple of people who have proven extremely reliable, and who we constantly check anyway, with the physics, with hard data, with real science, we do not depend on sources. When I come on and I say a so-and-so source told me, it's because I have additional confirmation from another mechanism, usually the physics, usually figuring it out in terms of the numbers, that backs up what our source or sources have told us."

Nasa-verve (talk) 06:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Does this belong in Wikipedia, or in the National Inquirer?

While I appreciate the breadth and completeness of Wikipedia, I question whether every two-bit crackpot (e.g., Richard C. Hoagland) deserves such a heady article as this. If I contend that the Viking raiders of medieval Europe were aliens from Zeta Reticuli IV, does that entitle me to an article here? Hmmmm? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.118.122.160 (talk) 17:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Only if a prestigious radio show with an audience in the millions appoints you as its official advisor on Viking raiders, and pays you a consultancy fee. El Ingles (talk) 19:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I would also point out that WP:BLP and WP:NPOV are applicable, even on talk pages -- so editors should be careful about name-calling, no matter how disconnected an article's subject appears to be. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 02:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Third party sources

This article relies way too much on primary sources (see WP:PRIMARY) and is biased because of that. I am going to add the 3rd party template ({{Third-party}}) because out of the 112 items in the references section on this article, 40 of them are from Richard's own enterprisemission.com site, and a further 12 references (3, 4, 6, 7, 19, 29, 58, 67, 77, 88, 99, 104) are direct interviews with Hoagland, so a total of 52 references are primary sources, nearly half. See this page (WP:PRIMARY) for more information. Basically, primary sources are not independent. I know many of you who are big fans of Hoagland will have a problem with this, but we really must deal with the issue together. Okay, thanks. Nasa-verve (talk) 22:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, this has been discussed previously. What was said by those who inserted the refs (partly me, more Alan Archer) was that the purpose of the primary citations is to verify that RCH actually said or wrote what the article claims. It's not at all the same thing as a citation intended to support a controversial opinion. Nasa-verve, while certainly in good faith, is setting an impossibly high bar for us eds to jump over. Stu (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the good faith, because I am certainly not setting the high bar intentionally. I'm just pointing out how this article is not following WP:PRIMARY. If there is material here that is too hard to find third-party sources for, I believe that material should be removed. That simple. Your comment is a perfect segue for a separate section I've added to this talk page to cover the length. Nasa-verve (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Stu, you are right, we did discuss this before. I raised this issue August 2009 with no resolution or action taken. Nasa-verve (talk) 23:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Lengthy coverage

I believe this article is in violation of WP:INAPPROPRIATE & WP:NOTSOAPBOX on the following counts:

Text that is intended to give one's personal point of view of the subject.

— WP:INAPPROPRIATE

Based on the amount of text that simply describes all of Hoagland's views, I do not believe they are necessary to even mention. It gives the appearance of credibility by going into such great detail. This is especially true that nearly 50% of the sources here are directly from Hoagland's site or are direct interviews. (see previous section on this talk page)

Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects in which you have a strong personal involvement.

— WP:NOTSOAPBOX

All those who are adding links and adding detailed information on Hoagland's theories are proponents of his work and want more people to get exposure to his ideas. I'm sure some of you reading this look at my username and for the reason alone immediately disagree with any edits I make on this page. Well, I would suggest that you, instead, look to the policies and recommended guidelines of WP. I know there's the WP:IGNORE rule, but that is guidance if progress cannot be made and I believe in this case, progress is editing down this article. Nasa-verve (talk) 22:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

Okay, here we go. My proposal (for discussion) is to keep these two sections in tact: 1.1 Hyperdimensional physics, 1.2 Mars, Face on Mars, and Cydonia, but then summarize in 2-3 sentences (each) these 5 sections (1.3 Life on Europa, 1.4 The Moon, 1.5 U.S. government conspiracy, 1.6 NASA and the Egyptian gods, 1.7 Torsion field sensing) and move them to 1.8 Other claims. I will remind everyone that WP is WP:NOTSOAPBOX, but this article sure makes it appear that way. Nasa-verve (talk) 16:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't agree with either point. Historically, there was too much personal opinion in this article but it was removed. If you have some examples to cite, go ahead. It's categorically untrue that the majority editors here are proponents of RCH's "work". I for one am not.

Your specific proposals above are not acceptable to me and I seek consensus to have your gutting of the article forestalled. Stu (talk) 16:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I do not believe leaving the article as it is will work since it is such an offender of WP:PRIMARY and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. The only solution I can see is what I have proposed. I can appreciate all the hard work that you and others have done to edit out opinion, but I believe that its length is not warranted as proportioned by the level of notability, especially since 50% of the material would have to be removed if all the enterprisemission.com citations were trimmed down, since that is the only source for them. If you still disagree, we may need to get a review on this. Nasa-verve (talk) 17:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I still disagree. I've already responded to your points about WP:PRIMARY and WP:NOTSOAPBOX.Stu (talk) 17:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should article be trimmed down

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Background

Going back to 2009 there has been disagreement about the length of this article. As I said above in #Lengthy coverage, nearly 50% of the citations on this page are WP:PRIMARY. If that were to be fixed, the article would be severely under referenced. Then lots of material would have to be removed because, as User:StuHarris states, there are no 3rd party sources for Richard Hoagland's information. (See his statement above about "setting an impossibly high bar" in #Third party sources.) So this leads me to this article appearing to me as a WP:SOAPBOX because there are no 3rd party references, I believe the content does not belong in WP. Trying to avoid an edit war of back and forth and reverts here. I feel for the editors who have spent a lot of time cleaning up opinions and properly citing everything, but it has become full of "scar tissue" because of that; completely irrelevant to be in WP. Thanks. Please reference the previous 2 sections for more info.

