Talk:Joseph Gutheinz

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

January 2013 comments[edit]

When we began this page we agreed to let the references write the page, and with over 300 references we are doing a great job. We got away from this a bit when we did the Gutheinz family section, and that’s okay. I love the pictures. However, from here on out lets associate every statement about Professor Gutheinz with at least two references, and let’s include respectful criticisms of Gutheinz work as well, as Durante just did in the Arkansas Aeronautics Center section. For example, I saw that several pilots challenged Professor Gutheinz over his no guns in the cockpit position. I am going to find one of those critical statements about Professor Gutheinz’s position and post it. The page is positive, because Professor Gutheinz is positive, but we need to be objective to a fault. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SundanceXP (talk • contribs) 20:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sundance XP, I agree with your approach, and I saw the changes you made and agree with them. I don't want to add any more new sections and doing two references per comment from here on out is going to be difficult, as we already have 329. When you and I started this I had no idea how long it would take to write. I think we need to get a new set of eyes on this. I have a Professor friend, a historian, who could join our group. However, if you have Sandra Shelton's contact information she would be the best. She is working on her Ph.D and according to Professor Gutheinz she is writing her dissertation on our Moon Rock Project. I will work on the Aviation section, because I know we could have done a better job on that. I like this talk section, why didn't we think of this earlier? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TerraGoz (talk • contribs) 13:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Terra, I agree with you on the sections. Ask your history professor to join in, as he does not know Professor Gutheinz and can be objective. I think we’re almost there. I will work on the Law and Order section. I see it as three paragraphs not one. I did not mean 2 references to be a hard and fast rule, one is fine. We have written this page by way of references, but I think we can also have Professor Gutheinz, in a way, debate those who take a different view to his. We do this by having their quotes placed side by side with his. This will be a second way of guarding against our bias for our former Professor from creeping in, the first and most important is the use of references. I think we should still communicate by email as we don’t want to turn this talk page into a page about grammar or a discussion about trivia. “Email” me if you disagree and email me if you agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SundanceXP (talk • contribs) 15:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Terra, what happened to the Mir Chart? I just saw that it is missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SundanceXP (talk • contribs) 15:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to find someone who takes issue with Professor Gutheinz over his opposition to teachers having guns in schools. I am finding hundreds of stories of politicians now advocating guns being placed in the hands of school teachers, but no one who goes after Professor Gutheinz's position like the pilots did with respect to his opposition to pilots flying armed. First, does anyone know someone who took issue with Professor Gutheinz and second would it detract from the page just listing someone with a different perspective? I see that the Mir Chart is back up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TerraGoz (talk • contribs) 16:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, SundanceXP, I think I fixed the Harold ISD gun policy section by voicing the school Superintendant's rationale for having guns in schools. The articles on point are actually before Gutheinz's guest column, but it gives the feel of point-counterpoint. I wrote this with a neutral voice so as not to favor one side or the other. I removed a few words about guns in planes as it did not fit. Please feel free to change this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TerraGoz (talk • contribs) 17:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Terra: Good job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SundanceXP (talk • contribs) 19:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Too long?[edit]

I have no knowledge of this person, and I only know about this article because I was reading some stuff elsewhere about Apollo moon rocks. I feel that the article is in danger of getting too long and detailed, relative to the importance of the information contained. It is not necessary to stuff in absolutely every last detail that is known about a person's activities. Eventually the mass of minutiae starts detracting from the article. One thing you might consider is splitting out the Moon Rock Project into a separate article and leaving a shorter summary here. 86.167.19.105 (talk) 20:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. That is one reason we have decided to limit it to the length we now have. What Professor Gutheinz is known for is the Moon Rock Project, but really he has done other things that might be more important. By dividing it up into different pages you may obscure the more important parts of his life. That said, you are right, we need to stop adding to this. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SundanceXP (talk • contribs) 21:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the length has to do with pictures and references, two things Wikipedia likes. When SundanceXP and I, along with a couple others, started this page we originally planned on doing a Moon Rock Project page only, but we found it was evolving into a Professor Gutheinz page by necessity. If we tried to do a Moon Rock page again it would again drift back to Professor Gutheinz page. This is because his Operation Lunar Eclipse case predated the Moon Rock Project, and it was one of several interesting cases that Professor Gutheinz did at the time. So we broke it out into sections, all contained in the same page. This page has taken a long to research and put together, but at the end of the day it made more sense doing it this way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TerraGoz (talk • contribs) 02:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote formatting[edit]

