Talk:Immanuel Velikovsky/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

"Shapley … familiar with Velikovsky's pseudoscientific claims"

By my count, 'pseudoscientific' has now been removed and reinserted four times, with a debate about its use being conducted via the Edit Summaries. This is contrary to WP guidelines: "Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved. Instead, place such comments, if required on the talk page. This keeps discussions and debates away from the article page itself."

I've now removed 'pseudoscientific' (rationale follows) and offer this Talk topic as a forum for discussion about its appropriateness.

My rationale for removal: there is no evidence that Shapley referred to V's claims as 'pseudoscientific'. Unless it can be shown that he did, the qualification of the claims as such must be regarded as editorial POV, and consequently inappropriate for insertion.

-- Jmc 00:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree for similar following reasons

• No citations indicating that Shapley referred to Velikovsky's claims as pseudoscientific
• No citations indicating that anyone had referred to Velikovsky's claims as pseudoscientific at that time.
• "Pseudoscientific claims" fails Wikipedia's use of Weasel words
• The word "pseudoscientific" is ill-defined.

There is no problem including the labelling of Velikovsky's work as pseudoscientific, as long as it is attributed and there is citation (and preferable a reason). --Iantresman 08:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Runaway Greenhouse Effect

The temperature of Venus was found by space probes to be very much higher than expected by the steady state theory of the day. However it was much as predicted by V.

In defence of mainstream science against V's hypotheses, Carl Sagan devised the 'enhanced greenhouse effect', which was subsequently termed the 'runaway greenhouse effect', and was adopted apparently without proof.

It has been claimed that the measured temperature distribution and its variation with time is as expected by V's catastrophy hypothsis, and is incompatible with the RGE hypothesis (or can only be reconciled with difficulty). Velikovsky Reconsidered refers.

From an even handed viewpoint, how do the thermodynamics of Venus RGE (Saganist or otherwise) compare with Venus Catastrophy (Velikovskian or otherwise)? GilesW 11:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The thermodynamics of Venus' atmosphere are well-understood and there is no evidence for catastrophism. --ScienceApologist 14:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there evidence of catastrophism in any planet's atmosphere? --Iantresman 21:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

No. The atmosphere of Jupiter, for example, doesn't even shown any evidence though it was recently visited by the catastrophe of Shoemaker-Levy 9. --ScienceApologist 21:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

From which we conclude that:

• There has been no catastrophism on any planet with any atmosphere?
• Atmospheres don't show evidence of catastrophism?
• No model includes catastrophism as a factor?
• Peer review answers none of these questions, so we don't know? --Iantresman 22:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Peer review accounts answer the first three questions: No, no, and no. --ScienceApologist 12:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Ho hum, Apologist. If that is the case how do you account for: "The greenhouse effect by itself could not account for the conditions that we find on Venus." [[1]]. Also the RGE article in Wikipedia is heavily qualified with the word "perhaps". Other web pages assume that RGE is proven, without providing waterproof references. Can you point to sound evidence for your assertion? So far as I can see, Saganists rely on far-fetched or self-contradictory assumptions, like all the water vapour that must have been there recently but has now completely disappeared, evidently without noticing that this flight of fantasy contradicts steady state theory. GilesW 22:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't use webpages by themselves. They are not reliable sources. Try reading books on planetary atmospheres or reading the section of the Venus II book on atmospheres. --ScienceApologist 12:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Apologist says: "there is no evidence for catastrophism". It is well known that these are classic weasel words, and that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". In fact there is plenty of evidence for catastrophism, it's just that it has not been accepted as formal proof, especially by those who are careful to put their wooden telescope to their proverbial blind eye. Viewed objectively from an NPOV viewpoint (??!?), Occam's razor appears to support catastrophism at the expense of steady-state theory in the case of Venus, as in modern astronomy, geology, palientology etc. GilesW 23:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you point to a single mainstream source that supports this assertion? --ScienceApologist 12:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The important thing here is that catastrophism has no support in the mainstream scholarly community, and that no mainstream scholars, whatever they may think of the runaway greenhouse effect (and I don't know anything about whether or not its controversial), advance catastrophism as an alternative explanation for the climate of Venus. john k 03:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course what you say is by definition true. As explained in "The Velikovsky Affair" and other sources, the peer review system actively prevents the publication and promotion of non-mainstream views: it is on the record that people doing so have been ejected from the mainstream community, and had their careers destroyed. That does not preclude the non-mainstream explanation being correct occasionally, as I think it is in this case. Application of Sherlock Holmes' precept that "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth", and of Occam's razor, makes it hard for an NPOV observer to accept the steady state RGE theory. So far, science has eliminated catastrophy as being 'impossible' because it is incompatible with the 'astronomer's dogma' (steady state theory). However this dogma is not provable, it is a matter of belief. I have no axe to grind, and am ready to be persuaded by valid argument based on the laws of physics, but not by 'ex cathera' dogmatic statements and straightforward bullying (I'm not accusing you of that, but it happens). GilesW 06:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC), edited GilesW 07:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about arguing the merits of fringe theories. It is about reporting the consensus of knowledge in the wider world. As such, this article should seek to fairly present Velikovsky's own views, but at the same time to indicate their general lack of acceptance outside a small circle of supporters. That those supporters attribute this lack of support to some kind of conspiracy by the mainstream scholarly community to keep Velikovsky down is perhaps worthy of mention as a comment on the beliefs of Velikovskians. It has no place in a discussion of mainstream science. As to NPOV on the runaway greenhouse effect theory, what NPOV pretty clearly demands is that we report the current status of opinion on the subject, not that we use our own supposed powers as "NPOV observers" to determine it for ourselves. My understanding of the consensus position is that a "runaway greenhouse effect" is the dominant position as to how Venus got to be so hot. And I genuinely don't understand your references to "steady state theory." As I understand it, steady state theory is a long discredited cosmological view which has nothing to do with Venus. john k 07:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Understood. However it is now mainstream science that Carl Sagan's "greenhouse effect by itself could not account for the conditions that we find on Venus." [[2]]. This leaves the door open, but nobody dares enter, or perhaps they don't realise the implications. GilesW 07:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. No one ever said that singular models account for all conditions. Nor is the greenhouse effect "Carl Sagan's". You're painting with a brush so large that it is essentially meaningless. --ScienceApologist 12:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Whatever may explain Venus's heat, it's pretty clearly not that it was a comet ejected from Jupiter in early historical times. john k 15:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Please re-read what I said. I originally asked "From an even handed viewpoint, how do the thermodynamics of Venus RGE (Saganist or otherwise) compare with Venus Catastrophy (Velikovskian or otherwise)?". I do not understand how Venus could possibly have been ejected by Jupiter, or how astronomers of the day could have observed the phenomenon even if it had happened. Hence my "or otherwise". However the answers given were not "from an even-handed viewpoint", but have a strong pro-Sagan POV. Does someone's failure to reject unquestioningly ALL V's hypotheses make them a Velikovskian? If so, I confess. GilesW 19:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Stop with this "pro-Sagan" bullshit. Sagan was only an ambassador of the astronomical community to the general public. He isn't an atmospheric science guru, that's for sure. The reasons that Velikovskian fantasies are ludicrous is not because Sagan says so, though Sagan is right in the matter and Velikovskian idiots are wrong... --ScienceApologist 21:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This resort to bullying abuse, and inability to respond objectively to a straightforward question of fact, does you and your cause no credit. GilesW 23:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a cause. Nor am I bullying anyone according to the standard definition. And I think that I've been pretty objective in my judgement of the global situation, though some may question my evaluation of the intelligence of Velikovskian supporters, I base my evaluation on their inability to understand very basic ideas. --ScienceApologist 00:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

By 'steady state theory' I did not mean the cosmological theory, but the theory referred to in some Velikovskian literature as 'the astronomer's dogma' about the long term stability of planetary orbits, which precludes a Venus catastrophy. GilesW 08:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Velikovskians are not reliable sources for describing the physical universe, that's for sure. --ScienceApologist 12:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Likewise some Wikipedian editors too. --Iantresman 15:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so you use language in an entirely esoteric way. good to know. john k 15:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Now, what is this all about? I read at the top of this page, "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Immanuel Velikovsky article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject."

But "general discussion about the article's subject" is exactly what seems to have been going on under this subhead. Or is someone (GilesW principally, I guess) proposing to add something about the Velikovskian theory on the temperature of Venus to the article?

Elucidate, please. -- Jmc 03:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that G-W wanted to include prose that went something like "Velikovsky's ideas are as supported by physics as the runaway greenhouse effect." This, of course, is not a supportable statement. --ScienceApologist 11:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Eh? GilesW 00:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I never got that impression from your discussion here. Hope I did this right, first time posting to a Talk page (X900BattleGrape 17:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC))

Elucidation

I hesitate to publish this, as it could start another flame war, and will of necessity stray into the area of general discussion.

The V article of 15-Jun-2007 contains the following statements:

>Velikovsky's ideas have been almost entirely rejected by mainstream academia (often vociferously so) and his work is generally regarded as erroneous in all its detailed conclusions.

>Velikovsky's theories have generally been rejected or ignored by the academic community.

>Velikovsky's "Revised chronology" has been rejected by nearly all mainstream historians and Egyptologists

These statements imply that his work has been widely reviewed and assessed prior to its rejection. Nothing could be further from the truth. The rejection of AIC and V was orchestrated by a few influential and vociferous individuals (Shapley, Sagan and others). Having destroyed his reputation through (demonstrably unsound) attacks on AIC, his other books were largely ignored by academics: it was more than their jobs were worth to cite them, though several have built successful careers on individual hypotheses, without attribution.

I disagree with this evaluation. Those statement merely report the mainstream opinion of Velikovskian pseudoscience and nothing more. They don't purport to explain when the review and assessment was made. Moreover, that the attacks were "demonstrably unsound" is an opinion that has not stood up to any reliable source that I've seen. There is also no evidence that any scientist ever plaigarized Velikovsky to their own benefit. As such, these criticisms of the article prose ring hollow and do not serve as justification for deletion or revision. --ScienceApologist 12:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you're even using the word "pseudoscience" tells much about your interest here in the Velikovsky article (X900BattleGrape 17:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC))

Einstein

After many weeks of friendly discussion with V, and re-reading WIC, Einstein changed his mind about it, and is quoted as saying "The scientists make a grave mistake in not studying [Worlds in Collision] because of the exceedingly important material it contains". The article should feature this and other favourable quotes at least as prominently as the 'V was wrong' quote.

Unfortunately E died before he could promote his opinion. This relationship was reportedly significant to both parties, and should be mentioned in the V article.

Not a very meaningful quote for including in our article since we don't know what "the exceedingly important material" was to which Einstein was referring. --ScienceApologist 12:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not meaningful in identifying the material in question specifically, but it's quite non-trivial considering the source of the quote and (very important here as opposed to others who've formed an opinion one way or the other on V works) Einstein actually read the book. (X900BattleGrape 17:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC))

Venus

The Venus greenhouse effect is not universally accepted by scientists analysing Venus: for example, see:

http://www.spacetoday.org/SolSys/Venus/VenusGreenhouse.html

>In the runaway-greenhouse explanation, Venus was said to be so hot that its water existed only as vapor and had no chance to condense to liquid on the surface. Water vapor rose into the atmosphere, where radiation from the Sun cracked it into separate oxygen and hydrogen atoms. The hydrogen escaped into space and water couldn't form.

>But the Ames researchers, looking at different climates on Venus, Earth and Mars, didn't like the runaway-greenhouse explanation. That old theory forgot that the Sun was 25 to 30 percent cooler 4.5 billion years ago. It also did not account for the water loss.

This is NOT an isolated example of dissent with RGE by mainstream scientists.

As I mentioned above, the “enhanced greenhouse effect” was devised by Sagan to account for probe results that were compatible with V's “advance claims”, and were (and still are) incompatible with conventional "uniformitarian" theories about the solar system (as were many of Sagan's other attempted refutations of V).

Of course a Venus catastrophy that accounts for its high temperature could easily be non-Velikovskian.

Overall I find the tone of the V article does not represent V's views fairly. It reads more like a kangaroo court, starting with the verdict, and repeating it ad nauseam, in a continuation of "The Velikovsky Affair".

I apologise if I have strayed off topic or been too controversial. I was asked to elucidate. Is there a forum for "general discussion about the article's subject" if we should not discuss these things here? GilesW 00:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The sole source you cite here is far from being reliable. As is, it basically represents the unvetted opinion of someone who apparently never learned enough about atmospheric theory to realize that a greenhouse doesn't work the same way as the greenhouse effect. --ScienceApologist 12:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• The tone of articles is indeed often pseudoskeptical, but Wikipedia requires verifiable reliable sources to support statements... and that is verifiable. --Iantresman 08:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the judgement of Einstein, who discussed with V at length and re-read V's work, to Shapley and others who did neither. The argument that non-establishment sources are not "verifiable reliable sources" and are thus not admissable as evidence is remeniscent of Catch 22. Velikovsky supported by Einstein were the skeptics, their mainstream opponents were not. The fact that much important raw data supports the skeptics and conflicts with mainstream hypotheses is glossed over, and an increasing number of mainstream specialists are coming to that conclusion relative to their own work (see above). A balanced NPOV view should be given by Wikipedia, and should not result in edit wars between people with entrenched positions. May be NPOV is impossible with V, and separate Pro & Anti articles are needed for controversial topics like this, to avoid edit wars. GilesW 09:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your attempt to elucidate, GilesW - your apology for straying into general discussion about V is appreciated. Your "elucidation", though, seems to me like a continuation of that same general discussion without any substantive proposal for editing the article - which is essentially what WP is all about.

