Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Plasma cosmology

Question one: what type of mediation

Respond below:

1. I'm a less active participant here, but the obvious choice would be right here. I've never done IRC, so I can't promise it will work for me. Art LaPella 05:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
2. I'm for wiki. --Art Carlson 08:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
3. Here is best for me too. --DV8 2XL 09:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
4. While I appreciate the advantage of realtime back-and-forth, I'm afraid IRC never works for me. Here it probably should be. --ScienceApologist 15:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
5. Wiki. –Joke 15:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
6. here is fineElerner 17:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
7. wiki Jon 05:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that was the easy part

Alright, next, it would be helpful for me if I could get a summary of what's been going on since I've been trying to read the talk page and it's quite a long piece of writing. It would be nice if each participant could write a 200 words or less summary of their view (theirs and their own, no pointing fingers, accusations, etc.) This is just so I can get a handle on things. Sasquatch t|c 00:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Summary by Joke137

The plasma cosmology page was the subject of a large edit war in and around November 2005. For details, see the talk page Talk:Plasma cosmology, the RfC and RfAr against Reddi (Reddi RfC and Reddi RfAr) and the recently reopened RfAr against Elerner (Elerner RfC). The short summary is that Eric Lerner, who edits wikipedia as Elerner, is an expert in, and one of the major living exponents of a non-standard cosmological model called plasma cosmology. At the end of the edit warring, a more or less stable détente was reached (settling on a version largely written by Elerner), and it seems Elerner stopped checking Wikipedia. During this time, ScienceApologist made what I consider to be a series of well documented, slow, conservative edits (see Talk:Plasma cosmology#Differences for descriptions). In the past couple of weeks, Elerner has started editing Wikipedia again, and took umbrage to the updates, reverting all the edits since December. This was reverted, and has resulted in an edit war and a correspondingly ugly talk page and re-opened RfC. The chief obstacle at present, as I see it, is that Elerner refuses to discuss any of the well documented changes made by ScienceApologist to arrive at consensus. He has been defending himself, inappropriately in my opinion, by attacking the competence of the other editors and citing various Wikipedia policies. –Joke 00:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

n.b. the message on my talkpage – which came after I made this statement – suggests I state my opinion on the issues without making reference to other editors. However, I don't yet have any strong view of the contested edits, except to say that they merit discussion. My prejudice, as someone who has frequently worked with ScienceApologist on cosmology articles, is to assume that his edits aren't totally uninformed. –Joke 02:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. The main reason behind that is I have seen people misinterprept things and go at it at a personal level which is not at all helpful to discussion. Sasquatch t|c 02:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Summary by Art LaPella

I don’t know the science well enough to make an independent judgment of the issues here. However, I think the establishment (some individuals more than others) is generally more credible than the plasma cosmology side. I could give examples of why, but you didn’t want us to discuss other editors.

I was surprised to be invited to this mediation because I haven’t made any reverts or major edits to this article page. My usual edits are spelling, grammar, links etc. I’ve criticized (name deleted) on the talk page, but no one has discussed any of my criticism further.

This is the latest battle in a revert war going back for months, on several cosmology pages and using every dispute resolution mechanism I know of. The rebels claim that scientific papers challenging the Big Bang are seldom published, despite allegedly crumbling evidence for the Big Bang. The establishment says it’s easier to look important by denying well-known science than by honest investigation. The current plasma cosmology revert war is an attempt to undo the last couple months. Art LaPella 03:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Summary by Art Carlson

I concur 100% with the summary by Joke137. I have my biases, but I don't know enough about cosmology to have a strong opinion on the issues of fact, including the representation of the state of consensus/controversy in the cosmology community. From my point of view, the problem is less a matter of content, and more a question of process, i.e. making changes one at a time and discussing them when asked. For future reference, I do know a lot about plasma physics. --Art Carlson 09:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Summary by ScienceApologist

The facts of the editting are, in my opinion, well laid-out by User:Joke137. I will try to explain my position on plasma cosmology in terms of content:

Plasma cosmology represents a particular kind of alternative cosmology that is based, in part, on a philosophical rejection of a universe that is time-dependent on its largest scales. In particular, advocates of plasma cosmology are effectively promoting a static universe -- an idea that is independent of both the Big Bang and the steady state models. They do this in two ways:

1. By appealing to plasma physics and claiming that current mainstream cosmology ignores or at least underestimates the importance of electromagnetic forces in plasmas. Such ideas are based in part on the work of Nobel Prize winnder, Hannes Alfven who actually promoted a different sort of cosmological model based on electromagnetic forces and a mixture of matter and antimatter called ambiplasma. Plasma cosmology advocates, as far as I have been able to research, reject this model but think that the ubiquitous plasma in the universe can account for most cosmological explanations. The first work in this direction seems to have been done by Alfven's student, Anthony Perrat, who ignored gravitational forces altogether and modeled a galaxy-sized plasma coming up with a form that appeared to him to mimic the observations of spiral galaxies. The numerical simulation was compared in a basic eye-test comparison: there has been no attempt to do any quantitative analysis comparing Perrat's simulation with actual galaxies. This may be in part due to the fact that no simulation has been done that uses gravity. For this reason, most cosmologists do not take this simulation seriously, but plasma cosmology advocates use it as a jumping-off point. In particular, Eric Lerner has taken this as a starting postulate and has proposed other mechanisms and descriptors (including an explanation of large-scale structure) which have become part of the "plasma cosmology" research idea.
2. By rejecting and pointing out perceived flaws with the Big Bang model. In particular, plasma cosmology rejects the traditional general relativity mechanism for the Hubble Law instead claiming that there are plasma processes that can account for associated observations of this (such advocacy is rejected by cosmologists). They also have responded to the detailed measurements of the CMB with a proposal that is very similar to integrated starlight advocated by Hoyle up until he died. This idea relies on coincidences (incidentally, coincidences explained in standard cosmology as due to coupling of photons and matter in the early universe) between the energy associated with stellar processes and the energy of the CMB. Mechanisms for getting the incredible homogeneity and isotropy are proposed to be "local" in nature, there are, according to advocates, plasma particles that isotropize and homogenize an anisotropic background radiation. They have used recent studies of the CMB that may or may not indicate problems within the vanilla banana model of cosmology to justify their claims that their ideas better fit the data, though none of the observations seem to have been actually predicted ahead of time by advocates. Lerner also refers obliquely to the work of Halton Arp who has maintained a stubborn skepticism with regards to the cosmological origin of quasars by proposing his own model for quasars which is far different from the standard explanation of quasars being the cores of AGN -- but whether this is meant as a means to critique general astrophysics or as a support of a fellow advocate of alternative cosmologies, this isn't clear. (Editorially speaking here: What seems strange is that even if quasars were found tomorrow to be tiny lightbulbs in the Oort cloud, that wouldn't change the fundamental observations and foundations of the Big Bang -- it might cause some cosmology modelers a pause for thought, but the Big Bang doesn't depend on a cosmological quasar model.) Nucleosynthesis is explained entirely by stellar processes together with cosmic rays. I'm not sure how, in the plasma cosmology's infinite universe, all the hydrogen hasn't been converted to helium yet, but I assume they have an answer.

