Talk:Eugene Mallove

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Conspiracy theory[edit]

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)

Image Herein[edit]

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

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

The Open Letter from Mallove[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

What about the trial?[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Links to two recent stories in the Norwich (CT) Bulletin:
Attorney: State must speed Mallove slaying case (9 May 2007)
Grim memories haunt site of Norwich slaying (14 May 2007)
In a nutshell:
Gary McAvoy and Joseph Reilly were arrested two days after Mallove's 14 March 2004 death and subsequently charged with felony murder. Though the later charge of Reilly was in July 2005, forensics on the case were delayed until this past April and the state has requested additional tests. McAvoy's attorney has asked the court to expedite this. Eyewitness testimony in the case is spotty, and the State appears to be relying on so-called "jailhouse confessions" to other inmates. An earlier suspect, Jarion Childs, is dead.
The family property where the murder took place has been purchased by the state for a road-widening project and the house will be demolished. --Wfaxon 03:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dr. Paulo N. Correa[edit]

Where can I get more info on Dr. Correa a colleague of Mallove? Funny he doesn't have a wiki entry. 01:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Google(tm) is your friend. See Dr. Correa and his wife are proponents of Dr. Wilhelm Reich's controversial Orgone theory and are annoyed that all reference to their work has been removed from Wikipedia. --Wfaxon 03:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For "controversial" read "nonsense" (talk) 12:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aero and Astro[edit]

MIT doesn't have a department of "Aeronautics and Astronomy"; I changed this reference to Aeronautical and Astronautical engineering, which seems to be correct; I also added the dates of his degrees; this is from the bio on this page [2] on the website. Geoffrey.landis 03:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 09:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


What is this? Mickey Mouse? I have changed "hot fusioneers" to a more standard term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnAspinall (talkcontribs) 16:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should former suspects be named in the article?[edit]

Although two men were arrested and named in the murder, the associated charges have now -- years later -- been dropped. Since they apparently have nothing to do with this crime and are not otherwise notable, should their names remain in the body of the article? It's hard enough being a felon without a Google search making it worse. -- (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, that entire section could be shortened now, to something along the lines of " Two local men were arrested in 2005, but charges were dropped in XXX, 2008." (If people are really interested in their names, the newspaper archives have them.) I'd do the shortening, but the in-line references are a pain in the butt to edit. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Completed by Cardamon. - Eldereft (cont.) 22:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NPOV and references[edit]

This article lacks some balance, but I feel this can probably be addressed by adding more info from WP:RS. Much of this article is also currently unreferenced, which makes some claims hard to assess. Verbal chat 08:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you be more specific about what you think is NPOV? Can you quote some sentences you see as a problem? Otherwise it's hard to respond. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some of the descriptions in the section tagged for references, for example, seem to be quite biased. I made some small changes, but until this section is backed up with sources I'm not sure what are his claims and what is RS fact etc. It's mainly a sourcing problem, but balance needs to be included. Perhaps a POV check from the science project might be a better tag? Verbal chat
Example: Apart from being ambiguous (who did the supposed improvement?), the sentence "subsequent improvement of Wilhelm Reich's Orgone Motor" is hard to credit, as Reich's Orgone motor is pure pseudoscience. Without a reference I can't check, but subsequent improvement would be POV any which way and the sentence needs modifying. Thanks, Verbal chat 14:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I overlooked that "subsequent improvement" line - I have removed it. The complication here is that it's an article about Mallove, who believed in this material, rather than an article about the materials themselves and whether they're valid. That makes the wording and emphasis tricky. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, that's why I'd like to see sourcing - so we can see how WP:RS deal with it, the wordings they use, etc. Best, Verbal chat 17:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, sourcing is needed. I still think the "NPOV" tag is wrong, though; it implies a very strong bias in an article, such the inclusion of sweeping statements that are widely disputed, and there's no dispute that Mallove believed and supported this stuff. The "unreferenced" tag seems to more acurately reflect your concerns. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So exactly what do you want to see sourced that is NPOV - rather than just unsourced? I'm confused: NPOV implies a deliberately one-sided argument, but I don't see where it is. Can you do any editing to remove what you think is the problem? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Verbal can speak for himself but, as I see it, the reason for the refimprove tag is that most of the biographical section is unreferenced. I wouldn't object to moving the tag down to that section. As for whether or not the article is neutral, one concern is that there may be negative information about things like Mallove's use/abuse of MIT's scientific integrity process that is not even mentioned, because the article used to be about a living person. I agree that most of the peacock language has been eliminated. Cardamon (talk)
On a lighter note, I really like the expression "tag dance" in the summary of this edit. "When visiting scenic Wikipedia, be sure to ask the natives to do one of their traditional 'tag dances'. They will willingly oblige, and it is a spectacle not to be missed by the discerning traveler". Cardamon (talk) 00:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have no objection to the "reference" tag - it's the NPOV tag that puzzles me. I'm mildly acquainted with the controversies around him during his life and don't see anything in this article that enflames any, either direction. - 01:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Expanding on my ES, the language used throughout the article to describe him and his work is not neutral, but excessively fawning (in my view). Verbal chat
I have to disagree; NPOV is a pretty aggressive tag - it basically says that some editors have deliberately mislead readers, practically lied to them on purpose. It shouldn't sit on this article if your only complaint involves tone. And, of course, you are welcome to make edits that you think will better suit the reader. But if that's your only issue, I think we should remove the tag and work on improving the article. Looking through it again, I think the language is pretty neutral; nobody could complain about calling the guy "combative" for example, and the article never says this his beliefs were necessarily accurate. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 23:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, it simply means there is an improper bias, intention doesn't come into it. The language is biased, and until it is fixed the tag should remain to warn our readers that the text isn't neutral in its depiction of the topic. Verbal chat 08:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But the language is pretty netutral! You have made some content edits - how about making some more to improve what bothers you? Nobody else seems to share your concern (at least, judging from the Talk page), so it's up to you to fix it, or else the tag will just languish there until somebody removes it. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I must agree. Although the pseudoscience that Mallove apparently believed in would be laughable if it were not for people's propensity for believing anything outlandish enough, the tone and wording of this article seems to me to be completely objective and NPOV. If you want to contest the existence or functioning of a Reichian Orgone Motor, for example, please do so in the article about that, not in an article about a person who believes in it wholeheartedly. David spector (talk) 05:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The opening sentence in the section on "Death" is biased and substantiated only by tentative police opinion in an unsolved murder case. Suggest striking the POV redundant mention [in brackets] of the "bungled burglary" here, stated as established fact, which it is not, and relegating it to clarification of the police finding which is already included later. ("Eugene Mallove was killed ***[during a bungled burglary]*** on May 14, 2004 in Norwich, Connecticut,...) - (talk) 22:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC) (11 May 2011)Reply[reply]

Yes, there doesn't appear to be any confirmation that it was a burglary. I'll remove it. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Remove mention of DOE study[edit]

I have removed this from the end of the section about Mallove's death:

One month earlier, the US Department of Energy had announced a new review of cold fusion, giving him the hope that his efforts in the previous years would be validated, but Mallove never saw its result. The 2004 review did not, in the end, support cold fusion.

It originally was mentioned as support for the conspiracy theory and/or as an ironic twist, but it seems extremely irrelevant now. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Eugene Mallove. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]