Talk:Robert L. Park

Wikipedia
In the March 23, 2007 edition of What's New, he had these comments about Wikipedia: WIKIPEDIA: HAS A BEAUTIFUL IDEA FALLEN VICTIM TO HUMAN NATURE? Science owes its success and credibility to openness. Findings, including details of how they were obtained, are exposed to the scrutiny of the entire scientific community. It sounds like a prescription for chaos, but it's a mechanism for self-correction. The alternative is dogma. Could openness be extended to all knowledge? With Wikipedia, it seemed to work for a time, but for those who profit from a misinformed public, including purveyors of pseudoscience, the target is too tempting to leave alone.

(Note: I have moved the above from the article to here.  It's not that I doubt the accuracy of the information, it's that it's a self-reference -- it's not presumed to be important information because it communicates anything valuable about Park; it's presumed to be important because it talks about us. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. I put it in, but I see your point.  Bubba73 (talk), 03:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No harm done -- it's really easy to forget that people won't necessarily be reading what we write on Wikipedia, or at the time that to us is the "current" time, etc... -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this could be referenced somehow in the Criticism of Wikipedia article. --Wfaxon 05:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Good idea, done. Bubba73 (talk), 15:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 16:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This bio might be naive, partisan, imcomplete
The site below states:

"Because this technology challenges the currently popular theories of physics, this lobby [Park's lobby] has unjustly branded it as being fraudulent."

http://www.theorionproject.org/en/documents/EPWoutofboxBrief.pdf

DISCUSSION:

It is possible that this biography is naive, biased and fraudulently incomplete, by omitting reports that Mr. Park has undertaken aggressive strategic smear campaigns to undermine the careers of patent officials that grant patents for inventions that have been independently verified by other scientific labs to validly work.

The controversy might be grounded in the fact that scientific discoveries can at almost any time out-pace existing human theories (in their current state), because the act of discovery generally precedes the creation of theories to explain them.

The website above gives the impression that Mr Park and his lobby have attacked inventions and their patent eligibility, if their theory is not yet understood (by those he defines as the mainstream).

This might be intellectually retrograde in that truly novel inventions can never be magically grasped by ALL others scientists, particularly those giving theoretical not empirical objections.

This is why independent confirmation of experimental results is the method through which findings are deemed valid. Theoretical consensus of merely mainstream scientists (or ideological partisans) can by no standard be deemed a scientific criteria of validity.

Agbdf (talk) 07:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I read the linked document, and it appears to be a bunch of unsourced claims made by people who have products they are trying to push. One section specifically mentions Cold fusion, which after 20 years still has not amounted to anything and is generally accepted by science (not just Park) to be nonsense. The other section that mentions Park does so in conjunction with Blacklight Power, a company that for years has been pushing an energy technology that, if it actually works, would clearly upset many fundamental rules of physics. Park and many others legitimately regard this company's product to be impossible. I read lots of Park's writing, and yes he does write about both these things often. But things like "undermine the careers of patent officials" need to be sourced. Where's the evidence?  Why are the specific people affected not named in the document?  Have any of them sued Park or spoken out publicly against him?  There should be a paper trail that can be cited as sources.  All in all, I am dubious of these claims, they seem to me to be the claims of pseudoscience proponents who don't like their moneymaking schemes being publicly criticized. --Krelnik (talk) 13:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Correction, I do see two affected people are named on page 24. But you need to find primary sources. If there are legal actions underway, those should be citable. Further, the specific things that Park said and how they fit in with the timeline, need to be cited as well.  Ideally, it would be good to know if there was other, independent criticism of these people and not just Park.  (The document seems to have an almost paranoid tone, as if it thinks Park has some sort of magic power over such issues.  I suspect other people might have criticized these two patent examiners as well, for them to have been fired.)  However, if this is truly in regard to pending litigation, take care to maintain WP:NPOV. Claims made in court are not facts until the case has been decided. --Krelnik (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Status as scientific advisor to the judicial system
Science and the Law:

"Furthermore, a group of judges recently asked renowned physics professor Robert L. Park for guidance on how to recognize questionable scientific claims. The author of a landmark book on the subject, Park came up with "seven warning signs" that a scientific claim is probably bogus (Park 2003):


 * 1) The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media (thus bypassing the peer review process by denying other scientists the opportunity to determine the validity of the claim).
 * 2) The discoverer claims that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work. (The mainstream science community may be deemed part of a larger conspiracy that includes industry and government.)
 * 3) The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection.
 * 4) The evidence for a discovery is anecdotal.
 * 5) The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries.
 * 6) The discoverer has worked in isolation.
 * 7) The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation.

