Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-01-04 tired light

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Request for cabal mediation

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: Harald88 17:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Status: (--to be modified by mediator--) new request, accepted by mediator, awaiting further response SteveMc 17:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Where is the issue taking place?
Tired light and its Talk page
Intrinsic redshift and its associated AfD page
Redshift and its associated FAC page
Plasma cosmology and its Talk page
Who's involved?
Mainly myself and ScienceApologist who receives support from Art Carlson on this topic.
User:Iantresman is also involved.
What's going on?
Endless edit war whereby ScienceApologist consistently deletes all non-negative information on the subject, implying that only negative comments are NPOV, and with the claim that only "mainstream" POV should be considered; and when his reason for deletion is is shown to be invalid, he thinks up another one even if it conflicts with the article or with logic, meanwhile calling minimal inclusion of such information "POV-pushing". As I am involved, it is worth mentioning that I am not the only one to notice this, it has been going on in several articles and involving several people. 12:27, January 4, 2006 Harald88
I believe that User:Harald88 is a valuable contributor to these articles. Sometimes I think his inclusionist tendencies run the risk of violating Undue weight, but I respect his opinion. I find the contributions from User:Iantresman to be very problematic most of the time, as basic POV pushing, but there are occasions where he surprises me with good contributions (he contributed the lead image in the redshift article which is very good. --ScienceApologist 18:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
What would you like to change about that?
Someone not involved try to explain him NPOV and fair play.
also, currently only a few people are involved and I suppose that I'm the only one with a reasonably neutral and open mindset on this subject.
  • Thus, it would also be good to get the opinion of other people who are neutral about this topic. 12:27, January 4, 2006 Harald88
If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
harrylin at gmx dot net (but no need to be discreet)


[edit] Comments by others

Comment by User:ScienceApologist

I think that I understand NPOV very well and resent the insinuation that somehow User:Harald88 is somehow more "neutral". He needs to respect the fact that he carries his own POV too. We all carry POVs when we edit. Getting to NPOV is a process of making careful editorial decisions, writing for the enemy, etc. --ScienceApologist 18:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by User:Iantresman

I have made contributions to, and written several new articles, over which I have had many constructive discussions. But the ONLY person whose contributions I find are destructive, and lacking in understanding of Neutral Point of View, is ScienceApologist. More importantly, as with many of my contributions, I can provide verification (a Wiki Policy), whereas these are lacking from ScienceApologist. I offer the following evidence to support and verify my point of view:
  • I recently wrote an article called "Intrinsic redshift" [1], in which I noted, for example, that in the year 2000, Ari Brynjolfsson's had devised a theory on "Plasma redshift", and I verified this by providing THREE citations: [2] [3] [4]. I don't know whether this theory has been proven or disproven. But the citations do show that there is a theory. Joshua's response [5] is that: "Plasma redshift" doesn't exist. It is a figment that I haven't seen mentioned in the literature". And consequently it (and the article was removed) [6]. It appears that ScienceApologist's POV takes priority over a verifiable citation. I believe that my information is not "my point of view", but unbiased reporting of someone else's (ie. a neutral point of view.).
  • Another example I have just seen. I suggested on the Intrinsic redshift talk page [7] that there is room for another article that would explain the terms "Non-cosmological redshift" and "Non-velocity redshifts". ScienceApologist claims that these are "already covered in the redshift article", in which case he should be able provide a quote where these terms are mentioned (I can't find them). He also suggest that these words are neologisms, yet I provided (a) ample citations showing the use of these terms (see the table on the talk page [8]) that go back to 1977 [9]. ScienceApologist also claims these terms are based on original research, despite my providing several citations. Again it appears that ScienceApologist's opinion (ie POV) takes precedence over genuine scientific citations. I believe that my information is not "my point of view", but unbiased reporting of someone else's (ie. a neutral point of view.).
  • ScienceApologist (AKA Joshua Shroeder)'s usual repsonse to these criticism are usually throw-away comments without substantiation, validation or citation; an example of these responses can be found in a previous discussion on redshift [10], scroll down to the sentence "Joshua Shroeder's evidence against me" each of which is validated by my references [63] - [97].
I would resepectfully asked ScienceApologist not to respond by adding comments within my response as it makes it very difficult to follow.

--Iantresman 00:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

'Comment by User:DavidRussell'

ScienceApologist consistently deletes any passages that refer to alternative interpretations of redshift. He then falsely claims that the redshift articles which already exist cover concepts that he has in fact deleted in previous attempts. For example, in the Redshift article at one time there was a section on Redshift in non-standard cosmologies. I included the following passage on Halton Arp's hypothesis for intrinsic redshifts:

"Another critique of cosmological redshift also came from Halton C. Arp, who continues to find empirical support in the existence of apparently connected objects with very different redshifts. Arp has interpreted these connections to mean that these objects are in fact physically connected. He has further hypothesized that the higher redshift objects are ejected from the lower redshift objects - which are usually active galactic nuclei (AGN)- and that the large observed redshifts of these "ejected" objects is dominated by a non-cosmological (intrinsic) component. Conventional cosmological models regard these as chance alignments and Arp's hypothesis has very few supporters within the research community."

ScienceApologist (as Joshua Schroeder) saw fit to delete this passage claiming that it was not NPOV. I include this here as an example of the sort of comment that Joshua consistently claims is POV-pushing. Unfortunately, his constant steamrolling of any effort to include NPOV comments on alternative ideas corrupts the value of these Wikipedia articles. I personally find it ridiculous that a single individual consistently disrupts the whole process.

In this latest case IanTresman started a new article on Intrinsic Redshifts. Within 24 hours Science Apologist nominated it for deletion! Joshua could not even be patient enough to let people such as myself that have published research on Intrinsic Redshifts in the research journals work to improve the article. After several days of arguments over that topic he took the liberty of completely deleting Ian's content in that article and providing his own version that he felt was an appropriate description of Intrinsic Redshift. I think it is very instructive to look at Joshua's version if one wishes to understand how he allows his own narrow view of the topic to distort what he considers to be NPOV. The article is supposed to be about Intrinsic Redshifts, but it says little about Intrinsic Redshifts and is instead largely a critique of Halton Arp.