You ask, "Is there a forum for 'general discussion about the article's subject' if we should not discuss these things here?" Yes, there are a number of such fora and a Google search will throw them up. You'll find one, for example, at Uplink - where, you'll be interested to see, inter alia there's currently discussion of Einstein's view of Velikovsky.

-- Jmc 09:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

If you think it is likely to be worth the effort I will try to compose a submission. However there seemes little point if pro-V efforts are going to be reverted by anti-V people who are perhaps unaware that V's theories are not as daft as they are made out to be by Sagan, Wikipedia et al, and also that there are back-eddies in the main stream where prize salmon may lurk... Based on previous 'discussions' I don't hold out much hope. Incidentally, thanks for the link. It looks like a valuable resource. Pity I'm short of time. GilesW 10:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm skeptical that you will create a submission that will be acceptable. You seem to be too wrapped up in your own POV and seem to want to debate rather than report. I encourage you to involve yourself in other fora where such activity is encouraged. If you are short of time, it may be better to simply provide us with reliable sources rather than composing prose attuned to your "pro-V" opinions. --ScienceApologist 12:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Unlike those with an anti-Velikovskian POV who are completely impartial.--Iantresman 20:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Precisely. --ScienceApologist 23:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for revisions

I suggest starting with:

• Ice-core studies paragraph, references required. The evidence is not cut & dried as stated. It contradicts Ginenthal's "Ice Core Evidence" paper (link on Article page).

• Venus temperature anomalies: discussed & some references given above. Google for others.

• Einstein relationship and citation of WIC, as stated above.

For further information see Carl Sagan & Immanual V, V Reconsidered, The V Affair, and V's own books. Remember that EIU contains an important supplement to WIC. These books all contain references to reliable sources. GilesW 16:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• There are no references that indicate that the evidence is not as cut and dried as you put it, so the first bullet is rejected.

The ice cores statement is unsupported by evidence let alone proof. References for such sweeping statements must be provided. The fact that the assertion is disputed must also be noted, with a link to the Ginenthal Ice Cores paper. GilesW 08:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• The relevance of "temperature" anomalies is not discussed in any journal article or standard reference on Venus as relevant to Velikovsky so this will not be included.

Give reliable references for this assertion. Nelsonian disregard of inconvenient data is standard operating procedure of those wedded to the anti-V cause. GilesW 08:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Einstein's relationship should be referenced properly and its relevance to the issues involved should be made clear. Just because people are friends doesn't mean they are like-minded.

--ScienceApologist 23:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

"Books all contain references to reliable sources" are not necessarily reliable themselves. They may use these sources for irrelevant statements, or they may misrepresent these sources. Nothing in WiC is remotely compatible with modern science, and it was recognizable nonsense even at the time it was written.--Stephan Schulz 00:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that we're now discussing article revisions, rather than generally debating V's ideas. I'll be interested to see exactly what GilesW proposes adding/amending and the sources he's able to cite.

In particular, I'll be interested in the material on the V-Einstein relationship. What would be of notable significance would be any unequivocal endorsement that it could be reliably shown that E gave to V's ideas. However, in searching for any such endorsement over the years (including perusing the material under Einstein above), I've found nothing that goes beyond interest on E's part (and aren't we all interested in V's ideas, whatever our views of them?).

-- Jmc 03:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately Einstein made the mistake of dying before he had promoted his REVISED views of V's work, that he was studying around then. I don't know whether V's 'Stargazers and Gravediggers' adds anything to his 'Before the Day Breaks'. Does any information relevant to this exist in the Einstein archive [[3]], which says it is the repository of E's papers? GilesW 07:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Like a court-of-law, when a potential witnesses dies before testifying Wikipedia has no way to resurrect them and get their testimony from the grave. I'm afraid most of what I've read on the Einstein-Velikovsky connection is that they were direct correspondents with each other as they both lived in Princeton: but Einstein had thousands of correspondents at the time of his death. --ScienceApologist 12:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

On account of the overtly polemic tone of certain sections of the article, especially Emigration to the USA and a career as an author, I have tagged this article as non-neutral. Iblardi 20:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? What sentences in particular do you feel are non-neutral, and why? --Iantresman 00:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. I think the tone of parts of the article is too much in favour of Velikovsky's position. Two examples: (1) The unnecessary use of bold script in describing Velikovsky's line of reasoning: "...to the human failings of its creators. Among those was Petrie's desire not to see archeological confirmation of Israelite Biblical history", "the argument against this discrepancy is that these tiles were brought into the tomb by grave robbers". (2) Sentences like "Velikovsky dealt with the first two difficulties/discrepancies in his several books. The third discrepancy is under study" make it appear as if Velikovsky was actually right and scientists are currently examining the remaining argument. (Under study? By whom?) A similar sentence is: "One of the problems overlooked by Velikovsky's opponents in the fields of archeology and ancient history is that the conventional chronology of Egypt is itself an academic construct that remains to be proven, given a number of discrepancies and difficulties, whereas they sometimes use that unproven construct to argue against Velikovsky. This tautological reasoning cannot refute Velikovsky." This, again, sounds partisan-like. It makes it appear as if Velikovsky's chronology may very well be right, and it makes his opponents look rather dumb. To me, this looks like a lack of neutrality, which is why I placed the tag. Iblardi 16:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with all your examples, do you want to make changes? --Iantresman 17:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I would, but I don't really have the time or opportunity to do so these days. If you want to make changes, then by all means, go ahead. Iblardi 19:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Further to neutrality... on 17 June, 2007, there was a single large edit affecting many paragraphs and including considerable content change, made by 84.228.2.113 (contribs); and most of these changes are still in place. There are no other contributions from this ISP. The diffs for this edit are: (diff from previous; diff up to 16 July 2007). Some of the changes strike me as WP:POV. In particular, as of 16 July 2007 I have the following concerns:

• A long section inserted into the first paragraph of the section "Emigration to the USA and a career as an author", which is actually an extended argument for Velikovsky's position.
• In the section "Criticism", the addition to the first paragraph beginning as follows: At the same time, it should be recalled that Albert Einstein, the most famous physicist of the 20th century, always showed Velikovsky great respect
• In the section "Criticism", the second paragraph entirely, beginning as follows: One of the problems overlooked by Velikovsky's opponents ...
• The final sentence of subsection "Criticism of Worlds in Collision", which reads: On the other hand, the Italian mathematician, Emilio Spedicato, has seen partial confirmation of some of Velikovsky's positions in the phenomenon of the Apollo objects (Spedicato, 1985, 1990).

I think all these changes are dubious; but would appreciate thoughts from other editors before I do anything about it. -- Duae Quartunciae 07:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Exception... I am removing the last sentence now. It is not properly cited. I suspect the references are not notable; probably papers on Spedicato's personal website.[4] Worse, the sentence has no relevance to the specific criticisms made of Velikovsky in the same paragraph and preceding. The criticism being mentioned here is Velikovsky's completely nonsensical physics. Spedicato does nothing to address those criticisms. Velikovsky said nothing about Apollo objects. This is just another fringe catastrophist model, with slightly better physics but nothing else to recommend it. It might be regarded as "related ideas", but it is no vindication and irrelevant to the criticisms of this section. I have accordingly removed it. -- Duae Quartunciae 08:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Another exception. As I look at this text, I see a number of reasons for removing this paragraph. This used to be at the end of the top level Criticism section.

One of the problems overlooked by Velikovsky's opponents in the fields of archeology and ancient history is that the conventional chronology of Egypt is itself an academic construct that remains to be proven, given a number of discrepancies and difficulties, whereas they sometimes use that unproven construct to argue against Velikovsky. This tautological reasoning cannot refute Velikovsky.

This has many problems. There is no citation; and it presumes a style of criticism that is not actually used. The real arguments against Velikovsky are more substantive than this, whether one agrees with them or not. This seems to be an excuse for rejecting any criticism at all by declaring it tu quoque and ignoring it. I think this is a fair enough case for removing it. -- Duae Quartunciae 11:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I for one support the removals you've already made, Duae Quartunciae, and would be happy for you to go ahead with the other emendations you've proposed, in the interests of restoring neutrality. In particular, I'd support your removal of the recently introduced material relating to Einstein's "great respect" for V. This matter has been canvassed here before, and no evidence has been adduced to demonstrate that Einstein showed anything more than polite interest in V's radical hypotheses.

-- Jmc 05:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Having allowed 24 hours, and had one vote of support, I'm going ahead to remove the Einstein aside, and a following sentence also. To see the diff I applied, click here. -- Duae Quartunciae (t|c) 10:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

And finally... in the immediately following edit to the one linked above, I have removed about half a long paragraph in the section on "Emigration to the USA and a career as an author", in which the text strays from a summary of Oedipus & Akhnaton into a possibly WP:POV argument for its validity. This wraps up the concerns I enumerated above. -- Duae Quartunciae (t|c) 11:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Ted Holden material linked

Welcome to Wikipedia, Icebear1946. You would clearly like to insert into the article a link to a paper by Ted Holden on Venus. The paper is Holden, Ted, The Question of Thermal Balance on Venus (PDF) {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |formal= ignored (help). You have added this now three times, presuming you are also the anonymous editor. It has been removed twice, and will be removed again shortly. However, I'm explaining why it is being removed. You should have discussed this proposed addition when you saw that it was being deleted. The reasons this is being deleted are:

• It is not notable. It is on a private web page of Ted Holden. That will kill the additional right off the bat. See WP:NOTABLE.
• It is self promotion. I am pretty sure you are Ted. See WP:COI.
• It is in the wrong section. The paper is not a critique; but that is where you are putting it.
• The paper says very little about Velikovsky, and deals only with temperatures on Venus.
• The paper is physically nonsensical and relies on data that is long out of date, and on badly incorrect physics.

Since this is going to be removed again, and your restorations are reverts, you should check the 3-revert rule. -- Duae Quartunciae (t|c) 11:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

As F.W. taylor noted at the time, the data from PV was not expected to be improved upon in the forseeable future, simple readings such as planetary albedo and emissions as good then as now, the physics of this one are both valid and relevant. There is no rational reason other than a desire to censor opposing points of view for anybody to wish to remove this article.

These articles either are or aren't editable by the public, you cannot have it both ways. Nobody gets to have their cake while eating it in this life. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Icebear1946 (talk • contribs) 12:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC).

Actually, the most serious problem with your proposed new link is not about the physics or the relevance, but the notability. It's a private web page. Self-promotion is also a problem in Wikipedia. It's not as serious a killer as notability, but the fact that it is your own web page, and that you did not declare your interest, will tend to count against its inclusion. It's also in the wrong section, since it is not a critique.

Welcome to wikipedia. Articles most certainly are editable by the public; we are both doing that. The public can undo misguided edits. The whole system works by a rather anarchistic consensus, but there are some conventions and guidelines that you need to consider for most effective participation. Take a bit of time to check out the conventions described in the information box right at the top of this talk page. You can sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Also, don't try using those equals signs. Have a look at the established conventions for these discussions. By the way, I think I am inclined to agree with your queries presented on the main page about some of Ellenberger's articles. I've fixed two, one by Mewhinney; but the others you have marked might be something other editors or members of public could look into or even delete. I'm not sure. -- Duae Quartunciae (t|c) 13:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Notability and self promotion??

First, I have no financial interest of any sort in this and the articles does not mention me or involve me in any way.

Second, the material for the article is entirely from the official compendium of papers related to the Pioneer Venus effort i.e.

"VENUS", Hunton, Colin, Donahue, Moroz, Univ. of Ariz. Press, 1983, ISBN 0-8165-0788-0

which is certainly better than "Skeptic Magazine" which Ellenberger cites for one of his articles. I could at least equal that by publishing the article in the journal of the WWF which you might notice occasionally in drugstore magazine racks.

Aside from saving the interested reader the near $100 price of the book, all I really do in the article is describe the manner in which all articles related to thermal balance in the book end up claiming that the particular instruments or methods in question failed when, in fact, all that any of them really fail to do is produce the results which would be expected based upon the uniformitarian paradigm. A reader who questions my judgment in this can purchase or check out a copy of the book and go through it himself; what I have described is what he will in fact find.

