Talk:Le Sage's theory of gravitation

Congrats

IMO this article is a fine and intriguing piece of work. I've not encountered the topic in decades of science reading, and this account linking numerous historical efforts to resolve the (still-unresolved!) question is a remarkable overview. Twang (talk) 01:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Le Sage's theory of gravitation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/link.asp?id=bn57l77831121738
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060305222112/http://mgi.my100megs.com/LeSage.html to http://mgi.my100megs.com/LeSage.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040725054729/http://ghtc.ifi.unicamp.br/pdf/ram-89.pdf to http://ghtc.ifi.unicamp.br/pdf/ram-89.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/link.asp?id=9h5n3qlfl93q3uk6

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

POV, unreliable sources and direct nexus content

An attempt to include a latest activity on push-gravity theory was reverted [1]. This seems justified on account of an unsourced opinion. It is now proposed to consider a more appropriate inclusion under “recent activity” as follows:

“A recent working paper on a novel quantitative push gravity theory poised for verification has appeared on CERN’s unrefereed Zenodo platform.”

WP rules and policies are there to protect the reliability and veracity of its content as much as possible. However, the same policies misapplied can be also detrimental to an article. Some noteworthy points about the proposed inclusion are (a) it is hosted by CERN's website with DOI allocation, (b) has a significant number of downloads, (c) addresses many critical issues of the current article as readers/editors in the field can ascertain, (d) being a multifaceted work, it is evolving as a book rather than an article suitable for review by a specialized journal and (e) is written by an established author. These and other reasons constitute a prima-face nexus with the present article. The above points may suffice for some exceptions foreseeable by rules to apply. Sure, who is to decide when exceptions exist other than apply common sense? It is at the discretion of editors to see through the "grey" cases and allow, at least with appropriate caution, what can be important or critical information for a given WP article. This is a frequent occurrence in WP, if to avoid a rigid application of rules without consideration of the merits in specific cases.

Notwithstanding all the above, the issue is not only about exempting an unreliable source, but also whether any mention whatsoever about it can be made. The new inclusion makes no assertion or POV about the source and does not compromise the veracity of the WP article, whilst it enriches it by the mere fact of leading to information with direct nexus to the article. A complete blackout of this latest activity regardless of it being a refereed paper or not, a book or any other type is tantamount to censorship. It would be a misapplication of the policies and rules. Readers are by no means misled by the new proposal, whilst they can always make their own judgement about the “unreliable” medium (Zenodo) vis-à-vis the source (paper) per se.

It is proposed that editors may like to consider the inclusion of at least a minimum appropriate mention of the latest activity. This can be done in the main body, in the secondary sources, external links, or elsewhere following discussion in good faith herewith. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esem0 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I think you should write the section, well source it, and post it. It will never get debated or changed if you just talk about it here. StarHOG (Talk) 21:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

---

@-ALL-READERS-EDITORS: Please note the time stamps immediately above and below this comment here. During the time span of about five months, the above entry and source was allowed totally undisturbed. Esem0 (talk) 00:29, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

And outright hoaxes have survived more than ten years because nobody noticed them. So what? XOR'easter (talk) 13:34, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Patently untrue that nobody noticed when DVdm reverted in minutes, also considering this and this and this and more. DVdm does not give up easily but at least applies common sense when due. You do not appear to be a better guardian of WP policy. Esem0 (talk) 03:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Your last sentence is edging into the realm of personal attacks. I was simply making the point that text can hang around Wikipedia for a long, long time without actually being good text. XOR'easter (talk) 16:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Not at all. It states clearly that you do not appear to have better WP reasons that the previous editor does not have. Hence, the stability for five months here, in the current context, is significant and nothing to do with hoaxes lasting for a long time elsewhere. Please be cooperative without diverting from the local note above. Need to continue at the end of the Section. Thanks. Esem0 (talk) 06:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

No, the "stability for five months" is not significant. A problem is a problem; enduring for a while doesn't make it respectable. Additions of bad text can be overlooked, if the people who previously cleaned up a page did not watchlist it, or removed it from their watchlist, or failed to scroll their watchlist all the way to the end, or figured they'd get back to it after a coffee break and then got distracted.... "Stability" without discussion to back it up means nothing once the text is, in fact, disputed. XOR'easter (talk) 14:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