That's a pretty significant honor and deserves mention in this article and elsewhere. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Criticism in intro
I can understand that mentioning criticism in the intro seems to contribute to fairness and balance. However it somehow seems wrong to me. It should, of course, be mentioned in the body of the article. This is more a reader-centric thing than a matter of WP policy. I think it is better to let the reader find out why the person is considered important and then bring in the criticism. More dramatic in a way. Kind of like the movies, you don't start out by telling how bad the bad guy is. You let people find out for themselves. Wolfview (talk) 20:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Park's criticism's are included in the introduction to the article on the Trotter Prize (Texas A&M). When is it appropriate to include criticisms in the opening paragraphs and when is it undue weight? Freakshownerd (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see the criticisms removed from the intro to that article too. I nominated it for deletion since it does not have secondary sources to back up its notability. WPers tend to frown on the nominator of an article for deletion removing stuff from the article at the same time, or else I would have taken that off too. Wolfview (talk) 20:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The criticisms ventured by park of the Trotter Prize are directly of the prize itself. The criticisms here, however, are of one of Park's books - and by a ufologist reported in a self-published book (removed).  Plus, each page should be dealt with originally, rather than comparing them.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 21:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Who do you think wrote Park's books? Are accusing him of fraud or some sort of plagarism? This is a very serious allegation and unless you have a source seem like a serious BLP violation. Freakshownerd (talk) 21:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, a professional nuclear physicist may have expertise above and beyond that of an academic with a penchant for ranting about subjects related to theology. I can't find any indication that Park's scientific work has been of merit. Maybe you can find something? Freakshownerd (talk) 21:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between a person and their works. It's also a rather blanket condemnation to include in the lead considering the reviews are actually somewhat equivocal (the PW review for instance, could be praising or condemning his interpretation of the Bible, and much of it is simply enumerating the book's contents).  Also, how do we summarize it?  One reviewer liked it, the other didn't.  And with this review, it's looking like the book is better spun out into its own article.
 * Friedman hasn't done nuclear physics full-time in 40 years, and is a ufologist making extreme claims (UFOs exist and visited Earth; they took the time to turn cattle inside out and rape a couple people, but left no other evidence). Park is defending the mainstream (UFOs probably haven't visited earth, probably didn't land at Roswell, isn't claiming conspiracy theory and thinks science is a pretty good way of understanding the world).  In addition, Park is nationally renowned for his criticisms, publishing books in major scholarly publishing houses and headed an organization that gave science advice to the government.  Friedman is a UFOlogist (I don't really feel like I have to go much further than that) and is criticizing Park, in a self-published book, for one criticism he made of a book about Roswell.  Seems kinda coatrackish.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 22:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