It is Joshua that is unable to present a neutral point of view -but rather allows opinions to slip into his writing. Notice how in my passage above which he deleted I made sure to emphasize that Arp's hypothesis has very few supporters among the research community- which is an accurate statement. But in Joshua's version of Intrinsic Redshifts he feels it necessary to say: "Arp ... does not accept the general consensus due to what he perceives as systematic bias in the scientific community." I do not believe that Joshua's perceptions of what he thinks Arp's perceptions are is in any way relevant.

In short, Science Apologist is disruptive to a fair Wikipedia process. --DavidRussell 05:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by User:Art Carlson

For the most part this scuffle is not about content or NPOV formulation but rather the appropriate space to give to minority views. Science Apologist (apparently) works professionally in the field and thus has a feel for how seriously his colleagues take various ideas. Ian Tresman is not a science professional but is able to find a handful of citations, some from peer reviewed publications, on some of these topics. Ian's view is generally that, as long as a citation for an idea can be found, it has a place in Wikipedia. The position of "Science" is that an encyclopedia should reflect the importance of ideas by the space allotted to them, so that many ideas should be given little or no space, even if they are citeable. Although there are difficulties in weighting ideas according to their importance, I tend to side with Science Apologist on this one. I am interested to hear the oracle of the Cabal.

Complicating the discussion is a clash of personalities. Science Apologist can be brusk, although very rarely impolite. Ian Tresman sometimes comes across as a crusader, although he tries very hard to explain his point of view. Together they are like fire and water.

Harald88 wants Someone not involved [to] try to explain [to Science Apologist about] NPOV and fair play. In my opinion he already understands and abides by these principles.

--Art Carlson 19:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Art, thanks for the "oracle" status. I wish my wife knew that; would you please email and advise her about that?  ;-) cabalist, SteveMc 20:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Additional comment by User:Harald88

The comments by Art Carlson confirm my impression of his understanding of Wikipedia's NPOV rule: Suggesting that "ScienceApologist has a feel for how seriously his colleagues take various ideas" apparently implies that according to Art, the Wikipedia POV should equal mainstream "science" POV (whereby those colleagues are "mainstream", and by chance not former friends of Grote Reber or friends of Halton Arp!). Art, NPOV is not "mainstream" POV! "(mainstream) science" doesn't have a word to say in what Wikipedia should contain; instead it's the Wikipedia community that accomodates all POV's. And note that in the Tired light article we are discussing something else: to either give a false impression to the readers that all such ideas have been completely disproved, or to fairly present the state of the art. My invitation to present papers that debunk the more modern variants have only been met with weak excuses and deletions. To selectively present only theories that are claimed to have been disproved but at the same time refusing to mention similar more modern theories that so far apparently have not been disproved, is strawman tactics, and not according to NPOV. But thanks for admitting that you simply follow "ScienceApologist". Harald88 22:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Grey

I'll mention that the initial catalyst for the dispute seems to relate to a specific addition to the page, claiming to give an example of a tired light model, and probably giving it more weight than it really deserves. I believe that the particulars of that model are not taken seriously by anyone other than the author of the page to which it referred. As such, it seems that Ashmore was really using the tired light article to advertise his own ideas, rather than to report neutrally about an alternate theory.

--Grey 21:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Jon

The infuriatingly stubborn and irrational behaviour of Joshua Schroeder is pretty much the principal reason I can't be bothered participating in Wikipedia much these days. He is not actually capable of reasonable debate and seems to have a pretty narrow view of the world, and a seemingly a strange agenda to paint sciencific theories as some sort of replacement creation mythology.

"I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding." - Samuel Johnson

Good luck getting to the bottom of it, sorry I don't have the strength and spare time to help. Jon 14:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


Comment by User:iantresman

It has just come to my attention that User:ScienceApologist has just added an "unknown theory" to the redshift article page [11] for which "belief" is suggested as the criteria for its inclusion. In other words, an "unknown theory" (ie no theory, no science) gets precedence over peer-reviewed minority theories. Neutral point of view? --Iantresman 20:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Mediator's questions

[edit] Questions

In answer to the following questions, please address your question to me only, not the other party.

Based on what I have read so far, I would like to ask the following:

  1. Would each party please provide the source of the information they are relying on. Not the quotation.
  2. The following passage seems to discount scattering as an explanation of "tired light." "Scattering by known mechanisms from gas or dust does not reproduce the observations. For example, scattering by any mechanism would be expected to blur the images of distant objects, which is not observed." Is that true?
  3. If each party tried to "write for the enemy,", what would be the result?
  4. Is either view held by a small minority, and therefore receiving undue weight?
  5. What is the quality of the source? Peer-reviewed, editorial, blog, etc.?

Please do not respond to the answers of others. thanks, SteveMc 21:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Does this mean in terms of breaking up the posting or in terms of any sort of counterresponse? I interpretted it as the former, Harald interpretted it as the latter. --ScienceApologist 15:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Answers

Based on what I have read so far, I would like to ask the following:

  1. In terms of "tired light", I rely for the definition on the paper which proposed it: Zwicky, Fritz, 1929, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 15:773-779. There are websites which claim that "tired light" is due to the interaction of light with matter (which is also known as scattering). As the article correctly states right now, this isn't the same as tired light. Tired light is an idea that photons lose energy as an intrinsic property of photons. Criticisms of tired light can be found in the literature, but Ned Wright's page on the subject gives a pretty good overview of the critism: here. There is also an article that is well written by one of my colleagues at Cornell here.
  2. Yes. There are those who claim that they can contrive circumstances under which scattering will not alter the direction of the propagation. This does not seem to be the case.
  3. I would be pleased to try, but I'm not sure what the opposing viewpoint is supposed to be. There are those which claim an umbrella for tired light (Marmet, etc.) but their ideas are not taken seriously by the astronomical community. In short, many of these opponents of standard cosmology are really promoting novel interpretations which I think should be included on the nonstandard cosmology page. I don't think they should be included on the tired light page which is a notable discredited theory outlined by Zwicky in 1929. To include the Johnny-come-latelys in the tired light article is to give them a POV-creep platform for their ideas that are correctly covered under nonstandard cosmology.
  4. Those who advocate currently for tired light as an explanation for thier pet cosmological theories are definitely a small minority.
  5. My sources are all either peer-reviewed or based on peer-reviewed papers.
--ScienceApologist 21:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Query: Steve, are you asking in Q1 for our general source of information, or, that which we would use to answer Q2? --Iantresman 22:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Both really. In other words, what is the basis (source or citation) of the POV that you hold. If it is quoted in #2 ok, then both questions are covered with one answer. (Although, I remember the reference for #2 is on the Web page, but go ahead and state it again, if you want to.) SteveMc 23:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


1. For a "correct" definiton of "Tired light", I have no independent source; instead I so far rely on "Tired light" being as defined in the article, by others. However, since yesterday ScienceApologist even disagrees that the subject is as general as the article suggests to me.