All your hypotheses show how you model reality to suit your purposes, because DVdm is actually reading (call it watching). Your assumptions are dubious. The stability of the article in this case is indeed significant. I started this discussion Section myself in the first place and Tercer said ″discussion is not necessary″. Mistaken again on all counts. Please be cooperative with logic :) Esem0 (talk) 05:00, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I gave a whole list of reasons why bad content can and does persist on watched pages. You are resorting to insults dressed up with a smiley face (which does not actually make an insult polite). XOR'easter (talk) 14:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

You gave a whole list of reasons why the source in question ″can be overlooked″. I just revealed the reality, which is never an insult (″yawn″ could be one). Truth is not always likable, while my :) is a sign of good will for cooperation on the evidence. Esem0 (talk) 04:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

---

@Tercer is kindly requested to undo this reversion and avoid an edit war; should have come to this discussion first. An initial reversion for the same reason was rectified after discussion and the article has been stable for about five months. Thank you very much. Esem0 (talk) 00:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I have done the above myself and hope, in good faith, it should be OK. Thanks. Esem0 (talk) 04:21, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

It is not OK. Wikipedia should mention reliable sources. Unreliable sources shouldn't even be mentioned. Call it censorship if you want, but that's explicitly how Wikipedia is designed to work. Also, Wikipedia is not the place to advertise your own research; you need first to get it accepted by the scientific community. Tercer (talk) 07:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Nice to be able to discuss these issues with you, of which there are several. My main concern first is, if you have a legitimate knowledge that I am the author of the reference you deleted. If you do, are you allowed by Wiki rules, or have you violated my Wiki privacy? I hope you can appreciate my concern and that we can come to a speedy and amicable resolution. Esem0 (talk) 09:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

The only thing I know is that you're insisting on mentioning this obscure manuscript, and from that I decided it was worth warning you about Wikipedia policy on WP:COI. If you're not the author you can just ignore that. Tercer (talk) 10:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to WP:COI, where is says "Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships." Well, I am doing none of these. Then, let us talk about the reference itself and its contribution to the Wiki article on gravity:

Allowing me to "call it censorship" does not mean you can practice it. It would be nice if you could address point-by-point all the reasons that have been presented in three paragraphs above. Based on them, my edit was allowed in the article for five months. You have reverted it (out of the blue) twice without prior discussion. May be the first time was done inadvertently (as I thought), but we should have first exhausted our discussion here, before you reverted again. To spare me from having to repeat all my arguments in bullet form, please take the effort to respond to each one of them. One pass should be sufficient to allow the reference. Esem0 (talk) 11:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion is not necessary, because inclusion of this source is a clear violation of Wikipedia policy. As for your bullet points, (a) is not relevant, (b) is not relevant, (c) is beside the point because the source is not reliable, (d) is not a problem, books can and are often cited in Wikipedia, but of course not self-published books, and (e) would be very relevant, but the author Gerasimos Danilatos worked on microscopy, not gravity, so he is not an expert on the field. That is the only exception Wikipedia has for self-published sources. Since it doesn't apply, this source doesn't count as a reliable source and cannot be included. Tercer (talk) 12:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion is necessary because inclusion of this particular source is not a clear violation of Wiki policy at all. A reliable source is not only refereed journals. Reliable means reliable. The author is reliable because of this. Wiki editors can write about anything, not necessarily having their own publications on the same subject (which you do not want to allow anyway!). Wiki editors must write reliable articles, that is the requirement. The author has stated at the end of the proposed inclusion valid reasons why it is not submitted to a journal. ZENODO is a CERN repository like arXiv (also not refereed). Does Wikipedia exclude arXiv repository as a reliable source too? The allocation of a durable DOI by ZENODO (like arXiv), make the source durable, referable and reliable, not like a personal website that may evaporate any time (hence unreliable). Many serious works are found on ZENODO, which you called “obscure”. The proposed inclusion has a few thousands of views and downloads, which points to strong public interest; this is relevant. Not many refereed papers get that many downloads. Therefore, all my points are very relevant. They are about reliability and they are all consistent with Wiki policy. You skipped my other point whereby Wiki policy is flexible about the interpretation of its rules. Common sense is the main one. This inclusion addresses almost all the issues of the Wiki article and it is highly relevant. If you are so keen to safeguard and improve the quality of Wiki, then I hope you are now persuaded to agree for the inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esem0 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

arXiv has exactly the same problem as ZENODO: it's self-published, and therefore only allowed when the author is an expert on the field. Let me quote from WP:SPS: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. (emphasis in the original). Gerasimos Danilatos doesn't seem to have any peer-reviewed publication on gravity, and therefore does not qualify. Tercer (talk) 13:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