I think you can see from above that plasma cosmology develops in parallel to standard cosmology as a "shadow theory" of sorts providing what are perceived by its advocates to be answers for all the observational underpinnings of the Big Bang (of which, traditionally, there are four: Hubble's Law, CMB, nucleosynthesis, and large scale structure). I think that these are the major points that need to be illustrated in the article. Plasma cosmology is extremely fringe science, with almost zero presence in the cosmological community. That point should be made clear in the article too, though it absolutely must be done in as NPOV a way as possible. Some of the critiques of the Big Bang offered by advocates of plasma cosmology seem to be based on problems that have subsequently been solved (for example, Lerner claims that the voids observed in our universe are too large to be explained by the Big Bang but in fact the Big Bang does have dynamical models which account for voids of the size observed). Such critiques will naturally appear in the article about this subject, but it also needs to be made clear immediately when there are standard explanations to the perceived "problems".

There is also an issue of verifiability in regards to this subject. One good example is that Lerner has written an article recently using HUDF data to show that the Tolman surface brightness test "contradicts" an expanding universe paradigm. However, earlier a mammoth study of this phenomenon by Lubin et al. was conducted which came to the opposite conclusion. The Lubin study is highly regarded in the cosmological commnunity and Lerner's yet to be published paper is almost unknown. What's more Lerner's methodology could be rightly described as at least "unorthodox". That's not to say that his paper is "wrong", it's only to say that there may be issues with verifiability. There actually is a lot of concern on the subject of verifiability on this subject. The papers written by plasma cosmology advocates tend not to be published by the major astrophysical journals, but instead are published quite a bit by the IEEE transactions which is an association of plasma physicists not connected with cosmology. While such papers are excellent resources to what plasma cosmology advocates say, I think it is important to point out that there is a massive body of literature published in the mainstream that 1) out-and-out ignores plasma cosmology for the most part and 2) seems to contradict many of the claims of its advocates -- though never directly since the discipline is ignored. How one reports this kind of indirect criticism has been a source of contention (to say the least) on the page.

I could go on, but this is supposed to be a summary. --ScienceApologist 13:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I just saw that the mediator recommended a size restriction on our summaries. I apologize for exceeding this length by more than 5 times. If you wish, I'll edit my comments. --ScienceApologist 15:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Summary by Elerner

I don't think it is possible to summarize the issues without refering to other editors' behavior. In my view, the basic issue is ScienceApologist's massive deletion of material in the article. ScienceApologist is Joshua Schroeder in the earlier discussion.

As Joke said, in November and December, after a great deal of discussion of both process and content, a stable version was arrived at. I stopped monitoring the article because I don't see that editing an encylopedia article should be a full-time or even part-time permanent job. The article should change when there is new material.

When I looked at the article in January, I found that SA had deleted large amounts of material that described the content of plasma cosmology. Since this is a scientific theory, and a controversial one, what is key in an encyclopedia article are descriptions of how the theory has been applied to various probems in cosmology and a brief comparison of prediction with theory. All of the deleted material were summaries of material published in peer-reviewed journals, so was verifiable by wiki's standards. I originally did not have all the footnotes in, but I have added them and pointed this out to SA. In particular, the surface brightness work is published, contrary to SA's repeated unsupported assertions.

I have repeatedly said that I have no objections to SA or others adding “critics of plasma cosmology say...” or something to that effect. As with all wiki stuff, it should be sourced, not just their own opinion. Let the reader form their own opinion of what makes sense. But I strongly object to SA censoring plasma cosmology because he personally disagrees with it and considers himself some sort of expert. In many cases he gave no justification for his deletions and in others gave only his own opinions. I do not see why I should have to answer his misconceptions point by point, which clearly seems to be an endless process. In my view, the only justification for deletions is that the material is not verifiable or that it is too detailed for the reader to follow. I think that SA's deletions should not be allowed. They prevent the reader from being able to form an informed opinion about the field.Elerner 15:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Summary by DV8 2XL

While I take no pleasure in writing what follows, I believe it is important to this process that all participants be apprised of certain facts that are needed to put Mr. Lerner’s edits in perspective.

Eric Lerner who styles himself a plasma physicist, (with little more than an undergraduate degree) is a principal in The Focus Fusion Society an organization that actively solicits funds in the form of donations from the public for research into plasma fusion energy systems. He is also a principal of Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, Inc which in its own words is a “consulting and communication corporation specializing in applications of plasma physics” which is raising funds by privately offering shares in itself.

When I first stumbled upon this issue several months ago, I was under the impression it was caused by yet another pathetic attempt to elevate a marginal hypothesis to the same level as the established paradigm by the process of constantly harassing critics and then claiming legitimacy on the basis of the ‘debate’; a technique I’ve seen too often in this wiki. Now, in light of the above, it is my opinion that Mr. Lerner is attempting to use this article, and Wikipedia to give his ideas the cachet of legitimacy with potential investors/donors that may come here looking for a NPOV treatment of the subject, and it is for that reason he cleanses away any negative edits in this article.

If my suspicions are true then this is an abuse of the sprit, if not the letter, of policy of Wikipedia, and it is for this reason I have entered the fray. --DV8 2XL 17:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Summary by iantresman

I'm not sure whether I'm welcome to give my two cents worth, but I feel in a position to do so, as a previous contributor to the Plamsa cosmology article, and, as having numerous editing disagreements with ScienceApologist.

I am general unhappy with ScienceApologist's contributions because I feel that they violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy as follows:

• An article on Plasma cosmology is not about alternative views of cosmology (there are already articles on cosmology, and on the Big Bang). Therefore, it is not necessary to qualify contributions as "Plasma cosmologist believe..." because the article is by definition, about the plasma cosmologist viewpoint. It is also not necessary to counter views with explanations of the "standard" cosmology, as again, these can be found their respective articles.
• It is not for ANY editor to judge contributions. If plasma cosmologists believe that the the Moon is made of green cheese, and there is a citation, then as long as it is verifiable that that is the position of plasma cosmologists, then that is the end of it. It is not for editors to provide counter citations, and further judge whose citation is more worthy; that is for the scientific process to judge, and editors to report.

Wikipedia has articles on the Flat earth which I am sure that we all disagree with. Yet there is not the same degree of including counter examples to "disprove" it. --Iantresman 00:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Summary by Jon

I pretty much agree with Elerner and Iantresman's points. I regard Plasma Cosmology as an interesting re-interpretation of observations, and one that can at least shed light on some of the currently unsolved problems in astrophysics. The dispute here is more a matter of mythology and religion than of science - people are treating their pet theories as if they were their core belief systems, rather than the mere instruments and frameworks of thought that allow us to hang our observations of the world together.

