Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intrinsic redshift

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS — there's too much bickering to make much sense of it, but it sounds like work for talk pages and, if necessary, a redirect or a revisit to AfD. -Splashtalk 01:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intrinsic redshift

This article represents the original research and a POV fork of the redshift article by User:Iantresman. There are a very small number of layman and an even smaller number of fringe scientists who use the term "intrinsic redshift" as a general term to mean "a redshift mechanism not yet modeled" in order for them to object to standard models in cosmology. This article claims a slew of mechanisms that are advocated by these small band of non-standard cosmology proponents and Ian has included them here as a clearinghouse for this partcular POV-fork. You cannot find an amalgamation such as this anywhere else -- it is a totally original research approach. The statements made on the page simply represent POV-pushing of an advocate who was upset by the outcome of the editting of the redshift article. --ScienceApologist 15:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawn. Article rewritten to conform to a description of intrinsic redshifts:

The rationale for deleting this article is still here. However, I have decided to abandon this page as it is clear that the discussion has become too cumbersome to continue. Instead I will try being bold and editting the article to conform to Wikipedia standards. --ScienceApologist 17:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


  • Keep. The article is less than 24 hours old. I've already requested a number of other editors look at it, and discussion is in progress. --Iantresman 17:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

(Please see the article talkpage for unrelated objections to this AfD erroneously included here.) --ScienceApologist

  • Claiming that the article is original research is false; Wikipedia says "the only way to show that you are not doing original research is to cite sources who discuss material that is directly related to the article", and this is done. In fact the Wiki original research page says that "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged." (my emphasis)
However, this article is about categorizing a number of different ideas which have their own pages and explanations as novel representations of redshift mechanisms. That is what is original research. --ScienceApologist 14:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Claiming that this article is a point-of-view fork, is false; Wikipedia says this is "creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated". The article on redshift does not include the majority of material in this article. The main redshift article is about Cosmological, Doppler and Gravitation redshifts; this article is about theories which have been published in peer reviewed journals that propose non-Cosmological, non-Doppler and non-Gravitation redshifts.
The subject is already treated on the redshift page. It was agreed in discussion there that a list such as this was not only unnecessary, it represented an inappropriate POV endorsement. As it is, your decision to write this article is the very definition of a POV-fork. You opted out of the redshift discussion and created a new article to deflect criticism. --ScienceApologist 14:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Claiming that "You cannot find an amalgamation such as this anywhere else" is also false; see for example, the Wiki article on Non-standard cosmology.
Anything worth salvaging in this article could easily be merged to Non-standard cosmology. However, I was talking about sources. --ScienceApologist
  • Claiming that "The statements made on the page simply represent POV-pushing..." suggest that the articles does not adhere to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy which "represents all views fairly and without bias". Not one example was provided showing failure of this policy.
The creation of this page as a POV-fork is technically a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. --ScienceApologist 14:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I stand by my criticisms, which are also based on your comment on the Talk:Intrinsic_redshift#Article_for_deletion Talk page where you wrote "This article has to go. Claiming that it is based on an obscure clearinghouse paper published in the 1980s"
  • I have answered all your previous points elsewhere.
  • --Iantresman 17:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Either rename and link from redshift, or merge. Motivation:

- I agree with ScienceApologist that it's apparently a POV fork. However, the cause of a POV fork is often insufficient accounting for that POV in the main article, and a quick look shows that the redshift article is lacking on a number of points, especially as the article he/she apparently refers to is titled "redshift" and not "cosmological redshift". I repeat here my earlier comments on the Talk page: this article certainly fills a gap (I learned something today thanks to it!) but to make it general and NPOV, it should be called "List of redshift mechanisms", and be linked from the redshift article, containing all notable past and current cosmological as well as non-cosmological redshift hypotheses. Such a page will be very useful as general reference, and free from any POV. Harald88 18:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