Just so's you know, very many footnotes in this article have odd use of square brackets, which appears to be a mistaken interpretation of their use in the syntax to create hyperlinks. For example, footnotes like

[“ New generation in a family tradition: It’s service and duty to your country-James Gutheinz.”]
[ “Son Returns Home from Afganistan”-Michael Gutheinz] by: Yvette Orozco, The Pasadena Citizen, May 26, 2009, page 1.
etc.

Good points. I have been working with another woman that has also been inputting to this page to correct some of these issues, which I kind of started as I believed they were required in some cases. I was wrong. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SundanceXP (talk • contribs) 15:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

appear not to need square brackets at all.

Footnotes like

[ http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/friendswood/living/article_02ea0e8b-a702-5a66-ae8d-96a260f42cfd.html"Friendswood "Law is All in the Family"]
[ http://www.csus.edu/pubaf/journal/fall2001/30classnotes.htm " California State University, Sacramento Class Notes/News, 2001.]
etc.

appear to be faulty syntax, and were probably intended as:

"Friendswood "Law is All in the Family"
" California State University, Sacramento Class Notes/News, 2001.

(though in those particular examples I don't exactly understand the intention for the quote marks, which are mismatched). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.42.77 (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are assigning one or our fellow graduate students just to look at reference formatting. They are not my strong suit. I will go through this article and take out the square brackets myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SundanceXP (talk • contribs) 16:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In some cases it seems that the square brackets do need to be removed, but in other cases they are probably correct, but there is a syntax error in their use. For example, this:
[ http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2005-07-24-space-shuttle_x.htm “NASA will launch even if fuel gauge problems recurs"] by: Associated Press, USA Today, July 26, 2005.
produces this:
[ http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2005-07-24-space-shuttle_x.htm “NASA will launch even if fuel gauge problems recurs"] by: Associated Press, USA Today, July 26, 2005.
which looks wrong.
However, this (note no space after opening square bracket):
[http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2005-07-24-space-shuttle_x.htm “NASA will launch even if fuel gauge problems recurs"] by: Associated Press, USA Today, July 26, 2005.
produces this:
“NASA will launch even if fuel gauge problems recurs" by: Associated Press, USA Today, July 26, 2005.
which I'm guessing is what was intended. 86.179.7.159 (talk) 03:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup[edit]