The articles dealing with IR flux meters are mainly authored by Revercomb and Suomi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icebear1946 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Please don't use the line of equals signs, and please sign your comments with the tildes. Money has nothing to do with self-promotion. Also, if you do actually have a good reference for the article sufficient for the notability guideline, then you should put it in the link when it is queried. The idea is that we all assume we are trying to improve the article in good faith, even when we disagree. In my case, I don't think your particular ideas about temperature on Venus really have anything much at all to do with this article. The fundamental criticisms of Velikovsky mentioned in this article have nothing to do with heat on Venus, but with the physically impossible motions required by Velikovsky. In other words, this paper is purported to refute a criticism which does not even appear in this article. So I don't think your article is at all relevant. Don't take offense at that... the idea is that this page is used for these kinds of discussion. -- Duae Quartunciae (t|c) 14:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

One more point. The citation you give to Venus is irrelevant. Your paper is not included in that compendium, and the particular inferences you draw from that data are not in the compendium either. There's a guideline here called No original research, which means that you may not make an original argument for relating the material published in Venus to a defense of Velikovsky. You have to actually cite a reference that makes that linkage already in a verifiable form. There's a special term for this guideline; it's called synthesis. The upshot of all this is that your reference is not going to stand. This is not saying you are a bad person for proposing it; suggestions are welcome. But there's a long established set of guidelines for helping maintain a reasonable level of quality as well as permitting continuous input from the public. What's going to happen here is that you will be thanked for your proposed inclusion, and it is going to be removed for the reasons I've given. -- Duae Quartunciae (t|c) 14:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

>The idea is that we all assume we are trying to improve the article in good faith...

Are you a professional comedian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icebear1946 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 19 July 2007

Icebear1946 has without discussion reverted to restore the link to Ted's article, despite reasons given above for why it is inappropriate. He has also removed without comment a number of other citations. Here are the diffs Icebear1946 applied: (Icebear1946's edit). Here is the previous edit that Icebear1946 reverted: (Jmc's edit). Again, I strongly recommend reading the guidelines at the top of this talk page. There are indications of what is expected of content in an article; and suggestions for how we engage with each other to resolve differences. -- Duae Quartunciae (t|c) 11:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

He added it again. I removed again. Icebear1946... you should discuss contentious edits here. Your real problem is that the guidelines, which are designed to help resolve differences of opinion, are pretty straightforward. You should bear in mind that there is a hard limit on how many reverts you are permitted within 24 hours. See three revert rule. Note that I am not acting alone here. The removal of your link was by another editor, with reference to the policies I was explaining for you above. -- Duae Quartunciae (t|c) 11:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the Ellenberger/MeWhinney articles as a one-time experiment to see if you and your cronies were capable of learning anything from the exercise; obviously you are not.

Simple fairness says that a reader should not stumble upon this page and see the one article of Charles Ginenthals surrounded by nine or ten ignorant rants coming from Ellenberger, MeWhinney, Sagan et. al. You should get used to the idea that I and others will continue reinserting the thermal balance article until hell freezes over if need be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icebear1946 (talk • contribs) 11:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that the paper "The Question of Thermal Balance on Venus" is of sufficient scientific standard to be useful as a reference for this article. Xxanthippe 06:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Defenses of Velikovsky

I have added a new subsection within external links, for defenses of Velikovsky. One of the problems with Ted's additions is that he was putting defenses into a section marked criticisms. I've moved the two links that are actually defenses into the new section. Ι still think these links are dubious; some reasons are given above. The citation format is poor, and they go to a private website of dubious credibility. For my part, I'm happy to leave them here as a compromise; and leave further developments if any to other editors. -- Duae Quartunciae (t|c) 15:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Works for me..... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Icebear1946 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 20 July 2007.

Putting the 'Ted Holden' link in a new 'Defenses of Velikovsky' section is certainly better than inappropriately adding it to 'Critiques'.

I agree with Duae Quartunciae that it's a pretty dubious addition, though. The PDF that it links to has no acknowledgment of authorship and no references, so IMO fails to meet the WP criteria for acceptable external links.

At the same time, I can see that there is a case for letting it remain as evidence of the poverty of current argument in defence of Velikovsky.

I should add that I might be more accepting of Icebear1946's additions if he showed a competence in basic conventions of WP editing, in particular the signing of contributions (I don't think he's yet signed any of his numerous edits) and an understanding of the three revert rule which is specifically designed to prevent an editor from "reinserting [an] article until hell freezes over if need be".

-- Jmc 22:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to live with the agreement; apparently somebody else wasn't. I assume there's no harm in reinserting the defense links when they get vandalized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icebear1946 (talk • contribs)

Please avoid the insults and personal attacks you have written here and in multiple comments above.

Removing a reference that is not a reliable source is not vandalism (WP:V, WP:RS). An unfounded accusation of vandalism is uncivil and a form of personal attack. (WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:AGF).

I removed that reference for these reasons:

• It is a self-published essay.
• It does not include any information at all about the author's qualifications or notability.
• It does not include any references to third-party sources.
• There are no other editors on this page currently who agree with your desire to include the essay.

If you can show that the author of the essay is a reliable source, with consensus from the editors on this page, then the essay can be included. --Parzival418 _Hello 04:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Legalistic sophistry not withstanding, you are in fact engaging in vandalism. Aside from my own article you have also twice removed the article written by Charles Ginenthal which has been on this page for some time.

The thermal balance article is now properly attributed, and again it arises from material published in the official compendium of articles related to Pioneer Venus.

At this stage of the game, I am obeying the spirit of the rules here, amorphous though they might be, and YOU are not. Keep it up and we'll see who gets banned.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Icebear1946 (talk • contribs) 04:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC).

For the record; there was no agreement. I made my own change unilaterally, without any prior comment or agreement from Icebear1946, only because I wanted to back off individually and defer to a larger consensus. No action here by any of those involved has so far been vandalism. -- Duae Quartunciae (t|c) 04:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I note with interest that Icebear1946 has now confirmed his identity as Ted Holden, in referring to "my own article". (In the WP:WQA alert posting, Parzival418 had expressed concern about the belief expressed above "that ... this new editor is the same person who wrote one of the references".) -- Jmc 05:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

(←)User:Icebear1946, my comments to you were not "legal sophistry", they were references to Wikipedia policies that you have been violating. I included the links so you could read them, in case they are new to you. The fact remains that whether you read them or not, it's not OK to insult other editors, and it's not OK to repeatedly add material to articles that has been rejected by a consensus of editors. If you want your essay to be included, the only way to do that is to either convince the other editors here to accept it, or to invite more editors here, to find out if you can create a consensus to support its inclusion.

As it is, so far you have not shown any sign that you are willing to respect the other editors here, or the policies of Wikipedia.

You don't even bother signing your comments, after being asked to do so several times. That in itself is a sign of disrespect.

I am not going to revert your re-addition of the essay at this time, but I am sure another editor here will do so shortly, because that essay is not a reliable source and does not belong in Wikipedia, even now that you have added the author's name to it. The same is true of the other essay link I removed. They are both published by the same website, which is run by one of the two authors. Neither essay lists the qualifications of the authors, and a google search does not enlighten us.

I accept that I could be mistaken about this. If you have information to support the notability of the authors of those essays, you are welcome to post it here so the editors can review the information and decide if they agree with you about the sources being reliable. Otherwise, the essays will not be able to be included, since they are just the unsupported opinions of individuals we don't know anything about and who (it seems) have not been published by any third party organization, as required by Wikipedia policies. --Parzival418 _Hello 05:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

---

For anybody who might be curious as to what the crybaby acts might be about on this one....

I clearly have a large choice of articles I could link to from many authors, most having been published in juournals; the question is why this one?

I wanted an article which was fairly short so an educated layman could read it without undue pain, devoid of rhetoric, and which made an ironclad and unarguable point indicating that something was wrong with the anti-Velikovsky case in some major sort of a way involving hard evidence. This article simply qualifies a bit better than anything else I know of. All it really does is point a reader to the big official compendium of scientific articles related to Pioneer Venus and notes the manner in which all experiments involving data bearing on thermal balance are claimed to have failed when, again, all they actually failed to do is to produce data which would confirm the standard theory of our solar system's history. The reader can check on this claim himself easily enough; that is what he will find.

The way this subject came about on talk.origins was interesting in itself. I had noted FW Taylor's early claim in New Scientist that Venus appeared to be 20% or more out of thermal balance and several other posters noted another article in the big compendium of PV papers published by the Univ of Arizona press which claimed there was no problem with planetary thermal balance; I then actually purchased a copy of the book and it turned out that the other article was merely citing Taylor's note that the albedo value which would produce thermal balance should be viewed as the "most probable" value since thermal balance was assumed. At that point, i.e. after all else had failed, a number of the talk.origins regulars began making the claim that estimates for Venus albedo values going back into the 1800s needed to be AVERAGED...

That is, the claim was that I needed to average all of the old albedo values in with the good value taken from orbit around Venus. That, of course, would be entirely like trying to make a modern magnum-caliber rifle by mixing modern steel 50/50 with the sort of steel people used for rifles in 1850. When the call goes out for volunteers to test such a thing, you should head for the door.

That idea and the claim that the heat to generate a 20% thermal imbalance could not escape through the planet's crust (which they ASSUME to be uniformly thick) are as close as anybody has ever come to answering this article. Basically, professional skeptics and others who simply don't like Velikovsky don't like this article because it wrecks their case. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Icebear1946 (talk • contribs) 10:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC).

Vandalism

I repeat: vague as the rules on wiki might be, I am not the one refusing to honor them at this point. Whoever is periodally removing the entire new section on defenses is engaging in vandalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Icebear1946 (talk • contribs) 10:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC).

The rules are very clear indeed, and have been explained multiple times. I have reported a violation of WP:3RR.[5] I suggest everyone relax, and let matters take their course. The article could still benefit from a modern defense of Veliokovsky that meets the standard guidelines for an external link from this encylopedic reference work. The style guide is WP:EXT. -- Duae Quartunciae (t|c) 11:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The rule:

What to link

There are several things that should be considered when adding an external link.

   * Is it accessible to the reader?
   * Is it proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?
   * Is it a functional link, and likely to continue being a functional link?

The thermal balance article meets all of that and in fact meets it to a vastly greater extent than several of the "critiques" on the page do.

I'm also assuming that the 3R rules does not apply to repairing outright vandalism. For that not to be the case would simply mean that in any sort of a dispute or legitimate conflict of paradigms, the team with the most participants wins.

The idea of having sections both for critiques and defenses is reasonable; learn to live with it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Icebear1946 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 21 July 2007.

As you have been told, you are misusing the word vandalism. Read the link; all is explained. There has been no vandalism here by anyone.

You are certainly in bad violation of WP:3RR. That is now in the hands of administrators.

As for the guidelines on external links, you should read the next section, on Links normally to be avoided. Specifically

2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research".
11. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.
13. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article.

Number 11 will kill your own web site. You may dispute 2 and 13, but but if you check the guidelines quoted on number 2, you'll see that it is not a matter of arguing whether it is true or not, but determining whether it meets for guidelines on verifiability. Number 13 will be hashed out here, but I will argue that the relevance is weak. Velikovsky does not spend much time on the physics of heat on Venus at all, and it is not a subject raised in the article. Your papers are actually aimed at a secondary debate from talk.origins many many years ago, and it is not mentioned in this article.

A crucial point over and above the matter of guidelines, is the matter of consensus. This is a collaborative work; you need to work with other editors to reach some agreement on material. You can use the guidelines to reign in other editors who violate those guidelines in turn (like WP:NPOV); but you don't have a right to keep stuff here indefinitely, even if it meets guidelines. You will really benefit from reading the information boxes right at the top of this page, about the policies of wikipedia. For example, the way you are throwing around the word vandal is specifically identified as a personal attack in violation of guidelines. See vandalism.

And do note – as you have been told repeatedly – you should sign your contributions with four tildies, like this: "~~~~". That also is described at the information box at the top of this page. If you are determined to fight every attempt to explain to you the long established conventions at work here, you're not going to achieve a thing. Do read; it can only help you.

I definitely agree with you on having a section for modern defenses of Velikovsky. Your personal web site, however, is not going to make the cut. -- Duae Quartunciae (talk · contribs) 14:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

AAF (Amalekite Air Force P38

Give you an idea of the quality of a couple of the "critique" links...

Almost anything by Ellenberger is going to mention Greenland ice cores:

"...The catastrophes Velikovsky conjectured within the past 3500 years left no similar signatures according to Greenland ice cores, bristlecone pine rings, Swedish clay varves, and ocean sediments. All provide accurately datable sequences covering the relevant period and preserve no signs of having experienced a Velikovskian catastrophe..."

What he doesn't mention are things like Mount St. Helen's throwing up 20,000 years worth of "varves" in 20 years, or the Amalekite P38 dug out of the Greenland ice after crash landing there in 1942 (actual fact) or in about 1500 BC (according to the theory which E. subscribes to). According to the theory that P38 should have been covered by a couple of feet of ice and snow, and not 300' of it as was the case. The good news is that at least one of those aircraft is flying again:

http://www.donationware.net/Glacier-Girl/grab_011.jpg

Must have been a job translating the instrument markings from cuneiform....

