Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Richard C. Hoagland

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) &mdash; 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  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
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 &mdash; 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:
 * FRINGE 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)