Talk:Bill Gaede

References to science do not belong here
I redid the last revision. Bill Gaede's scientific "accomplishments" were poorly referenced, containing only links to Bill Gaede's vanity websites, and not a single reference to a peer-reviewed scientific paper, or even a relevant media article on the subject. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.14.148.114 (talk) 16:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Bill Gaede's 'EM Rope Hypothesis' was accepted into the ICPST 2010 International Conference on Physics and Science Technology. It is ridiculous to claim that this is not relevant enough to be able to include in this article. This is pure censorship. Plain and simple. You have some explaining to do. 72.224.189.211 (talk) 14:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC) My name is Bill Gaede, I am the inventor of Rational Science religion. My assumptions and explanations are the only rational thing in the entire Universe.

References to his pseudoscientific activities are very important, because they show that he is dishonest to the core. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.52.92.73 (talk) 13:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

References to Gaede's 'work in relation to' science do belong here
Considering that the so called 'vanity websites' are a large part of what Gaede is known for, as well as the fact that his work is published in a number of journals and are now cited in the article, and that the notion that the 'media articles' referencing this subject have not been satisfactorily justified as being irrelevant, I have reinserted removed information.

Science sections removed.
The author of the science sections has failed to assert that Bill Gaede's work in "science" meets the standards for wikipedia. No references have been supplied other than Bill Gaede's own vanity pages. Removal is warranted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.226.36 (talk) 16:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

74.131.226.36 Revisions Undone
74.131.226.36 has failed to provide evidence that the 'standards of wikipedia' have not been met. As such, 74.131.226.36's revisions have been undone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.126.126 (talk) 19:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Science sections removed
It is well-known policy that Wikipedia is not intended as a soapbox for original research. References to science work must be from peer-reviewed journals, work, or published articles from sources unrelated to the "researcher". It is appropriate that this section remain removed, as the author has not supplied the references to assert Gaede is "known" for his research to anyone but Gaede and a few people who comment on his vanity pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.226.36 (talk) 20:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Bill Gaede's 'EM Rope Hypothesis' was accepted into the ICPST 2010 International Conference on Physics and Science Technology. Stop this censorship. 72.224.189.211 (talk) 16:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

"References to science work must be from peer-reviewed journals, work, or published articles from sources unrelated to the "researcher"." But the Wikipedia Thought Police remove a hyperlink in Wikipedia's article on Ivor Catt (me) because it goes to peer reviewed articles rubbishing Ivor Catt. So peer reviewed articles attacking me and misrepresenting my work are immediately (within hours) removed from Wikipledia by the Thought Police. What does the Wikipedia honcho (I forget his name) want when peer reviewed articles the very purpose of which are to attack non-peer reviewed articles? This is a philosophical problem which may be beyond his comprehension because he cannot understand what has happened (or could happen) - Wikipedia attacks people asnd their work published in peer reviewed journals, but will not allow hyperlinks to such articles, because they have been suppressed by peer review. I will be able to rewrite this better when I have the time. A waste of time anyway, because the primary role of Wikip;eddia is to rubbish people who are not peer reviewed who have been suppressed by peer review - as "The Catt Question" - not just Catt - has been peer review suppressed by peer review for 50 years.

Did the Italian professors break Wik rules when they peer reviewed the rubbishing and misrepresentation of "The Catt Question" cattq? Could the attack on cattq stay in Wikipedia, but not a hyperlink to correctly say what it is, because cattq is suppressed by wik? - Ivor Catt  ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.54.69.49 (talk) 13:58, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

74.131.226.36's Claims are Irrelevant
Since the actual research of Gaede is not explained or presented, and merely mentioned as biographical information, there have not been any scientific claims. The biographical fact only, that Gaede has made these claims, without any elaboration upon their content, is what has been written.

Unless 74.131.226.36 would like to provide a specific quotation from said 'policy' confirming that the information here IS in fact of scientific and not biographical content, then I will contend with this claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.126.126 (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Failed to assert importance
The author has failed to assert the importance of the claim that Bill Gaede is known for science research or criticism. Again, there are no sources external to sites and references created by Bill Gaede to verify these claims. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for original research.

Deleted Information Meets Wikipedia Standards
Wikipedia's content policies are as follows:

Neutral point of view (NPOV) Verifiability (V) No original research (NOR)

The information in question meets these requirements.

