Talk:John E. Mack

Metadata should not be in main articles

I'm not sure why you are putting it there, but, Mary, the last couple of articles you've created start with metadata that belongs on the Template: Article/Metadata page, not the main article. The main article should only contain {{subpages}}. Is the metadata, perhaps, in a word processor file you are using? Howard C. Berkowitz 21:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm doing my best to figure out the "simple" system. Feel free to correct my mistakes as I am learning and you are the editor. I'm just the author. Thanks!Mary Ash 21:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources

If one uses sources, avoid narrative descriptions such as "according to the New York Times" or in a PBS Interview. Use an actual citation. Howard C. Berkowitz 22:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Go forth edit Howard as you know how to do this. I do not. Mary Ash 23:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I dunno about this, Howard, as a hard and fast rule. I'll bet if you look through all the stuff I've written you'll find a hundred "according to the New York Times critic so-and-so" and such like, THEN followed by the actual citation. You've gotta introduce the citation *somehow* -- so what's wrong with *that*? Hayford Peirce 01:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Right. I'm not objecting to saying "from the New York Times", but objecting to saying "from the New York Times" without a citation. Howard C. Berkowitz 01:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha. Then I certainly agree 100%. Hayford Peirce 01:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

As I suggested to Howard add the citations. I'm bringing home the bacon as an author so you guys can edit. Mary Ash 02:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

No, Mary. It's not my job to find the specific citations. When I assert something, I take responsibility to provide the citation. I bring in pounds of bacon, and never fail to garnish with appropriate citations.

How could I possibly cite "Note: Some sources state the investigation was conducted for 14 months."

For this article, a Psychology Editor may rule on citations. I'll simply say that for an article where I have Editorial jurisdiction, I will no more accept "go find the citation" than "go Google it." Howard C. Berkowitz 02:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

(unident)As I wrote earlier I do not know how to do the Wiki Markup for citations. Please read my comments before making further comments without reading them first. Feel free to add them as editors. If you have questions about a specific citation please contact me on my talk page or leave a message here. Thanks!Mary Ash 02:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

If you have the bibliographic information, it is enough to put it between <ref></ref>, as in <ref>J. Smith, "Harvard investigates UFO author professor", ''Boston Globe'', 31 February 1970</ref>

I have questions about all the citations that do not point to a specific, identifiable article or other source.Howard C. Berkowitz 02:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)I've done my best to add the citations you requested. I hope you are enjoying your laugh fest at my feeble attempts to learn how to do this. May you all enjoy your party at my expense of trying to learn and help. Mary Ash 02:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You still don't seem to understand, Mary, Editors at CZ are NOT like Editors at newspapers. This has been explained to you over and over -- please try to understand the difference.

I DO UNDERSTAND THAT! Shouting intended. What I don't understand is how a wiki that desperately needs authors treats them so poorly. You've treated me like I am supposed to LEARN everything about your wiki INSTANTLY and I am sorry to say that's impossible. I am bright but not bright enough to learn in a second what took you guys awhile to learn. I did try to add the references and I am sure there'll be complaints about how the article should be deleted because it wasn't done right. There is no winning. May you all enjoy your little party of a few as it will remain that way until YOUR wiki learns to ENCOURAGE new authors rather than stomp on them until they desire not to help at all. Yesterday I was in a quandary as to what to do. I love writing and I would love to write here but it's nye impossible due to the hostile environment. So go enjoy your laugh at my expense and feel good about yourselves for running me off. I quit unless a constable (which I notified) takes action to improve my ability to contribute here. May you all do your happy, happy dance. Mary Ash 02:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

All right. I'm going to answer. There are several newer authors than you. Some, quite to my surprise, got the metadata almost completely right on the first try. Others didn't do that, but immediately started off at a non-general level on a range of subjects from Microsoft Windows to mushrooms, which actually may have something in common. No one insisted on not being edited. No one complained they were being pounced upon. No one is insisting that CZ's culture to fit their idea of what it should be.