In response to the question, Does Wikipedia exclude arXiv repository as a reliable source too? Yes. Wikipedia excludes the arXiv repository from being a reliable source. See its entry at WP:RSP: There is consensus that arXiv is a self-published source, and is generally unreliable with the exception of papers authored by established subject-matter experts. As noted above, there is no indication that Danilatos is a subject-matter expert for this topic. Reliability, for Wikipedia's purposes, is not a matter of having a DOI or any other persistent identifier. The inclusion of the suggested text (A recent working paper...) would absolutely be against Wikipedia policy. XOR'easter (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I would readily agree with above objections if ″the author worked on microscopy, not gravity, so he is not an expert on the field″. However, that author worked on the Environmental scanning electron microscope which heavily relies on gas dynamics expertise. This can be ascertained by most of his publications. He has not simply done microscopy, or just electron microscopy imaging of specimens. He worked on developing the machine itself that requires multidisciplinary expertise with a heavy emphasis on gas dynamics, where he has also published. If you wonder what connection there is with gravity, please see the discussion in his paper (p. 115, version-10) where he states ″The idea of push gravity occurred to this author during work on gas flows in an environmental scanning electron microscope″ and much more. Gas may appear to have no connection with gravity, where (article) there is at least one meagre mention to it in Alternative theories, namely, gravity ″based on a fluid-based explanation where a light gas fills the entire Universe″. There are many parameters that the author has used from his gas dynamics expertise to Fatio's gravity. I can go on to write an essay in this connection, but there is now sufficient evidence on the background Wikipedia requirements as you have exactly explained. These requirements are now met. I appreciate that this background may not have been obvious, and I am glad that I was given the opportunity to present it. I hope this works now and thanks.

BTW, over and above the above clarification (not an argument for/against reverting), please let me say that the current article is grossly imbalanced with an emphasis on criticisms of Fatio's proposal and only a trivial last paragraph on ″recent activity″. This is a stunning example of POV violations through and through, but it is understandable. The paper has addressed most of the issues and criticisms filling this article, but admittedly this is an opinion to which I may not rely. At least, we could allow a neutral entry and let readers find out and decide. This is common sense for this particular discussion. Esem0 (talk) 05:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Having worked with gases mostly definitely do not make him an expert in gravity. Tercer (talk) 09:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

You are referring to this gravity. I am referring to Fatio's gravity, which is based on the physics of gases. It is a totally different concept. It is not your gravity. Did you read the relevant excerpt in full? When you do, then the connection is clear. Please do not interpret and apply the Wikipedia rules as you see fit. I avoid expanding what is adamantly clear. Please try to understand. Thanks. Esem0 (talk) 11:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I am perfectly aware that Fatio's gravity is based on gases. Nevertheless, one needs to be an expert in gravity in order to claim that this gas-based theory does reproduce the effects of gravity as we understand it. Tercer (talk) 12:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

The ″as we understand it″ applies well in the gravity article, not here. Thank goodness and we have Fatio's (theory) article outside your gravity understanding. You should not impose your understanding here, this is POV violation. Please let this article be itself. I am only supplying a reference in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Thanks. Esem0 (talk) 12:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there is any point in continuing this discussion. Clearly you are never going to agree that including your work here is not allowed. You don't need to agree, though, I was just talking to you out of politeness. Tercer (talk) 14:25, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

