Talk:Eugene Mallove

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Physics Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.
Help with this template Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Eugene Mallove article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

The subject of this article, Eugene Mallove, has presumably NOT edited Wikipedia as Emallove (talk • contribs), to judge from the dates of his/her contribs, despite the similarity of names. User:Emallove did upload the image of Eugene Mallove, so there must be some connection, however.

Contents 1 Conspiracy theory 2 Image Herein 3 The Open Letter from Mallove 4 what about the trial?

[edit] Conspiracy theory

On the "murder" topic, understand the point, but see also the wiki article on it, which notes that the term may legally apply depending on as little as a year's timeframe of decease from injuries, not exclusively motives, to which a shooter may be insensitive anyway. Also, the conspiracy dimension is worthy of mention as long as it's NPOV: blanket dismissal of all conspiracy as undeserving of consideration and mention is unfortunately itself a POV issue. Chris Rodgers 08:15, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories need to meet a pretty high standard to be included in a wikipedia article: Otherwise, the mere mention in this (theoretically) neutral forum lends credence ("Hmmm ... it wouldn't be in wikipedia if there wasn't something to it!". I don't think anything associated with Mallove's case has come near that standard, but I could be wrong. What specific theories are there? Is there anything more than vague suppositions like "Isn't it suspicious that Mallove was killed just when cold fusion was close to getting federal approval?" - DavidWBrooks 23:11, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your generalization edit is an improvement, but the devil's in the details with respect to where the standards bar is placed; I trust you do allow your earlier comment was overstatement.

I completely disagree with your statement that mention in wikipedia alone lends credence. NPOV includes neutrally presenting multiple views on an issue and letting the reader adjudicate for him/herself. Thus mention alone does not constitute endorsement. By the line of rationale you cited, an atheist might edit out non-derogatory texts on religion as baseless unproven superstition (why include things just any yahoo believes, theists aren't even consistent among themselves, etc., inclusion is endorsement), and a fundamentalist might attempt the reverse on the grounds the majority of the world rejects atheism. In fact from a skeptic's vantage, the mere reference to "conspiracy theory" puts the claim on the defensive, so the neutrality is good.

Personally I've watched objects in flight as real as the keyboard beneath my fingers right now, but guess what label they get filed under? "Conspiracy theory." Fine; theory means simply as yet unproven, and conspiracy is simply human behavior, so the day may come we dismiss such things less glibly. With respect to Mallove, even I'm only moderately read on the subject, and it's somewhat more complex than the "federal approval" way you describe it, but as long as the entry references this as unproven theory and it's raised a statistically significant number (several million pairs) of eyebrows, it seems neutral and factual enough to me for any encyclopedia's purposes. Chris Rodgers 04:30, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But I don't know that it really has raised enough eyebrows, outside the Art Bell fringe, whose eyebrows raise with astonishing ease. I checked with the local newspaper, and there are no interesting rumors floating around that community. - DavidWBrooks 17:32, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

May I point out that if you dismiss out of hand ten to fifteen million citizens as unworthy of mention who do in fact think, simply because they are obviously not so "enlightened" as to think in the particular way you do, that that convicts you of selective POV, and that the fact is very definitely entitled to the mention. Chris Rodgers 03:14, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Image Herein

The tag seems to be obsolete... Anyone mind in rectifying that a bit? DrWho42 23:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't you move this to the image page? And does anyone know who is Emallove (talk • contribs)? This user seems to have similar interests, but from the dates cannot be Eugene Mallove. ---CH 23:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking that posting it here would give it more attention. DrWho42 23:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Open Letter from Mallove

User:Complete Truth, I have removed the sentence you inserted, which was: "Eugene was murdered less than 24 hours after publicizing an open letter to the world titled: "Universal Appeal for Support for New Energy Science and Technology" [1]. The reason I did this is that the very website you referred to has information contradicting the claim you made. It contains a letter from Christy Frazier at Infinite Energy magazine stating that Mallove's open letter was in fact was published to the world more than 24 hours before his death, and perhaps as much as several months before his death. However, I have added that website to the external references. One another note, this article needs to do actual citations, not just external references. Cardamon 01:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information regarding the times. Take a look here for a new article loaded with references. Complete Truth 15:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. The information in that URL is negative, about a living person, and seems to be poorly sourced. You certainly can't write about it in an article. I'm not completely sure that even citing it on a talk page is okay. Cardamon 07:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] what about the trial?

Anybody know what's going on with the trial of the two alleged killers? It's been close to two years since the arrests, but I can't find any news-article mention of them. - DavidWBrooks 20:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)