2. It's almost certainly true for the standard old proposed scatter mechanisms. It is IMO an open question for Marmet's bremsstrahlung mechanism, which also may be regarded as a kind of scattering. Thus, that sentence is lacking in precision.

3. I already do so, as can easily be seen from the way I formulate things. At one point when deleting my text, ScienceApostel even kept some of my negative comments.

4. AFAIK is Marmet's proposed mechanism not very well known but at the same time also not rejected by the physics community; and it should be noted that it does not suggest to fully account for cosmological redshift, but anomalous redshifts in particular. I don't know if Zwicky's proposed mechanism was better known among physicists.

5. Peer reviewed articles only.

Harald88 23:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


Reply from Ian Tresman

1. My sources are several. But I think that more importantly is (a) providing the source since "Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" [12], (b) Noting that there are many kinds of sources (primary, secondary and non-scientific) since Wikipedia does not "adopt a 'scientific point of view' [13]" (c) Not judging a source, except perhaps by comment with another source.

My sources include:

2. Scattering will indeed blur distant objects. Since blurring is generally not observed, then this would imply that there are no scattering processes (and by implication, tired light effects) of light from distance objects. Nevertheless, this has not stopped a number of scientists from suggesting otherwise [14]. Arguably, this is where it gets interesting. Why would a scientist propose a scattering or tired light mechanism "knowing" that scattering processes blur images which is not seen? In 1929, Fritz Zwicky proposed a "tired light" mechanism [15], which has been criticised by Ned Wright as in error [16]. Wright may well be correct in his criticism; but it seems that there are a other types of tired light mechanisms proposed [17] [18] [19]. Do the criticisms apply to all classes of tired light mechanism? I don't know, but at least I have some references to help me find out. This is science in action!

3. There is no "enemy" to write for, though I know what you mean. If I was writing for a prestigious scientific journal on "tired light", I have a pretty good idea what could be included, and what could not. Wikipedia is not a scientific journal, and as a result there is a little more latitude in content. So I could write an article on tired light, and the criticisms against it (the enemy point of view?). I could also write an example on tired light explaining the reasons supporting it (the counterview). Or I could write a balanced article giving both views which should keep everyone happy.

4. Minority view depends very much on the context of an article. There is no doubt that tired light is a minority view, so I would expect little mention in a general article on, for example, redshift. But I would not expect its complete exclusion. On the other hand, I would expect an article on "tired light" to focus more on the subject, including the history of tired lights, classes of tired light, reasons it is proposed, and reasons it receives criticism. For those people involved in tired light, it is not a minority subject.

5. The quality of the source depends on the nature of the information being verified. A scientific statement may require a peer reviewed scientific source. However, I note that I have also provided Ned Wright's Website [20] as a source above, despite him not being peer reviewed. But then I have also provide peer reviewed sources which have been judged by other editors and dismissed for all manner of reasons [21]. --Iantresman 16:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediator awaiting resources

I am awaiting a couple of books that I have requested through inter-library loan. They should be available near the end of this week. Since I am not a physics person, it will take me a while to learn the material. If you can get someone else interested, please do, it will not hurt my feelings, and I will happily withdraw. Otherwise, I will have to do some reading and learning, which will take me a while to complete. Thanks, SteveMc 18:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediator's initial statement and question

Let's see if I have got this half-way correct:

  1. I have gotten my hands on a book by Barry Parker, The Vindication of the Big Bang: Breakthroughs and Barrier, (New York: Plenum Press, 1993), pp. 46, 70-71, 321-322. As far as I can tell, the statements of ScienceApologist are correct. In other words, Zwicky started the idea, but did not actually call it "tired light." However, it was Tolman and Hubble who first explored the idea. Over the years, tired light became a mostly discredited idea for various reasons. One reason is that the "red" shift occurs in all electromagnetic energy (from very small to very large wavelengths), so for a consistent "red" shift to occur particles of all sizes (across the full spectrum of energy wavelengths) would have to be available in the universe. However, cosmologists have not found the existence of millions of mile-size "particles" to exist somewhere in the universe, a damaging fact for tired light theory. Another reason is that any scattering of light from distant light would cause that light to be unseen here on earth. Is that about right?
  2. Now, the dispute here seems to be about including other "possible" explanations of "tired light", even those that seem implausible, that are no longer accepted in the scientific commmunity, or are on the fringe of acceptable theory. Is that correct?