Everyone editing this page, or any other science related page for that matter, should realise that in science nothing is sacred, and be able to debate rationally rather than ducking questions, name-calling and so on. Yes, guilty as charged; shortly before giving up in disgust. Jon 06:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Initial Opinions on this matter

Let us first establish some of the applicable policies represented here. First, is the underlying idea of a neutral point of view. With contentious issues such as creationism or many protosciences, there are a wide range of views depending on your personal prespective. In these types of articles, it is then important to balance both sides of the issue. Also, with the issue of "believe...", it is generally accepted that when dealing with these issues, including those words is needed as not to mislead too much. Even if you look at Big Bang it is pretty much always noted as a theory (the reason flat earth does not include that is it is basically common knowledge that the earth is indeed round much like the "theory of gravity" is commonly refered to as just gravity because they have gained an almost universal acceptance).

As for the issue of balancing both views, Mr. Lerner should be allowed to use his experiments as support for plasma cosmology. However, I strongly suggest paraphrasing a lot of it as we are an encyclopedia (WP:ENC) and not a sciece message board for debate. That being said, Mr. Lerner should also welcome any sections providing criticism of his experiments including experiments done by other scientist that challenge his findings. After reviewing the edits, there seems to be some POV on both sides with Mr. Lerner deleting explanation of some criticism (e.g. [1] "Since the WMAP observations have been touted..." section was reduced quite a bit) as well as the other side deleting some of lerner's arguments with very little mention. In the end, for it to be truly balanced, there needs to be both sections on what the theory is and the support as well as critiques and experiments that seem to contradict it. That sound fair?

Another issue I found was challenging the validity of Mr. Lerner's experiments. For this, I would refer to Wikipedia:Reliable sources. First, since as far as I can tell, Mr. Lerner's work is peer reviewed, it is valid. HOWEVER, the page also clearly states that the fact that a statement is published in a peer-viewed journal does not make it true. Which means you have to make sure that you leave your sections open to criticism.

In short this is what I would like to see in further edits: 1) Both sides should stop removing sections crtisizing or supporting plasma cosmology if those sections are referenced 2) if a section seems unbalanced (i.e. 20 sentences of an experiment supporting the theory to 4 sentences of criticism of that) then either a) paraphrase the longer section but try to keep it's original meaning in tact b) expand the criticism to a nessacery level of balance or c) the prefered method, a little bit of both. Remember that Wikipedia is not here to say one thing is wrong or right but to present all accepted views on a subject (hence maintaining a neutral point of view). Does that sound fair? Please respond with any problems or concerns as I know I said a lot. Sasquatch t|c 05:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I feel a bit strange about some of the comments made by User:Sasquatch. In particular, your summary of what you would "like to see in future edits" is exactly what I was trying to do in late January through my edits to the page. However, you also state: "as well as the other side deleting some of lerner's arguments with very little mention." without making reference to what you are referring to. I'm always very careful to either explain my edits fully on the talkpage or to offer that upon the request of another editor. So far, no editor has pointed to any specific edit I made as problematic even though all of them are made mention on the talkpage or were offered up for discussion with no comment. User:Elerner has just gone through and wholesale reverted my edits. So, if I really have done something wrong here, I'd like to be shown what it was. --ScienceApologist 13:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

, with the issue of "believe...", it is generally accepted that when dealing with these issues, including those words is needed as not to mislead too much. Even if you look at Big Bang it is pretty much always noted as a theory (the reason flat earth does not include that is it is basically common knowledge that the earth is indeed round much like the "theory of gravity" is commonly refered to as just gravity because they have gained an almost universal acceptance). -- I do hope that the mediator is familiar with the fact that a scientific theory is different from a conjecture or speculation. Oftentimes the popular meaning of the word "theory" gets in the way of understanding the scientific method. In particular, improper conflation of theory with belief was done by NASA partisan George Deutsch on the subject of the Big Bang and intelligent design with considerable controversy. --ScienceApologist 13:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Just to put ScienceApologist's comparisons in clear terms:

In science, a fact is something confirmed to such a degree that it would be reasonable to assert that it is true, provided that the assumptions on which it rests are intact. A law of science is a basic, unchanging principle of nature; an observed phenomenon which has been subjected to very extensive measurements and experimentation and has repeatedly proved to be invariable throughout the known universe (e.g., the law of gravity, the laws of motion).

The terms hypothesis and theory, in general usage, have valid non-scientific senses that both predate and postdate their scientific applications. Scientists however are careful to distinguish between the terms: hypothesis implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation; while theory implies a greater range of evidence and greater likelihood of truth. Hypotheses come and go by the thousands, but theories often remain to be tested and modified for decades or centuries. In science, theories are never hunches or guesses. Scientific theories are hypotheses from which strong statements can be made that are testable by observation; if the appropriate experimental observations falsify these statements, the hypothesis is refuted. If a hypothesis survives efforts to falsify it, it may be tentatively accepted as theory. The theory has to make strong statements about evidence. If the statements aren't strong, then the theory fits any evidence, and thus cannot be refuted. --DV8 2XL 14:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this is where the problem lies. If I was looking at cosmology for the first time, then I might be inclined to believe that the Big Bang was the only viable theory; the evidence is extensively, and the consensus is overwhelming. However, Wikipedia, like all encyclopedias, is not a vehicle for presenting perceived truths. "Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" (emphasis in the original [2])

Consequently, Wikipedia is not the place for editors to judge theories, it is their job to describe theories regardless of their merit. If editors were to comment on every theory, then just as the article on plasma cosmology would be heavily amended to take into account the "standard" point of view, then so would the article on the Big Bang.

Which begs the questions: how do we criticise articles? I would argue that in general, we don't, Wikipedia is not the place. If plasma cosmology believes that electric currents permeate intergalactic space, we have an obligation to verify with citations, not to judge the belief. Likewise, if Big Bang proponents believe that 90% of the Universe is filled with invisible, undetectable matter, then I can find a dozen verifiable citiations, but who am I to judge it. --Iantresman 16:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I just have a few short points I'd like to make.