Icebear1946 14:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It is encouraging to find that the positions espoused by Icebear1946, a.k.a. Ted Holden, have not, in general, been sustained at Wikipedia w.r.t. the defense of Velikovsky, for it would be a grave injustice were the beliefs promulgated by the ineducable, invincible ignorance of Holden and his ilk, such as Charles Ginenthal, Lynn Rose, and Irving Wolfe, to prevail in an open forum. The diehard defenders of Velikovsky proceed on the conviction that Velikovsky is correct and then either ignore all the discordant evidence or reformulate it by force-fitting it into their Procrustean Bed of nonsense, as Sean Mewhinney shows in his critique of "Ice Core Evidence" by Charles Ginenthal (endorsed by Icebear1946) titled "Minds in Ablation" <http://www.pibburns.com/smmia.htm>. The "lost squadron" from World War II that was buried in the Greenland ice close to the coast and at low altitude where annual precipitation is much greater than in the interior at great altitude is a case in point. Icebear1946 refuses to accept the fact that conditions at the sites of the GRIP, GISP and Dye-3 ice cores CANNOT be compared with those where the "lost squadron" landed and was buried deeper than would have been the case had the planes landed at the site of one of those core sampling camps. This was all explained by Sean Mewhineey in his "Fraud Exposed?" email, sent 29 Dec 1997, and re-sent occasionally since, but steadfastly ignored by Holden and Ginenthal. For the record, here is Mewhinney's analysis:

                  Fraud Exposed? by Sean Mewhinney

The Velikovskian war on reality is waged every day in a host of individual actions. It is a curious, bloodless war, but no less grimly serious for those engaged in the struggle. It is a war carried out with maps and dispatches from the front. Facts identified as hostile have to be liquidated, neutralized, or captured and turned against the enemy. Velikovskians believe in the freedom of every man to model the solar system any way he likes. The ice cores are a threat to this way of

life. 

They must be stopped. In this war, a rumor is more powerful than a battleship.

Enter the wreckage from an earlier war, and Gunnar Heinsohn, who has already annihilated whole dynasties, empires, and eras in his quest to streamline history and make it more efficient. Now he aims to do the same for ice cores. I saw a reference to his ice-core article in Zbigniew Jaworowski's "Another Global Warming Fraud Exposed: Ice Core Data Show no Carbon Dioxide Increase," in 21st Century Science and Technology, a Lyndon Larouche organ:

"New light was shed on the validity of the dating of recent ice

       strata when six U.S. Lightning fighter planes and two B 17 Flying
       Fortresses from World War II were found buried in 1942 ice, about
       200 km south from a classic Greenland site at Dye 3, where they had
       made an emergency landing.  The	planes were found 47 years later at
       a depth of 78 m, and not at the 12-m depth that had been estimated
       by glaciologists using oxygen isotope dating."

He credits Heinsohn for this piece of news, in a German-language publication. Last September I posted a request for further information on this e-mail list. Although he subscribes, Heinsohn did not deign to reply at the time, nor did Jan Sammer reply to a follow-up. Now the kronia list has been treated to an English translation of Heinsohn's piece, lately revised, and Ev Cochrane has posted it here. Perhaps this is Heinsohn's reply.

According to Heinsohn, these "ice specialists had made a much more serious error in their estimate of the thickness of the ice cover. Not 12 meters frozen water was lying on top of the machines, but 54 meters of solid ice plus 24 meters very hard firn snow -- a total of 78 meters or 6.5 times as much as had been expected." The implication being that glaciologists are collectively incompetent, their dating methods vastly overestimate the age of the ice, and we can't believe anything they tell us about ice cores. I already knew it was bullshit, but I wanted to see exactly what Heinsohn had said, and whether anyone else should share the blame for such an outrageously stupid misrepresentation. It's worse than I thought. Heinsohn refers repeatedly to his source, David Hayes' Im Eis Verschollen. Nach 50 Jahren: Die Bergung der US-Luftwaffenstaffel "Tomcat Yellow" im Groenlandeis. This is a German edition of Hayes' The Lost Squadron, which I read a few months ago. The pagination seems to be exactly the same. And anybody in his right mind who reads that book can see that it directly contradicts what Heinsohn says about it. Nothing at all unusual about that in Velikovskian literature, of course. That's what makes it what it is.

Two pilots from Atlanta, Pat Epps and Richard Taylor, mounted several expeditions to recover the crashed aircraft. They expected to find the planes at a shallower depth. No argument about that. The question is, what does that have to do with ice-core dating? According to Heinsohn, "salvage adventurers.... consulted ice specialists in order to find out how deep the machines might be lying. It was pointed out to them that they could expect 12 meters of ice on top of the planes." Who are these "ice specialists"? For that information, Heinsohn refers us to four pages in Hayes-- pp. 72, 80, 83, and 87.

Let's start with page 72, where we learn: "at a press conference in New York...... We estimate the planes are buried under forty feet of snow,' Fiondella told reporters." Who is Fiondella? Back to page 69, where we find that "Jay Fiondella owned Chez Jay, a celebrity hangout in Santa Monica with bowls of peanuts on the bar and sawdust on the floor...... An occasional actor in TV shows and movies, ...Fiondella was also a hot-air balloonist and treasure hunter." He arranged a tobacco-company sponsorship for an '82-'83 expedition. Epps and Taylor were frozen out of that one. This is our first "ice specialist."

Page 80 looks more promising. We read: "Bjoernsson and his team began taking readings on July 27... they turned up some suspicious reflections that first day... Then... they located two large metal objects. Two days later they located six more, and the pattern conformed to the positions of the aircraft in 1942. Since the Icescope was imprecise at measuring depth, Bjoernsson could only estimate the objects to be at least one hundred feet down.... (Later Bjoernsson revised his estimate to two hundred feet deep, maybe more.)" Okay, we have some guys operating what sounds like a subsurface radar here (it is), and estimating the planes' depth at a minimum of 100, later 200 feet. (Twelve meters is only 40 feet.) We have to back up a little to find out who they are. On page 78, we read: "...Rajani hired a team of glaciologists from the University of Iceland." Actual glaciologists-- genuine "ice specialists"!

But there's nothing about ice cores here, no ice samples or counting

annual layers of anything-- isotopes, dust content, conductivity peaks, or chemical species, no mass balance studies, just radar. Their depth estimate is a lot more than 12 meters, but it's still low, and imprecise. Why? Reading further, we hear: "...most subsurface radar used high-frequency signals in the 120 MHz range. Such systems worked well on polar glaciers, in which there was no melting water, but could not penetrate temperate glaciers (the type found in Greenland and Iceland), which were made up of ice and water." There is nothing here that has any bearing on dating ice cores, by whatever method.

Our next "ice expert" is on page 83: "A month later, having had the time to run his data through computers and review the findings patiently, Thuma was able to draw a tentative conclusion about what they called site number four, the B-17 tower, which put the plane at a far greater depth than anyone had imagined. In the report he submitted to Cox, Thuma wrote, it seems plausible that the aircraft at Site #4 is at a depth of 258' (78.6 m)'," which turned out to be right bang on. So we see that this "ice specialist" got it exactly right. How did he do it? Bil Thuma is a geophysicist, not a glaciologist, and would never describe himself as any kind of "ice specialist." This was 1985, and the tower erected over the B-17 in 1983 had been buried by snow, so the planes had to be located all over again. (More on that later.) Thuma used a side-scanning magnetometer. Once he located the tower, his "crew set up a grid and crisscrossed the site." So far we haven't found any "ice specialists" who "pointed out" to the "salvage adventurers" that the planes were buried 12 meters deep, using glaciological data of any sort, ouija boards, or whatever.

Heinsohn's last page reference is 87. This is what we find on page 87: "The question was, how deep were the planes? The Icelanders had suggested they were 180 to 240 feet below the surface, [very close to correct, at the upper limit-- SM] but no one really believed that was possible. Most estimates of the aircrafts' depth ranged from an optimistic forty feet-- Epps and Taylor's figure when trying to woo investors -- to sixty or eighty feet." --A revealing passage, like a number of others throughout the book ignored by Heinsohn. No "ice specialists" on this page, either.

So where did the figure of 12 meters come from? The answer is, it came from Epps and Taylor themselves, not some shadowy, unnamed "ice specialists." Back to page 13: They were sitting in a hotel bar in Greenland. "Then the conversation turned to planes lost on the ice cap, and someone mentioned the Lost Squadron-- six P-38 fighters and 2 B-17 bombers that ditched on the ice cap in 1942. The airport manager said they had been visible on the surface as recently as the early sixties."

Or so it was rumored. Somebody may have seen something he *thought* was a plane. Back in Atlanta in a bar, on page 15: "Soon, the Lost Squadron became the main topic of conversation whenever Epps and Taylor met at the Downwind. They imagined flying over the ice cap and spotting the planes just waiting to be found, their tails sticking above the snow. Years later, Taylor would say, We thought that all we'd have to do is shovel the snow off the wings, fill 'em with gas, crank 'em up and fly 'em off into the sunset. Guess we couldn't have been much more wrong." This is long before anyone else got involved in the project.

In 1981, they flew over the area-- forward to page 61: "They had heard reports that the planes had been seen from the air as recently as 1961. A B-17 tail fin was twenty feet high, so there was every reason to believe the tip might be visible poking through a mound of snow. But they saw nothing." Figure-- if less than 20 feet of snow had accumulated in 19 years, by the early 80's there might be forty or less. As Epps himself e-mailed to me, on August 27, "We at first expected the tails to be sticking out above the snow. When that was not a fact, then our optimism and wishful thinking said they were only 5 to 40 feet deep. (We knew we would not try to get them if they were more than 40 feet deep.)"

But Heinsohn wants to stick this on the glaciologists so bad, he makes things up and pretends they're in the book. It's just that brazen. His next big falsehood-- "the ice specialists had prepared the bold salvagers that there would be strong migration of the ice toward the coast. This scientific prediction turned out to be wrong. The airplanes stood precisely where they had come down [Hayes 80]. The assumed sideways flow of the ice had not materialized."

Think about the implications of this for a moment. By putting aside all uniformitarian assumptions, Heinsohn has made a revolutionary discovery: ice does not flow downhill-- it just sits there. Those aerial photos of crevassed ice streams flowing out over the coast-- fakes. Those moraines in Alpine valleys-- shoveled together by glaciologists. Maybe you've been told that icebergs calve from glaciers entering the sea. You don't really believe that, do you? They're really remnants of icy comets.

Actually, no such statement is made on page 80 or elsewhere, only the statement already quoted above that "Two days later they located six more, and *the pattern* conformed to the positions of the aircraft in 1942," obviously referring to the *relative* positions of the downed aircraft in the photos taken by the crewmen while they awaited rescue. On the contrary, there are several passages in the book confirming that the planes did move, though none say how far. (See pages 82 & 87.) In a Remembrance day phone conversation, Thuma told me the planes had moved about two and a half miles from the original site location. That's about 250 feet a year, or 9 inches a day. To locate the planes, first he used a surveyor's transit to line up distant mountains with peaks in the background of the airmen's photos. Then he used a hand-held inclinometer to follow the gentle slope for a distance downhill in the direction of flow. Then he started searching with his magnetometer.

These technical consultants couldn't have used glaciological data to find the planes, because there wasn't any available for that area. Bil Thuma looked, but he couldn't find any. He contacted CRREL, the Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratories of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-- the outfit that drilled the Camp Century and Byrd Station cores back in the sixties-- the U.S. Air Force, and the Geological Survey of Canada. As Thuma said, if you go 50 kilometers away, the mass balance is completely different. (Cf. p. 87.) The crash site was only about ten miles from the edge of the ice sheet, where both snowfall and melting are very high, unlike all the ice core sites.

Heinsohn is no better at reading photos than he is at reading text. Referring to photos of the recovered P-38 on pages 165 to 181, he says, "Moreover, the expectation [he doesn't say whose] that the pressure of the ice would have flattened the planes turned out to be wrong as well.

It is true that the plexiglass panes of the cabins were broken.  But the

filigree girders of these cabins were as finely curved as when the emergency landing happened, and the fragile wings still had their delicate covers."

Who is he kidding? We're not talking cloth biplanes here. The monocoque construction was meant to take hits from enemy flak and cannon and keep flying. Some of these "filigree girders" are badly bent. The tail section came away from the fuselage. Except for the nose section, the skin is badly dented. Bear in mind that many of the cavities would fill with refrozen meltwater, resisting external pressure. Many pieces were too badly damaged to be used in the restoration, and new parts had to be machined. (pp. 202-205) The B-17 known as "Big Stoop" didn't fare as well. This is how Hayes describes it: "Although a few individual parts were relatively intact, most of *Big Stoop* was a jumble of crushed and mangled junk." (p. 143) "...it was as though a giant had put all the plane's parts in a bag, shaken it violently, then arranged the parts in roughly their original position." (p. 145)

The point of Heinsohn's minimizing damage to the planes is to argue that the annual layers in deep ice cores could not be as thin as claimed by glaciologists. His incoherent discussion confuses pressure, compression, and deformation: "...the behavior of the ice -- its almost flow-free non-compression of the most sensitive constructions under almost 80 meters of solid firn and glass-hard ice -- has put to test all the assumptions of the models... If 80 meters produce so little pressure, are the scholars' assumptions of only one millimeter per ice year due to extremely high ice pressure plausible? Can ice be compressed by a factor of 1600? Does such enormous pressure, that is quite obviously absent at a depth of 80 meters, suddenly occur at 160 or 400 or 800 meters?" Pressure is simply the effect of the weight of the overlying ice. Ice isn't weightless. Unlike a gas, it is essentially incompressible, so the ice in an annual layer does not change volume. However, it is plastic, and flows sideways under pressure. This is what causes the thinning. And after an annual layer has been pressed upon steadily by a constantly increasing overburden pressure for a couple of hundred thousand years, yes, it can be squeezed that thin.