One must be an expert on gravity in order for one's writing to be even potentially acceptable as a self-published source in an article about gravity. Danilatos does not qualify. For an analogy: a microbiologist could declare that gravity is caused by space bacteria, but that declaration does not make them an actual expert on gravity. In science, for a new theory to succeed it must explain at least as much as the old one did; knowing how the old theory works is a necessary step one must take before trying to invent a better one. Including the proposed text would violate WP:NPOV, because NPOV means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Danilatos' notions have not been published by reliable sources, and they are not significant views. XOR'easter (talk) 16:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@XOR'easter. I agree that the microbiologist analogy would not qualify under Fatio's gravity. However, this is a failed analogy, because only the paper in question is exactly what Fatio proposes with further development. If Fatio had claimed microbes to cause gravity, and if there was an article on it, then the microbiologist should be allowed to be included in such an article. Thus, microbiology is not an analogy here. Both Fatio and the paper in question may be wrong or maybe not, which is another matter. We are not supposed to make a judgement about it here. However, this is what you are doing, hence you violate the NPOV policy. Fatio says that gravity is caused by a light gas (not microbes). The paper says the same and develops it further. You may not agree with the idea, but you must agree that Fatio's expertise and Danilatos expertise are common. The article is a self-contained theory on gravity and is NOT relying on other theories of gravity or your point of view. You apply the ″gravity″ requirement as you perceive gravity, which is your opinion. You should let information directly related to this special article on gravity in. The information is provided by an expert in the field of Fatio's gravity, which you appear not to want to see yet. Fatio’s gravity does not require the tools, principles, and ideas of other theories, hence it does not need approval by the advocates of those other theories and other sources. Fatio may not be subjected to the criteria of those other theories, or your opinion on how science should be. The Danilatos paper does not require a baptism certificate from said outsiders. You may not like this, but this is Wikipedia here. This is a key point for the Wikipedia article on Fatio’s gravity, which must only meet the Wikipedia rules, not your understanding of anything different. I totally agree with the policy on arXiv (hence zenodo), which I learned thanks to you. I was guided by having seen numerous citations on arXiv before, but you highlighted the specific conditions on that. Thank you. We only differ now on whether Danilatos qualifies to be cited here or not. So, this remains open if you refuse to apply Aristotelian logic and Wikipedia common sense. Please note how readily I agree with your points except some, and how readily I am prepared to yield to logic and common sense. I expect a reciprocal approach. ---- @Tercer should desist from repeating his original mistake. I am not going to be interrogated by him, who is bluntly violating the Wikipedia privacy policy. I thought he had apologized in an indirect way, which I let go per his suggestion; but he must now provide a full and satisfactory answer on my original query. This was a serious concern, but more so now. I would have taken a different route if I did not accept his good faith. This makes it clearer that this maybe the real reason, for which he censored the reference, all the rest is make believe. He may not like that author’s theory, which may conflict with his own theoretical perceptions. He states I'm a theoretical physicist. I am afraid he is in conflict of interest with the theory of that paper and with the Wikipedia article, which he attempts to cull down. He attempts to put this article in a straitjacket from which improvement is impossible, or only to his liking. That is a conflict of interest. I noted the praise Tercer received for his contributions on quantum mechanics. The same applies for XOR'easter. I have not spent my time to investigate their activities and how they both converged here. Tercer has now stated his unwillingness to continue or relent no matter what new material is presented. I hope common sense prevails on all issues to avoid escalating further. I am prepared to relent only by logical discussion, not by inference and intimidation. Esem0 (talk) 05:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

In response to The Danilatos paper does not require a baptism certificate from said outsiders. Actually, it does. XOR'easter (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

XOR’easter has summarized succinctly all the preceding discussion, i.e., excluding his ″nope″ that remains to be decided. This is very helpful towards a final resolution. I hope others will not recycle and rehash what is already said. He has also presented the microbiology analogy that can be used by new editors even if they are not experts in the relevant fields having no bias for or against the theory in the paper. For practical purposes, I may also summarize what this discussion is about:

1. Should the deleted entry ″A recent working paper on a novel quantitative push gravity theory poised for verification has appeared on CERN’s unrefereed Zenodo platform″ under this article's section on recent activity be restored? The same applies under the deleted entry in the Mechanical explanations of gravitation#Recent theorizing article.
2. Should the entry 'novel quantitative push gravity theory poised for verification' under external links be restored?
3. Does Wikipedia policy agree that “The Danilatos paper does not require a baptism certificate from said outsiders.”? If it does require one, does it do equally for both the main body and the external link for this particular paper in this particular Wikipedia article?
4. How does Common sense apply here?
   