Ironically, you are assuming roles for Constables that they don't have -- and Hayford, commenting here about the confusion about the role of Editors, is a Constable, although he is acting as a regular Author. Howard C. Berkowitz 03:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Howard, give Mary a break. Don't you have other articles to work on? On WP they call this wikistalking. D. Matt Innis 03:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I have, indeed, actively and pleasantly collaborated today with several new contributors--see, for example, Windows Neptune, the suggestions, and the creation of CZ: Microsoft Windows Subgroup to complement it. I do tend to look at any new article. I would welcome constructive criticism of any new articles of my own -- and, had I failed to cite, pointing that out would be constructive.

Are you ruling on Wikistalking? Could you point me to a "give a break" policy when there are very specific and objective problems being mentioned? Go ahead -- ban me, or get a Psychology Editor to ban me from this article. Howard C. Berkowitz 03:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I am baffled. How can it be adding a citation -- not formatting -- if there's no way for anyone else to find the cited article? "Some sources" may be acceptable for a newspaper, but encyclopedias don't have anonymous sources. Howard C. Berkowitz 02:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Harvard

Like many Harvard people, I was surprised and dismayed by his presence at that August Institution. Every time his lunatic ideas appeared in the press, they were always qualified by the phrase "professor of something or other at Harvard" to lend credence to them, as if Harvard had given official approval to them. As I recall, a bunch of indignant Harvard faculty tried to get his tenure taken away but failed. Well, Harvard has always had its eccentrics.... Hayford Peirce 00:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Mary, you are just completely incorrect

I just spent another hour trying to turn your in-text urls into proper references. Authors are supposed to make at least what I would call a "due diligence" effort to write proper references ... and it is not the duty of editors to continually cleanup an author's messes. Maybe once, twice and perhaps even three times, editors may clean up ... but at some point, the author must learn how to do it.

An author should not repeatedly say "I am an author. I can't be bothered with learning how to do references, how to create a metadata templates, how to create photo credit lines and how to find the the name of a photo's author. That's an editors's job, so I need not learn how." That is just simply completely incorrect.

If one writes an article for a trade journal or a professional, scholarly journal, the article will most often be rejected if the author doesn't create the references as spelled out on the specific journal's guidelines (and each journal has different such guidelines) ... I know because I have written such articles.

If one writes a book that utilizes references and the author doesn't submit the manuscript with references formatted as dictated by each specific publisher, the manuscrript will most often be rejected until the author complies with the publishers reference guidelines ... I know because I have had a book published John Wiley and Sons.

Once more, it is the duty of an author to make a due diligence effort to learn how to do such things as references, metadata templates, upload photos correctly and with correct credit lines ... in plain English, due diligence means make an "honest effort" to do something right. It does not mean saying "That's an editor's job to clean up after me from now on out". Many dozens of other newcomers to CZ (myself included) have learned how to do those things ... why can you not learn? Or why do you refuse to learn? Milton Beychok 04:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You can NOT expect someone to learn ALL that YOU know in two weeks. I've complied with every request made by CZ editors once I learned what was needed. I DO understand stylebooks and citations. I was required as a PAID journalist to LEARN the AP Stylebook as part of my job. I also kept a copy of my AP Stylebook at my desk for reference. NO ONE including YOU or anyone else has sent me to a link explaining how to insert the references. I HAVE included every reference used in every article written at CZ. They were in the exlinks and I notified the editors and anyone else where to find them. Nor has anyone bothered to show me HOW to insert the Wiki Mark Up the whole time I've tried to learn. As to the photo insertions, and I've done plenty at wikiHow and as a paid journalist, I gave appropriate credit. The source was listed along with a link to where the photo could be found. What I have discovered is some folks at CZ are friendly and helpful. Some are not. Some people's priority to criticize others seems to exceed their priority to have the site succeed.Mary Ash 04:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

If you will read the summaries I attached to my last two edits of this main article's references, I asked you to please read CZ:Formatting of embedded, inline references. I guess that you didn't notice that. In any event, that article will explain everything you need to know ... but it will take about 15 -30 minutes or so to read it carefully.