Hello. I'm sorry to say that this article needs major clean up. As you can see, I've removed just some of the material which is not acceptable. Why isn't it acceptable? Please note that the articles removed (and the paragraphs they "supported") did not mention Joe Gutheinz. Please – 350 references does not make for an acceptable WP article, much less WP:BLP. I urge you to read the WP:5P and associated guidelines and policies. If you are associated with Joe, you've got to read and follow WP:COI requirements. I will be very frank – this article is a mess. I do see WP:POTENTIAL, but only if you all will take a critical look at the editing which has created this mess. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 20:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Rich: We have been working with Wikipedia editors on this from the beginning. All of the major contributors are graduate students or former graduate students interested in moon rocks, and as such we have been working on acquiring information for this article. I don't know what you deleted but I will assume it made the article better. Based on our background we are big believers in references, and believe that other graduate students reading this article will focus on those references. When we began this article it was only going to be about the Moon Rock Project, but Gutheinz's background was very interesting and added to what we were writing about. That said, we have taken to heart what you have stated and we will proceed according to your guidance. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SundanceXP (talk • contribs) 21:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I assure you that my efforts are to improve the article as well. One big problem I see is with the sheer number of references. While WP wants verification the material provided must be pertinent to the subject of the article. For example, there were a lot of references to the value of moon rocks, but what is the connection to Gutheinz? If you will review the various edit summaries I've provided I think you will see the rationale and justification for each of the edits. I will hold off on my edits for the time being and watch the article as you continue to fix it. Take a look at WP:GA. Transforming this nobel start into a Good Article should be your goal. In the meantime, please do tell us if you have any conflict of interest as to Gutheinz. E.g., are you an employee, family member, professional associate, etc.? Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 21:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Rich: I have no conflict of interest. I am on his Facebook (Joseph Gutheinz Facebook)as are a number of writers, reporters, students and others and read his stories about moon rocks as they come up and will add content to the Wikipedia page as I see new stories. If you go to his Facebook page you will see what I mean. I am fascinated with the topic and have been working hard to make it a good article. Joe Gutheinz basically set the value of moon rocks in Operation Lunar Eclipse when he was a NASA Special Agent and negotiated to buy the Honduras Goodwill Moon Rock for 5 million dollars, it was the first sale of its kind. That is what makes the value of moon rocks relevant. I will go though and take out material in keeping with your guidance. I like the changes you made, please feel free to make more if you like. It has taken us a long time to research this article and we are very proud of what we have put together. That said, again you just improved it and were grateful. Would you remove the notes you inserted and we will comply with your guidance. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SundanceXP (talk • contribs) 22:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By "Notes" I think you are referring to the "resume", "too long" templates, etc. Let me explain. By posting the templates the article gets indexed into certain categories for other editors to review. Many people scan these indexes and look for articles they are interested in. The notes thus serve to attract editors who might be interested in improving this article. They are not a mark of shame in any fashion. Indeed, you can be proud of your accomplishment, but I'm afraid the guidance you had received sent you down the wrong road. Take a look at WP:GA? and all the other guidance you can find. Happy editing. (And thank you for your COI clarification.) – S. Rich (talk) 22:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC) (PS: please sign your talk page posts with the four squiggly lines ~~~~ !)[reply]

Hi, Rich: Please see the changes I have already made. I now have it under 300 references and what I am going to do is hold it under 300. If there is another news story that seems worthy I will bump an old story, or a story that is simply not as important, for the new one. Doing it this way the quality should only increase over time. I also fixed references throughout and deleted some information that appears dated or not important. Again we are proud of our article and we are wondering if you could replace what you have with something like additional edits welcome. We appreciate your edits as they were intelligently made and improved the article. Our research for this article was solid but we can always use a second or third set of eyes to improve how we put it to paper. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SundanceXP (talk • contribs) 22:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Rich:Gutheinz wrote a complaint to the New Jersey Attorney General asking for a state trooper investigation after his student determined that New Jersey was missing it Apollo 17 Goodwill Moon Rock, and predicated on his complaint the state opened up an investigation. Gutheinz wrote a complaint to the New York Attorney General asking for a state investigation into the whereabouts of the New York Apollo 11 Moon Rock after his student Lisa Moore determined that moon rock was missing, Based on his complaint the state opened an investigation on it. There are newspaper story documenting his involvement with both.SundanceXP (talk) 23:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph about New Jersey is an example of how overblown the writing in this article as become. In one NJ Times story we see that Gutheinz faxed a letter to the NJ AG "suggested/insisted" that they open an investigation -- and based on his reputation they did so. In the NorthJersey story, he gave general background info. Nothing more. But the paragraph goes on to talk about the student investigators and the fact that no rocks were recovered. Gutheinz himself did not "initiate" the investigations. Two state investigations bevomes "a few occassions", He "calls for" investigations. Worst of all, the two cases become "two of these cases" which implies that more than two state AG cases were undertaken. When I saw this I decided to BLOW UP the entire paragraph. – S. Rich (talk) 16:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rich: In the case report written by Gutheinz and secured by author Joe Kloc for his novel, and also written about in newspaper stories it was stated that Gutheinz initially believed the moon rock he was hunting for in Operation Lunar Eclipse was the Nicaraguan Apollo 17 Goodwill Moon Rock as that nation was missing both its Apollo 11 and 17 Moon Rocks and nation had the same flag as Honduras minus the center, and he was shown the the flag minus the center by the seller.SundanceXP (talk) 00:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The RS for the Operation Lunar Eclipse/Nicaraguan rocks mention Gutheinz for background only. They do not describe his actual involvement in the unsolved mysteries. The paragraph spins out of control and seeks to describe the mercenaries, etc. Not WP:TERSE, WP:OFFTOPIC because it is not biographical material. Not acceptable WP writing. – S. Rich (talk) 16:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Rich: The Arkansas Aerospace Education articles name Gutheinz as the case agent in charge. The headline of the story is offset by the content where the Center Director says the agents were respectful.SundanceXP (talk) 00:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was Gutheinz named as one of the "heavy handed" agents? Was he there when the aerospace center was shut down? If so, what did he say in response to the criticisms? While I did not remove the material I wonder how Gutheinz fits in with the Arkansas Times and Arkansas Democrat Gazette stories. Another problem: so what if Starr's Whitewater investigators were involved -- why should Starr & Whitewater be mentioned twice? This is more over-blown writing. – S. Rich (talk) 16:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article size and continued needed cleanup[edit]

