Talk:Eric Lerner/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Treatment of Article Segments

Here are some thoughts and a proposal. It seems like the arguing over this article comes down to classification. If it is a BLP, we have to treat it one way, and if it is an article about a fringe theory, it must be treated differently. Further, if it is a treatment of the book, it has still different requirements. Disputes have arisen over whether to apply certain policies that realistically only apply to certain parts of the article. So here is the proposal. What if we consider the first part of the article as a BLP, then touch on his fringe theories/ideas as such, and finish with the book section. Hopefully that would clarify the distinct nature of each section, which would determine which policies were relevant, and eliminate the bickering over misapplied policies and inclusion/exclusion of certain content. If that is agreeable, we could put a note at the top of the talk page to let future editors know of the compartmentalized nature of the article, and instruct them how to properly edit each one. Sound fair? ABlake (talk) 14:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

  • It's not clear ot me exactly what you're proposing. But I would support moving this article to The Big Bang Never Happened since I don't see any credible evidence of notability independent of that, and what information we do have about Lerner's professional career does not look to me to have much purpose other than to try to add credibility to the book. Had he not written the book, I doubt we'd have an article. Guy (Help!) 15:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I would think moving the article to the book is a good idea. Allows for extensive discussion of the ideas, and also extensive criticism, which may be sourced from things like that blog. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 17:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Guy, what would you envision the new article looking like? I'm concerned that this may be a veiled attempt to eliminate all references to Lerner's other notable professional activities beyond the book. Forgive the lack of good faith, but it has been a common occurance here. I'll withhold judgment until I hear your proposal in more detail. Please explain. You might be on to something good. ABlake (talk) 22:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
If the current article is any indication, those are very few. They would be included just in introducing the author, I think. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think he has many notable professional activities. If it were not for the book, I do not think we'd have an article. Guy (Help!) 10:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Martin is right. The current article has been gutted of any indications of notable activities other than the book. That is the continuing problem here. ScienceApologist keeps eliminating large sections of information that passes all of the policy tests, and the article as it stands is a completely biased shell of what it should be. When challenged to provide an explanation for his unsupportable hacking and reverts, he evades and drags his feet, as he did again above. When reverts are made, ScienceApologist or other editors revert to the limit, again without valid explanation. This has happened time and time and time again. Did I not mention the rudeness that accompanied all of this? The facts of Lerner's notability in other areas, in cosmology beyond the book and in nuclear fusion research, should be included on this page. The argument has been made that this information inflates or promotes him somehow, but describing activities generally is the very purpose of an encyclopedia! Promotion and inflation must surely be avoided, I agree, but not at the cost of elimination of the facts! ABlake (talk) 11:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
So you are making the claim that he's notable outside of his book. Could you provide some details to substantiate that, rather than just bitching about SA? Jefffire (talk) 12:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Eric Lerner is also notable as the president of Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, his efforts to use the dense plasma focus to produce aneutronic fusion via a hydrogen-boron reaction, his technical writing, and the awards he has received from the Aviation Space Writers Association, as described even in the current version of the article. Furthermore, even ScienceApologist admits that "The notability of Eric is not in question."[1] John254 13:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Lawrenceville Plasma Physics scores 142 unique Ghits and all mentions on Google Scholar seem to be papers co-authored by Lerner or citations of Lerner - in other words, Lawrenceville Plasma Physics appears to be Lerner, for all intents and purposes. Guy (Help!) 14:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Fortunately, as described above, Lerner's notability apart from the book does not rely solely upon Lawrenceville Plasma Physics. It's interesting, of course, that Lerner has papers published and is being cited in papers appearing in the peer-reviewed journals indexed by Google Scholar -- perhaps he isn't so fringe after all. John254 14:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Description of Eric Lerner's research

Nearly one month ago ScienceApologist removed the description of Eric Lerner's research concerning plasma cosmology from the article on the basis of the claim that " the details of Eric's peculiar beliefs are not able to be independently sourced" [2], then later clarified that he disputed the reliability of the journals in which the research appeared. ScienceApologist particularly claimed that although the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science is a peer-reviewed journal published by prestigious Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, it nonetheless deserves to be described by means of crude scatological language: [3]. Which journals does ScienceApologist deem to be reliable sources for cosmology? Consider the following comment:

In tightly-knit communities like astronomy and cosmology there are only a handful of journals that really get notice. MNRAS, ApJ, ARAA, AJ. Then there are the journals that are the journals that are ignored. These are the journals the fringe-promoters want to see used, even though we have journal citations from the more credible journals. It's not like this article is hurting for sources. It looks to me like someone is shilling for discredited crackpots like Paul Marmet. I have made this argument, but it falls on deaf ears. No one wants to hear that their favorite crackpot is really a crackpot and so shouldn't be included at Wikipedia. So here we are. How do I convince people that these sources are no good? ScienceApologist (talk) 15:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[4]

Well, it turns out that "ApJ" is an abbreviation for The Astrophysical Journal. Would you believe that the description of research ScienceApologist removed [5] cites a paper appearing in The Astrophysical Journal:

He claims that the [[intergalactic medium]] is a strong absorber of the [[cosmic microwave background radiation]] with the absorption occurring in a fog of narrow [[filament (astronomy)|filaments]].<ref>"Radio Absorption by the Intergalactic Medium," The Astro­physical Journal, Vol. 361, Sept. 20, 1990, pp. 63‑68.</ref>

Thus, it appears that at least some of Eric Lerner's research concerning plasma cosmology has appeared in a journal whose reliability ScienceApologist acknowledges. This finding casts serious doubt upon ScienceApologist's contention that Lerner's research is so fringe and so widely ignored that we can't even describe it in the article. Instead, it appears that while Lerner's theories lack majority acceptance, they nonetheless qualify as "Alternative theoretical formulations", as described in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience:

Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

As such, Lerner's research is suitable for inclusion in our article about him. John254 15:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Eric's ideas are described to the extent that we need to describe them. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe that such an unsupported conclusory assertion holds any merit, especially as one of your key claims, that Lerner's work hasn't been published in reliable sources and is widely ignored, has been shown to be false. A review of your version shows that it describes very little of Eric Lerner's research. John254 16:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • All academics publish papers, it's what they do. What defines the importance of the academic is how often they are cited, and what other papers take up thier work and build on it. Plasma cosmology is a fringe field, and Lerner is one of very few people to work on it. He came to Wikipedia to try to boost it, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Guy (Help!) 16:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
There's no doubt that plasma cosmology lacks mainstream acceptance. The issue here, however, is whether we can describe Lerner's work in the field, in our article about him. Since some of Eric Lerner's research in this area has appeared in a clearly reliable source, I claim that we can. John254 17:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
That would be a reason for discussing it in plasma cosmology, I think. Guy (Help!) 19:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I can't believe I'm saying it, but that actually makes sense to me. ABlake (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Which doesn't imply that we can't briefly discuss the research here too; our article on Hannes Alfvén, for instance, provides a short treatment of his work in plasma cosmology -- please see Hannes_Alfvén#Alfv.C3.A9n.27s_cosmological_model. John254 20:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Van Allen review

