This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Science and Academia Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the science and academia work group. Physics: Biographies Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Biographies Taskforce. Skepticism Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I returned information on Knuth from sources. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 04:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I have removed it again. If you would like to add materials that have already been removed and are clearly contentious, please discuss here *before* reposting the same content.

I am open to discussion on these points - please use as a starting point the reasons I have already provided for deletion. Please provide short, clear and concise explanations of why you believe my reasons for removing said content are not strong enough. Thank you.

For sake of clarity I'll reiterate the 3 contentious issues here:

1. The reference to the publisher of Entropy journal (MDPI). I removed this to prevent unfair inferences being made relating to Knuth's editorship the journal. Knuth is not accountable for the publisher's historical record pertaining to controversial decisions made before he was editor. The reference is here simply to demonstrate notability - this article is not about Entropy, nor MDPI. Knuth should not be *seen* to be accountable for that over which he has no control.
2. The reference to the movie criticism. I removed the quote from a film critic about production standards, as this is entirely irrelevant to the subject. Knuth simply appeared in the film which is referenced here as an example of notability. The film was made by an independent production company; Knuth had nothing to do with the film's production.
3. I removed the quote from Colavito which misrepresented Knuth's comments and, moreover, was added here in the absence of Knuth's original full quotation for reference. The quote was lacking in context and taken from the personal website of someone who wrote critically about Knuth. The author of that referenced content had quite blatantly misrepresented the quote of Keven Knuth on his own website. The editor who posted that here chose to re-post this misrepresentation, whilst completely omitting to Knuth's original quote for context - which ironically *was* even included on Colavito's website.

Cosmoid (talk) 10:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Knuth is a pretty minor academic who would probably not pass WP:PROF, but the popularity of his WP:FRINGE advocacy may push him over the edge. Luckily there are a few WP:FRIND sources who critically appraise his advocacy, so we can start from there. However, there was a lot of fluff inserted into the article not attested to by outside sources as being relevant or prominently worth discussing in this biography. I have removed a lot of the CV-like aggrandizement. What is left is a truncated biography that does all the work that is possible to do given the sources we have. The job of Wikipedia is to give the information that third-parties have deemed relevant about a person. Right now, this article is pretty thin on that, but I judge that it is just over the WP:GNG line. jps (talk) 10:54, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that The author of that referenced content had quite blatantly misrepresented the quote of Keven Knuth on his own website. does not, to me, seem to stand up to even the most straightforward of due diligence and scrutiny. Knuth is, whether wittingly or unwittingly, aping the same arguments that have been aped for decades by the ufology community. I understand his stated desire is to "rehabilitate" the topic, but he is not the first person to declaim such a motivation and Colavito is a good source for tying this back to the normal ufology social scene. In short, this is a pretty decent WP:PARITY point here. jps (talk) 13:36, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you will see on Colavito's web page, Knuth's actual quotation was: "A scientist must consider all of the possible hypotheses that explain all of the data, and since little is known, the extraterrestrial hypothesis cannot yet be ruled out."

Colavito clearly and deliberately pulls the phrase "all of the data" (and puts in quotation marks), so it appears as if Knuth is stating that he thinks all of the data would be explained as, as Colavito puts it, "spaceships from another world". That quote from Colavito's website has been lifted & put into the WP article to make Knuth's position appear preposterous - and done so without even the context of Knuth's original quotation! Colavito stated:

"He asks us to accept at face value the claim that “all of the data” about UFOs are linked to a singular phenomenon, namely spaceships from another world"

That is quite obviously and evidently not what Knuth is asking anyone to accept. Anyone with any semblance of skill in English comprehension should be able to see that. Knuth stated "ALL of the possible hypotheses, to explain all of the data...". In other words, hypotheses that do NOT argue for an extraterrestrial solution should be considered, just as equally as those that do. At no point does Knuth state that all UFO are a linked to a single phenomenon - let alone are "spaceships from another world". That is simply not what he said. Period.