1. I think that SA's edits were in the spirit that Sasquatch suggests. The first edits he made were heavily documented, and after nobody responded to his extensive comments, he, justifiably I think, stopped bothering to make comments.
2. We need to decide which version of the page should be the jumping off point for future edits. I, obviously, think SA's version is the correct one. At the minimum, we need to ask that User:Elerner, however busy he might be, read and comment on his edits and talk page comments.
3. This has been done to death, but really, the consensus in favor of the big bang, at least judged by amount of government funding and university positions, is overwhelming. See the statement of the big bang opponents, including Lerner, [3] for evidence (in particular, the paragraph beginning with Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies).
4. I disagree with Iantresman's version of NPOV. If, as he suggests in his statement, plasma cosmologists were to suggest the moon is made of cheese, we would be under an obligation to point out that this view is at variance with the results of, say, the Project Apollo. NPOV doesn't mean no point of view, it means that majority and significant minority points of view, including arguments raised by competing factions, should be presented as neutrally as possible.
5. Despite what sociologists and philosophers of science may say, it has been my experience that words like "theory" don't mean much, at least used amongst scientists. We say "evolutionary theory", "big bang theory", "inflation theory" and "string theory", and while these theories have widely differing levels of support (i.e. there is no evidence for string theory, there is overwhelming evidence for evolution, at least at the hum-drum everyday level of genetics). Little significance should be ascribed to the word.
6. The big bang proponents actually believe that 96% (not 90%) of the universe is filled with invisible matter. (Sorry, couldn't resist...)

Ok, that's all. –Joke 17:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

With one exception, I fully agree with Sasquatch's comments. The key point, to my mind, is that “Both sides should stop removing sections critisizing or supporting plasma cosmology if those sections are referenced “.

So, I propose the following steps. First, I volunteer to prepare a merged document including all my version and all of SA's criticisms that are not in my version. This is straight cut-and-paste with no further editing. Second, in a resonable length of time, say, two days, SA would either footnote or delete his sections, if they are not already referenced. I will also add a few more references. Third, with Sasquatch sticking around to referree, we can fine tune transitions WITHOUT any further deletions. Fourth, there are no deletions after mediation ends.

The part I don't agree with is the implication that all sections need to have replies from the critics and that critics get equal time. (Perhaps I am misunderstanding his remarks on balance.) In many cases, REFERENCED criticism is not really there, whatever SA's and others personal views are. Second, this is an article on plasma cosmology, so it is MAINLY about that. Criticism should be a minority of the article, not close to half. Readers can be prominently referrred to other articles such as Big Bang for a full exposition of the other side. Elerner 18:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Two comments:

• You still don't seem to acknowledge the need to address SA's comments on the Talk page, which were not about referencing or verifiability.
• The big bang page is not the place for verifiable criticism of plasma cosmology. The plasma cosmology page is.

As for your plan, it sounds basically OK, except I think you have to accept that Wikipedia is a dynamic place, and you can't assume the article will be unchanged after the mediation ends. –Joke 19:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Joke that "NPOV doesn't mean no point of view, it means that majority and significant minority points of view, including arguments raised by competing factions, should be presented as neutrally as possible". However, I think this applies to a general article, such as one on cosmology.

But if we are describing a specific point of view, then this must change. If I write an article on democracy, surely I wouldn't be under an obligation to give the communist, or dictatorial point of view for each belief mentioned? If we did that for each artcile subject, we end up with identical articles in which all views are expressed.

In other words, if we are describing the point of view if plasma cosmology, we do so in a neutral style (hence NPOV), and accurately (hence NPOV); there is NO obligation to described other points of view. However, if we describe cosmology, then I agree with you totally. --Iantresman 19:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC) --Iantresman 19:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

We need to describe the mainstream point of view at least cursorly if part of the subject the article is about is to directly contradict the mainstream point of view. For example, when the article about plasma cosmology states that the CMB can be accounted for by looking at the energetics of plasmas and stellar radiation, it is important to let the reader know how this contradicts the standard explanation. ---ScienceApologist 22:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

But there is a lot about the mainstream point of view in there... again, the article needs to balance plasma cosmology v. it's criticism. The article cannot be totally dismisive of plasma cosmology no matter what your bias is on the matter. The article also cannot totally be a praise to plasma cosmology's wonders. Do you see what I'm trying to get at? I think both sides need a little more open-mindedness and flexibility as well as more compromise as opposed to driving one line over the other. Sasquatch t|c 04:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Requests for Rulings

1. "Deletions"

Can we have a point of order regarding "deletions"? Having an article that is open to all editors means that justifiable edits including that which removes prose are part of the process. I claim that most of my edits in no way "remove" verifiable material and those that do remove such material have their rationale explained on the talkpage. This point seems lost on User:Elerner who rather insists that I have "deleted" his material in an attempt to "censor" it. I have a different suggestion, let Eric Lerner respond to the points with which he disagrees and we'll work together to get to a version that is ammenable to all parties involved. I don't think that simply taking the prose from Eric's version and "pasting" it in will solve the problem or adequately addresses the concerns I carefully outlined on the talkpage. --ScienceApologist 19:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, my main concern is that in comparing [4] there is a large section in the middle starting with "Since this theory hypothesizes filaments..." that simply does not get mentioned at all? As dubious as you think it may be, there should be no reason that you can't simply paraphrase it. Sasquatch t|c 02:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Would you like a rundown of my explanations for these differences? Basically, I was removing redundant material. You can look through and see that most of the prose in that paragraph are either unsourced claims or are already covered in the other paragraph. I was trying to make that section conform to Wikipedia:Summary style, I don't believe I deleted any content. --ScienceApologist 13:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

What you see as redundant, Elerner obviously sees as important. So let it be. One man's junk is another man's treasure. Sasquatch t|c 17:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

2. Massive revisions

I would also like to hear a point of order (i.e. the opinion of the arbitrator) on massive revisions. Even in Eric Lerner turns out to be right more often than Science Apologist, I find it disruptive when he reverts wholesale to a two-month-old version. How are fellow editors supposed to deal with that? Along the same lines, he has - generously - offered to create a new version of the whole article. I think it would be much better if he would pick a single section to try to fix up. That way, we have a chance to come to an agreement on what the article should look like, but in a focussed way. Tackling the whole article at once is counterproductive. --Art Carlson 20:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that edits should not undo large amounts of works. If you see a major problem, {{sofixit}} rather than revert. i experienced a similar war on Winter Soldier Investigation and it is my opinion that it is much more beneficial to edit and correct rather than revert. Sound fair? Sasquatch t|c 02:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

3. Unreferenced criticism

"In many cases, REFERENCED criticism is not really there... First there is no rule that demands that all criticism be referenced; nor can there be. This is an attempt to exercise the Fallacy of False Dilemma - asserting that there is no middle ground where a legitimate criticism of a referenced source can be made without citation. In the case of a marginal theory like this one, that has very little support in the broader scientific community, it is unlikely that anyone will take the time to refute these ideas. This is nothing more than an attempt to silence criticism. What is needed here is a clear statement that this is a minority view, that is not widely held. Dressing this topic up to look like it is a viable alternative to Big Bang is dissemination at best - mandacity at worst --DV8 2XL 20:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