Let me know! SteveMc 04:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

    1. There are a lot of arguments as to why scattering doesn't work as a mechanism in general. To call it tired light is to make a rather vague comparison. It seems to me that Marmet and Reber in the paper where they use the term are trying to make a general comparison of their idea to tired light rather than claiming specifically that the mechanism is the same. However, there are physical comparisons that can be made -- even though the mechanisms are considered poorly developed by most cosmologists.
    2. I feel like the dispute is over whether we should confine tired light to the description advanced by Zwicky, Hubble, Tolman and eventually criticized by Peebles or if we should expand it to other nonstandard cosmologies. I believe that the former is what we should do, User:Harald88 seems to think the latter is appropriate.
--ScienceApologist 04:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    1. That's about right I'd say. But as a note: Your reference book's title suggests that its aim is to defend a theory against possible dangers -- for example "Tired light" theories. But at least it advertises its bias, I like that. Thus we should be wary of mentioning such arguments without fairly mentioning eventual differing claims by others. Apart of that, "tired light" does not just imply scattering mechanisms. According to our references (and yours it seems!), the concept of photon energy loss is not restricted to a specific mechanism. Zwicky discussed a number of possible processes and the one he advanced did not involve particles. Note that ScienceApologist actually denies that such particle interactions as you discuss as "tired light" fall under the term tired light, and thus on 8 January he even argued that "We need to eliminate the scattering discussion"...
    2. Not exactly: The dispute is about including mention of other physics theories about tired light mechanisms than the few that were already mentioned. Also, the dispute has to do with the gap between physics and cosmology: All plausible tired light mechanims are physics, and as such the subject is also that of physics but it appears that ScienceApologist regards the whole tired light subject as being cosmology only. I'd trust physics journals more than cosmology journals about physics, and inversely. But yesterday ScienceApologist argued on the subject of Marmet's physics theory as also published in Plasma Science: "Marmet is a crank in cosmology, not a specialist. Reber is also a crank in cosmology. IEEE isn't reviewed by cosmologists and much of what comes out these conference journals is very poorly vetted. Reber and Marmet's prose about tired light is so convoluted, it indicates that they are trying to appeal to authority (Hubble, Millikan) and make stretched comparisons rather than really relying on the definition provided by Zwicky. Unreliable prose, unreliable research, non-notable comparison by a non-expert in cosmology about a strictly cosmological phenomenon."
Harald88 13:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
One more: in the referenced book, Parker states, "Can we completely rule out tired light theories . . . ? The objections are obviously strong, but it would be premature to say that these theories are completely dead." (p.321) Based on this statement, it seems reasonable to allow the alternate explanations of tired light on the page, then explain why the scientific community does not find them credible.SteveMc 04:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
This is a problem of using an out-of-date source (1993) to base rationale for inclusion in an encyclopedia page. This is not 1993, it's 2006. Science moves. What is amazing is that the authors were so convinced that alternative cosmologies were wrong in 1993 -- before the advent of so-called "precision cosmology", and measurement of the so-called vanilla banana model which was really the death-knell for alternative cosmologies. In particular, WMAP measurements, heralded by Science Magazine as the "number one breakthrough of the year" is what most astrophysicists refer to as the confirming point for the Big Bang against the objections. Refering to the credulity about alternatives before WMAP is to miss the major shift that occurred within the community due to such measurements. With the new tests for the Hubble Law in supernova surveys the indication is definitely shifting away from "which" set of parameters to what the parameters actually are. It is my opinion that User:Harald88 has little familiarity with the current state of cosmology and therefore has an unintentional bias with respect to this discussion. I am also of the opinion that the people who "own" the tired light discussions are cosmologists and not the alternative promoters who are sidelined in the community by their own admission [22]. I have no problem covering these people's objections as they are notable to articles about the objections themselves, however tired light does not "belong" to this group and is, in fact, an objection from an earlier era similar to the steady state theory. --ScienceApologist 14:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
You hit the nail on the head I'd say.
In comparison, I have a paper of 1992 under my nose by prof. André Assis[23], and in a paragraph on "cosmological redshift he mentions Zwicky, Hubble&Tolman, Pecker, Roberts, Vigier, Ellis, Pecker&Vigier, Crawford, as well as "the cogently argued proposals of Reber and Marmet".
Compared with such detail, the "Tired Light" article is still a stub that is mostly consisting of vague, overly general statements. Harald88 13:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Assis is another example of a fringe scientist whose opinions are not considered in the mainstream. Anyone who considers Reber and Marmet to be "cogent" obviously has a chip on his shoulder. Look at the very "cogent" point made by Art Carlson on the talkpage regarding the so-called "theory" of Reber and Marmet. In particular, the two of them poorly considered the physics involving their situation. It is ironic that User:Harald88 is skeptical of the physics abilities of cosmologists (people who generally have PhDs, professorships in physics or astrophysics -- and more than a few who have Nobel prizes in physics!) by refering to some third-rate researcher from Brazil who doesn't publish in the astrophysical journals. Also using 1992 resources is a terrible practice for justifying the state of current science. --ScienceApologist 14:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
As so often, ScienceApologist entirely missed the point. Just in case his comment confuses the issue, I restate:
A serious encyclopedia article about 1. a proposed cosmology idea, with 2. proposals for a corresponding physics mechanism, should include 1. all notable cosmology proposals as well as 2. all notable physics proposals; as published in journals that have the corresponding expertise.


Who disputes the page right now, Harald or Apologist?SteveMc 04:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

That changes daily, and anyway: I dispute ScienceApologist's barring of interesting and notable facts, while ScienceApologist disputes my insertion of such facts for innumerous reasons. Here is my last version: [24]
I do not object to interesting and notable facts being included on their appropriate pages. --ScienceApologist 14:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Very enlightening, at least I am getting to the bottom of this. Some more questions though:

  • SA, what recent book(s) would you recommend reading to get a complete, up-to-date understanding of these theories.
  • Do either of you have the Zwicky article that you could email to me? I cannot find an e-copy on the Net.
  • According to the text I have, tired light is not relegated to any one mechanism, and that is stated on the main page of the Tired Light article. How about renaming the page to "Tired Light Cosmologies" and discuss the pros and cons of all possible tired light mechanisms?

--SteveMc 15:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, a better textbook on the subject would include P. J. E. Peebles: Principles of Physical Cosmology (Princeton University Press, 1993). Recent articles on the subject would include the WMAP papers which are quite technical and other references I already linked to.
The Zwicky article can be accessed here: [25]
Renaming the page "tired light cosmologies" is fine with me.
--ScienceApologist 00:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
That won't do, as Tired light partly physics, and partly cosmology; and no doubt I'm not the only one with more interest in physics mechanisms than cosmological speculations.
What I propose is to split the article up in a cosmology section and a physics section; it's already in that sequence, but the two different aspects are not clearly distinguished at the moment. Harald88 20:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Harald88 is completely wrong in distinguishing between physics and cosmology. His denigration of cosmology is particularly disturbing. I suggest he move away from cosmological pages until he researches cosmology more. I challenge him to name one place where tired light is referred to outside of a cosmological context. --ScienceApologist 00:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • SA, it appears that your background in this area is deep. (Is that your picture I see on the Princeton Web site?) However, my reading of Wikipedia policy puts little credence in the credentials of Wikipedians, and the basis for many of your views is not backed up by referenced sources. I have a similar problem in my field of expertise: I can usually read, challenge, write, and correct articles in my field, without even cracking a book. However, when another Wikipedian challenges my views, I am forced to go find the sources to back up my contention, since my (unpublished) expertise is considered original research by Wikipedia. In your case, for example, you contend that Marmet's is an unreliable source (and occasionally resort to the use of insulting, non-Wikipedian terms, such as "woo woo" and "crank"); that is original research by you-unless you can back it up. I will await your response to this idea before making it my official opinion on this topic.
  • Harald, I do agree with ScienceApologist about only including theories that are relevant to tired light (though he has not given a referenced source to this end yet, see my comment above to SA). It does appear that Marmet's article is not published in mainstream cosmologic articles. Although physics IEEE journals are certainly not poor quality (Marmet may not have intended his article to be an explanation of tired light), unless they are proceedings (and then we have to look upon them with caution). We do not want to become snobs on the sources, but they do need to have "face validity." I will await your response to this idea before making it my official opinion on this topic.