"When is it appropriate to include criticisms in the opening paragraphs and when is it undue weight?" When it relates more directly to the reasons for which the subject is notable. Since the Lead is a summary of the article's most salient points, only those points should be in it. Nightscream (talk) 01:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I was going to object to including Friedman's criticisms in the body as the book's publisher was listed as readhowyouwant.com, but it actually appears to be Career Books or New Page Books. I'm going to check to make sure they aren't vanity press (in which case my objection still stands) and correct the publisher if they're not.
 * Nightscream, your edit here also appears to essentially be a revert to a previous version, including removing the Booklist review and inaccurately summarizing the PW review (if you read the PW review, it doesn't mention a chapter 4, and isn't criticizing him for misinterpreting the bible, it appears to say he's using it as a source text. The actual line is "Park argues against the existence of the soul by debunking a tale of reincarnation and even interprets the Bible to his own purposes."  That's not a criticism in my mind.)  The edit also removed the citation templates.  I'm more than a little confused by such a blanket return and very much prefer the version in this revision.  I've replaced the citation templates, but I'd like to simply blanket paste in the previous version.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 11:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I don't know how that happened. I remember seeing the removal of the "atheist affiliated" passage, and remembering agreeing with it, so I don't know how that got back in. Maybe instead of hitting "Edit", I hit "Undo" out of habit? Sorry about that. Nightscream (talk) 19:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries, I've done the same. I'll try to "fix" it tonight and ask for a review.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This isn't exactly related to the intro but it's along the same lines. I noticed this sentence in the Popular writing section : "UFOlogist Stanton T. Friedman criticized Park's analysis of the Roswell UFO Incident for including inconsistencies in dates and accounts of the Roswell incident and for engaging in amateur psychology in making his arguments." That various believers in UFO's have something negative to say about Park's writing isn't a surprise. I suspect there are a lot of believers in all sorts of stuff that Park writes about that have something negative to say about him. The surprise is that a particular one was singled out. The sentence looks more like somebody finding an excuse to embed a link to their favorite UFO guy than something that belongs in the article. If the point needs to be made that people that Park criticizes criticize him back, then I think it might be more appropriate to reference that in a more general way with specifics only mentioned in the references. Regardless, the article seemed well done to me. Thanks. --Davefoc (talk) 02:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of Voodoo Science
If one is looking for further comment on Park's book Voodoo Science, one could maybe do worse than quote from my own review in the Times Higher, such as"[This book] should carry a disclaimer that is the converse of the one with which Park ends his 'What's New' column on the American Institute of Physics website: 'The opinions in this book are unquestioningly shared by many scientists, but they should not be.'"--Brian Josephson (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Isn't that just a fancy way of saying "I disagree with Park" without giving any reasons for disagreeing? I don't think such vacuous "criticism" deserves being quoted. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, you have to look at the whole review, to which I have given a link, to see the reasons. I had assumed WP readers would have been able to figure that out. Why don't you reference my review in the article, together with quotes that you consider helpful? --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:38, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Since the author himself, when trying to select a good quote, gave one without any actual substance, I am not optimistic enough regarding the presence of helpful quotes there to motivate me to read the article in order to find one. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Be optimistic! Be bold! Take a look at the review. I thought I'd give a light-hearted quote rather than serious one.  How about this more serious one:"We find in Park’s book the official story regarding a number of “mistaken beliefs”. What one will not find — and is hard to find anywhere if one does not know where to look to bypass censorship - is the information that might lead one to conclude that the official view does not tell the whole story."--Brian Josephson (talk) 15:44, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see this as adding to the article. Jim1138 (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think a precised form would add something. I have the sense that you would like criticism of the book to be minimal, and that's why you don't want to draw attention to my review. --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, from your point of view, that is one possible explanation for our resistance to including quotes from your review. Given the alternative explanation - that your review may not contain any worthwhile quotes - it is understandable that you prefer the former. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * [Edit conflict] Ah. If I understand you correctly, your criticism is that in writing the book, Park did not use the same criteria for inclusion of "information" you would have used, and you use the term "censorship" for using Park's criteria - or possibly for not using yours. Well, that is slightly better, as it refers to one specific property of the book, namely the choice of information to include, but it is still universally applicable to any book written by anyone one disagrees with.
 * Maybe I am a little too demanding, and others are happy with quoting reasoning on the sophistication level of "Is not!" - "Is too!" What do other users think? Already taken care of. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that wikipedia often seems to work on the basis of "Is not!" - "Is too!". Your characterising of my review thus seems to be a considerable oversimplification and suggests you are going solely by my quotes rather than reading the review itself (again, w'pedia relies far too much on mindlessly copying quotes regardless of context). The THE web site is making comments like 'you have reached your limit' so let me inform you that there is a copy of the review on my own web pages, which have no paywall(!). --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the reviews of Park's book would be better to be placed on the Voodoo Science article itself, and we can create a new section at the bottom entitled "reception" covering all reviews. I have at least four of these reviews, I will attempt this shortly. Goblin Face (talk) 17:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I was about to suggest something a bit similar, as my argument at least is quite complicated and can't easily be condensed into a simple soundbite and deserves more space. Though isn't that article more about the concept of Voodoo Science than about the book itself? --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The Voodoo Science article is definitely about the book, I compiled a small list of reviews on the talk-page of that article but in total I have managed to find about 22 reviews for Park's book (including yours). This is going to take me probably quite a few hours or so to summarize all the reviews and cite them. I aim to have this completed by tomorrow night. Any help from any other editors would be appreciated. Goblin Face (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * There is now a reception section on the Voodoo Science article. Out of the 22 book reviews I could only cite 10, the others I could not access or were unreliable. Most of the reviews have been favourable. Out of the ten I cited, only one was negative. Goblin Face (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

If the reason for leaving out my own review in the Times Higher Education Supplement is access problems, I'll seek authorisation to post it in an accessible location. Meanwhile, you can read it at http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/articles/park.html.--Brian Josephson (talk) 19:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The book editor says I can upload it to a different location as long as I provide a link to the original, but notes that people can read 5 articles per month on the THE site without registering, and therefore suggests I link to the original rather than an alternative. Therefore I've added a brief quote from my review to the Voodoo Science page, with a link going to the original as recommended. --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comments
There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Robert L. Park. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070928000217/http://nucnews.net/nucnews/2000nn/0007nn/000723nn.htm to http://nucnews.net/nucnews/2000nn/0007nn/000723nn.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

- As of 17 January 2017, the link www.bobpark.org pointed to a landing page for NameBright.com naming service. I did a web search and found the site hosted at the University of Maryland: http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/index.html. I used to read his Friday newsletter and recognize the pages.TolarisTango (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Robert L. Park. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080808121730/http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN06/wn061606.html to http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN06/wn061606.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080704142054/http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN87/wn112787.html to http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN87/wn112787.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080828041041/http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN89/wn081889.html to http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN89/wn081889.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090401035608/http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN02/wn051702.html to http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN02/wn051702.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091003003518/http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN09/wn082809.html to http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN09/wn082809.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100601173839/http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN05/wn040805.html to http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN05/wn040805.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100531193153/http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN09/wn081409.html to http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN09/wn081409.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)