Heinsohn doesn't bother reading the glaciological literature-- that might contaminate him with unwanted knowledge, and disqualify him as a commentator in the eyes of his Velikovskian readers. He is using extremely vague and convoluted verbiage to make something quite complicated out of something which is actually quite simple and obvious. This has all been explained in the literature, but you can't get Velikovskians to read it.

I once saw a graph of average daily temperatures in Toronto for each day of the year. It would make an excellent fit to a sine curve. If you took the actual temperatures in any single year, it would still make a very good fit, although the random day-to-day fluctuations would be greater. Now suppose you had a record of the oxygen isotopes from every day in the year that precipitation fell on the city. That would make a pretty good thermometer. But you don't have precipitation every day, and there is more in some seasons than others. So it would still make a fairly good fit to a sine curve, but not as good as a daily thermometer reading. One thing would still be the same, though-- the amplitude from the average temperature in winter to the average temperature in summer would be much greater than the fluctuations from day to day. So if you didn't know how much precipitation there was in the year, you could still pick out the annual variations quite easily from the graph. In Greenland or Antarctica, the summer-winter difference is more extreme, so it is even easier to pick out the annual cycles. In fact, if you have six or eight samples spaced more or less evenly throughout the year, it works out quite nicely.

Glaciologists don't just analyze ice samples back in the lab. They can, and have examined individual snowfalls in the field. What happens with snow lying on the ground is that a very small proportion of the water molecules may vaporize briefly, diffuse a short distance through the snowpack and then refreeze. This blurs the isotope fluctuations between individual snowfalls. This process virtually comes to a standstill once the snowpack has solidified into ice, sealing off the pore spaces into individual bubbles. If the annual layers are thicker than the characteristic diffusion length of a water molecule, then the isotope variations will remain distinct enough to read thousands of years later. They have measured the amplitude of the annual isotope fluctuations from the top of the snowpack, down into the ice. In graphs, you can see how the amplitude gradually decreases, while the annual layers are compressed due to compaction of the snow.

As has been pointed out many times before, glaciologists don't depend solely on oxygen isotopes for counting annual layers. They also have seasonal variations in dust concentration, acidity or electrical conductivity, and various chemical species to go by, which maintain the same phase relationship throughout the ice column.

Heinsohn says "Ice core researchers have been given an enormous chance" (opportunity) to put annual isotope dating to the test "with the salvaging of" the planes. Glaciologists don't need to run out to the crash site to verify that annual isotope variations are annual, any more than astronomers need a crash program of observations to verify that the sun rises once a day. They have already performed essentially the same experiment many times over. Scientists are systematic people. Long before drilling an ice core, they make on-site weather observations and dig snow pits to establish the annual accumulation rate. In the past, radioactive isotopes from atmospheric nuclear weapons tests provided a check on dating. More recently, radioactivity from the Chernobyl accident served the same purpose.

In Passing: Lynn Rose claimed that the age of ice in the brittle zones of ice cores corresponded to the period between Velikovsky's Venus and Mars catastrophes, or approximately 3500 to 2700 BP. Heinsohn refers to this when he says that "according to the prevailing ice core dating" they "fitted in so nicely with Velikovsky's last catastrophes." Actually, as I showed in Part Two of "Ice Cores and Common Sense," (published in Catastrophism and Ancient History II:2 (July, 1990); see the section on "The Cracked Ice Theory," pp. 128-129.), they don't fit at all. And the age of the brittle zones is different at each site.

Velikovskian writers have tried a variety of different arguments to discredit ice-core research. Each one takes a different tack. While they are mutually contradictory, what they have in common is: 1. they all proceed from an incredible ignorance, 2. they all distort their sources outrageously, and 3. none of them is rationally coherent. These seem to be the criteria for acceptance by their peers. It's a most peculiar ideological movement.

-- Sean Mewhinney df736@freenet.carleton.ca

The interested reader is also encouraged to read the section "The Ginenthal Factor" in Ellenberger's review of ABA, the biography of Velikovsky, to see what sort of coercive evidence from Venus disproves Holden's and Ginenthal's long-outdated notion that Venus is NOT in thermal equilibrium: <http://abob.libs.uga.edu.bobk/cle/cle-jose.txt>. Phaedrus7 23:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Defenses of Velikovsky (again)

I have restored the section "Defences of Velikovsky", holding a reference to "Scientists confront scientists who confront Velikovsky". I was reverting an edit by user 216.125.49.252, who removed the section. The comment explains his move by sayding: "Kronos already listed above".

But Kronos is listed as an organization supportive of Velikovsky. There was no other mention in the article of this particular book that is published by Kronos press, and you can't really remove a cited book just because the publisher of that book already appears in the article!

This article is quite WP:POV. Mostly, the POV is that Velikovsky is thoughly refuted, a POV I share. Even so, as long as there is a large "Critiques" section with a couple references of less than stellar publishing reliability, I am going to support the inclusion of this Defences section. Private web pages are out; but this book should be okay and should remain, I think. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 23:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The link ('Greenberg') is confusing. It points to an issue of Kronos (Vol. IV, No. 2 Winter 1978) whereas the text (of the link) refers to a book of the same title. Since 'Defenses of Velikovsky' is a subsection of 'External links', and there is a separate section, 'References', listing books, I propose to clean up and clear up the confusion. -- Jmc 03:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I've done a slight clean up myself, removing the url from the book citation. I do think it still belongs in a Defenses section, however. The problem we have is that there is a special section on "Critiques of Velikovsky". A Velikovsky supporter has added some "Defences". Although I am a critic of Velikosky myself, I think this Defences section is legitimate.

The actual entry in the defences section is for a book, edited by Greenberg and published by Kronos press. I have noted that this is a compilation of material originally in the Kronos journal, and referenced that as well. This book is a compilation of material originally published in Kronos. I've moved the external link to the contents of the journal issue to an external link at the end of the entry. This appears here not as a general reference, but specifically as a "Defence" of Velikovsky to balance the critiques given previously. I think this is valid. If we move it into books, than for neutrality we should also move all the "Critiques" section into notes or references or books as well. How does it look now? —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 04:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I've continued the modification to maintain the existing distinction between the (printed) 'References' section and the (online) 'External Links' section, by changing 'Scientists Confront Scientists ...' from a book + online reference to a pure hyperlink to the online version of the Kronos issue and shifting the pure book reference (Greenberg) to 'References'.

At the same time, I've done some minimal tidying of the 'References' section to place in alphabetical order titles that had been added at the end regardless. Some further tidying needs to be done to put all references in a standard format, but that can wait for another day – or another editor.

One other issue to consider is that while the 'External Links' section partitions the links into 'Critiques' and 'Defenses', there is no such partitioning in the 'References' section. I think there should be consistency between the two sections, and that the partitioning is useful to readers, so might also be applied to 'References'. But I'd like to hear other editors' opinions on this issue.

-- Jmc 09:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

There does seem to be scope to clear up external links in this article. You might like to consider the model used in various other site on fringe ideas. For example, Answers in Genesis. Break up links into two subsections; those mostly critical, and those mostly supportive. Here, you could have "Sources sympathetic to Velikovsky" and "Sources critical of Velikovsky". I don't have strong feelings about it. I think you should go ahead and be bold in arranging the information as you see best. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 22:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The question of raw data supporting Velikovsky

I've looked all over the net and do not see any sort of a published article with the info which I am interested in i.e. F.W. Taylor's analysis of albedo data from Pioneer Venus ending with his description of the value which would have corresponded to thermal balance as a "most probable value".

I strongly believe that the person reading this article needs to have this information available to him.

My own little article on this topic has had wide distrubution on usenet and other forums but was never published in any sort of a refereed journal. Previous efforts on my part to link to it produced uncontrollable angst amongst other "editors" here, again because the link struck them as "non-varifiable" and because it looked like self promotion and aggrandizement on my part.

The conclusion I come to is that, according to the rules here at least, the information belongs in a separate paragraph in the article itself, simply describing the information for the reader without any source info other than that for Taylor's article.

For the life of me I do not see how anybody could have a problem with this. Icebear1946 23:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Icebear1946, but your addition to the article is excluded by Wikipedia's policy on original research, in particular on the basis that "it introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source". Find a reputable source to which you can attribute your addition and it can stand. In the interim, I'm removing it, and from previous discussions, I believe other editors will support this removal.

-- Jmc 00:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't buy that at all. There's no original "research" involved, simply an observation which readers can check out from official sources as is noted. Original research would mean putting together my own space probe, and taking my own readings of albedo from orbit around Venus. That would cost me at least four weeks salary which I have better uses for.

To be fair about the whole thing, I've reinserted the item along with a new section for you to provide the rational for publishing doctored data instead of the real data. Making your own case is one thing, practicing censorship is something altogether different. Icebear1946 03:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The proposed addition by Icebear1946 is original research as defined by Wikipedia. To stay within the guidelines, Icebear1946 requires a reliable published source that actually makes the linkages with Velikovsky that he considers so obvious. His own declarations of a linkage are original research, a specific application going beyond what is published in the references.

Icebear1946 says in a previous comment that he does not see how anybody could have a problem with this. Whether he understands HOW people have problems or not, he does in fact know that people DO have a problem with it, since this was all debated at length in Usenet well over ten years ago or so, with Ted Holdren. Ted Holden had his head handed to him repeatedly in those discussions. He would never given an inch himself, of course. There are still echoes of that discussion on Usenet. You can see, for example, the posting by Tim Thompson, of NASA JPL, that is now archived at talk.origins. Thompson, Tim (1994), Is the Planet Venus Young?, retrieved 2007-07-29. You can also find a lot by searching USENET in that period of time. NONE of this is being used in the article as a source, so trying to discredit this is beside the point. The simple fact is that quaint notions of Ted Holdren ARE disputed, however difficult that might be for Icebear1946 to understand. And to get ANYTHING into this Velikovsky article, you need an explicit linkage to Velikovsky's work from a reliable published source. The fundamental problem with physical numbers and raw data Icebear1946 is using have known errors. The insertion he is making claims that establishment science merely makes up the errors to avoid giving support to Velikovsky. There is no basis, no evidence, and no source for this claim. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 04:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Icebear146, you misunderstand the nature of original research as it applies to Wikipedia. Please read that section in detail and carefully consider the clause in it that I quoted above ("it introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source") (emphasis as in original).

Your addition indeed "builds a … case" (you use that word in your addition: "The most major such case …") from "an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments" (in your case, principally from the Taylor paper). If the Taylor paper itself made a case for Velikovsky's theories about Venus, you could legitimately add a paragraph on Velikovsky's Venusian vindication - but Taylor does not do so, and so you cannot. If you do (as you have done), you are indulging in original research, and Wikipedia is not the place for that.

I note that another editor (who added his own explanation above while I was composing this) has now reverted your addition and you will have to again take note of the application of the Three-revert rule.

-- Jmc 04:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Fine, no more edit wars with you people since experience indicates I'll be the one punished for it i.e. that the legalistic system on wiki is another one-way street. Nonetheless all of the legalistic blathering notwithstanding, you guys are practicing censorship. For the benefit of anybody interested, this is the small piece of text I would like to insert:

"Usenet and other forum discussions have noted the claim that in several instances, raw data involved in phenomena bearing on Velikovsky's theories actually support Velikovsky but that by the time the stories are published, there are invariably explanations of how the experiments in question must have failed, and the data published is that shich would have coincided with standard theories since those are always assumed to be correct. The most major such case is the question of albedo (reflectivity) values for Venus as described in an article by F.W. Taylor of the Clarendon Laboratory at Oxford in an article on "VENUS", Hunton, Colin, Donahue, Moroz, Univ. of Ariz. Press, 1983, ISBN 0-8165-0788-0, pp 657-658). Taylor notes that the observed albedo value of .080 would require the planet to be massively out of thermal balance (as Velikovsky predicted) and that, therefore the value .076 which would produce thermal balance, required by the conventional theory for explaining the surface temperature of the planet, is the "most probable value".

"Other such phenomena include ancient motion charte for the planet Venus, and infrared flux measurements associated with the Pioneer Venus mission."

Now, I believe that the casual wiki user seeking to gain a quick understanding of the Velikovsky controversy should be entitled to see this information. Further, if Wikipedia is going to claim to be the online encyclopedia for the world, it should provide him with it. Not to do so is a violation of a trust.