It would be appreciated if new replies contain a reasoned statement addressing the remaining issues. Esem0 (talk) 05:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

1. No, because it violates WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, and WP:FRINGE to say the least. 2. No, for the same reasons, along with WP:ELNO. 3. Yes, for the reasons already articulated. 4. "Common sense" says that an encyclopedia should have standards for what it includes. XOR'easter (talk) 14:30, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

To answer questions #1 and #2 correctly, we need to go through questions #3 and #4 first. Yes, an encyclopedia should have standards for what it includes, but standards to be applied with common sense, not mechanically and not simply as one sees fit. Question #3 has also other articulations. The said paper states clearly why it remains a self-published work. I am forced to rehash by paraphrasing as follows: It encompasses many different disciplines in physics, i.e., for its most part it is outside the scope of any particular journal and thus it is not suitable for submission to them. It has grown into the areas of astrophysics, particle physics, quantum field theory, etc. in addition to gravity, to mention only some. Furthermore, it is a working paper in progress. The author further agrees with the refereeing process of journals as evidenced by the fact that he himself has acted as referee on numerous occasions. At least, this evidence clears the author from being a “fringe” author, or lacking reputation, or being unreliable.
That is why it was articulated that this is an exceptional (particular) case for an exceptional (particular) WP article. So the question/problem here reduces to how applies the WP policy stating ″Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications″ (reliable sources). Unfortunately, there is no single relevant field outside Fatio's that could issue the said baptism certificate. The only relevant field here is gas dynamics, which is inherent in the Fatio theory. Unfortunately, you do not want to accept this, because you cannot see that your microbiology analogy is flawed. This is where we need to apply common sense. Bottom line: What are we going to do in this particular case? Is it harmful to leave this simple reference (without POV) in the article? Let us not degenerate or denigrate this talk to a debating society whereby both parties will never agree on a question until a vote is taken. I have agreed with much of your input, but you insist on being 100% disagreeable and inflexible. You allow no room for improvement of this article; there is a lot more to be said in this respect, but I would rather proceed as needed. Esem0 (talk) 03:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)Esem0 (talk) 05:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

In response to The only relevant field here is gas dynamics, which is inherent in the Fatio theory. This is patently untrue. I am only being inflexible because policy is incredibly clear. XOR'easter (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

It becomes now clear that we are talking cross-purposes, because the key points have been spread around in different phrases and the essence sidelined. Please let me put them together and explain: ″baptism certificate from said outsiders″ has been rephrased also as ″it does not need approval by the advocates of those other theories and other sources″. You say it does, while I say it does not. This is the crux of our disagreement. We are dealing here with the field of physics where Fatio’s theory and ″said outsiders″ belong. They are all fields of physics. I thought that ″gas dynamics″ would be sufficient for the argument’s sake. If not, then Fatio’s theory also contains radiation absorption physics and particle physics. The Danilatos paper contains these, like electron beam absorption and much more. ESEM, where Danilatos has published extensively is a multidisciplinary area in physics in all the above subfields of physics and more. It contains electron optics, electrical fields, particle detectors and so on and so forth, all subfields in physics with corresponding journals. Fatio’s theory to expand needs the above expertise. The paper says that it is also a mathematical treatise on the Fatio principle poised for verification in physics. Hence, I retract the word ″only″ gas dynamics, and please do not isolate a single word or sentence while sidelining the rest. Also, the paper is not confined to its title only. Generally, the title of something is not binding on the content. The title could be different, which incidentally also contains the words “push electricity’. Finally, the author deems that it is not suitable for submission to those other subfields. We must respect whatever his reasons, like it may be only the size that makes it unsuitable for specialized journals. The fact that he himself has acted as referee and respects the refereeing procedure indicates that we should accept this position. After all, we are not supposed to judge what the author claims. We (WP editors) should not act as referee ourselves for the content of that work. If we do, then we violate WP policy. You misinterpret what the ″relevant field″ in WP policy is. The relevant subfields in the Fatio’s theory are already possessed by Danilatos. They are all in physics. His work in this article is under coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. Therefore, it is patently clear that he is an expert in the relevant field of physics, not in microbiology or theology. There are competing subfields, not one of them to be forced, for all the above reasons. We should not allow that competition to creep in WP that should stay neutral. With your interpretation of WP rules, you effectively try to steer the paper to the sub-source of your liking and force a certificate from one of them. However, the paper in question lies outside and is not the subject matter of any one of them separately but is the subject of multidisciplinary physics field. It is patently clear that you are acting like a referee on the content of the paper. This violates WP policy. You deviate from the correct interpretation of WP policy under common sense for whatever reasons. In conclusion, it is patently clear that the paper in question is a self-published expert source considered reliable as being produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field (physics) has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Cleared. Esem0 (talk) 04:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Esem0, this discussion is going in circles. I think it should be clear by now that you're never going to convince me or XOR'easter that this reference should be included. Your only hope is to ask the wider Wikipedia community for help with dispute resolution, specifically through a WP:DRN or a WP:RFC. I don't think it is going to work either, because what you want to do is a clear violation of Wikipedia policy. Instead my advice is to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. I don't think you're going to accept this advice, though. Tercer (talk) 07:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Walls of text and special pleading do not change the fact that this is a textbook example of the kind of content that we don't include. Even if Danilatos' subject-matter expertise were in the correct area (it's not), asserting that one has a revolutionary theory of physics is a self-serving claim, which WP:SPS would still not allow. XOR'easter (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