Question

Looking for an answer to the question: should this article be trimmed down? Nasa-verve (talk) 18:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually your question is "should this article be mercilessly hacked?" Stu (talk) 22:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

That's right. Too much content consists of non-notable musings taken from his personal website. We need to get rid of all that and focus on what he has done that others have noted. That's what WP:SOAPBOX is about. For example, he may well theorise about a particular planet on his website, but unless that argument is noted by a reliable third-party source, we're not supposed to cover it either. We aren't supposed to showcase Hoagland and his ideas, we're supposed to be convey how he and his ideas are treated in reliable third-party sources.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 23:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• I'm conflicted—Wikipedia should not glorify nonsense, but there's something charmingly intriguing about this article. The best result might be deletion, but I don't think that will happen. My main concern is that the result of removing sections 1.3 through 1.7 would be to make the remaining claims more plausible—it may be necessary to see the whole smorgasbord laid out to grasp the situation. Johnuniq (talk) 00:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Survey

• Shorten per WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
• Shorten as per Balaenoptera musculus --00:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
• Shorten User:Brianann MacAmhlaidh puts the issue very well. I've both done this on another article recently and commented on a talk page saying more or less the same thing. The fact that someone has said something or done something doesn't make that significant enough for an article or BLP. Where I might disagree slightly with Brianann MacAmhlaidh is that one reliable source wouldn't be enough unless it were say a major media source, commented on in at least some detail by a well known author in a book or article, etc. And preferably I'd like to see multiple sources. Dougweller (talk) 12:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
• Leave alone or at most trim Other claims. I'm on record as being in favor of deleting this article and I stand by that opinion. But as long as Wikipedia thinks this person is worth an article I feel very strongly that the article should expound his views in sufficient detail for our readers to assess whether they have any merit. The sections on Egyptian Gods and Torsion field sensing have been painstakingly compiled from Hoagland's very confusing sources and as far as I'm aware there is literally no other place where the full exposition can be seen and evaluated. As for Dougweller's idea that the article should be reduced to a compilation of what other authors have written -- the result would be an attack piece at best, and more probably a mockery piece. Check the published opinion of Phil Plait, Gary Posner, Ralph Greenberg and Stuart Robbins. What I fear even more than that is that the article as assassinated by Nasa-verve would allow people to justify the opinion of Hoagland's Facebook fans (and seemingly endorsed by George Noory) — namely, that he is a guru of astronomy whose insights need to be worshipped, not mocked. A man attacked by the science establishment as were Galileo, Wegener, and other historical geniuses who were later proved correct. PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN. Stu (talk) 13:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
• Shorten - Reduce to what has been discussed in RS. The presentation of Hoagland's ideas is appropriate for his website, not an encyclopedic article. The basis for an encyclopedic article should be proportional representation of what is published in reliable sources as due. - - MrBill3 (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
• Leave alone or shorten: Richard Hoagland may be a fringe person, but he has a massive audience (he still gets television spots, conference engagements, and is a regular guest and official "science advisor" on Coast to Coast AM with an estimated audience of several million listeners per night. WP is supposed to be a resource for people looking for information that they hear from someone, correct? And, WP is no stranger to addressing the claims made by fringe people, such as Rupert Sheldrake or Deepak Chopra and pointing out the criticism. I think what sets Mr. Hoagland apart is that he's in the astronomical field and does not publish nearly as much as these other people, and so the independent accounts of his claims from ostensibly unbiased places are few and far between. That's why the citations of his claims generally need to come from his own website. I don't think for a moment that this is a WP: NOTSOAPBOX issue because the article states the claim and then the criticism, presenting both sides. If it were a soapbox piece, it would be advocating his claims (it's not), an opinion piece (it's not because it presents citations against the claims), scandal mongering (it's not because it references), self-promotion (it's not because it presents the other side), or advertising (it's not because it presents the other side). For those reasons, I think it should be left alone. If it must be trimmed, I think the hyperdimensional physics and torsion field could be combined, Mars claims left alone, conspiracy left alone and perhaps combined with the Egyptian stuff, and everything else into Other Claims with some sub-sections in that. --Astrostuart (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
• Shorten - to what has been covered in RS. We should not be including things someone heard him say on Coast to Coast AM. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
• Shorten. He's into conspiracy theories, and other nonsense, which means that his literary spewings won't make any sense, so should be mostly ignored. We shouldn't be trying to explain nonsense. To present the WP:MAINSTREAM point of view, we have to use his spewings only to give sufficient general background to any comments that have been made about him by WP:MAINSTREAM sources. Barney the barney barney. Suggestions from StuHarris (talk · contribs) that this will "resemble an attack piece" is the wrong way round. It will resemble a "WP:MAINSTREAM piece". Any similarity between a WP:MAINSTREAM piece and an "attack piece" will be due to the WP:MAINSTREAM position being against him. We cannot change that position. We cannot make value judgements about that position, only acknowledge it and explain it. It must be acknowledged and explained. Strenuous efforts should be made to include any supportive commentary from mainstream sources, which I expect will be hard to find, but we must try. (talk) 18:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
• Shorten Not just WP:RS but the more strict WP:BLPSOURCES must apply. If the notable press coverage is overwhelmingly negative, that's not Wikipedia's concern; however, if the criticism gets repetitive, it can be shortened into a cited catchall statement in the lede that he's regarded as a purveyor of pseudoscience, with more detailed notable criticism referenced in "external links". Rolf H Nelson (talk) 23:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