I have done more than simply point out the corrections needed in your references and in your photos (including the one for this article). I fixed all of them for you and only then did I tell you about them. How else would you want me or others to function? Just fix the errors and not even tell you about them? Is cleaning them up first and then telling you about them (and how to correct them) what you characterize as unfriendly? When you were in university and a professor or instructor told you when you had made an error, was that professor or instructor being unfriendly? Or were they doing their job in educating you?

Mary, one definition of the second law of thermodynamics (the one about entropy) is "There are no free lunches" and that is a fact of life. Milton Beychok 05:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The summaries were sent AFTER I completed the article. Not much help after the article is completed. As to thermodynamics, you are right. You have to serve lunch so it isn't free. You never served lunch until after the main course was served. There was nothing to lose except a contributor who was trying to learn.Mary Ash 05:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm ... let me try to understand your logic. When we made corrections while you were writing an article, we were "were not letting you write your article". You must have said that a a dozen times on Talk pages and on the forums. Now that I made some corrections and informed you about them after your completed the article it is "not much help after the article is completed". As for "There are no free lunches", it is really saying that nothing in nature or in life is free ... there is a price to be paid for everything. Water won't flow upwards unless there is an expenditure of energy made in pumping it ... and encyclopedic articles don' t get written unless there is an expenditure of time, energy and a willingness to learn how to write them. That's why PhD candidates have to write an accurate thesis and then also defend it ... so that they learn how to do so. PhD candidates can't get away with "why won't some editors clean up my thesis for me??". Hemingway couldn't get away with asking the publishers of his great novels "why won't some editors clean up my novel for me??". Mary, surely you understand what I'm saying ... I simply cannot accept that you don't understand what I am saying. No one expects a new user to "learn everything in a second". But should we not expect people to spend a few days just reading, studying and asking questions before they start writing an article? I know that I did just that when I first came here and so did many others. Milton Beychok 06:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The author role

If you're new to the Citizendium, we'd love you to dive "write" in. We especially don't want you to feel intimidated. For instance, you may imagine we have impossibly high standards. Certainly we aim for high quality, but we also want participation to be easy and as much fun as possible—and we know that Rome wasn't built in a day. — Citizendium's Quick Start Guide

We really need to stop the arguing and get back to having fun.

Question: There are so many instruction and policy pages! How can I ever read all that?
Answer: Don't! Seriously, you're not neglecting any duties if you fail to read all that. The only people who do are those that want to give advice about our standards. Everybody else flies by the seat of their pants, you'll love it. — Citizendium's Quick Start Guide

Citizens are not required to read any instruction and policy pages. However, if they don't then they must accept that other Citizens may edit their work in order to comply with our policies. They don't have to accept getting yelled at.

This includes not being required to make references. However, if she doesn't then she must accept that other Citizens may delete any unreferenced material if necessary.

This include not being required to fill in image data correctly. However, if she doesn't then she must accept that the image may be deleted.

Complicated wiki markup is generally not needed. Besides, you can pick it up by looking at what other people do. If you want the basics, look at the top of this page. It's not hard. Trust us. Besides, if you find it too hard, just email your article in word-processor format, and someone else will put in the mark-up and start your article in Citizendium: CZ:Email us an article in word processor format — Citizendium's Quick Start Guide

Mary is fully entitled to just write an article in a word processor document and email it in. She's gone one step better than that, she's putting it straight on the wiki page. Not only that, but she is attempting to learn the wiki code. Other Citizen's can pick up the mistakes - or perhaps they will be left unfixed, like the hundreds of other pages that aren't quite right all over the wiki.

--Chris Key 08:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hubby dearest has asked that I not contribute here after reading the comments left by some of the CZ contributors. He read the talk page comments and could not believe the comments made and lack of support offered by some of the key CZ contributors here.

My physical health is not the best and my trip through CZ has now lead me to call the doctor today. I'm sure my doctor will want to run a CBC and liver panel to evaluate my health.

Chris, Matt, Ro and Aleta thank you for being very encouraging and positive. CZ could use a few more people like you. I forgot to add the biggest reason I stayed as long as I did was because Matt was so kind to me. You are the shining examples of what wiki contributors should be. A good wiki creates a supportive environment and helps each other look good. For example: one wiki contributor may be good at editing and adding wiki mark up while another is good at writing. In a good wiki they would collaborate and help each other make their wiki the best it could be.