Aside from that, the argument which Duae_Quartunciae makes above is laughable and indicates memory problems. The "debate" on talk.origins arose when Holden posted Taylor's original article from New Scientist (Nov. 13 1980 issue) which read as follows:

    "Two years surveillance by the Pioneer Venus orbiter seems to
    show that Venus is radiating away more energy than it receives
    from the sun.  If this surprising result is confirmed, it
    means that the planet itself is producing far more heat than
    the earth does.

    F.W. Taylor of the Clarendon Laboratory at Oxford presented
    these measurements at a Royal Society meeting last week. 
    Venus surface temperature is higher than any other in the
    solar system, at 480 C.  The generally accepted theory is that
    sunlight is absorbed at Venus' surface, and re-radiated as
    infrared.  The later is absorbed in the atmosphere, which thus
    acts as a blanket, keeping the planet hot.  It is similar to
    the way a greenhouse keeps warm.

    Pioneer has shown that there is enough carbon dioxide and the
    tiny proportion of water vapor needed to make the greenhouse
    effect work -- just.  If this is the whole story, the total
    amount of radiation emitted back into space, after its journey
    up through the atmospheric blanket must be exactly equal to
    that absorbed from sunlight (otherwise the surface temperature
    would be continuously changing).

    But Taylor found that Venus radiates 15 percent more energy
    than it receives.  To keep the surface temperature constant,
    Venus must be producing this extra heat from within.

    All the inner planets, including earth, produce internal heat
    from radioactive elements within their rocks.  But Taylor's
    observations of Venus would mean that the planet is producing
    almost 10,000 times more heat than the earth, and it is
    inconceivable according to present theories of planetary
    formation, that Venus should have thousands of times more of
    the radioactive elements than Earth does.  At last weeks
    meeting, Taylor's suggestion met with skepticism - not to say
    sheer disbelief - from other planetary scientists.

    Taylor himself has no explanation for his result.  He simply
    points out that the discrepancy seemed at first to be simply
    experimental error - but with more precise measurements, it
    refused to go away.  More measurements are needed before
    astronomers accept the result, and most planetary scientists
    are obviously expecting - and hoping - that the embarrassing
    extra heat will disappear on further investigation.

Several of the talk.origins regulars noted that a PV article by Tomasko claimed that Venus was in fact within error bounds of thermal balance; further investigation turned up the fact that Tomasko was merely citing Taylor's statement that the .76 value for albedo was a 'most probable value' since it was in fact the value which would correspond to thermal balance; the .80 value which indicated massive thermal imbalance of course is the real value.

Holden naturally enough declared victory at that point, and then Tim Thompson stepped in with his claim that ALL albedo values ever measured for Venus needed to be AVERAGED, and that THAT would yeild a number within error bounds of allowing thermal balance. In other words, average the values measured from Earth in the 1800s with the good PV values taken from Venus orbit.

That would in fact be entirely like trying to manufacture a modern magnum caliber rifle by mixing modern steel 50/50 with the sort of steel people made rifles out of in 1860, or making a sports car with horse carriage suspension. In a rationale world, Tim Thompson would get to test things like that; that would be his job.

You guys need to examine yourselves. Keeping information away from the public is not something which anybody will ever remember you for in any sort of a good light. Icebear1946 13:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you still don't get it, Icebear1946. As I've already written on your own Talk page, it's too easy to call this process 'censorship'. What you perceive as 'censorship' is what the wider Wikipedia community regards as quality control. Your "question of raw data …" addition simply doesn't meet the quality standard required by this leading online encyclopedia.

We've tried to explain why. We've referred you to pages like WP:NOR and WP:NOTABLE and WP:EXT that lay out the Wikipedia quality standards. You don't appear to have read and digested them.

Here's the point, once again. If what you've just argued above appeared in a publication that met Wikipedia quality requirements, I'd be at the head of the queue defending your right to ensure that readers who come to Wikipedia for an (in your words) "understanding of the Velikovsky controversy should be entitled to see this information".

But it's not sourced from a publication that meets Wikipedia quality requirements, so it must remain outside the article – not censored, simply not up to standard.

-- Jmc 21:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I get it, all right as will any other fair minded person reading through this. You and one or two others here simply do not want the public to have this information.Icebear1946 23:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

At the request of several persons involved in the same kinds of studies which Velikovsky was, I have added two urls to the "defenses of Velikovsky" section of this page. One is a link to a book amounting to a large compendium of articles titled Stephen J. Gould and Immanuel Velikovsky, Forest Hills NY, 1995. This book has been reviewed in Skeptic Magazine and is available at a number of university libraries including those of Purdue and Notre Dame. The book deals with nearly all of Velikovsky's major critics.

The second link is to an online copy of an issue of The Velikovskian which dealt with a number of criticisms by Charles MeWhinney, including but not limited to interpretations of Greenland ice core samples and how they impact Velikovsky's theories.

Stephen J. Gould and Immanuel Velikovsky can be ordered from Barnes and Noble. 208.253.65.26 15:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Changes aug 19, Icebear1946 Icebear1946 15:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The use of BCE in dates

In recent edits, someone replaced all occurrences of BCE with BC. I reverted. Then someone removed all BCE references altogether. I have reverted again.

The situation at Wikipedia is that both BC and BCE are valid ways of indicating dates more than 2000 years ago. There is no rule for preferring one over the other. The rule is rather than you may not change the representation from one to the other unless there is a plain good reason. There is no plain good reason that applies in general, which is why both are allowed.

The BCE convention is well established in scholarly writing, and certainly for ancient Egypt. It has been in place in the article for years. No reason has been given for change. Removing of the indicators altogether is just absurd; I can only guess that someone finds this well established convention so offensive that they would rather have the article be unclear for new readers who are unfamiliar with the background that would let dates be understood unambiguously.

The relevant Wikipedia guideline for this is WP:SEASON. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 22:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

My guess is that the (unregistered) someone is simply ignorant of the BCE notation. -- Jmc 03:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV challenge header reinserted

Three months ago a sort of a consensus had been reached to allow a section called "Defenses of Velikovsky" underneath the heading "Critiques of Velikovsky", and there was an NPOV challenge at the top of the article. Recently, both the NPOV challenge heading and the Defenses section had been removed. Attempts to reinsert the Defenses section resulted in it being repeatedly removed; afterwards attempts to show the [incivility rm] how it feels by deleting the Critiques section resulted in my being blocked for a day by one of the usual [incivility rm].

There is still the question of the outright refusal of several parties who sit on this page to allow any mention of the fact that raw data shows Venus to be totally out of thermal balance, which is a key piece of evidence in the controversy. I've tried linking to a description of this problem on one of my own web pages, I've tried inserting a single short paragraph describing the problem... some petty legalistic reason for disallowing the material is always found, and I assume this is because it destroys the anti-Velikovsky case.

Until all of these issues are resolved, the npov tag should remain.

Icebear1946 (talk) 13:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT is straightforward, and explains why you were blocked by an admin. The thermal balance of Venus is completely irrelevant, as the Velikovskian literature has already shown that V's identification of the planet Venus as the agent of his events is at worst completely wrong, and at worst unproveable, as it relies on suppositions about the Rockebach "De Cometis" text, which no longer exists. Unproveable hunches about the possible contents of a single piece of writing that was destroyed centuries ago are hardly a good reason for rewriting the laws of physics, never mind not quite managing to satisfy WP:VERIFY--f eline1 (talk) 13:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I simply do not buy the idea that the question of thermal balance is irrelevant; I see it as highly relevant and, until some way can be found to have that information in the article, I will not agree to the idea of the article being neutral, period. I'd be happy to insert a one paragraph description in the article, I'd be happy to have the article on my own website rehosted or put anywhere on the web including Beijing, I have no interest in "spamming" or self-promotion of any sort; again in my view there is no legitimate reason for that informationnot to be in this article.

Icebear1946 (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if you don't buy it, but relying on material on your website to assert that the article is in violation of NPOV just doesn't work. If the information you speak of is not published by a reliable source it is unusable, even if rehosted or put anywhere on the web including Beijing. Vsmith (talk) 15:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I said, "until ALL of these issues have been resolved" (plural), as in, more than one.

Icebear1946 (talk) 15:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Your insistence on using unreliable sources (your own website) along with your recent WP:POINT violations and outright vandalism edits are issues that have been resolved. Your blatant incivil comments above need to be addressed by you - apologies would be welcome. In the meantime the pov tag has no basis until and unless reliable sources are provided for your favored defences section. Vsmith (talk) 15:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Now, I carry no torch for Icebear1946 (far from it - see my various contributions above), but if the RS criterion is to be applied to his citation (and, of course, I believe it should be), then the same standard should also be applied to citations in the 'Critques' section. Otherwise, Icebear1946 has at least one legitimate reason to feel that the article violates NPOV.

I refer specifically to the following references:

- Minds in Ablation Sean Mewhinney responds to Ice Core Evidence [in any case, Ice Core Evidence is a broken link - apparently to a page on Icebear1946's own site!]

- Worlds Still Colliding letter from C.Leroy Ellenberger [already flagged as an unreliable source]

- Top Ten Reasons why Velikovsky is wrong about Worlds in Collision - Leroy Ellenberger [already flagged as an unreliable source]

To maintain NPOV, I propose to remove those references, and thereby remove the last vestige of justification for a NPOV challenge header to be reinserted.

--Jmc (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

>"Your insistence on using unreliable sources (your own website) along with your recent WP:POINT violations and outright vandalism edits..."

"Vandalism edits"? You mean, like I struck the first blow here or something like that??

Again three months ago a sort of a rough truce had been hammered out in which a "Defenses of Velikovsky" section was to be allowed under the Critiques section and your side did not abide by the truce. Not only had the Defenses section vanished, but the NPOV challenge notice had vanished as well. Attempts to reinsert a couple of links which were easy to put together in a Defenses section were summarily deleted without comment here and I simply tried to show whoever was doing that the error of his/her ways by deleting the Critiques section with my own edits. For all intents and purposes it appeared as if any pretense to rules or anything like that had been abandoned.

I still feel very strongly that readers of this article deserve to be able to learn about the question of thermal balance at least to the extent of having something to go out on Google and look for and, again, I have no interest in spamming or self-promotion. I'd tried several ways of inserting this info three months ago before giving up, but have no further intent to give up on this one. The following little section of text has been inserted:

"Raw Versus Published Data

"There are nonetheless a number of instances in which raw data appears to support Velikovsky while published data amounts to values which would support more standard uniformitarian theories such as Carl Sagan's "super greenhouse" theory; in all such cases, scientists and scholars have simply substituted the values which correspond to standard theories since the standard theories are presumed to be correct. A typical example is the article by F.W. Taylor of the Clarendon Laboratory, Oxford University on the question of albedo values and thermal balance on Venus in the standard text dealing with findings from the Pioneer Venus probe:

"'VENUS', Hunton, Colin, Donahue, Moroz, Univ. of Ariz. Press, 1983, ISBN 0-8165-0788-0, pp 657-658] - pp 657-658

"Taylor notes that the observed albedo value of .8 would require a gigantic planetary loss of heat and that the value of .76 which would correspond to thermal equilibrium is therefore the "most probable value". A gigantic planetary loss of heat however is basically what Velikovsky's theory would predict."

There is no possible way to call that spamming and only by the most grotesque abuse of the English language could you call that "original research"; it is merely an observation. Original research would involve me building my own spacecraft and taking my own albedo values. Icebear1946 (talk) 14:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

This is original research: something strictly forbidden. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Original research means creating hypotheses, setting up and running experiments, and drawing conclusions from those experiments. The English language isn't really that hard to handle or deal with. Russians in fact have a saying that "English is the easiest language in the world to learn to speak badly" meaning that if all you NEED is to speak it badly or after a fashion, that can be picked up in a couple of months. That's definitely all which is needed to grasp the fact that no original research is involved in the paragraph I'd included.

Icebear1946 (talk) 15:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not all original research is. Please read WP:SYNTH. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is tiresome. We've been all over this 'original research' ground before, and Icebear1946 simply can't understand (or chooses not to understand) what has already been carefully explained. I repeat from my contribution of 29 July 2007 above:

"I'm sorry, Icebear1946, but your addition to the article is excluded by Wikipedia's policy on original research, in particular on the basis that 'it introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source'. Find a reputable source to which you can attribute your addition and it can stand. In the interim, I'm removing it, and from previous discussions, I believe other editors will support this removal."

-- Jmc (talk) 19:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Far as I am concerned, you are practicing selective enforcement of a vague rule and a form of outright censorship and there is no agreement here; that being the case, you cannot possibly have any objection to my reinserting the NPOV challenge notice in the article.