StuHarris I didn't say that it should be a compilation of what other authors had written. Unless you include the media as "other authors". However, articles like this are not meant to be a showcase of a persons writings, and when we try to do that we always run into the question of how do we choose what to be included? Two answers - because as editors we feel those are the most important things he's had to say (which is original research IMHO), or because other reliable sources have found those aspects of his work worthy of comment. This is pretty standard for BLPs, and I don't see why Hoagland should be an exception. Dougweller (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course I include "the media" as other authors. What else are they? Check the article on Carl Sagan please — is that not a showcase of Carl's writings and opinions?

Once again, if we restrict ourselves to noting what reliable sources have found worthy of comment, this will be a mockery piece. You haven't come close to addressing that point. Stu (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Methinks you're imposing a WP:RGW mentality on Wikipedia. We are supposed to follow policies like WP:RS even if what we end up with is a mockery piece. If you want that to change, you've got to effect change in the situation outside of Wikipedia. jps (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your feedback and responses to the RfC. I won't be able to give much of a response until after Memorial day. Nasa-verve (talk) 02:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

It looks as though consensus is drifting your way, So, let's see.... you're proposing to strip out all descriptions of Hoagland's ideas because the only citations available are from his own material. You will then substitute criticism and mockery from the likes of Plait, Posner, Greenberg and Robbins because there are no WP:RS taking the man seriously, unless you count his former co-author Mike Bara. After this mass revision, our readers will be treated to a roasting of a man and his ideas without any way of evaluating those ideas. I do not see this as a service to encyclopediana. Think about that over your Memorial Day hot dogs, please. Stu (talk) 14:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• Just to add to my $0.02 above: re the guy's "massive audience" (Stu) in respect of WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT:

Wikipedia:FRINGE#Notability_versus_acceptance is relevant.

It says "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community."

If it's the case that "there are no WP:RS taking the man seriously" (Stu) then we should not present his ideas as though they had any serious acceptance.

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

To me that's an argument for deleting the whole thing. Stu (talk) 18:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Per the core policy WP:NPOV, we should be "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." If there is enough RS to make him notable we should simply reflect what the RS says. Hoagland's self published material falls pretty short in terms of WP:DUE, where needed it can be used to provide context, clarity or explanation related to what is in the RS, otherwise it should go. If reliable sources don't publish Hoagland's ideas WP shouldn't. If the RS don't take him seriously that's what WP should say, if that is objectionable to an editor they should familiarize themselves with WP policy. The presentation or defense of Hoagland and his ideas is WP:NOT what WP is about. - - MrBill3 (talk) 12:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2nd Survey

 Question: Who supports the deletion of this article? Nasa-verve (talk) 00:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC) ( @StuHarris: @Rolf h nelson: @Barney the barney barney: @LuckyLouie: @MrBill3: @Dougweller: @Balaenoptera musculus: @QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV:)

I'm not sure. Most of the sources in the article are very poor quality, but these two might be enough to establish notability:

• The Face Behind the "Face" on Mars: A Skeptical Look at Richard C. Hoagland, Skeptical Inquirer, November/December 2000
• Psychics Claim of Evidence of Life on Mars Debunked, Space.com, August 23, 2010

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 09:45, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• Delete Stu (talk) 13:39, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Notability would be established by good quality mainstream (which in this case essentially means critical) sources. Critical sources should really discuss his work in depth and preferably not be too personal. ("he's wrong because xyz", rather than "he's clearly an idiot". Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Phil Plait's critique is best for that. Stu (talk) 15:31, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Well it's a start but it's not fantastic. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, based on the little feedback here, I believe we should just edit down the article and not delete it. Let me know if I am reading the responses wrong. Nasa-verve (talk) 21:29, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Shortening Edits

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 enterprisemission.com site". I just checked now and there are only 19 enterprisemission.com 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...

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! 82.9.105.183 (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.47.147.161.162 (talk) 02:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Article is an unencyclopedic hatchet job

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

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

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)