"Claimed redshift mechanisms" could be adequately addressed on the non-standard cosmology page where a lot of these things come from. --ScienceApologist 14:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for making me aware of that page, I didn't know it existed! A link from redshift is lacking, I'll add it now. But cosmology differs from mechanisms; I don't see how the limited subject of cosmology can include all redshift mechanisms. Harald88 16:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Continued on the talkpage. --ScienceApologist 16:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The redshift article already (appropriately) deals with scattering redshift mechanisms, with most of the details (appropriately) left to the scattering article. An (appropriate) brief mention and link is made to the tired light article (although this seems to flicker a bit). The only theory that is not covered, but might be with a link, is Arp's 1997 hypothesis. --Art Carlson 19:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I just want to confirm that nothing in the discussion up to now has changed my mind. The topic of this article is ill-defined and the content is best covered in other articles or not at all. This applies, in particular, to all the items in Ian's list. --Art Carlson 20:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
The following are not mentioned in the main redshift article (and I can find reference to only a few of them anywhere on Wikipedia), so it would seem appropriate to mention them here (I haven't double checked them all, and some may be very similar, or I may have misunderstood):
Terms (please see the talkpage for the list -- attempting to reduce the clutter on the main page so people can discuss the matter --ScienceApologist 23:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC))
--Iantresman 22:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
The above list represents a ridiculous amount of original research amalgamation. Your list contains redundancies and points of view that are only relevant because you "say so". This kind of POV-pushing needs to be elimintaed from Wikipedia. --ScienceApologist 14:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia says "the only way to show that you are not doing original research is to cite sources who discuss material that is directly related to the article", and this is done. In fact the Wiki original research page says that "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged." (my emphasis)
Poorly citing sources out of context as you have done is not indicative of following Wikipedia policy. --ScienceApologist 22:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that there may be redundancies, and similar theories that can be combined. However they are not listed because "I say so", but because other people have said so I (hence the citations). This is not point of viewing since I have presented the information in an unbiased manner; it would be POV-ing if I put my own spin on the information.
As stated above, you are the one who made the clearinghouse not the cited articles. This is plainly original research. --ScienceApologist 22:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Joshua, with your expertise in astronomy, you might even be aware of some redshift theories that I have not included, and you are of course welcome to include them. And also correct others that I have misunderstood.
--Iantresman 15:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Beside the point of the AfD. --ScienceApologist 22:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep! This is ridiculous. Somebody is deleting comments people have made to this discussion. Ian copied over my comments to this page which is fine by me because this is where I thought I was putting them. Then they disappear. Ari Brynjolfsson's comments were deleted as well. Its bad enough that a single individual attempts to eliminate all reference to this topic from Wikipedia, but the fact that someone would simply delete comments added by others supporting the existence of this article is underhanded.
Nothing was deleted. Things were moved to the talkpage so that this page wasn't so cluttered. --ScienceApologist 02:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
As for the claim that this topic represents original research - that is flat out false. According to Wikipedia acceptable sources include: "Reputable publications include peer-reviewed journals, books published by a known academic publishing house or university press, and divisions of a general publisher which have a good reputation for scholarly publications." Ian has provided an extensive list of references from peer-reviewed journals on the topic of non-cosmological/intrinsic redshifts.
You will note that the issue isn't with Ian's references but the nature of the article itself -- claiming that these references are to "intrinsic redshifts" is somehow article-worthy is a definite case of original research according to Wikipedia policy. --ScienceApologist 02:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

So fix the article!!!!! The first thing you do because you don't like the writing is submit it for deletion? Only 24 hours after its posted? The topic of the article is a valid topic for wikipedia. Give people a chance to improve it. --DavidRussell 03:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

POV pushing behavior is found in those that consistently try to expunge all mention of this topic from Wikipedia even in the face of legitimate peer reviewed references. As for deletion of comments supporting this article - such behavior is dishonest and I'd suggest that someone who knows the process should file a complaint against the guilty party. --DavidRussell 02:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Nothing was deleted. I'm merely trying to keep this area clear so as to encourage commments. When it gets filled up like this, people don't bother to vote or comment because they don't want to read everything. --ScienceApologist 02:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Joshua, two comments were removed (your description) from this page [1] [2], and my list of referenced relevant facts was also removed [3]. I note from the Wiki Guide to Deletion page that you have ignored the following guidelines:
  • "Do not remove or modify other people's comments even if you believe them to be in bad faith"
Remove as in delete which I did not do. I merely moved irrelevant comments and clutter to the talkpage. --ScienceApologist 15:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • "Mixing of bullets and other forms of indentation is discouraged because it makes the discussion much harder for subsequent readers to follow."
  • "...relevant facts and evidence are welcome from anyone..."
Key word being "relevant". --ScienceApologist 15:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
--Iantresman 11:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I, Ari Brynolfsson, find that Ian Tresman's article on ‘’’Intrinsic Redshift’’’ is good and very neutral. It does not advocate anything and reports the facts. The use by Ian Tresman of “Intrinsic Redshift” appears to me to be dictated by the fact that most of the processes he mentioned are more likely to work where the densities are high, that is, very close to stars, galaxies and quasars. Such redshifts are properly called intrinsic redshifts. Expanding the subject to “Alternative Redshift Theories” is reasonable, especially, when many people are mislead to believe that only expansion theory of the Universe with its many absurdities can explain the cosmological redshift. (My previous more extensive comments was deleted by somebody that apparently got the point. This is an abreviated version). Ari Brynolfsson, 15:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


Comment -- Ian, can you let us know how many of these people you contacted regarding this AfD? The last two users just showed up to comment without having added anything to Wikipedia. --ScienceApologist 15:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Joshua, how about I just tell you which ones of us are known members of the Communist Party? [4]. It looks like DavidRussell has been contributing to Wikipedia since last November [5]. I don't know about Ari, but he does appear to have over 5 years of experience in this area [6]. I did specifically ask Art Carlson and Harald88 to look at the original article, and neither have lent their full support (although I'd ask them both again); you're not suggesting that we should discount their contributions because I asked them to take a look? --Iantresman 16:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
This is getting out-of-control. It seems apparent to me that discussions of this sort are only going to lead to a stalemate since people are going to be intimidated by the shear amount of text generated by this AfD. I will withdrawl the AfD if only to rewrite the article as an article about intrinsic redshifts. Would that suffice? --ScienceApologist 17:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment -- ScienceApologist, I request you to demonstrate your WP:good faith by correcting this mess that you apparently made by deleting against the Wikipedia rules. Harald88 16:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I didn't delete anything. --ScienceApologist 16:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- The current prefailing theory explaining redshift is clearly wrong, and there cannot be harm in exploring alternatives. Michael Armstrong, 06 Jan 08
Why should obvious problems with the prevailing theory of redshift in general be handled not in the main article but in a new article about a specific aspect of redshift? --Art Carlson 19:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
A separate article can discuss the issues in more detail. But it's probably a question best asked of Joshua, who considers Non-cosmological, Non-velocity, Anomalous, Intrinsic, and quantized redshifts to be either neologisms [7], or nonexistent [8], who won't let the terms, or any other alternative theory, included in the main redshift article. --Iantresman 20:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.