Wikipedia talk:Scientific peer review/Redshift

These two criticisms were levelled by admitted non-expert and non-scientist User:Iantresman. They have been discussed, at length, on Talk:Redshift and consensus has been reached regarding them:

ScienceApologist, what are you trying tell everyone, that my comments are worthless, baseless? I've not questioned your expertise, or lack of it. And I wonder what policy has to say about making such trite comments about other editors. --Iantresman 18:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Only two major criticisms:

• (a) No critical content, eg. on "Non-cosmological" redshifts, which is considered by a small but significant number of scientists and engineers,[1] [2]
  • Critical content is discussed relative to its significance to the subject. The cites given above are meaningless. --ScienceApologist 18:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• (b) No detail on the Wolf Effect which has been described by physicists in optics as a "new redshift mechanism", and confirmed in the laboratory. Since only three other redshift mechanisms are recognised, and only two of them are confirmed in the laboratory, this seems to be an extraordinary ommisssion. --Iantresman 16:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Wolf Effect is discussed in the article relative to its signifance. Since it is a physical optics effect, most astronomers and physicists do not consider it relevant to the typical discussion of redshift. --ScienceApologist 18:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Who the hell do you think you are...

• Telling me my citations are meaningless. They illustrate the point I made.
• Deciding that astromomers are the arbiters of the relevance of the Wolf effect. I think those in optics who research the Wolf effect, (there's 100+ citations to Wolf's original paper alone)[3], will disagree with you. --Iantresman 18:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that you both let this go. The purpose of the review is not to continue debates on the talk page for the article but to get fresh input from scientists with expertise in whatever areas are relevant. Accordingly, I don't believe that the comment from Iantresman was appropriate. At the same time, I think it was overly confrontational of ScienceApologist to remove it to the talk page like this and to leave a comment about "non-scientific" review comments - I intend to remove that comment. Both of you, just allow qualified people who might want to contribute to the peer review to do so, and see what happens. I suggest that you end the debate on this talk page before it becomes uncivil. Frankly, I'm coming around to the view that ArbCom is going to have to deal with these disputes soon. Metamagician3000 03:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)