Talk:William G. Tifft

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
WikiProject Physics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
Portal:Physics
 Physics Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.

Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
He has spent a good part of his career collecting evidence that the universe is not expanding, a position that contradicts that of virtually all others in his field. (ref: http://www.as.arizona.edu/department/faculty/tifft.html Personal Web page] at the U. Arizona)

I removed this statement as I couldn't see anything in the reference that suggested this. His Web site mention that one of his research interests is "Redshift Problems", and although he has papers on Redshift quantization, this does not imply that he collects evidence against an expanding universe.

I found another quote from Discover magazine that suggests that Tifft's view is not anti-Big Bang. --Iantresman 12:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Soba's views are not exactly a reliable source. Why should a popular-level magazine writer be able to characterize Tifft better than himself. I will modify the statement regarding the expanding universe, but I don't think that Soba's article belongs. --ScienceApologist 14:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Request for Comments

WP:RfC: Is this an acceptable passage and quote from a third party source on William Tifft, to add?

In a 1993 article in Discover magazine, Dava Sobel noted:

"The editors of the Astrophysical Journal grudgingly published his first quantized-redshift paper in 1976, but they announced in an unusual disclaimer that they couldn't endorse the idea (although they also couldn't find anything wrong with the underlying observations)"
"[Tifft] isn't necessarily claiming that the universe isn't expanding, he says -- only that if it is, some other process is affecting redshifts as well. His basic idea is that redshift could be an intrinsic property of the galaxy and not merely something done to its light as the light travels through space." (ref: Dava Sobel, "Man stops universe, maybe - William Tifft believes the universe may not be expanding", Discover, April, 1993)

Support It's (a) informative (b) Not contentious to cause problems with WP:LIVING (c) And from a satisfactory source for a biography. --Iantresman 17:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Object A line from an article published in 1993 gives the reader the false impression that Tifft's ideas have notability when in fact nobody in astrophysics pays attention to these points. The early 1990s was something of a publicity crisis for the Big Bang so to cherry pick quotes from popular-level articles written in that timeframe is very misleading. --ScienceApologist 19:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

From RFC on the WikiProject Biography page - Halton Arp, who also has a biography on wikipedia, so far as I understand endorses similar theories regarding anomalyous red shift, so I cannot conclude that it is intrinsically non-notable, as it is included on his page. I would however like newer or more extensive sources for this inclusion if they were available. Badbilltucker 17:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Third party sources that are newer (say from 2001 on) would be fine, in my opinion. --ScienceApologist 18:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • My reason for including the quote is to counter the misconception that Tifft is trying to "get rid of the Big Bang",[1] or is anti-Big Bang.
  • The notability of the subject is evidenced by the papers provided in the footnotes in the Wiki article on Redshift quantization, which includes eight papers on the subject published since 2000 (not all peer reviewed), and a search of the NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS) for peer reviewed articles on "Redshift quantization" or "Redshift periodicity" (synonymous) provide additional papers. --Iantresman 18:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Considering how very little information is available on Tifft, why not just merge his bio into redshift quantization, which already has a section titled with his name which is longer than the main article here. The only argument against this approach that I can see is if he is notable for something other than redshift quantization: as far as I can see this is not the case. HEL 19:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I envisage his biography growing in due course, and think that his biography in Redshift quantization might get lost, as it too gets bigger. --Iantresman 19:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Tifft is a notable person among alternative cosmology people. He deserves a biography, even if the biography is a short one. For some additional information on Tifft and his research, I suggest looking at an ADS Abstract Service author search on "Tifft". Dr. Submillimeter 20:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
And the passage above? --Iantresman 22:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Support This reader would like to see the quotation in the article, since it adds context. ScienceApologist's opinions are nice, but they don't trump even an old article. How do we know that "nobody pays attention?" Iantresman's opinions make good sense to me. Lou Sander 22:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