Using this quote is simply not a factual way of representing who the subject is, nor what he believes - based on Knuth's actual quote and also everything I have seen and heard him say in interviews and writings. Cosmoid (talk) 14:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A parent must consider all of the possible hypotheses that explain all of the data, and since little is known, the dog eating all of the cookies from the counter hypothesis cannot yet be ruled out. Is this saying that all of the data are linked to one phenomena, the dog jumping on the counter and eating the cookies?

Isn't criticized Knuth's belief that the U.S. government is covering up encounters with aliens, writing that Knuth "leaned heavily on his credentials as a former NASA employee" but "provided no “insider” knowledge, nor any indication that he had firsthand evidence of a government conspiracy. enough criticism to hang on a source that shouldn't be used in a BLP anyway to satisfy whatever WP:PARITY concerns exist? That seems like a reasonable compromise, as it leaves out the obvious misinterpretation, and provides the bog standard "he doesn't actually have proof UFOs are real" language that we need to tack onto every article about someone who talks about UFOs.

I get that we need to make sure that the non-existent portion of readers who are on the fence about UFOs and would be convinced one way or another by adding just a little bit more criticism sourced to a guy's blog get the right information, but do we really need to quote the plainly wrong interpretation from a source that already shouldn't be used in a BLP to do it? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And just to make sure we're all on the same page, WP:FRINGEBLP says All articles concerning these people must also comply with Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons.

WP:BLPSPS, the policy that must be complied with, says Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just went over the sources, and even judging by just the quote provided here, Colavito's characterization seems fair enough. Knuth claims that a scientist needs to weigh "all of the data", clearly thinks of himself as a scientist, and clearly comes to the conclusion that it's aliens. Colavito isn't misquoting Knuth; he's using the context to accurately characterize Knuth's point.

It's not within our remit to judge individual aspects of a source for their reliability and then only include those we accept. The proper term for that behavior is cherry picking, and it's very much contrary to our policies. If Colavito had claimed Knuth said quite the opposite of what he had actually said, that would be a good reason to re-evaluate Colavito as a source. But this? No, this is not problematic text. Happy (Slap me) 15:39, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is cherry-picking as contrary to our policies as using a self-published source in a BLP? We're already using a source that is not allowed in a BLP, I don't think looking at the quotes we're using to find a reasonable balance between "this shouldn't be used at all" and "lets provide some criticism and context, despite WP:BLP" is cherry-picking anyway. I don't think if that were being done criticized Knuth's belief that the U.S. government is covering up encounters with aliens, writing that Knuth "leaned heavily on his credentials as a former NASA employee" but "provided no “insider” knowledge, nor any indication that he had firsthand evidence of a government conspiracy. would have been left in the article as well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are not claims about Knuth personally, but about his advocacy, as I said in my edit summary. BLP is not a blanket rule that 'overrides' WP:FRINGE, as you have suggested. It applies to different subjects. And WP:FRINGEBLP is quite clear about this. Happy (Slap me) 15:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: The Colavito source is allowed in a BLP per WP:PARITY and WP:FRIND as he is as good as it gets when it comes to expert evaluation of fringe ufological claims. The situation is that we can't have it both ways. Either we have established WP:FRINGEBLP worthiness here, in which case proper couching is required, or the fringe claims are irrelevant to the biography in which case we should trash the entire section. Which do you prefer? jps (talk) 15:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FRINGEBLP says Close attention should be paid to the treatment of those who hold fringe viewpoints, since as a rule they are the focus of controversy. All articles concerning these people must also comply with Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons (WP:BLP).

WP:BLP says Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article.