At the max the article was at 125k bytes. It's now down to 85k, but still too long and poorly organized. And as I said above, it needs a lot of clean up. Please review my edit summaries. I've removed citations which do not mention Gutheinz ("BLP") and asked if remaining citations in the strings mention him. If they don't, they must be removed. WP:BURDEN is the relevant guidance. In Biographies of Living Persons, Wikipedia errs on the side of caution when it comes to citations. This means that each citation must have actual relevance to Gutheinz. If there is not an on-line version available, I recommend that you add quotations to the citation. Something like quote="Gutheinz slapped the bracelets on perp X and said 'It's 30 years in the grey-bar hotel for you Snidely!'" Please do not add citations simply to layout the foundation or topic which Gutheinz is related to. That is, he may have had connection to the particular topic at some point in time, but giving us a string of citations about the item, without a tie-in to Gutheinz, is not encyclopedic. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 07:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Rich: All the references are supposed to be about Gutheinz, and I believe they are, but I will go reference by reference to see if they can be improved on. Yesterday sub-headers were included around 6 of Gutheinz's cases, per your guidance. There was talk about adding a 7th case on Lockheed-Martin, but I said no as that would be expanding this article, which is the opposite direction than we want to go. I have a former classmate and contributor to this article who will look this article over tonight, to see if it can be improved further. I will make a few changes now. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SundanceXP (talk • contribs) 14:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sundance, you are correct when you say the references are "supposed to be about Gutheinz". This means the actual reference must mention him. From what I read, a large number did not. I removed them. Please keep in mind that WP:BURDEN says the editor who want to add or keep material must show it is proper to keep or remove. Given that so many references did not mention Gutheinz, I meet my burden in removing them. And it is reasonable to assume that other references, which have a generic title and seem to provide associated or background info, do not mention Gutheinz. At that point, it is up to someone to show that the reference does directly involve Gutheinz. Quotations from the references, put into the reference citation, will meet this burden. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 15:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Rich: I am going to create subheading for the Moon Rock Project before I sign off today. You are doing a good job but I am getting frustrated due to the mistakes I am apparently making, I am the least computer savvy member of the team and apparently I am the only one Online. Thank's guys. (talk) "Sandy". — Preceding unsigned comment added by SundanceXP (talk • contribs) 16:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whittredge[edit]