According to a conversation I had with the publisher, this statement was the entirety of the review solicited by the published to James Van Allen. I believe Van Allen was paid for the use of his name and was perhaps prompted on how to word his single statement. He has made no further mention of Eric Lerner's work anywhere else that I've been able to find. ScienceApologist (talk) 11:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Sounds like we don't need it. A rent-a-quote job. Guy (Help!) 13:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
ScienceApologist's belief that "Van Allen was paid for the use of his name and was perhaps prompted on how to word his single statement." is mere conjecture. If we're going to start excluding reviews on the basis of speculative interpretations of the motives of their authors or the circumstances under which they were made, then we would need to exclude every review by supporters of the Big Bang who have excellent reasons to criticize a book which challenges their theory. However, if we're not going to employ conjectural rationales to exclude reviews, and if a blog post is a sufficiently reliable source for criticism of the book, then surely the quotation can be included, noting, if deemed necessary, that it appeared on the book cover. The reader can certainly determine that the quotation was a paid endorsement based on the forum in which the quotation appeared, but we aren't going to draw that conclusion for them. Now, let's consider some remaining problems with this article: it quotes Lerner as stating that "enormous ribbons of matter... refute a basic premise of the Big Bang", a quotation which is meaningless when abstracted from the context in which it appears, and incorrectly claims that this was Lerner's "major problem with the Big Bang", when, in fact, it is only one of his objections to the theory. The description of Lerner's theories that I wrote [6] provides a far more coherent account of his claims, and is necessary to provide balance per Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism, and context for quotations of criticism -- for instance, it's silly to include a quotation which asserts "It seems to me that the theory proposed by Mr. Lerner has serious problems in relation to thermodynamics." without providing at least a brief description of the very theory of thermodynamics that's the subject of criticism. John254 14:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
It's not mere conjecture: it was confirmed by the publisher. In any case, I don't care one way or another but defer to JzG's judgement on the matter. As for what you wrote here, it's trash. Awful. I don't think you're good at this. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Your statement "I believe Van Allen was paid for the use of his name and was perhaps prompted on how to word his single statement."[7] is self-evidently conjecture, and does not even purport to describe information confirmed by the publisher. In any event, a coherent explanation of your disagreement with my description of the claims made in Lerner's book would be far more constructive than throwing insults at me. John254 15:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
In other words, the quote is uncritical so you want it in. But it is an uncritical, solicited quotation from a book jacket, and does not even come close tpo representing the mainstream reaction to the book, otherwise they'd not have used it. So: no thanks. Guy (Help!) 16:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
The exclusion of any material favorable to Lerner, because it is favorable but the "mainstream reaction" isn't, is a massive violation of Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism and turns the article into a coatrack for negative material. Of course, you seem to be admitting at AFD that this article is being edited with the purpose of "we need to rebut this kook"[8], in violation of WP:BLP. John254 16:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Nope. It is not a reliable independent source, since it is a solicited quote from the publisher. I can't believe you are unaware of the way publishers manipulate book jacket reviews! Guy (Help!) 22:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not claiming that the quotation is the most reliable source on Wikipedia, but only that it is at least as reliable as the blog post we're presently employing for criticism. Wasn't the argument for inclusion of the blog post that, since Sean M. Carroll is a recognized expert in this field, material reasonably believed to be written by him can be used as a source, regardless of where it appeared? If so, then, by the same standard, since James Van Allen is also a recognized authority, his comment, even one printed on a book jacket, is likewise worthy of inclusion, since it's highly probable that he actually did make the statement. While one can, of course, infer impropriety from a quotation supplied to a book publisher, blog-posts are likewise problematic, since they can serve as a forum for off-the-cuff personal attacks that would never be tolerated in any peer-reviewed publication -- indeed, the blog post that we're using contains largely personal criticism of Eric Lerner. John254 22:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Tit-for-tat editing, to be sure. While Sean Carroll is a respected cosmologist, James Van Allen never dealt with any professional research outside of the solar system. Are you into collaboration or confrontation, John? ScienceApologist (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Book jackets = really bad places to be sourcing things too. At best, they're cherry picked - ever seen a bad review on a book jacket? Not gonna. Shell babelfish 11:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Going back in time, let me review for you why the book jacket was kept. Basically there were three positive reviews written of Lerner's book that we've been able to find. One was from a librarian who wasn't altogether familiar with cosmology, one was from the Chicago Tribune by an anonymous author, and the third was the Van Allen quote. The first two were removed from the article after much hemming-and-hawing as unreliable sources. Basically, the claims made by both the Chicago Tribune/science librarian were so beyond what could be attributed to their familiarity with the subject, we found that including those sources was basically skewing our recounting of the book's reception toward an improper parity of positive and negative. When PhDs and professionals criticize your work while amateurs and crackpots praise it, it is difficult to characterize such a reception neutrally. The general agreement was that at least James Van Allen was someone who would have familiarity with the physics of the situation, if not a cosmologist himself. Though his quote was obviously cherry-picked (and according to the publisher he was paid for the quote and only provided that quote and nothing more), the thought was we could have a strict standard of PhD astrophysicists commenting on the book and ignore the problems with reliability. Perhaps not the best solution.
My feeling is that we might like to give a characterization of the fact that some carefully-selected amateurs and like-minded pathological Big Bang haters (e.g. certain creationists) like the book while a broad-range of professionals actually familiar with the material think it stinks. Whether we include quotes from the amateurs is questionable. After all, shouldn't Wikipedia give more WP:WEIGHT to professional reviewers rather than amateur reviewers?