I am sorry it didn't work out. If my health improves I may return. Mary Ash 16:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources, again

I've done some rewriting here and have glanced at some of the sources. Many of them appear to become from a John Mack website, in which various newspaper articles are quoted at some length. There is, for instance, an obituary by the New York Times. I don't think it's either scholarly, or correct for CZ, to say in the article that "according to the NYT", and then not provide a direct link to the NYT, since such a link does in fact exist if one wants to look forward. Either the author of this info in the article should make the correct links (and citations, including dates) for all of these footnotes or, I think, they should be deleted. Hayford Peirce 16:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

who is "Feeny"

We can't have two references to quotations from someone named "Feeney" with absolutely no sourcing, not even a first name. Hayford Peirce 18:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

He's a Boston Globe reporter, but there are at least two articles by him. Mary posted to my user page,

Mack Feeney Linky Dink Is Right Here

http://www.johnemackinstitute.org/center/center_news.asp?id=227 Mary Ash 18:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

This is the September 2004 obituary. It does not contain the reference to 200 interviews, which appears to be 1992. Following links from the Institute site, I did find a 1992 article by Sandra Terry in the Boston Globe. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The reference is right here "Dr. Mack eventually interviewed some 200 individuals who said they had encounters with extraterrestrials. Although he was subjected to widespread ridicule because of his work, Dr. Mack saw it as a unique opportunity to study spiritual or transformational experience, a theme that ran through much of his earlier work."

Link: http://www.johnemackinstitute.org/center/center_news.asp?id=227 Mary Ash

The article is now such a hodge-podge the reference and statements I wrote were probably "accidentally" removed while edited. I did write the information was garnered from a 1992 interview that was referenced in the 2004 obit and clearly written by me in the article. Check the page history and you will see what I originally wrote. Mary Ash 19:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

As other people have pointed out, you cannot just provide a link to a John Mack website that has *many* other quotations in it and consider that to be real scholarship. It is just both wrong AND a pain for other people to clean up your work. You should really try to be more cooperative with the other Citizens and also try to learn how to do correct citations. Hayford Peirce 19:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

At the very least, it needs to cite the Boston Globe article. As you will see in for the Sandra Terry article, it's perfectly possible to give the actual publishing information, with a link to the John Mack Institute if it's not conveniently at the publisher's site.

Ideally, descriptions of his methodology and interviews would come from one of his books or articles, not a newspaper account. I don't have his books, but the interviews apparently were part of the Harvard review.

I note that Mack made many contributions outside ufology; I intend to add more. Do note there is a T.E. Lawrence article, still early in development, to which I added a Mack note; I may follow up with Gertrude Bell and, an article I thought I had started, Richard Meinertzhagen. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

{unindent}Thanks Howard! The article is really looking good thanks to your expert edits. I sure do appreciate all the effort you have put into the article. It really looks GOOD! Mary Ash 19:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I would hope, then, that you would observe what I've done, which certainly can be a learning experience. The comment "The article is now such a hodge-podge the reference and statements I wrote were probably "accidentally" removed while edited. " comes across as hostile, and, I should mention, your personal and religious advice on my user talk page.

It would be gratifying for me if you'd use some of the CZ styles I have shown; that is in no way sarcastic. This is not a newspaper and has different style. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I am reading and learning. Thanks for bringing the article up to its full potential. Later when you have time, perhaps you could help figure out how to add the references. Thanks!Mary Ash 19:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

MUFON convention and John Mack, plus the tenure battle

Take a look at this 1995 article by Philip J. Klass in a 1995 Skeptical Inquirer. http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/klass_files_volume_34/ (I have the physical copy, along with many others that mention the Mack business over the years.) Mack apparently said, outright, that he believed in reincarnation and that, as he told the MUFON people, he believed in the actual physical abductions. I'm too lazy myself to put any of this material into the article (there's so *much* of it!), but someone else may feel like taking a crack at it. Hayford Peirce 20:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't believe everything Klass writes as he claimed to a skeptic but he wasn't a very good one. He liked to categorize anything "unknown" as Jupiter as it was convenient. Better sources would be the peer reviewed journal from CUFOs. Mary Ash 20:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