We do not know if it is ″a revolutionary theory″, etc. or not. However, you claim to know. That is only your opinion falling outside the brief of WP Editors. I am not a scholar on WP policy, which I learn as needed. I understand that NPOV means that we go only by reliable sources without imposing our own knowledge (opinion) on an article. This applies a lot in politics but also in science and physics too. As I said, there are competing theories within physics and WP editors should not impose their own theories under various pretexts. We are not acting as would-be referees by a journal here. For the issue at hand, we are not talking about an off-the-street pamphlet from an obscure author on a personal website, either. Furthermore, arbitrary interpretation of WP policy with non-applicable arguments pointing to a litany of WP policy links can be quite misleading. Piling up links like ″WP:COI, horse-carcass, pleading, walls-of-text, hoaxes-survival″ and much more are ludicrous lawyering that truly adds a huge amount of text through the back door while diverting, augmenting, and forcing this discussion to go in circles and confusion. It has taken me ages to go through all quoted links, none of which applies here. They look like a salvo of empty bombshells, while this is not a debating society. You make a strenuous attempt to wipe out one neutral source from a 100% relevant WP article. I cannot understand all this, unless either or both of the following happens: (a) you like to ″clean up″ WP articles and (b) you like to eliminate sources that conflict with your opinion on unsolved problems in physics. Based on this talk Section, you appear to aim for (b) using (a). I have not investigated if you have done the same before and I prefer us coming to a rational outcome here. Extra caution is required to avoid further harm to this particular article. Esem0 (talk) 04:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

RfC about POV, unreliable sources and direct nexus content

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There's a clear consensus to exclude this as an external link. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 19:33, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

---

To restore a deleted self-published source from the ″Recent activity″ Section and/or External links. Esem0 (talk) 06:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 ATTENTION: This RfC is in continuation to the preceding discussion under the same title. Esem0 (talk) 11:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC). The long version of the ″neutral statement″ is if the following policy is satisfied: ″Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications″. Esem0 (talk) 12:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC) (reliable sources) 

(I moved the new title of this section to where it chronologically belongs. See wp:Talk page guidelines and WP:TALK#REPLIED.)

• Comment. No, we don't want content —let alone external links— from obscure self-published sources. Policies and guidelines at wp:COI, wp:ELNO, WP:SELFPUB, WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE. The above discussion is a severe waste of time and should have been closed long ago. - DVdm (talk) 09:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
• I suggested Esem0 to start a RfC about this because they refuse to listen what me and XOR'easter have been telling them all along: including this source is a clear violation of Wikipedia policy. Maybe with a RfC they will realize that this is not a conspiracy to censor their work, this is just how Wikipedia is supposed to be. Tercer (talk) 10:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
• The "neutral statement" for this RfC is neither a sentence nor a question, but it has the answer right there in it: we don't use or want a "self-published source" and it has no place either in a ″Recent activity″ section or ELs. DVdm is quite right here. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 11:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