--SteveMc 15:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't want you to look into my credentials as they are irrelevant to this discussion. We need to be willing to look into the preponderance of sources as well as the reliability and the credibility of said sources. Marmet is uncredible in this area. Period. Whether Harald finds his arguments to be likable is beside the point -- they are not within the realm of an article about a well-tested and rejected cosmological idea of Fritz Zwicky's to include this individual's work -- especially when there are literally hundreds of other fly-by-night tired light mechanisms that have been mentioned since Zwicky first parametrized the idea. There can be no compromise on the point that Wikipedia's usefulness as a source for accurate, sound, and well-referenced information is at stake. Notability and NPOV (especially the NPOV entry on undue weight) demands that Harald's inclusion of Marmet's extensions be excluded from the tired light article.
Note that I have no objection to including Marmet's ideas on a page such as Paul Marmet, but I do object to the original research position of those that claim that Marmet's comparisons of his ideas to Zwicky's tired light makes this mechanism an idea worthy of inclusion on the tired light page.
--ScienceApologist 00:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
We all agree about only including physics theories that are relevant to an aricle called "tired light"; but ScienceApologist definitely disagrees with us about what scientists include in "tired light". I can also send you a PDF of Marmet's IEEE article if you like.
Note that this discussion is not about cosmological claims that Marmet makes but about physics: the standard light refraction model that he refined by taking bremsstrahlung into account. And IMO what is disputed here is the expert level of two physics professors as well as a physics journal with its reviewers, and several other scientists that are called "cranks" by ScienceApologist; perhaps they are indeed called so by what such a "crank" -by chance, the pioneer of radioastronomy- labeled as a new kind of "Creationists". IOW this appears to be mutual name-calling (and before you ask me: yes I can provide the source.)
As ScienceApologist gives his personal opinion, I'll also give mine: I find Marmet's theory easy to understand, and now that I looked deeper into it, his physical mechanism looks both sound as well as very plausible to me. Harald88 20:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
The discussion is definitely about cosmological claims that Marmet makes since tired light is by definition a cosmological idea. Harald has his axe to grind and is definitely admitting that he is POV-pushing. --ScienceApologist 00:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ian Tresman's response

Thanks Steve for your efforts in researching the subject. I think you've summarised the views accurately. I don't think that your point (1) is an issue; No-one is disputing User:ScienceApologist's statements on the mainstream view of "tired light". But as you wrote in your point (2): "... the dispute here seems to be about including other "possible" explanations of "tired light". And I think this is related to the reason the mediation case was started: a dissatisfaction with the assessment of "Neutral Point of View" by User:ScienceApologist.

Neutral point of view applies to two aspects of an article: (1) The representation of facts in a fair and neutral manner (2) The selection of facts in proportion to their significance. If User:ScienceApologist was writing for a prestigeous peer-reviewed scientific journal, I might agree more with his selection and rejection of information. But Wikipedia has not adopted the scientific point of view [26].

The inclusion of "alternative" theories in any article does not imply their support. It merely acknowledges that there are alternative theories for whatever reason. For example, we all recognise that the "Flat Earth" theory is passé; I am not aware of any peer-reviewed papers on the subject, nor any non-scientific papers that seriously support the theory. And yet the article on the "Flat Earth" is written from a neutral point of view.

Likewise, Zwicky's Tired light has probably been disproven beyond doubt [27]. But it is important know why Zwicky argued in its favour. And then the big questions: Are there any other theories on tired light, and are they significant? If there was just one or two such theories since Zwicky, published in non-scientific publications, then User:ScienceApologist would be justified by suggesting [Weight] (ie. insignificance). In a general article on Cosmology, such obscure theories would have no place. But in an article specifically on tired light, alternative theories are indeed relevant. I note from the NASA ADS Database, that there have been a couple of suggested theories over the years [28] [29] [30], and others have suggested other papers.

With all due respect to User:ScienceApologist, I don't think it is up to editors to judge and decide upon the correctness of other people's theories (otherwise there'd be no article on the Flat Earth), and certainly not our place to decide whether certain scientists are "fringe". There are peer-reviewed papers presenting evidence against tired-light theories [31] [32]. But the scientific method allows for criticism of the status quo.

So it begs the questions why User:ScienceApologist will still not allow the article on Redshift to include alternative theories on Redshift (beyond general scattering theories), and even a proposed article on "Alternative redshift theories" (currently named Intrinsic redshift), has also had all alternative theories removed before after (I acknowledge that some of these may not be actual redshift theories). --Iantresman 16:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Ian's axe to grind has always been clear. I am perfectly fine describing whatever notable kooky ideas are notable in the encyclopedia in the proper places. The scientific pages should be free of pseudoscience and pathological science. --ScienceApologist 00:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Steve, you wrote: "We do not want to become snobs on the sources, but they do need to have 'face validity' ".
If we accept Big Bang cosmology as proven, then any theory which does not support it, is automatically considered alternative, and by association, often considered substandard. See for example:
So who are we to judge the truth? That is up to the readers. "Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" [33]. But as a good guide, if it's peer reviewed, then it meets the test of quality.
--Iantresman 17:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Ian, thanks. I understand and agree with what you are saying. All I meant by "face validity" is that some sources will have greater face validity, and so those "lesser" sources may seem inadequate, although they may be just fine. Consider, for example, research on concrete: that research could be published in a related journal, such as in a physics journal, but publishing a paper in a physics journal on concrete has less "face validity" than in a journal on concrete. The peers in physics do not seem (however they could be more qualified) to have the expertise need to evaluate issues of concrete. Again, I do not want to be source snob, but I do want Wikipedia sources to be valid. That is all. SteveMc 17:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Steve, that was exactly my point, as you can see from my comments above. Marmet's theory of energy loss in transit ("tired light") due to transmission through gas happens to be physics, and is as such most appropriately judged by a physics journal. Harald88 21:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Marmet's theory isn't uniquely representative of tired light as admitted by any mainstream cosmological source. Period. --ScienceApologist 00:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Do you have one? Are we to trust you on this one? Isn't that original research? SteveMc 01:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