Icebear1946 (talk) 21:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Exclusion of original research purporting to support or gainsay whatever POV is no justification for inserting a POV header, therefore I've removed it. -- Jmc (talk) 08:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Folks, don't let yourself be derailed by all these silly metadiscussions: as I said to Icebear in the first place: V's contention that Venus was the agent of his catastphophe is bogus, though even if a spaceprobe showed Venus was made of green cheese, it wouldn't prove V's scenario. The material Icebear wants to insert is irrelvant to the article, and I doubt very much he can give us any references to show that V's actually demonstrated Venus was a culprit.--feline1 (talk) 11:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, Icebear1946/Ted ignores the "big-picture view of Venus" that he insists Velikovsky's critics honor when he ignores all the evidence from Pioneer Venus and Magellan missions that contradicts the preliminary 15% thermal excess suggested by F.W. Taylor in the 1980 New Scientist article. Consider this paragraph from a Forum discussion item by Ellenberger in Chronology & Catastrophism Review XIV, 1992: "The information we now have about Venus from the Pioneer Venus, Venera and Magellan probes absolutely precludes Venus as 'new born' a la Velikovsky. For example, her topography and especially the morphology of the craters, many over 35 km across with sharp central peaks, indicate conclusively she cannot have been molten only 3500 years ago. Because the atmosphere below the clouds is stable against convection, massive volcanism cannot be occurring, besides the fact that none has been observed, and the crust, therefore, is not heating the atmosphere [ref to A. Seiff in D.M. Hunten et al. (eds.): Venus (Tucson, 1983), p. 216.--n.b. this is the same volume Icebear constantly cites--We now know that 2.5% of incident solar energy reaches the surface. The Sun is heating the atmosphere via a 'greenhouse effect'...]. The suspected 15% thermal imbalance [i.e., the F.W. Taylor issue emphasized almost endlessly by Icebear] turned out to have been the result of an instrument malfunction [ref to H.E. Revercomb et al. in Icarus 52 (1982), pp. 279-300]." When ALL the data are taken into account, the Velikovskian-young Venus, championed by the diehards such as Icebear1946/Ted, L.E. Rose, and Charles Ginenthal, vanishes. Phaedrus7 (talk) 21:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

And, just to make the case perfectly clear, here is additional information, taken from the section "The Ginenthal Factor" in Ellenberger's review of the biography ABA, pertaining to the present condition of Venus which absolutely precludes Velikovsky's and his willfully ignorant epigoni's version from being correct:

"...But Mr. Ginenthal's cocksure faith in his own whims is unshaken by any counter evidence as he gives hypothesis priority over evidence (Leveson, 1971). Two examples will serve to illustrate Mr. Ginenthal's methodology: the thermal balance on Venus and the survival of its craters. To Velikovskians, the enhanced greenhouse effect that accounts for Venus's 750 K surface-temperature is a delusion: Venus gives off substantially more heat than it receives from the Sun owing to massive, on-going volcanism since it was so recently molten, despite the fact that the atmosphere below the clouds is stable against convection (Seiff, 1983). Early reports from the Pioneer Venus mission in 1980 indicated upward heat fluxes greater than downward below the clouds. For Mr. Ginenthal, this is the final word. Venus gives off heat, as Velikovsky said. What he [and Icebear1946/Ted] ignores is that even in 1980 it was known that above the clouds the atmosphere is in thermal balance (Ingersoll & Pechmann, 1980). Eventually, it was determined that all four infrared radiometers had malfunctioned below the clouds (Revercomb et al., 1985; Sromovsky et al., 1985).

"Venus is so hot, according to Mr. Ginenthal, that viscous relaxation of the crust would prevent craters from lasting millions of years. Magellan showed the craters to be pristine with only four percent embayed with lava. Since the craters cannot be so old, they must have formed within the past 5,000 years, as Velikovsky said. Unfortunately for Mr. Ginenthal, the crust on Venus is so dry that it is far less viscous than wet terrestrial rocks would be at the same high temperatures (Mackwell et al., 1994; Kaula, 1995; Willett, 1995). Thus, the craters on Venus can be a few hundred million years old; the conditions and processes on Earth that erase craters over geologic time are for the most part absent on Venus. If the approximately 900 large craters on Venus were less than 5,000 years old, then Earth would be expected to have far more than the fewer than twenty comparable craters that it actually has."

For references, see: <http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/cle/cle-jose.txt>. Phaedrus7 (talk) 21:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

"Original Research(TM)" and the spirit of the wiki rules regarding disputes

Note this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute

"How can neutrality be achieved?

Talking with other contributors is a great way to find out why there is a dispute over an article's neutrality. Ideas and POV's can be shared and ultimately the disputed fact or point can be fixed if it is incorrect or, when dealing with a controversial issue, various legitimate sources can be cited in the article.

Historians commonly cite many sources in books because there are and will always be disputes over history. Contributors on Wikipedia can do the same thing, thus giving readers a broad spectrum of POVs and opinions."

On the same perverted basis on which several people wish to censor my little one paragraph description of the thing about Venus and thermal balance, half of this article could be disallowed; basically any sort of a statement drawing a conclusion, e.g.

"In general, Velikovsky's theories have been vigorously rejected or ignored by the academic community.[1]"

Moreover, the clear intent of the article on resolving disputes is that statements from more than one viewpoint should be allowed, as opposed to what is going on with this article, which is outright censorship. Icebear1946 (talk) 11:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Anybody want to own up to the vandalism edits involved in removing the POV marker which clearly belongs in this article without being man/woman enough to make any sort of a comment? Icebear1946 (talk) 12:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Icebear, you will probably want to familiarise yourself with the WP:3RR policy before you find an admin giving your a longer ban/block. So I'm all ears - what can you cite from Velikovsky's writings that shows he managed to identify Venus as an agent of catastrophe? If you can manage that, your material on Venus might have some more relevance.--feline1 (talk) 12:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You obviously are not familiar with the subject. The first third or so of Worlds in Collision identified Venus as the causal agent of the catastrophe which Velikovsky claimed had occurred around 1500 BC.

His claim was that Venus was a new planet which had not had time to cool and would hence be found "hot", by which he clearly meant more than the 10 or 15 degrees warmer per given latitude which had been assumed up to that time. That was a stunning correct prediction based on a theory which itself was based on historical reconstructions rather than any superior telescope technology or any such. There should have been a line of scientists outside of Velikovsky's door waiting to apologize; instead, what happened was that Carl Sagan hastily devised his idiotic "super greenhouse" theory to explain the 900 F surface temperatures via sunlight which, in the real world, doesn't even reach the surface of Venus, and that became the standard theory overnight. The fact that it (super greenhouse) requires heat to flow downwards doesn't seem to bother anybody. Icebear1946 (talk) 12:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Ted, I am intimately familar with the subject. I ask you again, where *exactly* in WinC does V identify Venus as the agent? Which exact sources does he cite to back this up? Your move.... (I think you'll find nothing more in WinC that a bit of literary sleight of hand and a reference to a non-extant Rockenbach text - the same swindle that's suckered in thousands of other acolytes...)--feline1 (talk) 12:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You can open a copy of WinC as easily as I can. The most obvious reference and the one which sticks in memory the easiest is to the chapter in Isaiah which refers to Lucifer ("light bearer") as the "son of the morning" (morning star) which once ruined the world ("left the world as a wilderness"). "Lucifer" is commonly known to refer to Venus.Icebear1946 (talk) 13:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

That is circumstantial handwaving though(typical V rhetorical technique), as no event talked about in those passages of Isiah is actually linked to the specific events of the Exodus - "once ruined the world" could be any be of V's other posited events. V's cited sources identify "Typhon" as an agent of his Exodus event, IIRC - what sources identify "Typhon" as the modern Venus?--feline1 (talk) 13:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The Egyptian goddess Sekhet has also been shown to be a representation of Venus and is associated with the story of the "Destruction of Mankind" in the Pyramid Texts as per Dr. Budge's translations. Velikovsky presented enough data points to make an overwhelming case for a big-picture view of Venus as causal agent of catastrophe. 208.253.65.26 (talk) 16:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

So the "Pyramid Texts" are dated to the same dynasty to which Velikovsky dates the Exodus, are they? (There question is rhetorical, of course: they're from the Old Kingdom, and so if *they* proposed Venus as their agent, they'd DISPROVE V's WinC scenario, not support it...) We're not talking about "big pictures" here, we're talking about specific proposals for dated events, which we are testing to see if they conform to conservation of angular momentum etc. If handwaving blether from texts written in a different century is to be regarded as a rigorous source, we may as well also consider what can be cleaned from the hit singles of Bananarama on the matter--feline1 (talk) 16:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

There are two major groups of what anybody might call neo-catastrophists or anything like that:

1. The group associated with kronia.com and thunderbolts.info which is more concerned with reconstructing the dynamics of the antique world.

2. The group which includes Charles Ginenthal, Emmett Sweeney, Lynn Rose, Gunnar Heinsohn et. al. which is more concerned with historical and chronological reconstructions.

My own take is to trust group two more as to questions of dates and this group believes in a more drastic shortening of chronologies than Velikovsky believed in. Heinsohn puts the construction of the pyramids inside of 1000 BC. 208.253.65.26 (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is about Immanuel Velikovksy. It contains brief biographical info, a concise summary of this theories (which are notable due to the controversy they created), a conscise summary of the reaction to them (almost total rejection by mainstream academia). It is not some kind of blog or talking shop for evaluating the merits or otherwise of subsquent fringe theories inspired by Velikovsky. Wikipedia has articles on some of these other writers, and material relevant to a neutral verifiable encyclodpaedic presentation of their work can go there. This is not censorship, just basic editorial tidyness.--feline1 (talk) 17:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Far as I'm concerned, what I'm seeing here is blatant censorship. 208.253.65.26 (talk) 17:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Far as I'm concerned, This conversation is over. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Wic-cover.jpg

The image Image:Wic-cover.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Enough is Enough

I am tired of seeing the edit wars go back and forth over Icebear's so called vandalism. All I could make out of the discussion was the fact that any NPOV is impossible with any of the editors on currently. Also I dont think his not signing was him trying to be rude, as it showed his name anyways he probably thought as long as it shows my name its fine. You all have been using personal attacks.

"It is encouraging to find that the positions espoused by Icebear1946, a.k.a. Ted Holden, have not, in general, been sustained at Wikipedia w.r.t. the defense of Velikovsky, for it would be a grave injustice were the beliefs promulgated by the ineducable, invincible ignorance of Holden and his ilk, such as Charles Ginenthal, Lynn Rose, and Irving Wolfe, to prevail in an open forum. The diehard defenders of Velikovsky proceed on the conviction that Velikovsky is correct and then either ignore all the discordant evidence or reformulate it by force-fitting it into their Procrustean Bed of nonsense, as Sean Mewhinney shows in his critique of "Ice Core Evidence" by Charles Ginenthal (endorsed by Icebear1946) titled "Minds in Ablation" <http://www.pibburns.com/smmia.htm>. The "lost squadron" from World War II that was buried in the Greenland ice close to the coast and at low altitude where annual precipitation is much greater than in the interior at great altitude is a case in point. Icebear1946 refuses to accept the fact that conditions at the sites of the GRIP, GISP and Dye-3 ice cores CANNOT be compared with those where the "lost squadron" landed and was buried deeper than would have been the case had the planes landed at the site of one of those core sampling camps. This was all explained by Sean Mewhineey in his "Fraud Exposed?" email, sent 29 Dec 1997, and re-sent occasionally since, but steadfastly ignored by Holden and Ginenthal."

I do not see any evidence in this post, only a personal attack.--GundamMerc (talk) 13:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Piffle. Obviously GundamMerc has NOT read Sean Mewhinney's "Minds in Ablation" (URL above) and "Fraud Exposed?" (posted to a Talk page last year), which contain all the "evidence" falsely claimed to be absent. Ted "IceBear" Holden started posting his unreconstructed pro-Velikovsky nonsense to Usenet discussion groups in 1991 and he has never shown any indication of being susceptible to all the accumulating, disconfirming evidence against Velikovsky's antiquated notions. Phaedrus7 (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

All past history anyway. Ted "IceBear" Holden bowed out well over a year ago. -- Jmc (talk) 09:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I would like to suggest adding something like this...

I think it would be nice to have a neutral but slightly more positive appraisal of his work, one that gives the guy some credit for his achievments. What do you think?