This one is tricky. The inclusion criterion for Wikipedia is - for good reason - verifiability. But there are many minority positions that have not been refuted by the mainstream. That doesn't necessarily mean they have any merit or can't be refuted, they are just considered so unimportant that they are ignored. Some aspects of plasma cosmology may fall into this category, but how should that be determined? And if minority beliefs are refutable but haven't been refuted in a verifiable source, how can that be reported without engaging in original research? This may be too abstract to have a general answer, but I'm afraid we are going to have to deal with it one way or another here. (It may be best to concentrate on concrete examples.) --Art Carlson 21:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Precisely; which is why we edit as a community in the first place, and why changes are discussed. Of course it has to be decided on a edit-by-edit bases, which is why any demand that attempts to preempt a critical edit by restricting it to that which can be sourced is unacceptable. --DV8 2XL 22:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

A ready-made concrete example might be Lubin et al. Tolman test paper vs. the paper written by Lerner about the same subject. Lerner seems to offer criticisms of the Lubin paper, but I doubt that the authors of the Lubin paper are going to respond especially considering that k-correction and galaxy evolution they use is well-known in standard astronomy/cosmology. --ScienceApologist 22:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Right. So if plasma cosmologists say the moon is made of green cheese (sorry, can get away from Iantresman's example) and the Apollo missions say it is made of, oh, I don't know, silicon and iron, it would be fair to quote this result and say that scientific opinion is different on the matter: applying some other piece of research in the plasma cosmology article, in this way, ought not to constitute original research, even though I doubt NASA would bother with a paper on the green cheese claims. In the trickier example given by ScienceApologist above, I'm not at all sure what to do about it. I doubt if Lubin will respond, but that shouldn't be worded in the article to imply that Lerner is the "last word" on the expanding universe using surface brightness, but on the other hand any detailed investigation of the methodology of the two papers would, I think, reasonably constitute original research. –Joke 22:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, if there is very little attention being drawn to it, then it should be so stated in the article. I think the fact that it is protoscience would probably be best served if mentioned in the introduction to make this clear. I don't think any parties will object to that? Sasquatch t|c 02:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that the claim that this is a protoscience is not NPOV. It is fringe science, though. --ScienceApologist 13:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

please respond to the mediator's comments

Other than Iantresman and myself, everyone seems to be totally ignoring what Sasquatch suggests, which includes no deletions, which means "no deletions". What is the point of mediation if you don't respond to what the mediator suggests?

The chance that SA and I will arrive at an agreement on what is right in plasma cosmology, or whether the sun rises in the east for that matter, is zilch, but that is not necessary for arriving at a NPOV wiki article.

To get rid of one non-issue: a perfectly valid NPOV way of dealing with surface brightness is to leave my work in (no deletions!) and add that Lubin and Sandage arrived at different conclusions (brief description) based on a different sample (brief description)using differnt methods ; reference. Very simple.Elerner 22:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I more or less agree with your remarks re Lubin and Sandage. I also don't think there is any disagreement that relevant, sourced information should remain in the article. –Joke 22:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

As for 'no deletions' this is unacceptable even if it was workable. You're looking for an agreement that flies in the face of "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.> warning that appears on any page open for edit. Fat chance. --DV8 2XL 23:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I would agree to Eric's suggestion if the reporting Eric included in his version of the article accurately and NPOV-wise represented the conclusions and implications that can be drawn from the content of his paper. However, I'm afraid the wording of the implications was far from a neutral reporting of this. The outstanding questions concerning the methodology associated with Lerner's work are important in trying to compare the two "different methods" and it isn't clear how we can indicate this using his prose if it is to remain inviolable. If we were to keep the prose as Eric wrote it, I'm afraid what this runs the risk of is setting up a detailed technical analysis of both papers which is absolutely something that this summary style article should avoid. In short, we need to be aware that summarizing Lerner's original work in brief, if it is agreed that this information is to be included not as original research, requires editting Eric's reporting on his own paper. --ScienceApologist 23:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I should clarify that when I say that there is no disagreement that relevant, sourced information should remain in the article, this doesn't apply to editing, rewording or summarizing. Nobody's work is inviolable here. –Joke 23:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

As I proposed to carry out the mediator's suggestion, I have undone Joshua's deletions, but included the three new or revised criticisms that were in his version. Elerner 02:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Clarification

By no deletions, I don't mean they can't edit your writing, but I think it's fair to say that the overall message needs to remain. If we were to take deletions as other people cannot edit your text at all or make it shorter, than the article would end up about 30 pages long (which is not really encyclopedic). Sasquatch t|c 02:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Stop Reverting Reasonable Edits!

Dammit SA, why are you reverting a resonable compromised edit from Elerner?Jon 04:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Do we really need that? Keep in mind WP:CIVIL still applies. Do not get into personal arguments on Wikipedia as it will only lead to more trouble. Sasquatch t|c 04:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

We really need some way to decide which version to move forward from. I saw Elerner's revert, and started editing that in an effort to clarify some points about fractal distributions of matter in the universe. Then, as I was editing, SA reverted, so I edited that version instead. But I don't want to waste my energy, and neither do other editors. Of course, my argument is to work with SA's version, because

• It seems to have been stable for a while,
• I happen to agree that a lot of his edits have clarified the article, and
• Elerner doesn't seem to want to take the time to dispute SA's comments.

Of course, Elerner ought to be welcome to add back in some of the material he claims has been censored, and then we can discuss those edits if need be. Fair? –Joke 04:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It's, of course, ammenable to me, but Elerner seems to want his version to be the one to start with and then "add in" my prose. I think this contradicts Wikipedia:Summary style as his version seems a bit more wordy and I truly only removed points I thought were dubious enough to be of questionable verifiability. Would it help if I explained my edits to the last two sections? --ScienceApologist 13:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I think Sasquatch has to directly address this issue. SA's position is that he can delete substantial parts of plasma cosmology that is based on published papers because he disagrees with the analysis in the papers. He feels that to counter his deletions I have to answer his personal objections to what is in the papers. This is NOT a case of editing for conciseness or clarity--whole sections of subject matter are being deleted.

My position is that this material must stay as it is important to a description of the subject and is verifiable. Wiki policy is very clear that the truth of what is in verifiable sources is not to be determined in the editing process, but only balanced by summarizing other verifiable sources. I strongly feel that this policy is also a wise one in this case, as a debate between me and SA on whether the astro-physics in my papers, and others that I cited, is "correct" would not be productive and would never lead to consensus.