SA,

  • regarding your credentials: they are irrelevant, I am glad we agree on that, so please substantiate your claims regarding Marmet's article based on something other than "Period." Period. (sorry I just had to do that  ;-)
  • BTW, many thanks for the references and access to the Zwicky article.
  • one more thing, if Ian's "axe" is grinding, I cannot see the sparks. What is so clear to you that I cannot see, i.e. what do you claim to be the "axe" he is grinding?

--SteveMc 01:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

(I would like to ask the users to only add text at the bottom of the page, it makes it hard to find all the edits, and it breaks up other users edits. I am going to sign some of the now threaded posts. Thanks, SteveMc 01:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC))

ScienceApostel is strangely mistaken about "the original research position of those that claim that Marmet's comparisons of his ideas to Zwicky's tired light"; there is nothing "WP:OR about Marmet's published mechanism. Such misunderstandings of Wikipedia principles were my primary reason for this arbitration demand.
Also, "tired light" is not a trademark for Zwicky's preferred mechanism either (and who claims that Marmet's mechanism would be "uniquely representative" of tired light?!), see [34].
Moreover, Marmet's mechanism that results in a tired light effect is itself not cosmology but physics. If cosmologists choose to ignore this physics ("cosmologists don't read physics journals"?!), that's not Wikipedia's problem -- but this can of course be mentioned if we have a source for it. Harald88 08:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


  • Editors shouldn't judge who or what is "kooky", nor what is "pseudoscience" and "pathological science"; we report what we find. Marmet is peer reviwed [35]. Arp is peer reviewed [36]. And to label subjects such as Plasma cosmology as "pathological science" [37] or even as "pseudoscience" [38], is insulting to the scientists who currently research the subject, such as Eric Lerner (also peer reviewed [39])
  • Wikipedia does not have "science pages", it has "encyclopedic" pages which may contain science and other views.

--Iantresman 08:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SA responses to queries/accusations

[edit] References

Do you have one? Are we to trust you on this one? Isn't that original research? SteveMc 01:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, my reference that many have proposed tired light ideas (and thus focusing on Marmet constitutes undue weight) is here. These were in reference to ideas held before Marmet ever did his work. --ScienceApologist 18:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ian's axe

one more thing, if Ian's "axe" is grinding, I cannot see the sparks. What is so clear to you that I cannot see, i.e. what do you claim to be the "axe" he is grinding? --SteveMc 01:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Ian is a promoter of outside-the-mainstream ideas who revels in contradicting (or providing reference to contradictions to) understanding from mainstream scientific cosmology. This is his major axe to grind. In particular, he wants to see articles on subjects relating to science include points that are well-outside the scientific mainstream in order to further his agenda (and the general agenda of such advocates) of creating the appearance of a larger controversy when there really is none. Such promotion of his POV has been opposed by me in a wide range of articles including the Big Bang, nonstandard cosmologies, plasma cosmology, redshift, intrinsic redshifts, Electric Universe (concept) and other points. He has started a few RfArbs inappropriately against me and is now devoting much of his time to try to change Wikipedia policy so that it will be easier for him to further his aims. --ScienceApologist 18:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What SA is saying about including Marmet

ScienceApostel is strangely mistaken about "the original research position of those that claim that Marmet's comparisons of his ideas to Zwicky's tired light"; there is nothing "WP:OR about Marmet's published mechanism. Such misunderstandings of Wikipedia principles were my primary reason for this arbitration demand. -- quoth User:Harald88

My point is that 1) there is some indication that Marmet's idea really doesn't function as tired light was initially outlined by Zwicky so it probably doesn't belong on the page, 2) Marmet's ideas are not worthy of special discussion as there are many similar ideas involving scattering redshift mechanisms available and choosing Marmet is an editorial bad decision, 3) Marmet's ideas could easily be included on a page dedicated to his ideas (e.g. Paul Marmet). I do consider Harald88's advocacy to border on original research because it is so far out on a limb to claim Marmet's ideas represent a major portion of tired light understanding in physics/astronomy. --ScienceApologist 18:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is tired light Zwicky's?

Also, "tired light" is not a trademark for Zwicky's preferred mechanism either (and who claims that Marmet's mechanism would be "uniquely representative" of tired light?!), see [40]. -- quoth User:Harald88

Trademark is, of course, a term not relevant to this discussion. And as I've said many times in the past, Zwicky never proposed a mechanism. But Zwicky's idea is foundational to tired light. --ScienceApologist 18:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cosmology vs. physics

Moreover, Marmet's mechanism that results in a tired light effect is itself not cosmology but physics. If cosmologists choose to ignore this physics ("cosmologists don't read physics journals"?!), that's not Wikipedia's problem -- but this can of course be mentioned if we have a source for it. Harald88 08:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

There hasn't been any indication that tired light is used outside of the context of cosmology, despite this being the third time for me to ask for an indication of such. --ScienceApologist 18:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editorial judgements by editors

Editors shouldn't judge who or what is "kooky", nor what is "pseudoscience" and "pathological science"; we report what we find. --quoth User:Iantresman

But editors are free to, on the talkpages, give their editorial opinions on the matter. --ScienceApologist 18:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On labeling peer-reviewed people

Marmet is peer reviwed [41]. Arp is peer reviewed [42]. And to label subjects such as Plasma cosmology as "pathological science" [43] or even as "pseudoscience" [44], is insulting to the scientists who currently research the subject, such as Eric Lerner (also peer reviewed [45]) -- quoth User:Iantresman

These are labels that are applied because of evidence - just as calling a scientist's work discredited or based on faulty methods is allowed on talkpages (and even in articles with proper references) so are the shorthand labels associated with such accusations allowed on the talkpages. They aren't simply judgements made for amusement. The evidence has been presented, the fact that Lerner and Marmet are ignorant (either willfully or not) of certain aspects of cosmology is documented even on these pages. That Lerner continues to promote his ideas in spite of this may be described as a pathology, for example. --ScienceApologist 18:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ian wishes to eschew SPOV

*Wikipedia does not have "science pages", it has "encyclopedic" pages which may contain science and other views. --Iantresman 08:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Pages about scientific subjects cover the subjects subject to WP:NPOV and in particular according to the sections on pseudoscience and undue weight. --ScienceApologist 18:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please: no threading!