'Although WiC has been much criticised since its publication, to the point it is rarely cited in scientific papers and largely ignored, the merits of Vs work - and subsequent works - often get overlooked. In particular V draws together inter-disciplinary science in a way rarely attempted before or since. The amount of controversy surrounding his work and the divide it has created between the scientist and the 'layman' have made a well rounded debate almost impossible. But, putting aside the very emotional reaction Vs theories often induce, his questing mind and interdisciplinary approach have raised some startling questions about natural science and human history. Einstein himself, although he disagreed with Vs physical/astronomical model, stated in his correspondence with Velikovsky concerning a paper entitled Poles Displaced 'The proof of “sudden” changes [of magnetic polarisation of rocks]...is quite convincing and meritorious. If you had done nothing else but to gather and present in a clear way this mass of evidence, you would have already a considerable merit.' and '...I can say in short: catastrophes yes, Venus no.' http://www.varchive.org/cor/einstein/540522ev.htm Many anomalies highlighted by V are rarely discussed at all - the variances in historical calenders, bones of animals found in unlikely latitudes and unlikely locations (whales skeletons on hills, unfossilized sea shells in the andes, equatorial hippos found in the British Isles), his accurate predictions about carbon dating, the shallow deposits of moon dust.... Because V's theries are so all-encompassing, stretching from mythology to astronomy, and his research so extensive and sources so varied, it is difficult to know how to approach and evaluate his work. Although many may not agree with his boldest theories, perhaps V is most valuable for the questions he raises.' Gentlemedusa (talk) 03:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Grossly POV, I fear: "the merits of Vs work … often get overlooked" et passim. -- Jmc (talk) 08:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi there JMC, thanks for reading my proposed entry. Unlike V I am attempting to undergo the assault course of peer review :)) You say 'Grossly POV' as if the very suggestion his work has any merit is somehow blasphemous? At this point I'll be frank (hi frank), I don't know if I've broken any wiki guidelines or anything but it just seems as if an NPOV summary of his life's work should include a paragraph like this - highlighting some of the merits without necessarily subscribing to any of his theories. Wouldn't you agree? Gentlemedusa (talk) 12:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok I'm going to post this revision in the next few days:

'Although WiC - and Vs subsequent works - have been much criticised, to the point they are rarely cited in scientific papers and largely ignored, some think Vs work retains some merit (see for example p35 Carl Sagan & Immanuel Velikovsky by Charles Ginenthal. (C) 1995 New Falcon Publications ISBN 1-56184-075-0.) In particular V draws together inter-disciplinary science in a way rarely attempted before or since, his studies have raised some questions about natural science and human history that possibly need to be addressed. Einstein himself, although he disagreed with Vs physical/astronomical model, stated in his correspondence with Velikovsky concerning a paper entitled Poles Displaced 'The proof of “sudden” changes [of magnetic polarisation of rocks]...is quite convincing and meritorious. If you had done nothing else but to gather and present in a clear way this mass of evidence, you would have already a considerable merit.' and '...I can say in short: catastrophes yes, Venus no.' http://www.varchive.org/cor/einstein/540522ev.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.153.220 (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• In Beyond Velikovsky, Henry Bauer rightly concluded after examining the evidence that Velikovsky was "an ignoramous masquerading as a sage" and he also noted: "The absurd gap between Velikovsky's pretensions and ambitions on the one hand, and his lack of qualifications and evidence for his views on the other, could well explain the sarcastic outrage of some members of the scientific community" in his review of De Grazia's Cosmic Heretics in Skeptical Inquirer 1985; 9(3):284. In science and other scholarly endeavours, no credit is awarded for making spectacular guesses that are wrong, contrary to the wishes of Velikovsky's diehard fans. Not only was Velikovsky not original with his major claims concerning the recent history of the solar system, they having all been made earlier by others such as Whiston, Radlof, Hoerbiger, Bellamy, and Beaumont, but he was also "gloriously wrong", as Stephen Jay Gould put it in March 1975 Natural History, reprinted in Ever Since Darwin. Charles Ginenthal is a Velikovskian zealot who is totally unqualified to judge the scientific merit of anyone's work, much less that of Velikovsky. The sudden changes in magnetic polarization of rocks discussed by Velikovsky is not due to interplanetary thunderbolts between Earth and Venus, then later Mars, as Velikovsky believed, but to geomagnetic reversals produced by the magnetic dynamo in Earth's core, whose existence Velikovsky did not accept. The paragraph proposed by 90.199.153.220 is without merit and does not deserve placement in the entry for Velikovsky. I suggest this editor study the article "An Antidote to Velikovskian Delusions". Phaedrus7 (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello Phaedrus, I am 90.199.153.220, aka gentlemedusa (I forgot to sign my previous post). Thank you for your personal opinions about V. I believe Bauer is already mentioned on the wiki page, but thanks also for highlighting his work (I have read Bauer's book, it dealt with a good portion of Vs science but left untouched a lot of his archaeological, historical and mythological evidence). I respect your opinions (and indeed Bauers) - they are your right to own. Einstein, however, appears not to have agreed with you, at least in part. I am not here to get into wiki wars, and my own opinions have no place here. I'm simply here to contribute to portraying V from a NPOV. If you have any suggestions about how I can make my proposed addition better please let me know. Barring any significant and relevant objections, I'll go ahead and post in the next few days. Thanks, Gentlemedusa (talk) 22:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Gentlemedusa, your proposed addition certainly reduces the POV content that I originally noted. Still, POV content remains ("V draws together inter-disciplinary science in a way rarely attempted before or since" - see WP:OR: "Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions"), along with weasel words ("some think Vs work retains some merit"), and once POV and WW content is taken out, what do you really have? -- Jmc (talk)

Hi JMC. Thanks for your encouragement, I have attempted to make it as NPOV as possible. Perhaps your points are valid....

I'm just scanning the wiki page (as is), this passage jumps out at me: "Rather than have his ideas dismissed wholesale because of potential flaws in any one area, Velikovsky then chose to publish them as a series of book volumes, aimed at a lay audience..." Errr... Doesn't this need a citation? POV? Weasel words?? Yes, yes and YES. How did this one slip through the net?

I really don't want to get caught on different sides here. I'm just as interested as you are to make V wiki as NPOV as poss.

So perhaps we should leave it that I will again reword my para if we can also discuss the rewording of the sentence quoted above? As NPOV is on everyone's agenda I'm sure this won't be a problem.

Oh, and in answer to your question Jmc.... The opinion, in writing, of one of the most noted scientists ever! :) Gentlemedusa (talk) 13:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Sorry this really has to change too: "Velikovsky tried to protect himself from criticism of his celestial mechanics by removing the original Appendix on the subject from Worlds in Collision, hoping that the merit of his ideas would be evaluated on the basis of his comparative mythology and use of literary sources alone. However this strategy did not protect him..." Dates? Citations? - unless he committed this to writing this is unfact - no one can deem to know his reasons without POV.

ANd also this: "More recently, the absence of supporting material in ice-core studies (such as the Greenland Dye-3 and Vostok cores) have removed any basis for the proposition of a global catastrophe of the proposed dimension within the later Holocene period." To state this with such certainty! What happened to NPOV?? You should all have your legs spanked :) Wouldn't "[absence of core samples] would appear to contradict Vs theories of a gobal catastrophy of the proposed dimension within the later holocene period" be better? '...Have removed any basis' is too high-handed. Gentlemedusa (talk) 17:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Gentlemedusa, you're quite justified in pointing out unsupported material in the article as it stands. And you have the opportunity (some might say duty) to reword or add citation tags. -- Jmc (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Gentlemedusa, Einstein's out-dated comments to Velikovsky in private correspondence are irrelevant because they uncritically and implicitly endorse Velikovsky's erroneous notions concerning the nature and origin of geomagnetic reversals. Interestingly enough, neither Velikovsky nor any of his diehard fanatical supporters, e.g., Lynn Rose, Lewis Greenberg, Charles Ginenthal, Irving Wolfe, took to heart the valid point that Einstein did make, namely, the fact that planet Venus had nothing to do with the celestial commotions discussed in Worlds in Collision. Furthermore, Einstein's genius in physics did not transfer to other fields such as geology and earth sciences considering he also wrote the very approving Foreword to Charles Hapgood's Earth's Shifting Crust, which proposed that the build-up of polar ice caps exerts enough torque on the crust for it to slide as a whole over the mantle and that this has happened more than once within the past 100,000 years. We know this has not happened due to the continuity of hot-spot volcanism, which is seated deep in the mantle, at such locations as Hawaii and Iceland; i.e., there has been no abrupt dislocation of hot-spot volcanos from their source magma chambers within the past 100,000 years. Phaedrus7 (talk) 22:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Phaedra7, I am using the correspondence to demonstrate the mixed response V's often criticized approach to his subject elicited. How interesting and notable that Albert Einstein, pinnacle of the very scientific community that often despises V, should be so complementary and amenable to V's work (even if he did disagree strongly with the physics:-) It took place, there are citations, it's fact. And, since the reception of V's theories are discussed in some detail throughout the Wiki page, it is eminently relevant. Wouldn't you agree? Would you mind omitting your own explanations about your opinions for now? Perhaps we could discuss those in a more suitable forum? I'd be glad to. I feel like it would be good to stay a little more on topic here and reach a consensus about V and develop a good NPOV way to present it. I'll post my revised admission and make all the alterations very soon. Thanks Gentlemedusa (talk) 23:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

AND if accuracy has any value, the composition of this entry ought not be an exercise in trying to make a silk purse from a sow's ear. Quoting favorable comments from a famous scientist that are palpable nonsense, such as Einstein seeming to embrace Velikovsky's erroneous notions about geomagnetic reversals, is merely an example of positive Ad hominem. Phaedrus7 (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Re. this extract: "Velikovsky claimed that this made him a "suppressed genius", and he likened himself to Giordano Bruno, who was burnt at the stake.[42][43][44]" Having read the citations given there are no instances of V referring to himself as a "suppressed genius" - I don't know WHERE this quotation came from. The first two articles are V expressing his theories about collective amnesia, he uses past scientific clashes (Galileo etc...) to explore and illustrate, never once does he directly liken himself to his subjects. Re. the Bruno bit, perhaps the contributor was referring to this extract from citation 44 "...and the French translation of Earth in Upheaval, went to Venezia and Rome to follow the paths of Diego Pirez and Giordano Bruno, two of the heroes of a work that I felt like writing — Three Fires, the third hero being Michael Servetus, who was burned in Geneva." Can this really be interpreted as "likening himself" to Bruno? - I personally think not. And the addition of the bit about Bruno having been burnt at the stake, while a very handy little fact and very thoughtful of the contributor, is not at all relevant in context and is, one can only assume, included for effect. Does everyone agree this must be altered? Gentlemedusa (talk) 00:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Phaedra I do believe Einstein was qualified enough as a scientist and a gentlemen for his opinions to warrant a little more respect :-)!! Indeed, if you are correct sir, is this any worse than quoting unfavourable comments from much less qualified people? Gentlemedusa (talk) 00:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Einstein may well have been a brilliant physicist, but he did not know kumquats from cowchips about geology and the earth sciences, in which areas he was no authority and had no standing and, in fact, uncritically embraced ideas such as Hapgood's that are absolute nonsense. Thus, Einstein was not the polymath Gentlemedusa wants to make of him. Phaedrus7 (talk) 20:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

In your opinion Phaedrus7 - again, entirely irrelevant. Incidentally I just read the Einstein Hapgood forward - he doesn't unequivocally endorse the theory - rather says it shows great promise if certain predetermining factors, at the time under speculation, prove to exist. Einstein's scientific approach was faultless given the information available to him at the time (plate tectonics wasn't developed until the late 1960s). I went on to the Hapgood wiki page - it documents Einstein's endorsement of Hapgood in an appropriately NPOV way, as any good Encyclopaedia ought. Exactly what the V page is going to do. Thanks Gentlemedusa (talk) 13:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

[Gentlemedusa] "… the Hapgood wiki page - it documents Einstein's endorsement of Hapgood in an appropriately NPOV way". Hapgood article: "… a glowing foreword written by none other than Albert Einstein" - NPOV? hardly! -- Jmc (talk) 20:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Gentlemedusa, but Hapgood's model for crust as a whole slipping over the mantle is disproved by factors that are independent of plate tectonics, such as the need for the crust to slide across the equatorial bulge, which would produce characteristic faults and mountains, for which there is no evidence; and Einstein in his endorsement was clueless with respect to such geometrical constraints. In any event, the Velikovsky entry should dwell primarily on his ideas, their reception and their validity. Uninformed opinions and other laudatory coments by notable persons are irrelevant. Phaedrus7 (talk) 21:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Using Einstein to bolster Velikovsky's credibility is simply an instance of the argument from authority and consequently so flimsy as to not merit further attention. -- Jmc (talk) 21:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Concerning Gentlemedusa's concern on 31 March regarding the certainty of the ice core evidence against Worlds in Collision, Velikovsky claimed that Venus deposited so much debris, red in color, in Earth's atmosphere in its first encounter as to cause 40 years (or whatever length of time since Velikovskian apologists have debated this duration since Velikovsky's death) of darkness. There is no sign of this material anywhere on Earth; not in the glaciers and/or ice caps of Greenland, Antarctica, Tibet, and Peru (all of which are deep enough to possess ice from at least 3500 years ago); not in the ocean bottoms and not even in the Sea of Galilei. The evidence provided by the Dye 3 core from Greenland has been documented extensively in the Velikovsky and scientific literature by Ellenberger, whose correspondence "Falsifying Velikovsky" in Nature 1985; 316:386 may be read in Ellenberger's bio entry. Phaedrus7 (talk) 18:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course, this is easily verifiable.[6] Iblardi (talk) 18:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The webpage cited by Iblardi is interesting, but it is not obvious to me that it presents data going back 3500 years. The data shown from Antarctica go back only ca. 500 years. The GRIP/GISP cores from Summit Camp, Greenland, whose results were published in 1994, present annual deposition layers of ice whose annual layers are visible to the naked eye under polarized light going back 84,000 years and there is no sign of the extra-terrestrial deposits described by Velikovsky. Phaedrus7 (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

You can click on the locations, which will lead you to more specific information, for instance here. Iblardi (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Iblardi. I guess I did not do enuf "due diligence" with my pointing and clicking earlier! Phaedrus7 (talk) 00:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)