The article does not take a position on the material in question and so is from a neutral point of view. It is clearly verifiable that Gaede has claimed this since the sources quoted are reliable, published sources appropriate for the content in question. And finally, the sources used are reliable, published, and directly related to the topic in question, and directly support the presented material.

The users who insist on removing said information must assert the necessity of its removal according to Wikipedia policies and not according to their own preferences or opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.126.126 (talk) 19:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Nothing has changed
The sections removed are still obviously in violation of wikipedia policy, as previously explained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.163.7.131 (talk) 19:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Said "Policy" Unspecified
User 128.163.7.131 failed to quote the policy in question which the sections in question are said to violate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.126.126 (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate Content Removed
The previous comments make clear that the author has not asserted Bill Gaede is "known" for his work in science by enough people to warrant inclusion of this in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.163.7.135 (talk) 21:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate content removed again
The previous comments make clear that the author has not asserted Bill Gaede is "known" for his work in science by enough people to warrant inclusion of this in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.163.7.131 (talk) 22:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate content removed again
The previous comments make clear that the author has not asserted Bill Gaede is "known" for his work in science by enough people to warrant inclusion of this in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.163.7.134 (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Said "Policy" Unspecified Again
User 128.163.7.131 failed to quote the policy in question which the sections deleted are said to violate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.126.126 (talk) 00:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Failed to assert importance
The author has failed to make the case that Bill Gaede's "science critique" is in any way relevant. This content is not encyclopedic in nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.226.36 (talk) 01:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia content policy:

"Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material—whether negative, positive, or just questionable—about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space."

"Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.226.36 (talk) 01:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Bill Gaede's 'EM Rope Hypothesis' was accepted into the ICPST 2010 International Conference on Physics and Science Technology.72.224.189.211 (talk) 16:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Inapplicable Objection
The material in question is well sourced, and not at all contentious. It is a matter of fact, not opinion, that Bill Gaede has done what has been written regarding him. His theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments or ideas, etc, have all been published. Regardless, they are not even explained in this article, and are of a purely encyclopedic nature as a matter of biographical fact. There is no NOVEL narrative, as this is factual information which has been sourced appropriately, and there is absolutely no INTERPRETATION.

Might I suggest that if 74.131.226.36 wishes to object to the placement of anything which is 'novel, or interpretative', he should not recklessly remove that which is a well sourced matter of biographical fact. If 74.131.226.36 wishes to remove such material, he should do so specifically with regards to that which meets the criteria of being novel or interpretative, with appropriate justification in the 'edit summary' box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexoneill (talk • contribs) 04:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Sections violating policy removed
Sources citing that Gaede has done "science-related work" are not objective, but rather vanities of Bill Gaede. This entry is obviously being used as a platform to support original "research". Note that "research" and "science-related" are terms used generously here, as Bill Gaede's work is not cited by any mainstream consensus as being either "science-related" or "research" in any way, shape or form of the common usage of these terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.163.7.135 (talk) 15:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Objection by 128.163.7.135 a matter of Opinion
Considering that said criteria of being

"cited by mainstream consensus"

is not part of any Wikipedia policy, and furthermore, the notion that what Bill Gaede has done is not "science-related" is a matter of opinion. 128.163.7.135 may consider his work non-rigorous or pseudo-science, but it is not disputable that the topic is "science-related". This would be apparent if 128.163.7.135 had a look at the sources cited, which include scientific journals.