Gentlemen, there we go threading remarks in and among those of others, making it very difficult to know who says what to whom. Please stop. Thanks, SteveMc 19:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Some more replies from Harald88

Steve I think that the picture is clear now, but some more comments on the above may still be useful.

[edit] editorial

If I'm not terribly mistaken, the idea that "Tired light" has importance for cosmology is not mainstream. ScienceApologist is now turning this page into a soapbox, probably because he does have an agenda himself. I also have an agenda: I want to be able to read uncensored information, and I still hope that Wikipedia can become what Jimbo is dreaming of.
In particular, I hope to read under the header "Tired light", a detailed overview of a reasonable number of tired light theories, especially those that have not yet been disproved.
If SA really thinks that Marmet's theory is so unimportant compared to others which he suggests to know, one may wonder why he didn't include a discussion of at least one or two better ones, from which such would automatically become clear. The answer isn't hard to find:
A quick look at the edit history will show that ScienceApostel started editing the article with the comment "Removing cat:theories since Tired Light doesn't exactly rise to such", and his primary contribution to more information about tired light mechanisms consisted of a persistent removal of the one that I had found. He has spent most of his time and efforts on discrediting as well as reducing both scope and contents of the article as much as he could, so that it remains little more than a stub. In fact, as I demonstrated above, it still belongs in the stub catagory.
If I'm not terribly mistaken, the idea that "Tired light" has importance for cosmology is not mainstream. -- depends on what you mean by "importance". In that tired light is a well-considered and rejected hypothesis of Zwicky's, tired light has importance to cosmology. --ScienceApologist 14:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
tired light theories, especially those that have not yet been disproved. -- and this depends on what you mean by "disproved". Apparently you think that Marmet's "theory" hasn't been "disproved", but for cosmology we know that Marmet's mechanism has major failings. So I'm not sure what this statement is supposed to mean. --ScienceApologist 14:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SPOV/NPOV

Steve, I probably agree with what Ian meant with his "scientific view remarks"; perhaps Ian has been influenced by the caricature of science that the rightly rejected "scientific view" proposal implied. The truly scientific view is very much like Wikipedia's NPOV, except that science isn't a view but a methodology and that it tends to include all known hypotheses, while such is not required for Wikipedia. Thus I fully agree with how ScienceApologist expressed it.
About neutrality, it should be noted that Big Bang cosmology has been accused of having become pseudoscience, and probably the same accusation has been launched on Tired Light cosmology. As long as Wikipedia articles as well as their editors report neutrally about such issues, there are no problems.
About "undue weight", (as cited from the policy), "From Jimbo Wales, September 2003, on the mailing list:
If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents"
About neutrality, it should be noted that Big Bang cosmology has been accused of having become pseudoscience -- this statement belies any understanding of the current paradigm. The limited number of detractors of the Big Bang is noted on the Big Bang page as the notability of the critiques demands. --ScienceApologist 14:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] not "major portion" etc.

I request SA to stop twisting my words:
I did not "claim [that] Marmet's ideas represent a major portion of tired light understanding in physics/astronomy."
Instead: this article has a narrow scope which is related to non-mainstream cosmology, and apparently therefore few journal articles can be found. Nevertheless Marmet's theory fulfills the abovementioned "significant minority" requirement, and as also unwitttingly confirmed by ScienceApologist.
Thus the reference of ScienceApologist is of no relevance for this discussion; it may be nice for the article though.
Nevertheless Marmet's theory fulfills the abovementioned "significant minority" requirement, and as also unwitttingly confirmed by ScienceApologist. -- this statement is incorrect. Marmet's ideas do not represent anything in the way of a significant minority in the topic of tired light as described in, for example, Peeble's text -- even though such mechanisms were known about well before Marmet developed them. --ScienceApologist 14:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Thus the reference of ScienceApologist is of no relevance for this discussion; it may be nice for the article though. -- Harald apparently missed why the reference is important: it explains the wide range of tired light theories that exist and shows that Marmet's idea doesn't deserve special mention. --ScienceApologist 14:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV on Talk pages

I disagree with ScienceAplogist that it's fully OK to give "editorial opinions" on Talk pages when such implies POV pushing and not just clarifications and purely editorial discussions about contributions from literature. Efforts to avoid bias should begin on an article's Talk page.
Harald88 00:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Since we are editors, editorial opinions are part of the game. The first step in getting rid of bias is admitting to your own bias and then moving on.
--ScienceApologist 14:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] physics/cosmology

A theory of physics as published in physics journals doesn't become non-physics if it could receive support from cosmology (isn't that the main purpose of cosmology?); and some theories have no direct application at all.
Harald88 00:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Harad, please where is tired light used outside of cosmology? Give me one reference? (I'll note this is the fourth time I've asked for this).
--ScienceApologist 14:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I would not turn things on their head, and I don't like playing games. Knowing that (see Dictionary.com),
1. cosmology is "the branch of astrophysics that studies the origin and evolution and structure of the universe", while
2. physics is "the science of matter and energy and of interactions between the two"; I'd say that:
1. a theory according to which radiation energy in the universe reduces with distance due to an unknown mechanism is cosmology;
2. a theory about a loss mechanism of radiation energy when it interacts with matter is physics.
Thus, for a full discussion of the subject "tired light" one needs to discuss cosmology as well as physics. And to get back to Steve's example: although concrete is principally used in construction, an encyclopedia article on concrete would typically also discuss its composition and underlying chemistry.
It may help to split the article up in "tired light cosmology" and "tired light mechanisms". Harald88 16:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Since tired light only applies in the cosmological sense, splitting the article up would represent original research. --ScienceApologist 18:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Moreover, Harald has not shown any source that uses tired light in a sense unrelated to cosmology. His own bifurcation into cosmology/physics is original research and not supported by sources which deal specifically with "tired light". To be blunt: there exists no reference to "tired light" as a term which is not referring to the observations of cosmological redshifts. If there were, Harald's point would be valid. --ScienceApologist 18:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nothing more from Ian