Hi, Rich: Please see the subtitles I inserted in the Moon Rock Project. What was wrong with the criminal complaint that we posted on Jerry Whittredge, we see that it is no longer up? It was signed by Gutheinz, and his signature is viable, and we thought it was a good fit. It had previously been approved. This is the only item we would like back, if we could, as we thought it added to the article. Thank you. (talk) "Sandy". — Preceding unsigned comment added by SundanceXP (talk • contribs) 17:24, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As per my edit summary, the statement by Gutheinz is a WP:PRIMARY source document created by him. It is WP:SPS. As it involves a third party, Whittredge, it is not acceptable. You need a secondary source, such as a newspaper article, that reports on the Whittredge matter and says Gutheinz signed the complaint. You cannot use Gutheinz's own document. (There was no "approval" on using the document because doing so is contrary to WP policy.) BTW, the sub-section headings are much too long. Please be WP:TERSE. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 17:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rich a few of the articles do show that Gutheinz was the affiant on the warrant. Please see the 4th paragraph in this story: http://www.texnews.com/1998/texas/phony0603.htmlTerraGoz (talk) 04:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's good. Then you write "according to a warrant sworn out by G...[citation number -- texasnews.com story etc.]" At that point we don't need (or want) the actual warrant as a reference. These various citations should go at the end of the particular sentences they support, not at the end of the paragraph. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 04:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rich: All the articles about Whittredge also mention Gutheinz.SundanceXP (talk) 23:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Gutheinz is mentioned in an article is not sufficient. As I advised in my editor's comment, the references should/must describe Gutheinz's role. Including all of the various references -- throughout the article -- is reference bombardment. – S. Rich (talk) 16:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Main article[edit]

The main article about the rocks is Stolen and missing moon rocks. That is the Wikipedia article which covers the subject. The material in the "Project" section here, which covers much of the main article, should be pared down to mention Gutheinz's particular involvement in the recovery of particular rocks. Make this article WP:TERSE in every respect. Please. – S. Rich (talk) 20:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Law & order section[edit]

I've removed different references in the Law and order section. The stories are either WP:PRIMARY or they deal with local cases. Criticisms in local matters do not make a person a critic of the justice system as a whole. The story about the grand jury in Harris County has a dead link, but I doubt that it supports the description of Gutheinz as a critic of the justice system in the United States. Same analysis goes for the NYT story. – S. Rich (talk) 14:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proper placement for references -- WP:BOMBARD & WP:CITEKILL[edit]

Adding 24 references to the end of a sentence (see "Omniplan) is not the way to properly reference material in Wikipedia. It is simply WP:Bombardment and WP:CITEKILL. I strongly advise interested editors to redo the citations in this article. I've gone through a lot of this material and done a lot of fixes, but I'm getting worn out. The easier course of action would be to simply remove those citations which do not have linkable articles and/or to remove every sentence that does not have a supporting citation. Please enlist interested editors to fix this, and do so IAW good WP practice. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 05:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Rich: I will. The Omniplan case went over a period of years with developments going along each step of the way. As the task force leader Gutheinz was mentioned in every article, but we wanted the headlines to do the talking rather than make the section any longer and so the headlined walk you through the case. You taught us how to insert commentary within the description of the article, commentary that isn't seen when reading the article. I tried to figure out how to go back into a previously posted references to add that commentary, but I am not sure how we do that. When I tried to do it, it messed up the format. If you could tell me how to go into previously posted references and add commentary, I will start to go back in and make corrections. This was one of the hardest sections for us to research. I loved how we did it, but you have made this article much better.Thank you.SundanceXP (talk) 14:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at WP:INTEGRITY, which gives guidance on where and how to place citations. Remember that verification is critical to WP. Adding all of the citations to the end of some sentences, and leaving most other sentences uncited, defeats verification because we cannot easily check the references provided. Also simply because a reference mentions Gutheinz is not a good enough reason to put it in the article. Our task as editors is to integrate the info from the citation/source into the article. The connection between what the source says about Gutheinz and what we are writing must be made. – S. Rich (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 20 external links on Joseph Gutheinz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joseph Gutheinz. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 14:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joseph_Gutheinz&oldid=1202516330"