If you read the discussion you can see that the following policy is satisfied: ″Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications″ (reliable sources). Esem0 (talk) 11:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Right, "may be considered reliable". And the consensus seems to be that it is not considered reliable. You are wasting our and your time here. - DVdm (talk) 13:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Please be consistent by not wasting your time here. Let some independent RfC comments be expressed. You appeared to be consistent for 5-6 months, but not anymore. We do not need prompting here. Thank you. Esem0 (talk) 05:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• I suppose my position is probably clear enough from the excessively lengthy commentary above, but in short, all the policies and guidelines mentioned by DVdm do in fact apply. A self-published source that is not by a subject-matter expert — news flash, science is specialized — that makes an unduly self-serving claim — a revolutionary theory of physics, too special for regular peer review — is a classic example of what the encyclopedia doesn't want. XOR'easter (talk) 14:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I do not think we should be repeating what is already said in the preceding talk. However, you see fit to repeat the same, to which the reply was: ″In conclusion, it is patently clear that the paper in question is a self-published expert source considered reliable as being produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field (physics) has previously been published by reliable, independent publications″. Esem0 (talk) 05:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

The author, Gerasimos Danilatos, seems to be an expert in microscopy. He doesn't have any publication in gravity, which is the relevant field here. It seems to be yet another example of the well-known phenomenon that an old physicist gets bored from doing run-of-the-mill research, hops into a new field that he doesn't understand, and thinks he will solve everything with a great new insight that somehow the experts have missed for decades. Spoiler alert: they didn't, and he won't. Tercer (talk) 10:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Noted and thank you. However, you repeat what you said in the discussion. I have thoroughly responded to all this with evidence. Please do not complain again that we go around in circles. I will abstain from repeating here, in the hope that genuine RfC responders go through our full discussion above. That is the reason we have come here. Esem0 (talk) 10:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• Concur with the above statements. This is exactly what WP:ELNO is there to prevent from being added to Wikipedia as noted above. Wikipedia is not the place to publish or promote new thoughts/ideas and that's what is being attempted here. Ravensfire (talk) 14:38, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, but I cannot find where WP:ELNO overrides WP:RS. Esem0 (talk) 05:54, 28 May 2021 (UTC) Esem0 (talk) 06:10, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Of course it overrides, but that is irrelevant. The only relevant thing is that wp:CONSENSUS overrides wp:ANYTHING, and that is what is happening here. Look at the other comments. You asked for them and you got them. - DVdm (talk) 09:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Repeated inconsistency: Why bother wasting your time and ours, per your opening remark, when you do not even want this discussion open? Please let some independent RfC comments to be expressed without your prompts. We have noted your history. We heard you. Thanks. Esem0 (talk) 10:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

This pretty clearly fails WP:RS - it's self-published, not peer reviewed and not from an acknowledged expert. It's a WP:FRINGE view as well. I acknowledge that you disagree with this view, but from my review of the above sections, your view is mistaken. Ravensfire (talk) 14:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• Concur with above, especially statements by DVdm. I would also like to caution Esem0 that when you open an RfC, you shouldn't spend time arguing and belittling editors that come to this page to help. It weakens your position as a neutral editor, IMO. Consensus is clearly that the sourcing should not be included. Let's make sure it is removed and move on. StarHOG (Talk) 19:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice, but please explain this: Both Tercer and XOR'easter, who were involved in the main discussion, have provided a full vote with repetitions here, but am I not supposed to respond? From the outset of this RfC I find belittling comments, which I opt to ignore. If you disagree, I can point to them all, provided you allow me. Please point to my belittling comments too, which I cannot find. Can you see the symmetry? Let us be fair. Are you advising me that I am not supposed to oppose in order to strengthen my position? Esem0 (talk) 00:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

In a nutshell, yes, that is the point of an RfC. Editors come and review the article and the prior arguments and then post their "judgement". The RfC area isn't really a place for you to argue with editors that have come to do this. None of the postings you have made in response to RfC editors is new material, you are just continuing to argue your already stated arguments, so you're wasting time. It doesn't look like things are going your way in this RfC, sometimes you have to take a step back and realize that, no matter how passionately you believe in "your side" of things. This is Wikipedia and so much here is done by consensus, not by arguing something over and over and never giving up. StarHOG (Talk) 14:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I am prepared to abstain from ″opposing″ here. I understand that this does not mean a complete block out from commenting even in the face of irregularities during this process. Assuming the latter, please advise if Tercer and XOR’easter acted properly by repeating their arguments here too. (I asked this before). Actually, if you take a closer look, you can ascertain that I did not oppose DVdm, or JohnFromPinckney or Ravesfire or StarHog in the first place. I had to intervene only when good order was broken. When DVdm with the introductory comment claimed that I am wasting time, I had not spoken here at all. That was out of order but I let go. Hence, the accusation of belittling is unwarranted. You must be fair if you like to apply the good rules of discussion here. Esem0 (talk) 02:18, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