Nothing more from me, although I'm tempted to find an axe to sharpen, I'm reminded that the pen is mightier than the sword, and inclusivity is fairer than exclusivity. --Iantresman 12:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] last comments (so far) from Harald88

My suggestion to focus on tired light aspects was in response to Steve's suggestion: I did not mean to split the article up in two articles but in two chapters (sorry for the poor phrasing). Nevertheless, there is nothing against splitting an article up if the article becomes too long; for the moment I don't see a need for that. As a matter of fact, "tired light" is clearly redshift; I suppose that it's not included there because the redshift article would become of unhandy size (right?).
Note that I now verified that Plasma Science is indeed a standard IEEE peer reviewed physics journal.
Interestingly, I now discovered that all this looks very similar to another page: Talk:Plasma_cosmology.
Reading that, there wasn't need to say much, as the problem was very similar! (and it has not been solved, at first sight).
Harald88 22:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, "tired light" is clearly redshift -- false. Redshift is not tired light: tired light refers to a proposal to explain cosmological redshifts with appeal to novel physics. --ScienceApologist 00:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I suppose that it's not included there because the redshift article would become of unhandy size (right?) -- it's reported on in the article as undue weight requires. It is incidentally related in many ways. --ScienceApologist 00:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
PS: If someone states that a car is a vehicle, it doesn't mean that a vehicle is a car... Harald88 08:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
It may have been better to state then that tired light is a kind of redshift. There are those people who argue (erroneously) that the two are synonymous. --ScienceApologist 11:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

One other point that I had overlooked: above ScienceApologist included original research in this discussion, which isn't correct; moreover, his conclusion was incorrect as well. For the details see the Talk page, "Marmet's physics". Harald88 12:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

This appears to be nothing more than an outrageous and unsubstantiated accusation that has no basis in fact. Nowhere has Harald shown me to be in error in this discussion. Nowhere has he shown there to be any original research on my part. I'm not sure what details in Talk:Tired light#Marmet's physics are supposed to show Harald's points. All I see is a misunderstanding and accusations involving statements I made and vague references to Marmet's paper about photon scattering explaining redshifts. --ScienceApologist 19:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Precision: I referred to SA's remark above that "Anyone who considers Reber and Marmet to be "cogent" obviously has a chip on his shoulder. Look at the very "cogent" point made by Art Carlson on the talkpage regarding the so-called "theory" of Reber and Marmet. In particular, the two of them poorly considered the physics involving their situation." - There is no evidence for the correctness of this conclusion of SA which refers to the "original research" discussion on the Talk page that Art Carlsson initiated and to which I responded in part insofar as he seemed to misunderstand the theory.

Meanwhile, I demand SA to remove his threaded comments from my comments and to order them at a separate place below, as Steve demanded. Also for me it's difficult to keep track of all those additional comments in-between mine. Tomorrow evening I'll put all remaining comments that are still threaded inside mine, outside of my comments. Harald88 20:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


That Reber and Marmet are not familar with Thomson scattering is not my problem -- that they describe it using less formalism than in the standard radiative transfer text is also not my problem. It looked to me like Harald opted out of the discussion which was outlined by Art Carlson to understand where Harald and Marmet were coming from in terms of their physics understanding. I have seen enough for my own judgement to be made which isn't original research as it is not included in the article. I have no idea what Harald is referring to about the threading comments, unless he's referring to above. --ScienceApologist 00:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
About your threading question: I demand you to remove all your added threading inside my comments of after Steve demanded us not to do so anymore. Next I'll also move/clarify any threading of myself from after that point in time, if I did so by mistake.

I object to: - SA's unsustained claim that "Reber and Marmet are not familar with Thomson scattering" ;

- SA's mixing up of Wikipedia editors with Wikipedia sources.

I freely admit that it is my editorial opinion based on the evidence provided by the papers in question that Reber and Marmet are "not familar with Thomson scattering". I would never include such an opinion in an article, but it lets you see where my bias is so we can move forward. It seems to me that Reber and Marmet use a Thomson scattering mechanism without calling it Thomson scattering. Why, I can only guess.
I looked through above and it seems to me that most of the comments I have are at the end your comments. I'll look and see if there are any inserted in the middle. --ScienceApologist 14:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Threading isn't only a matter of commenting in the middle: it's making a thread. Obviously, it's about commenting under the header of someone else (see Steve's comments and actions). Harald88 19:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Steve comments under the heading of other people. I think you are taking the request for no threading to extremes. The idea is to prevent confusion, not to create unnecessary redundancy. Every time I respond to a comment I do not have to create a new section. --ScienceApologist 19:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediator must continue to be away

Greetings all, I cannot contribute regularly to Wikipedia right now. I am gladly willing to let this case go to another mediator. Please request a new mediator, with my regrets. SteveMc 17:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Steve has asked back in January for input. Is this case dead? Jbolden1517 03:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that this case has tired a bit and is sleeping (just as the tired light article itself). IMO that article is still sub optimal but better than when I asked for mediation: the main information is available (which is an improvement), but IMO it still has a noticable bias. Harald88 19:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Do you still need mediation or can you get rid of the bias on your own or...? Originally Steve just seemed to want a neutral technical consult. jbolden1517Talk 20:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure to be able to get rid of that on my own, but I'd say that it's not urgent: none of us is at the moment editing that page. A technical consult is hardly relevant as the problem is simply how much Big Bang advocacy (and anti-everything else) in articles on other subjects can still be considered to be NPOV. That's of course a matter of taste. Thus perhaps best to call this case closed for the time being, until a new phase of editing occurs. Harald88 20:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/e/d/Wikipedia%7EMediation_Cabal_Cases_2006-01-04_tired_light_abb6.html"