ScienceApologist (talk) 14:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, I can’t resist. Do (ScienceApologist) and Guy have any idea how hilarious it looks for them to say that one of the leading scientists of the 20th century wrote a quote about a book because he was paid to do it? Can we compare the likelihood of two things?
1) That James Van Allen would express an opinion about science because he was paid to do it
2) That (ScienceApologist), a graduate student in cosmology, would spend 90% of his waking hours censoring every mention of cosmological heresy (or cosmological heretics) on Wikipedia in order to get major brownie points from his professors.
Now, which do folks think is more probable? Elerner (talk) 04:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
That van Allen signed the statement without looking at it because he trusted the publisher? That van Allen wrote the statement without reading the book? Both seem more likely than (2), and somewhat more likely than (1), which is, in turn, more likely than your assertion that he wrote the statement without being paid to do it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm just going by what the publisher told me. It's not a reliable source, of course. 90% of my waking hours aren't yet spent censoring cosmological heresy. When my grant from the NSF to become Cosmological Grand Inquisitor comes through, then I might up it, though. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
There is no mystery since although Van Allen is dead, I'm not. Van Allen gave me the quote after reading the book because I asked him what he thought of it. I have the letter from him, with his signature. So, that is why he wrote it.Elerner (talk) 23:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
This is all pointless machinations: we're not planning on writing about whether Van Allen received payment for his book jacket quotation or not. I actually don't care much one way or the other if he did. Eric got paid to write his book, that doesn't mean anything either. I imagine that Davies may have gotten paid by the New York Times to write a review of the book as well. Certainly the librarian and the Chicago Tribune reviewer got paid to write their reviews. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Recall that ScienceApologist's objections to the inclusion of the quotation related largely to the issue of whether "Van Allen was paid for the use of his name" [9], and that JzG described the quotation as "A rent-a-quote job" [10]. Since the question of whether James Van Allen received financial compensation for his review of the book is now "all pointless machinations", I contend that the quotation is suitable for inclusion in the article, as it describes the opinion of a highly respected space scientist concerning Lerner's book, portrays the entirety of James Van Allen's review, and is no longer opposed by any substantive objections. John254 14:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
There are substantive objections as to whether Van Allen knew what he was talking about. A single-line quote is hardly indicative of a well-thought out "opinion". I'm inclined to think that this particular quote has more problems than it's worth. At least the other quotes have context. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
We're not going to exclude the opinion of a highly respected and notable scientist from this article simply because ScienceApologist asserts "objections as to whether Van Allen knew what he was talking about." As a space scientist, James Van Allen's area of research is sufficiently related to cosmology that he is qualified to give his scientific evaluation of Lerner's work. Additionally, James Van Allen is far more notable than Sean M. Carroll, whose blog post we are presently employing for the purpose of criticism -- indeed, it appears that Carroll has scarcely achieved sufficiently notability for an article at all, as demonstrated by the fact that our article concerning him relies solely on books and other publications written by Carroll, his curriculum vitae, and his blogs as sources. "A single-line quote" no more reflects a lack of deliberative consideration than writing a blog post filled with personal attacks, as Sean M. Carroll did in his criticism of Eric Lerner. John254 15:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Again with the tit-for-tat editing style. Whining about comparing Carroll to Van Allen is silly. If I wanted to get an opinion on the state of modern cosmology, I would not seance Van Allen, I'd ask Carroll who is just about as good as it gets in terms of expert in cosmology. Van Allen, on the other hand, was just about as good as it gets in terms of space physics (a totally unrelated field). ScienceApologist (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Insisting that sources favorable to Eric Lerner be held to no higher standards of reliability than sources used for criticism isn't "tit-for-tat editing" -- it's essential for neutrality and, thus, compliance with WP:BLP. Furthermore, space physics is fairly obviously related to physical cosmology, to the extent that the universe, or at least the baryonic matter that it contains, is comprised largely of astrophysical plasma. John254 23:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
So, who do we trust, you or the publisher? (For that matter, how do we know you're not dead. L. Ron Hubbard wrote quite a bit after his death.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
An unpublished letter by James Van Allen is clearly not a source. However, it can easily be converted into a source: just ask one of Van Allen's associates, who can verify the authenticity of the letter, to publish it. The manner of publication needn't be anything fancy: since we're presently employing a personal faculty webpage and a blog post as sources of criticism, self-published favorable material would seem likewise acceptable for inclusion. John254 01:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
A published, professionally authenticated, letter by James Van Allen would be a source, or if it were published by someone who is an expert historian. If published by a former colleague, even if not the subject of this article, it doesn't seem adequately reliable. I could be wrong, there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Seems like Arthur is calling me a liar. Does this violate Wiki policy? No, cleary not because Joshua has called me a weasel, a kook and many other names, and he is never disciplined for that. Of course there are no rules here--if you know the rule-enforcers. And I guess Columbia's graduate Astronomy department teaches that name-calling is a good substitute for scientific discussion--if you don't have much science on your side.Elerner (talk) 03:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
People should not be calling each other names, obviously. But it should be apparent that your views on cosmology are on the fringes and treated with some derision by mainstream cosmologists. Wikipedia is not a freakshow, I think this should be discussed in articles which are not ostensibly about you. Guy (Help!) 14:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
(ec) No, actually, I'm not calling you a liar in regard your edits. I wrote the statement that I considered it improbable that the Van Allan quote was really what he said before you said you had a letter. I do intend to imply that the book is not now credible science, and calling it such is a lie, but I'm perfectly willing to believe that you have a letter from Van Allan. It still seems improbable, but stranger things have happpened, and it's still the case that neither an unauthenticated letter nor a book-jacket quote is a WP:RS. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Some comments about time and space