What makes you think an article from 1993 provides context for the present reception of a person? Would including a single quote from 1993 on an article about George W. Bush from 1993 give an accurate context? One knows that nobody pays attention because nobody cares to talk about the person any longer, you see. --ScienceApologist 22:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, heck! I'm trying to get away from this discussion, but it was still on my screen when I got back from dinner. If the guy's big contribution was in 1993, we don't need anything from the 21st century to support his notability. Think Bill Mazeroski, or George McGovern, or Charles Lindbergh, or I Love Lucy. Lou Sander 23:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but those people aren't still living. --ScienceApologist 15:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Because there is nothing in the extract that is outdated. The contents is valid in 1993, and would be equally valid in 2093. --Iantresman 22:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
There is something outdated about the level of acceptance of redshift quantization ideas. I included part of the Discover magazine quote in the article about redshift quantization which is where the discussion probably belongs anyway. --ScienceApologist 22:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't have a dog in this fight, and I don't care much about redshift or Tifft. It seems to me that Tifft's scientific ideas belong in the redshift article, but that biographical stuff about him belongs in a Tifft article. That article's pretty light right now, but it won't be getting much heavier if people don't let stuff into it. And if the guy's notable enough to be the main scientist mentioned in the redshift article, how can he be non-notable? Lou Sander 22:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Well Tifft's ideas definitely are in the redshift quantization article. I'm not objecting to letting stuff come into this article. I'm objecting to overly focusing on redshift quantization (in a less-than-summative fashion) and therefore creating two articles instead of one article on the quantization POV. Cruft spreading is something I want to avoid. --ScienceApologist 15:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
And the quote says, or implies nothing, about he level of acceptance. --Iantresman 23:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Support I think the Sobel quote can be included, and I wouldn't challenge this article on notability grounds, but I do hope somebody will be able to dig up a list of Tifft's relevant publications to include in the article. He doesn't seem to provide a list on his own website. At least the four Tifft references from the Redshift quantization page should be copied over here. EdJohnston 04:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Your last comments make sense, but I believe that the Sobel quote is objected to for reasons that go beyond simple biographical considerations. --ScienceApologist 15:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Rather than rely on second-hand information, someone should try to find the article and its warning with the ADS Abstract Service. Dr. Submillimeter 10:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The quote is inaccurate. Tifft's first refereed paper on the subject may be this one, which contains no such warning. The second paper in the series, published in 1977, does contain an editor's note. Given the problems with Discover magazine's quote, it should not be used. (This is unrelated to the quote, but I would like to ask an innocent question: If Tifft changes the bin size in his histograms, does he still get the same result?) Dr. Submillimeter 21:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
If I remember my discrete Fourier analysis properly, changing bin sizes doesn't normally remove periodic features unless you dip below the Nyquist frequency or your bins have so few counts as to be unable to statistically resolve the distribution. --ScienceApologist 21:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the quote is poorly worded, rather than inaccurate. His first paper in the series mentioned was indeed in 1976, and the disclaimer appears in the second paper in 1977 (I reckon the description omits an "and then"). I think we can qualify the quote with a reference to the original ApJ article. --Iantresman 21:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Why use a secondary reference when you have a primary reference, especially when the secondary reference garbles some of its information? Dr. Submillimeter 21:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Let's use the primary source. --ScienceApologist 21:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that we should use the primary quote for the first part of the source. However, I am interested in retaining the second part of the quote, which notes that Tifft is not anti Big Bang, contrary to the view of some editors.[2] --Iantresman 22:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Consensus appears to be 3-1 in favour of including the quote, which I have added. I've also added two statements that (1) Tifft's views are not shared by most other astronomers, and (2) found a quote noting that they are considered controversial. I've also added the ApJ quote in full. I think this fulfills all the concerns. --Iantresman 14:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: I opposed using Sobol as a source. The revision does not represent my viewpoint. Dr. Submillimeter 14:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Editors are not allowed to express their viewpoint in articles. I included the viewpoints of Sobel and Napier, both of which are verifiable and accurate. If you want to provide an alternative view, dig out a source and by all means include it. Recall that WP:POV tells that "points of view (POV) are often essential to articles which treat controversial subjects." --Iantresman 14:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I also noted that I didn't think the Sobel quote was a problem. I believe that the first clause did indeed refer to the first paper, as your rightly pointed out, but the second clause concerning the disclaimer, refers to the second paper, but doesn't mention this specifically. I don't think the quote misleads, and inclusion of the original full quote will let readers decide for themselves. --Iantresman 14:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion

Since I don't believe consensus has been acheived, I reverted his additions. --ScienceApologist 14:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I actually like the version that User:Iantresman posted at 08:57 on December 7. It included the cautionary note from the editors of the Astrophysical Journal, so it had resolved what I had thought were the issues that made people question the Sobel quote. If you think that Ian's version was against consensus, can you be more specific? I also think your removal of the new material people had found is peculiar. It looked like good material, and I actally don't see how we can continue to improve this article without it's being there. EdJohnston 16:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
The cautionary note was included without context: it came seemingly out of nowhere and didn't reference what it was regarding. I think the problem with including the Sobel quote is that Sobel isn't a reliable source in commenting on what Tifft is doing. I would prefer evaluations by scientists. --ScienceApologist 16:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I count 3 x Support and 1 x Object. One comment was indifferent; the other against I had answered, without complaint. There had been no further comments in almost a week. How did you decide that consensus was not met?
  • Dr. Submm pointed out that he objected to Sobel. --ScienceApologist 16:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Dava Sobel is more than an adequate source for comment, sufficiently notable to have her own Wiki page, and a good selection of books. Discover magazine is a reliable source for a biography. The quote to which Sobel referred to, appeared in Astrophysics magazine, and was included for context.
  • The problems with Sobel's analysis is that they don't reflect current understanding of the idea, nor are they presented as a historical record. --ScienceApologist 16:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I consider your description of Soble as "unreliable" to be unfounded, and an example of deprecation, contrary to the decision of the recent arbitration case. [3]
  • I disagree that declaring this particular Sobel reference to be unreliable is deprecation.
  • I consider your "liar" statement to be an ad hominem, and like your calling me a "bean counter"[4], to be uncivil, in defiance of your recent arbitration case,[5] --Iantresman 16:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I consider your statement that consensus was acheived to be untrue. I think you are continuing to push your POV in articles in contravention of the arbcom case. --ScienceApologist 16:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for calling you a "liar", Ian. I am going to try to assume good faith. --ScienceApologist 16:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Sobel's analysis does not reflect current understanding of the idea, because she was discussing the publication of Tiff's paper back in 1973. Regardless of the current understanding, the publication is a matter of historic record, and is verifiable.
  • Anyone wishing to find out more about Redshift quantization just has to click on the link for more information, or would not from Napier's quote, that the subject is controversial. --Iantresman 17:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • How do you count the votes in this RfC?
  • I do not push my POV, because it is not verifiable. I describe other people's POV, which is. --Iantresman 17:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
You are very selective in which POVs you describe. And, voting is evil. --ScienceApologist 18:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biography of Tifft

I have no objection to writing a verifiable biography of this person, but focusing solely on quotes about his redshift quantization ideas seem to me to be carefully examining a single tree in a forest. I encourage the other editors to come up with a summary of his work and make sure to characterize the fringe nature of his redshift quantization attempts with an eye to applicable policies and guidelines. --ScienceApologist 15:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I would take the above with a large grain of salt. ScienceApologist has recently been cautioned about activities similar to what he is doing here. As said before, I don't know or care about Tifft. I do object to what seems to be improper behavior in editing this article. Lou Sander 15:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you'd like to sprinkle some of those grains on Ian while you're at it? --ScienceApologist 15:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
No evidence was put forward showing that I had edited any article inappropriately. --Iantresman 16:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The biographic material provided emphasized the controversial nature, and views of most astronomers. For a relatively short biography, this is ample.
  • Tiff is most well known for his controversial views. It is no surprise that this features in his biography.
  • If you have no objection to writing a verifiable biography, rather than asking other editors to do so, why not do so yourself.
  • I stand by the material I provide as accurate and verifiable.
  • Again, you have not provided any verifiable sources backing up your viewpoint. --Iantresman 16:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Verifiable sources