• I concur that this is an unreliable source (something I would expect to find on viXra rather than on arXiv) and moreover represents a fringe theory that does not belong on Wikipedia. Brienanni (talk) 12:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

If I may just insert an explanatory excerpt from WP:FRINGE: ″Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is.″ We are not writing an article about a fringe theory, while the proposed shortest insertion in an existing article warns against notability. It does not make the source appear more notable than what it is. My concern is that both WP:RS and WP:FRINGE are interpreted differently by different editors. This is just one of several sources under ″Recent activity″ and nothing more. Thanks Esem0 (talk) 00:35, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Push gravity theory: an appropriate title

From the article itself, it is clear that Fatio was the originator of this theory. A better title would have been "Fatio's theory of gravitation". Fatio's work was by no means lesser or less significant or important than whatever Le Sage's follow up work was. Any historical references on this issue are no reason to summarily replace the originator by a follower in the title of the theory. Any related issues, if they apply, can be taken up in the opening paragraphs of the article and not become engraved in the article's title. Push gravity is not Le Sage's theory. The title is wrong. It is now proposed to rectify this problem by a neutral title like "Push gravity theory. Esem0 (talk) 09:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Subtitles of deprecated style in this article

Because this article is written in deprecated style (with headings of deprecated type

Kelvin and Tait

marking ";Kelvin and Tait" instead subsection level 3 like "===Kelvin and Tait===" giving

Kelvin and Tait

Deprecated ";Kelvin and Tait" or, ";Kelvin and Tait:" marking is les friendly to section editing, and possibly les friendly for linking parts of the article from elsewhere, so I intend to change all ; headings in the article to appropriate section level headings (one level lower then existing sections where currently ;headings are found, typically level 3). Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 06:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:PSEUDOHEAD, a section in WP:Manual of style discusses use and misuse of semicolumn markup ";", also regarding screen readers. It seems what I intend to would be a good thing to do. Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 09:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done; while previewing my changes, I spotted several messages regarding script messages regarding citations. When I reviewed all the article (with no additional changes, there were 4 such messages (for {{Citation}} errors and {{Citation}} maintenance messages, and for {{Cite book}} errors and {{Cite book}} maintenance messages), so those are template and message types; actual number of problematic spots is not known. If anyone addresses that before me, (s)he's very welcome. --Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 10:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I looked a bit into citation error and maintenance messages. I also created my common.css where I added parameters that should switch on display of error messages, and did my best to refresh browser cache as instructed.

Then I opened the article in edit source mode and then preview. At the begining of prevew this was shown:

This is only a preview; your changes have not yet been saved! → Go to editing area

Script warning: One or more {{cite book}} templates have maintenance messages; messages may be hidden (help).

Script warning: One or more {{cite book}} templates have errors; messages may be hidden (help).

Script warning: One or more {{Citation}} templates have maintenance messages; messages may be hidden (help).

Script warning: One or more {{Citation}} templates have errors; messages may be hidden (help).

Further result was illogical:

• Four maintenance messages concerning {{cite book}} were displayed, as expected.
• No maintenance messages concerning {{citation}} was found, unexpected.
• No error message regarding either template was found, unexpected.

Maybe I didn't succeed to clear the cache yet, or made an error creating, or in the contents, of my common.css, but maintenance messages concerning {{citation}} would need to be shown regardless of css, if it was shown in preview box. I gave up about displaying and finding those messages (for now). Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 17:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

It seems the illogical situation described above was really connected with incomplete clearing of the cache. I either did succeeded to make a null edit of whole article (my previous edits were per sections, so possibly only those sections were renewed in cache or something like that. Now I did actual, prepared as whole article edit, previewed, but not published yet, which to show new contents in preview had to clear and renew the page in cache; or some necessary time passed. Now all four types shown in the beginning of the preview can be found by ctrl-F: I targeted strings {{citation}} and {{cite book}} this time, and several of all four types were found, as expected. Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 00:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)