I would ask Sasquatch to look at the specific deletions that now separate my latest version from SA's and decide if such wholesale deletions of subject matter are allowable under wiki rules. If they are not, then I think we can work from my latest version.Elerner 14:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there are black and white rules that we can apply in these cases. The best course of action is to give a little and take a little. I think I have made that clear, you cannot expect to get EVERYTHING you want. As I said before, I think the message carried in the material should stay if it is peer-reviewed independently (which it has). However, it should be paraphrased in most cases as this is an encyclopedia (we write articles, not copy and paste scientific papers). We're not here to judge whether these research papers are correct or not but just to present the information within them. I think SA should stop removing sections he considers dubious but he is free to paraphrase them as long as their original message is retained. Elerner also needs to accept that people are calling into the question the validity of his papers and let that be known in the article. If you operate on those 2 principles, it should be fine. Sasquatch t|c 18:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

"...the truth of what is in verifiable sources is not to be determined in the editing process, but only balanced by summarizing other verifiable sources." Wiki policy does not say that at all. --DV8 2XL 15:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

There. Rather than continue bickering, hopefully I have obviated the problem. As far as I can tell, I have restored all of Elerner's material that has been deleted, except in the BBN section. I have also added some new well-sourced material. Please do not revert any more – edit this version. If you would like to merge in the old BBN section, fine, but at least try to address SA's complaints. Someone should also try to provide some context for the quasars section and add the missing citations, if indeed a verifiable reference exists for some of the statements. –Joke 17:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

This is what we need. Edits that try to balance both sides rather than push one side. Thank you Joke137. Sasquatch t|c 18:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I have made detailed edits to the last version, up to the beginning of the microwave background section. I will make additional ones shortly. I am describing and defending them here. I trust they will not just be wholesale reverted.

I added two references that had been deleted. In the structure formation section, I eliminated the inaccurate word “primordial” , which refers to the wrong theory. In this section and throughout, I eliminated the loaded word “claimed" which implies skepticism, and substituted the neutral word “concluded”. I clarified the discussion of the constant velocity curves found in Peratt's simulations.

I deleted the un-sourced description of hierarchical galaxy formation. If someone wants to put this back, it has to be attributed to specific researchers. It's popular model, but if you want to include it, you can't claim it to be a “current “ model—it is the view of specific researchers who need to be cited. I then slightly edited the big-bang dark matter reference for clarity.

I added back in a couple of sentences explaining the physical basis for the fractal predictions. I think it very important that physical arguments be stated clearly in popular articles. Otherwise it seems a total mystery where predictions come from. In addition, I included, duly sourced, the important arguments that the Big Bang does not allow enough time to form large structures. Whether you agree with it or not, this is a point made repeatedly in plasma cosmology papers.

I also added back some parts of the light elements section. It is totally unjustified to entirely delete the evidence for this theory.

At the beginning of the microwave background section, I deleted the un-sourced reference to the Big Bang predicting the equality of the energy density of the CBR and that of the energy produced by H-to -He fusion. SA should not waste time looking for a reference to back this up, because it is wrong. As any Big Bang cosmologist could explain, the energy density of the CBR decreases as the fourth power of the universe's scale factor, while the energy density of the energy produced by fusion is proportional to the baryonic matter density, which decreases as the third power of the scale factor. In the Big Bang view, the ratio of the two quantities varies with time and so cannot be equal, except by coincidence at a particular moment. This error indicates the necessity to stick to sources.

More changes later.Elerner 23:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I have eliminated inaccuracies in the description of published papers on the CBR. Since there was a disagreement over what Lieu concluded from his data, I put in a direct quote. I also added to the Lubin -Sandage paragraph the important information that the sample used was different and at lower redshift.

I corrected the footnotes, but this needs more work and is missing some. I deleted the giant-sized Lubin-Sandage footnote which is totally out of proportion to everything else.Elerner 02:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

You made a complete hash of the footnotes! I can't figure out how to fix them. –Joke 02:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I will work on the footnotes this evening. There is no justification for reverting my editing, which I have justified. Again, important data is being censored. The production of deuterium for example, answers a key objection of BB advocates that "only the BB can produce D."

In addition, SA is moving on to try to introduce new, uncited inaccuracies, such as that PC is a "static universe" theory, when it explicitly is an evolving universe theory.

I omitted to mention the justification for dropping the GR reference. It can be changed to be more accurate along the lines: "GR theory indicates that a homogenous unvierse should either expand or contract, although the rate may be too small to observe at present. There is no known solution for a universe with a fractal distibtution of matter at all scales." If you check your sources, they will all include the homogeniety assumption.134.171.161.166 15:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Fine, you reverted. I have tried to merge your edits and SA's edits, clean up the footnotes a little (they still don't work), and reinsert the GR stuff (see Talk:Plasma cosmology). Now listen: everybody stop reverting. I'm sick of there being two different versions of this article, and it makes making real progress hard. And yes, reverting includes copying and pasting whole paragraphs from old versions of the article. So if you want to change something, please, just write it afresh. Moving back to tired, disputed old versions isn't going to help. –Joke 16:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying my best to make things easy on you, Joke, but I'm sorry if I'm not doing a good job. In particular, I'm confused as to why it seems that Eric is consistently reverting points that seem to be uncontroversial summaries and attempts at NPOV. --ScienceApologist 17:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I think Sasquatch's help is needed again. If you look at what is happening today, SA and Joke are reverting all my edits and then claiming that they are not. If you compare the 15:21 version, before my last edits, and the 18:13 edition, there is almost no difference and none of my edits (or almost none) are re-inserted. This is just a continuation of the revert war and is leading nowhere.

Don't go throwing accusations around. See the diff [5] between my last edit and your edits to the redshift and microwave background section, visible here [6]. Almost everything has been retained, with the only difference that I took out the Hoyle and Narlikar reference as uncited and irrelevant, and reinserted the GR reference. I didn't even change the wording. That was why I was saying that my merged version ought to be relatively uncontroversial. –Joke 20:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

And I spent nearly an hour trying to fix the unbelievable mess you made of the footnotes, so rather than being accusatory perhaps you ought to thank me for once. –Joke 20:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the difference between the two versions, SA's revisions are all very biased and not NPOV at all. For one thing he contiually tries to denigrate plasma cosmologists substituting the loaded “claimed” for my neutral “concluded”. He substitutes “these people” for “these physicists” implying, absurdly, that he as a lordly grad student can pass judgement on working scientists, including a Noble Laureate in physics. I think these ad hominem slurs should just be banned. Can Sasquatch rule on this?

SA is also persisting in adding in new unsourced sentences such as the one that asserts that hundreds of papers show simulations producing voids 100 Mpc across. There are hundreds of papers on simulations but not one that shows voids 100 Mpc across. IF he finds one, he can cite it.

The rest of SA's changes are purely reverts of my edits, including re-inserting unsourced errors like his boner about helium and the CBR.