Here are some sources that I found concerning William Tifft:

Ian, how about helping to find sources about Tifft that aren't just about redshift quantization? --ScienceApologist 18:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your opinion needed: please give us a consensus for how to improve this article

I thought the Talk page was getting too heated, so I proposed a deal. User:Iantresman and User:ScienceApologist have voluntarily agreed to not edit the Tifft article for *a week*. (My assumption was they won't join the Talk page either, but that wasn't specified). In return I volunteered to try to get a Talk page consensus for the next move. Editors would try to agree on which of the recently added (or reverted) items to keep. If you have partipated in this at all, up till now, or have been following the debate, please add your brief summary below, with these answers:

  1. The Dava Sobel quote (Discover Magazine) should be included? Yes or No
  2. The disclaimer by the Astrophysical Journal editors should be included? Yes or No.
  3. It is OK to add new material? Yes or No (I'm assuming that User:ScienceApologist wanted to keep the article short because of fringe science concerns).
  4. The whole article is unnecessary, and should be folded into Redshift quantization? Yes or No

If you think this set of questions is bogus, please suggest another way to structure the discussion. I just want it to be clear what the consensus is to do, so that people who have ideas for improvement can know how to proceed without getting reverted. I realize that we could do a formal AfD debate on this article, but I personally don't want to contest Tifft's notability, and I think those of us who want to do more editing could come up with something neutral and interesting, that doesn't glorify fringe science. EdJohnston 19:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Ed, this isn't quite what I agreed to. I would like the editors to consider other points:
  1. Equal coverage of all Tifft's work should be attempted, and focus on redshift quantization should not be the primary aim of this article Yes or No.
  2. Recent discussion of material relevant to redshift quantization should be emphasized since Tifft continues to research, and new discoveries which challenge old assumptions continue to be made Yes or No .
  3. Articles from more than 10-years ago should be qualified as historical and not current evaluations and may, as such, deserve marginalization: Yes or No.
  4. POVs of scientists on Tifft's scientific ideas should be emphasized over the POVs of journalists: Yes or No.
  5. Evaluation (or lack thereof) of Tifft's work should be made clear per WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV#Undue weight and Wikipedia: Notability (science) Yes or No.
  6. Controversy surrounding Tifft's work should be described neutrally which may entail describing a lack of receptiveness on the part of the scientific community.
--ScienceApologist 19:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, if you're not willling to abstain from the Talk page as well as the article I don't think the deal will have any value. Other editors are free to address questions like those you just mentioned in addition to the answers I specifically asked for. EdJohnston 20:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trying to help

Somebody asked me for comments. I don't know Tifft, and I don't care about red shift (or whatever it is), and I don't mind if Wikipedia covers scientific work that was subsequently rejected (see Piltdown man or Phlogiston theory, for example). It seems to me that this guy should have a biographical article. The article should mention his red shift stuff, and could/should include references to and quotes from the articles that discussed it. If his theories are no longer considered credible (by people other than the anonymous and unscreened folks that edit this encyclopedia), that should be mentioned. Try something like:

"Tifft is a professor at X. [Other biographical stuff goes here, if it is available. But apparently he's some sort of a hermit.] Back in 1915, he published some stuff that made a bit of a splash. Journal A and popular magazine B covered it, and people said things like "Tifft really knows his stuff," and "maybe Tifft has found the key to the universe." Over time, his stuff fell from grace, and nowadays most people don't believe it. The End."

