Talk:List of ufologists/Archive 1

First Last vs Last, First
Well, we got both and thats not ok.. what way should it be? ---J.Smith 19:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Debunkers
"...since "alian craft" isn't the only explanation"

What do you mean? We are taking about people who research the subject, not aliens or explanations.

They should NOT be with the UFO researchers. My point is this try placing a UFO researchers name up on a Skeptics Wiki page and see how long it last!

About 2 sec!

So I have them under a new HEADER

220.240.249.134 15:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I can live with this. But my point was that even if someone researches with the aim to debunk a particular theory it doesnt make them any less of a "ufologist."  I'm not sure what the problem is with them co-existing on both lists? ---J.S (t|c) 15:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Use titles of listed persons?

 * "Dr. seems ostentatious for Ph.Ds (isn't obvious that an astrophysist, psychologist or scientist has earned some kind of Ph.D."

No. It's part of there title. If you were to talk to them you would be expected to use it. ---J.S (t|c) 16:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

(copied from my talk, irrelevant part omitted. ---J.S (t|c) 23:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC))


 * Hi, J.Smith: Using the title "Dr." in lists, articles, biographies, and so on, seems to be very rare at Wikipedia, and it is rare in international print journalism. I have seen academics called "Dr." only on campuses, in university newsletters, and (frankly) in some cranky newsletters who make too much of the academic background of some proponent of a "energy from the air scheme" or whatever.


 * Actually, even if you think Wikipedia should follow New York Times rules, I do believe that all males would be "Mr." except "Dr." for a medical doctor, "Col." for a Colonel, and so on. Thus "Dr. Spock allegedly threw a punch at Mr. Nixon but decked Gen. Haig instead" :-/


 * I suppose I could myself insist on being addressed as me "Dr. Hillman", but I know of very very few of my American colleagues who actually prefer to be addressed this way.


 * Anyone else want to comment?---CH 23:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Your argument in your edit summary didn't address how it is commonly used on wikipedia, you talked more about it "being obvious". My comments were addressing your argument.
 * As for whether or not to use the honorarium... I think it would be important in articles addressing scientific concerns. What does it say in the WP:MOS? I'd be willing to do whatever it says in there. ---J.S (t|c) 23:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Bernard Haisch edit
As an anon, Bernard Haisch, who also edits the WP as, modified the description of himself here and removed the internal link to his wikibiography, where he is currently edit warring. He has made a number of edits as an anon which are of questionable wisdom, in addition to repeated violations of WP:CIV.

I have partially reverted his anon edit.

Evidence includes but is by no means limited to the following: the pltn13.pacbell.net domain is registered to Southwestern Bell InterNet Services and geolocated in San Jose, CA; Haisch resides the Bay Area.
 * 1) adsl-69-107-150-126.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net
 * 2) 5 June 2006 modification of this article
 * 3) 12 June 2006 confession of IRL identity
 * 4) 25 April 2006 implicit confession of IRL identity
 * 5) adsl-69-107-144-172.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net
 * the pltn13.sbcglobal.net domain (SBC Internet Services; geolocated in the Bay Area)
 * 1) adsl-71-146-176-178.dsl.pltn13.sbcglobal.net

Important note: confusingly, the pltn13.pacbell.net domain has also been used by Jack Sarfatti, another fringe physicist. Sarfatti has been permabanned by Jimbo due to misbehavior here, but from time to time edits as an anon from this domain. Ironically, Sarfatti doesn't care for Haisch and I myself have sometimes reverted sarcastic comments by the Sarfatti anon concerning Haisch!

Please help by monitoring suspect anon edits and reverting as appropriate. TIA ---CH 18:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)