I think the rule must be that statements that are sourced to the literature can not be removed. Statements that are not sourced to the literature are to be removed if challenged. Can we get a Sasquatch ruling on this too?Elerner 19:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I think your argument belies the fact that your recent edit was purely a revert of SA's text to text you wrote back in November. I think the current version reads better, but could still use improvement. –Joke 22:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Sources must be cited accurately. In SA's source cited for voids in simulations there is NO mention of voids as large as 100 Mpc. In fact the same authors cited, in astro-ph/0011212 (I don't have the published source)explicitly compare one well-known data set that shows large voids and conclude that the chance it results from the simulations SA cites or any CDM simulations is less than 10^-3. SA should read the sources that he cites. It is a useful thing to do.Elerner 22:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I can't see how the Virgo simulations indicate that. The papers I dug up seem to indicate that the observed voids may be consistent with observations, to within the limits of our understanding of bias and galaxy formation. Let me know if you would like more references. –Joke 22:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I wasn't aware of the existence of voids 100 Mpc or greater. Boötes is only 70 Mpc, and isn't it the largest known void? Are you sure you don't mean 10 Mpc? –Joke 22:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

E. Saar, et al, The supercluster-void network V: The regularity periodogram", Astr. And Astrophys., vol. 393, pp1-23 (2002) You can access it on arXiv. That is one example. I believe it has a number of refs to the same thing. Typical void sizes are 100Mpc/h. Still waitng for Sasquatch.Elerner 23:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference. I will look at it when I get a chance. –Joke 00:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Most cosmolgists except Saar don't think his void issue causes a problem. But Saar is known to be fairly gruff in his opinion forcing. I can see Eric is exploiting this as is normally the case with fringe science folks who look at one kind of controversy and claim it is evidence of a "paradigm in crisis" or some such nonsense. --ScienceApologist 00:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

revised version

Hopefully this version [7] will annoy everyone equally. In particular, I can find no evidence for SA's claims about BBN and the microwave background and about Lieu claiming that the SZ deficit is about baryogenesis. I also rephrased some incomprehensible sentences about the surface brightness test. Eric, can you add the missing references? –Joke 00:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Haha, I like the phrasing of the "will annoy everyone equally" part. But I think things are working out are they not? Sasquatch t|c 05:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Progress is indeed being made, but SA continues to re-insert his versions, without defense or citation, even after his mistakes have been pointed out. He also inserts very biased language. If others' work is not to be wiped out by reverts, this makes for continuous time-consuming editing and the article never converges --purely because of SA. Can't something be done about this? Sasquatch has not answered my questions.Elerner 18:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I consider the above statement to be a continued violation of personal attacks policy on Wikipedia. Please do not badmouth me any longer, Eric Lerner. Please, moderator, let Eric know his thuggeryantagonism is not tolerated. --ScienceApologist 23:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's see. SA calls me a "thug" and then complains that the personal attack policy is being violated... by me. Sasquatch, I think you need to intervene and answer my questions above or the reverts will just go on.Elerner 23:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

If you think that attacking someone else cannot be described as thuggery, then I guess we disagree on the definition of "thug". (Okay, I'll concede "antagonism" is a better word. --ScienceApologist 23:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

From the discussion page, I see SA now has called me a liar as well as a thug. Can something be done to stop this?Elerner 00:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

But you did lie as you claimed to address my points and yet still haven't. I'm not sure why. --ScienceApologist 00:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Learner is showing no interest any compromise that does not allow him to present his pseudoscientific ideas untouched by other editors. He refuses to answer request that he explain his submissions with anything but a retreat to misinterpretations of Wikipedia policy, and reverts. This mediation cannot be successful unless he shows some movement on his position. --DV8 2XL 00:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Definition of thug (dictionary.com):"A cutthroat or ruffian; a hoodlum.". Neither antagonist is a thug. A more useful discussion might center on which antagonist, or both, is more guilty of violating Wikipedia:Reverts#Explain your reverts. Art LaPella 00:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I have half a mind to block both of you for acting childish and revert warring. Do you really think calling each other names helps? Do you really think reverting over and over will support your arguments? As for "unreferenced criticisms", it is valid if he's comparing it just to the Big Bang phenomenon. Discuss each one on talk and see where the scientific consensus lies as thee seems to be many among you. All this article needs is more cooperation and less pointless bickering. I think that's all I've been trying to say. Just because you see it as criticism, I think you're trying to use policy and calling it unreferenced to remove it so it's more generous to your point of view Elerner. On the otherside, SA has been removing sections just because they don't fit his points of view. Again, Wikipedia isn't here to take sides on the issue. Both of you let each other sides be presented fully and we can all get along. Sasquatch t|c 17:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

SA is now deleting well-sourced material that is central to understanding plasma cosmology and that has been an undisputed part of the article for months. I guess, like DV8, he considers Alfven's ideas pseudoscientific. - - Also, in contrast to what DV8 argues above, I have been working from versions that have been substantially edited by Joke. Just compare my last version with my earlier versions and you can see that my words have been very substantially revised. I see we have added to the name-calling pseudo-scientist. Does this personal attack rule operate at all?Elerner 00:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Attempt at a truce

I tried to put on my "write for the enemy" cap, used Eric's version as a starting point, and began to edit. I also explained my edits in a new section on the talk. I want a truce. I don't want to be in this edit war anymore because it doesn't help writing an encyclopedia. So here is my offer of an olive branch. --ScienceApologist 00:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

SA's edit on 00:16 re-inserting the biased word "claimed" for the neutral word "concluded" is a simple revert--his fourth in 24 hours. So he has violated the three-revert rule. Will the rule be applied to him? I will address his edits Monday.Elerner 00:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Please see the response on the Talk:Plasma cosmology page. --ScienceApologist 00:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Both claimed and concluded carry some bias. Frankly, does it matter to you enough to edit war over something like that? It's almost childish for both sides to do this. Look, you have to take this from the perspective of the reader. If the line says "the report claims" or "the report concluded that..." do you seriously think it will sway them? Just let the small things go. If you aren't willing to give some leeway over one word I can't understand how can even consider reaching a solution over the article. Sasquatch t|c 05:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, how can you see "claimed" as biased and "advocates of the big bang model assert that"... There's some inconsistencies there. Assert is the same as claimed. Sasquatch t|c 05:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I tried to remove both disputed words in an attempt to reach a compromise. --ScienceApologist 13:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I believe that the word "claim" implies a degree of unsubstantiation, a statement without foundation. If we look at the Big Bang article, I note that nothing is "claimed", and everything is written in a more neutral, matter-of-fact language. While both plasma cosmology AND Big Bang theory are just that, theories, this is an implicit assumption, and we don't need to qualify every sentence, otherwise EVERY statement would require citations, qualifications and discussion.

A good example from the Big Bang article is the statement "The best measurements available (from WMAP) show that the dominant form of matter in the Universe is cold dark matter." Utter rubbish, this is logic at its worse. That's like looking at the Moon and claiming that the dark patches show that oceans are its dominant feature... assuming of course that the dark patches are seas that really exist. Likewise "cold dark matter" is a theory and at best WMAP measurements are consistent with the theory.