All editors should spare us their deep concern about Wikipedia's possibly publishing something that isn't considered valid today. Many people discredit Wikipedia anyway, and much of what's in it is biased or questionable or both, and including or not including some minor scientific theory from the past won't make much difference. And who knows, Tifft might just be astronomy's Semmelweiss. Lou Sander 00:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Viewpoint

Here is my viewpoint on how the article should be written:

  1. Tifft did perform some notable research into an alternative cosmology model. The article should be written to note this work.
  2. Tifft's theory is used as evidence against standard (Big Bang) cosmological models. This needs to be clearly stated in the article.
  3. Tifft's model is largely disregarded as invalid (or ignored) by the majority of the astronomical community at this time. This needs to be clearly stated in the article.
  4. On specific points broght forward by EdJohnston:
    1. The quote from Sobel is not completely accurate and should not be used.
    2. The disclaimer from the Astrophysical Journal is worth mentioning. However, it probably should not be quoted in full (which seems to be overpromotional of Tifft).
    3. Material should be added, but it should be focused on the subject. For example, a discussion of observations by Burbidge and Burbidge that discredit the Big Bang theory does not belong in this article. Moreover, to represent scientific viewpoints accurately, 50% or more of the article's information should be on mainstream scientific viewpoints.
    4. The article should be kept, but it should be focused on Tifft's work. Research by other people on redshift quantization is worth mentioning in a single sentence but is not worth describing in detail.
  5. On specific points brought forward by ScienceApologist:
    1. The coverage of Tifft's work should be proportional to the degree to which people cite those works. If redshift quantization is the most frequently cited work by Tifft, then that should be covered the most.
    2. Recent material on redshift quantization should only be mentioned briefly. An extended discussion on other people's research in this article is inappropriate.
    3. Ten-year-old articles may not be considered historic. However, 30-year-old articles are historic and should be regarded as such.
    4. Scientists' POV should be regarded more highly than popular journalists' POV. Scientists generally give more weight to theories which are more viable descriptions of nature. Journalists will give equal weight to fringe and mainstream science in their articles or will simply promote their single fringe viewpoints.
    5. The lack of recent citations to Tifft's research may be mentioned in this article. This can be studied using the ADS Abstract Service.
    6. The lack of study into this subject (such as the failure of this subject to be cited in journals or mentioned in standard advanced-astronomy textbooks) is worth including in this article.

Dr. Submillimeter 08:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My answers to the questions

Thanks to those who responded to my request for a consensus, and thanks to User:Iantresman and User:ScienceApologist for giving us some space. Here are my own comments:

  1. Sobel quote: Yes, making the comment that the ApJ disclaimer was issued for his 1977 article, not the 1976.
  2. Astrophysical Journal editors' disclaimer: Yes
  3. OK to add new material: Yes
  4. Fold entire article into Redshift quantization?: No, Tifft's biographical details need to go somewhere and they don't conveniently fit into Redshift quantization.

I notice that some editors have boldly reverted whenever they feel that the article is out of balance, or seems to advance fringe science too much. I would argue that no-one should delete *any* material that is backed by a printed source until they first propose the change on the Talk page.

The result of this policy might (temporarily) be more additions than removals. I could live with that, if everything was correctly sourced.

I agree with what User:Lou Sander said above, that we are already providing enough disclaimers for Tifft's fringe status. I don't agree with User:Dr. Submillimeter's argument that using the full ApJ quote would be 'overpromotional of Tifft'. We should provide the facts and let the chips fall where they may. If other editors aren't free to add correctly-sourced material then group editing is all but ruled out. If some journal said something about Tifft 10 years ago that the same journal wouldn't say today, let the dates of the articles speak for themselves. If general opinion is different today, provide a separate reliable source to support that. So, if you think balance isn't there, add your own new material, don't delete properly-sourced material that is already there. EdJohnston 15:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Rather than using straight quotes, can we simply cite the sources and restate the information in this article? Including direct quotations in this article seems to be a sensationalist way to present the material. I would rather present the material in a more straightforward tone. Dr. Submillimeter 18:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Responses so far

Lou Sander, Dr. Submillimeter and I are the only ones who responded so far. If no-one else appears in the next day or two, I propose that the three of us try to negotiate a compromise version of the article. We already know something about the views of ScienceApologist and Iantresman so we can probably try to anticipate what they would say as well. The idea would be to find a common draft that at least the three of us will sign off on. EdJohnston 02:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/l/Talk%7EWilliam_G._Tifft_474b.html"