So the various guidelines in WP:FRINGE say that the policy, WP:BLP must be followed. I'm not sure where removing a misrepresentation violates anything except for WP:BLP, since it's still coming from a SPS. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The text in question is not about the living person. It is about a publication that the living person wrote. Now, maybe you think that none of the publications deserve inclusion here. Fair enough. But if the publications that Knuth wrote can be talked about here, so can legitimate criticism of the same per WP:FRINGE. In fact, as far as WP:FRINGE is concerned, it is the legitimate criticism that is the only justification for including Knuth's fringe sources in this article. To argue otherwise is to basically to thumb your nose at WP:COAT. jps (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would be fine removing anything without actual secondary coverage in RS. If I hadn't been busy reverting an LTA I would have removed their movie appearance too. What I'm trying to do is compromise and leave the material that want objected to, despite the guideline specifically saying the policy must be followed in the interests of balance. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Our BLP guidelines are central, and WP:BLPSPS is unambiguous. I agree with ScottishFinnishRadish that we can't use the blog source. I've trimmed the UFO section down to a dry summary of activities, which at least is not particularly promoting of fringe theories; I then removed the blog source. Comment that media sources are over-impressed with his 4 years as a junior scientist at NASA, and that there's a certain amount of man bites dog in the Guardian article and similar. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion at BLPN about situations like this, with regards to PARITY, FRINGEBLP and BLPSPS that is likely of interest to those involved in this discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since this source has been introduced [1], the analysis and comment by Robert Sheaffer should definitely be included, per WP:FRINGE. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Happy (Slap me) 21:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis and commentary on a UAP study funded by NASA that Knuth isn't involved in? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to which you refer is there to factually support the statement that Knuth researches UAP. The statement does not discuss any particular study, hypothesis, or theory. Ergo, including "analysis and comment" by anyone on that point would be inappropriate unless it was intended to provide balance to the assertion that Knuth is involved in UAP research (which would be absurd, being that he clearly is). Cosmoid (talk) 00:11, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the article, Knuth expresses his ideas about the NASA UAP investigation, and Sheaffer's comments about the NASA UAP investigation serve as a counterpoint, ergo, they are quite appropriate. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:58, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The source is impeached in a major way. An alternative approach would be just to not use it at all. Space.com is sometimes fine, but it often strays into problematic territory when it comes to WP:FRINGE claims as do a lot of popsci websites. jps (talk) 18:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with keeping fringe claims out of the article so there's no need for mainstream context. However, based on the discussions of Wikipedia on UAPx's discord server, I would be very surprised if this BLP didn't become an WP:ADVOCACY WP:COATRACK at some point in the future. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[2] I think the user who instituted the last few edits may not be familiar with how Wikipedia functions. First of all, conference proceedings should not be used to support anything, really, as they are not generally considered reliable. Find peer-reviewed sources for adding content (preferably not primary sources to boot). Finally, tags should not be removed. The two issues were identified during the course of the WP:AfD and continue to be pretty problematic here. Please improve the article before removing the tags. jps (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. I disagree. The article was not found to lacking 'notability' following the AfD discussion. If it had been, the article would have been deleted. It was not. Cosmoid (talk) 12:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As for the conference proceedings; you are failing to appreciate *what* they were being used to support. If you are accurately representing the current consensus interpretation of the Wikipedia guidelines (I really do not have the time to spend investigating volumes of conflicting guidelines and related discussions), then they are quite frankly absurd. Cosmoid (talk) 13:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The conference proceedings should not ever be used except to support what the conference proceedings say. And if those are WP:DUE, then they're likely covered by more reliable sources, which should be preferred.

There is no hard rule that any subject spoken about by a particular person at a conference is, in fact, a subject of expertise for that person. Indeed, it's quite common for credentialed individuals to speak on a topic they are relatively new to at a conference, to share a newcomer's perspective on that topic.

Regarding the tags: You've already threatened an edit war, and started to engage in one with multiple reverts. If this persists, you will very likely be blocked over it.

That's not what anyone wants here, so I'd advise you to work with your fellow editors to address those issues, rather than pretending like they don't exist. Happy (Slap me) 13:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]