Most people understand this scientific conceit, and I am content to allow the Big Bangers theirs, if they allow plasma cosmologists, theirs too. --Iantresman 10:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe in Ian's "tit for tat" editorial desires. Everything should be subject to verifiability. If Ian has issue with statements on the Big Bang page, it has nothing to do with the issues I have on the plasma cosmology page. --ScienceApologist 13:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Fed up

I'm getting really tired of these stupid arguments. I've been trying to reword the version that the edit war this weekend was over, and have come to the conclusion that it is crap. These are the reasons:

1. Lerner refuses to spend the time to add the missing references. He seems to advocate verifiability when it comes from the big bang side, so why is this the case?
2. Sentences, like the one about N-body simulations, repeat in the text. Does nobody care about keeping the text sensible?
3. The contention that the fractal scaling relationship "has been borne out by many studies of the galaxy number counts" is wrong. It has been suggested by a few recent studies. The Sloan Digital Sky Survey, which is the best galaxy number count to date, as well as the 2dFGRS surveys both contradict this, and these are the next redshift surveys to date. Say some, but not many.
4. The quadrupole and octopole are not "aligned". What does that even mean, mathematically? They aren't vector quantities. The correct statement is that they are unusually planar, which you can call being "aligned" if you like, as it is true that they have a deficit of power in a particular direction. Think before you change these things.
5. The text "Moreover, an expanding universe appears to be supported by the overwhelming balance of evidence in cosmology and is an unambiguous prediction of general relativity,^[8] a theory which has been established by numerous precision tests. At present, plasma cosmologists have not suggested a competing theory of gravity." needs to stay, no matter what Lerner thinks, unless he cares to contradict chapter 10 of Hawking and Ellis which I have cited. It makes no assumption of homogeneity, whatever you believe, and I pointed this out above. Why don't you bother to respond?

I just want to leave these comments for you to respond to. I'm going to revert to my old version and leave it at that. If you want to revert back, fine, I'll leave it be. I'm sick stupid edit war where I just have to keep making the same revisions again and again. –Joke 18:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, after my fit of pique, I tried to merge the best parts of the two versions. May I suggest that future edits be made with the intent of actually making sense? The redshift section, for example, begins with "Lerner's result also disagrees with the results of Lubin and Sandage," before Lerner's result is described. If future edits are made with a view towards writing a coherent article, along with defending your point of view (whatever that is), I might feel more sympathetic. Finally, can I point out that phrases like "defenders of the big bang" are problematic? This is not the Middle East peace process we're talking about. Whatever Lerner's personal view, most astrophysicists don't actually see it as their job to defend the big bang, a theory that seems to be doing just fine on its own, thank you. –Joke 19:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Eric Lerner's habit of wholesale reversion

I understand that Eric Lerner hates it when I edit, but his wholesale reversion of my work is inappropriate. On the talkpage, he gave some rather poor arguments as to why he claims my edits were not acceptable. I agreed with one of his points about pseudoplasma, but the rest ranged from questionable to downright rude (removing a citation to an interview claiming it was "unverifiable"). He seems insistent that he doesn't have bias and that every edit I make to the article inserts bias. I am perfectly willing to admit I have bias, but Eric doesn't seem to get the point of the fact that Wikipedia is a collaboration, not a soapbox. --ScienceApologist 15:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, quoting something that is about one paper and making it refer to an entirely different paper about a different subject is not just unverifiable, it is plain wrong. I put a detailed description of my edits on the discussion page.Elerner 06:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

What Lerner is doing is a simple case of argumentum ad nauseam, if he keeps it up enough his critics will go away because, unlike him, we have no outside stake in the contents of this article. Unfortunately this sort of pest is not recognized by policy yet so there is no avenue to seek injunction. And their numbers are growing, --DV8 2XL 16:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Eric also revels in shifting the subject three-card-monty-styles so people can't see where the queen went. The point is that his edits are on-the-whole completely POV. He hasn't once tried to write for the enemy, hasn't ever put up the front of any sort of sympathy towards Wikipedia, he's generally disruptive and continues to refrain from contributing where he's asked (for example, providing references). --ScienceApologist 04:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

My Ill-fated Attempt to Broker a Resolution of the Dispute

See this. After repeated rebuffs from Eric Lerner I have given up my attempt to negotiate what I hoped would be a solution to the content dispute which would be agreeable to all.

Some context for my concern about POV pushing in WP articles can be found in my recent comments at Wikipedia talk:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards and at User:Hillman/Wikipedia quality control.

During my ill-fated discussion with Lerner, I did notice his tone in interacting with me, which I can only describe as huffy. ---CH 04:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

It's also useful to contrast that with his tone toward the newest user who has swooped in to edit Plasma Cosmology who obviously knows next-to-nothing about physics (didn't even know the definition of a plasma) but Eric was very kind and supportive towards the new editor simply because they shared a dislike for the Big Bang. This shows that it isn't just Eric's personality -- he is intentionally gruff, uncivil, and rude toward people who don't share his opinions. In short, Eric's POV is getting in the way of him being a useful contributor. His two-sided personality makes him come across as a very small-minded individual in need of an attitude adjustment. --ScienceApologist 19:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Overinclusive reverts

Once again, if you want me to believe this edit war is waged to improve Wikipedia, then please don't revert my presumably undisputed proofreading edits like this one, this one and part of this one along with controversial edits. I don't ask you to do your own proofreading or wikifying - just revert to my proofread version of your own text instead of your earlier version. Art LaPella 20:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my error. Today I reverted to your proof-read version.Elerner 19:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

This mediation has failed

It seems to me that the mediator has either quit or given up. I don't think that we've reached the point of compromise we need and there doesn't seem to be any end "in site". What to do? --ScienceApologist 13:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing we can do. Policy is written such that WP:NPOV and WP:V are to be enforced by WP:CON; yet the latter leaves the definition of consensus ill defined. ArbCom will not hear disputes on content, quite properly in my opinion, and the administrator corps is not empowered to intervene ether unless points of conduct are involved. Unless there is some change at the procedural level, individual editors like this one can hijack the process by exploiting the wide grey area in policy enforcement that now exits.

Remind me again; we do this for fun, right? --DV8 2XL 14:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes.–Joke 14:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Joshua's last stand--page protection

I am requesting unprotection of this page. I responded fully to Joshua(ScienceAplogist) continued reverts on the talk page. This response has been now moved to the archive since it was before March 9. Protection has simply served to take ScienceApologist's side. He is unsupported in his changes by anyone else's edits. He is getting his way as a minority of one by continually reverting and now getting the page protected with his changes in place.Elerner 05:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

No, the responses are not there. I have been very clear with why I find your advocacy to be so questionable. The only person who has responded to me has been Iantresman over the issue of whether MHD should be described in detail or at all. You have continued to ignore my requests for engagement. --ScienceApologist 13:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)