If 128.163.7.135 wishes to dispute that the material is science related, he should dispute that fact, and edit that term, not the entire section in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexoneill (talk • contribs) 19:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The journals in question have zero credibility. Moreover, any expert would consider his work non-rigorous or pseudo-science. More importantly, Gaede is not even very remarkable from the point of view of crankology; any of thousands of other nobodies with very similar ideas could be enshrined on wikipedia in this way (and no doubt one day will). The only reason we are discussing Gaede here and not Smith or Jones is that Gaede gained notoriety as a criminal. Is that a valid way of gaining encyclopaedic attention for one's "science"? 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:64DA:F08A:C762:E78 (talk) 08:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Sections removed
Sections removed for reasons well-clarified above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.163.7.134 (talk) 20:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Supposed Clarification not Apparent
Due to the fact that the clarification of 128.163.7.134 is not apparent, I have undone his edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexoneill (talk • contribs) 21:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Violating sections removed
It is not difficult to figure out the removed sections violate Wikipedia policy. The author has not supplied any reliable external sources that Bill Gaede's work is in any way well-known enough to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedic article. As such, it is just an irrelevant hobby of the author's. Including it would be like including Albert Einstein's skill at chess in the Albert Einstein article - it is totally irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.142.210.112 (talk) 22:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Objection by 74.142.210.112 Unwarranted
Since 74.142.210.112 has failed to quote a policy which requires "well-known enough" criterion, their objection is invalid and is a matter of conjecture. Alexoneill (talk) 01:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Reasons for removal clearly stated
Reasons for removal of the offending material have been clearly stated. The sources cited are clearly inadequate. Adding these sections back is clearly vandalism, at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.226.36 (talk) 05:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Objection by 74.142.210.112 Unwarranted
Since 74.142.210.112 has failed to quote a policy which requires "well-known enough" criterion, their objection is invalid and is a matter of conjecture. May I furthermore remind 74.142.210.112 that if they undo edits without stated justification in the edit summary box, they will be redone by reason of that very lack of justification. Justification of such a massive edit should be backed by the citation of a specific Wikipedia policy which has been evidently violated. Alexoneill (talk) 19:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Sections removed
Sections violating Wikipedia policy (as outlined above) removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.163.7.135 (talk) 21:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Sections violating Wikipedia policy (as outlined above) removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.226.36 (talk) 00:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Sections violating Wikipedia policy (as outlined above) removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.163.7.135 (talk) 22:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Sections violating Wikipedia policy (as outlined above) removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.226.36 (talk) 03:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Sections violating Wikipedia policy (as outlined above) removed. 74.131.226.36 (talk) 00:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Sections violating Wikipedia policy (as outlined above) removed. 74.131.226.36 (talk) 04:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Sections violating Wikipedia policy (as outlined above) removed. 74.131.226.36 (talk) 01:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Sections violating Wikipedia policy (as outlined above) removed. 74.131.226.36 (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Sections violating Wikipedia policy (as outlined above) removed. 74.131.226.36 (talk) 01:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Sections violating Wikipedia policy (as outlined above) removed. 128.163.7.131 (talk) 14:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

You IPs are a boring lot. The only way I see this edit war being resolved is through contacting an Administrator. Nohomers48 (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Come on now, Gaede has gained notoriety as a criminal. He also happens to be a crank, in fact a garden variety crank such as (unfortunately) exist by their thousands (tens, hundreds of thousands? - not all of them go to the trouble of submitting their work to viXra, but if you go there you can get a good glimpse of the tip of the iceberg). Gaede deserves no more encyclopaedic attention for his theories than any other of his benighted colleagues. In other words, if his pseudo-scientific ideas are included here, you are making the point that his notoriety in one field (serious crime) radiates off onto other fields (crackpottery). That would set a very bad precedent. All a crank has to do to be listened to is to also commit serious crime. We do not want to encourage that. Comparison to e.g. the Unabomber comes to mind. However, a slightly different defence of including the unabomber's "manifesto" on his wiki entry is that this person exercised domestic terrorism in support of his ideas. Gaede simply committed crime to enrich himself; his also being both ignorant and opinionated about science and philosophy is by the by.

So: his science ideas really do not belong here. His work is either self-published or appeared in journals of zero credibility and standing. And don't say that this is the mainstream keeping the doors closed. Fake science is really fake, and dangerous in point of fact. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:64DA:F08A:C762:E78 (talk) 08:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Information back in
Adding back that information, yes his "critique" is a load of BS, he gets no support from me, but he still created it, it is published, and there are references for his propagation of his theories and publication of his book, which means that info on his "Critique" is notable to include on this wiki. Nohomers48 (talk) 21:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

NPOV violation
Failing to note that Gaede's ideas are considered inaccurate (as some of the very sources he cites and mainstream consensus indicates) is an NPOV violation. Fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.226.36 (talk) 23:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Gaede.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
I noticed there's no mention of his son, Eric Gaede, also known as Asalieri on Youtube. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.204.104 (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

"Forces", "waves", "points", "fields", and so on, are not physical, but conceptual, according to Gaede
Well yes, but that is not even an issue. Physics is pretty clear about the various levels of abstraction in accounting for phenomena and the distinction with the phenomena themselves, known to us via that thing we call raw data or evidence. None of what I am saying here is earth-shattering, the point is that G pretends there is a confusion where none reigns. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:4541:B131:97F3:A1BE (talk) 17:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)