More comments: What does Mack's beliefs in reincarnation have anything to do with UFOs? His two UFO books dealt more with the metaphysical aspects of the phenomena much like Dr. Ring's works. The UFO phenomena has many aspects and some UFO researchers do believe it is a metaphysical and a transformational process much akin to Near-Death-Experiences NDEs. There is current research to establish new information concerning this subject. It would be rather small-minded, and lacking scientific research, if one were to limit all possibilities.Mary Ash 20:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Phil Klass was a senior editor at Aviation Weekly for 34 years. Skeptical Inquirer is published by leading academics. Are you saying that people at CUFO are more reputable that Phil Klass or SI? Here's what at least one leading UFOlist says about Phil Klass: "Longtime ufologist James W. Moseley illustrates the ambivalence many UFO researchers feel about Klass. On the one hand, Moseley argues that Klass was sincere in his motives, and that his work ultimately benefited the field of Ufology. Moseley contends that, when pressed, most leading ufologists would admit that Klass knew the subject and the people involved, and was welcomed, or at least pleasantly tolerated at UFO meetings (Moseley & Pflock 2002:230)." Klass was, for anyone except some UFOlists, unquestionably the single most knowledgeable and reputable man in the field of inquiry regarding UFOs. Period. Hayford Peirce 20:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

This article is about Mack, not UFOs, so his beliefs in reincarnation and abduction are absolutely relevant. They would not be relevant to the UFO article. Please do not fight UFO battles in this article, where I have indeed added material about his ideas on transformational epistemology.

Perhaps in the Center for UFO Studies or UFO article, it would be helpful to elaborate on the peer review process of the CUFOS journal. If I had the exact title, I could check in Citeseer to get a quantitative idea of its scientific impact. Is the reviewer panel neutral, or is it the mirror image of the Skeptical Inquirer?

I knew Philip Klass slightly, in the context of work on electromagnetic pulse weapons and the Soviet intentions for the SS-9 ICBM. Highly regarded as a military journalist, he was, as I remember, one of two journalists ever elected a Fellow of the Institute for Electrical and Electronic Engineering.

Hayford, is that a direct quote by Klass? At least in past days, it would be quite a problem for a journalist to invent quotes. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

{unindent}I'm not sure how Klass fits in with Mack's views. Klass tended to deal with UFOs as a nut-and-bolts affair and discounted almost any UFO report as Jupiter. At least Mack, a Pulitzer prize winning author, was willing to risk his personal reputation to seriously investigate UFOs and abduction phenomena. Mary Ash 20:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The relationship is straightforward: did Klass correctly quote Mack? Howard C. Berkowitz 20:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I'd leave anything out from the Skeptical Inquirer as they tend to a biased source. I haven't looked at these links but I've been collecting a few in case you would like to review them. I can't find the links detailing how people who report UFO abductions tend to be normal EXCEPT they tend to be more fantasy prone. I'll keep looking.

Links:

• http://www.intrudersfoundation.org/John_Mack_UAATE.htm
• http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/Abduction.htm
• http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/SkepticsAnalysis.htm
• http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc597.htm
• http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_08_1_olmos.pdf
• http://www.cufos.org/abduct_P1.html
• http://crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/UFO.htm
• http://www.gallup.com/poll/19558/Paranormal-Beliefs-Come-SuperNaturally-Some.aspx

Mary Ash 21:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, this is not a UFO article. The question at hand is Mack's beliefs, which are perfectly acceptable in an article about Mack.

I find it hard to say, with a straight face, that the Skeptical Inquirer is biased but the UFO press is not.

Mary, if you think links are relevant, give a full citation (i.e., not just a URL) and put them in an article, probably UFO. I have no interest in chasing them down; my work here has been to clean up citations, and also broaden the scope so it isn't UFO-only. My personal interest in alien abductions was described by Rhett Butler's remark at the end of Gone With the Wind. I do have a substantial interest in CZ quality, including adequate sourcing and coverage of all aspects of a subject. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)