The fact is, Eric was able to weasel his way briefly into the limelight in the early 1990s. Then COBE results came out, Eric lost a couple of debates, the scientific community looked closely at the vacancy of his ideas and that was the end. This page is not a CV for Eric's ideas, it is an encyclopedia that is supposed to provide an account of this minor episode in the story of 1990s cosmology. As such, focusing on every paper and idea Eric ever invented is far too much of a soapbox. Our goal should be to provide a succinct explanation of Eric's proposal to the extent that it was unique in the community and noticed. That's all we should include. John has an axe to grind and a peculiar one at that. We'll just maintain a quorum of editors here to resist his attacks. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Your comment is
(1) A strawman argument, since no one here seriously proposes the inclusion of "every paper and idea Eric ever invented"
(2) Purely unproven conjecture such as "John has an axe to grind and a peculiar one at that" and
(3) In your exhortation to "maintain a quorum of editors here to resist his attacks", a violation of WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND. John254 16:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
You forgot WP:EDITWAR and WP:CONSENSUS. You also forgot that he just admitted he believes Lerner is notable. Weird. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • That doesn't advance the debate much, from either of you. Guy (Help!) 16:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD rationale

I was concerned about User:John254's advocacy here and was also concerned about a lot of the weird way sourcing was happening for this page. I decided to read the WP:BIO guidelines and found, to my astonishment, that Eric is probably not a notable person for inclusion at Wikipedia anyway. There are no secondary biographical sources about him: he receives only trivial mention in the outside world. I was under the impression that BIO guidelines were more lenient than this. Apparently they are not. I have listed the page for deletion according to the bio guidelines. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

If Lerner doesn’t fit the BIO guidelines then I’m on bored also with deletion.--DavidD4scnrt (talk) 20:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Too late. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Lerner. Art LaPella (talk) 21:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move. JPG-GR (talk) 04:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It was suggested by a large number of people at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Lerner that this article be moved to The Big Bang Never Happened.

  • Oppose. This is getting ridiculous. Haven't you got better things to argue about? I bet you haven't even read Eric's book. Van Allen was a plasma physicist... oh hang it, I can't be arsed explaining why I think ScienceApologist needs to get out more. WP has become a giant troll's nest where the guy with no job/life and the most spare time wins the arguments. Jon (talk) 12:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support this option. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- the proposed move would substantially increase this article's WP:BLP problems, as most of the information concerning Lerner's professional activities would be removed, giving significantly undue weight to the fact that Eric Lerner wrote a book with which most cosmologists disagree while ignoring the fact that Lerner wrote numerous scientific articles printed in mainstream journals and magazines, as described in the comments by Jfire in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Lerner. John254 14:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Almost everything we could say about Lerner without violating BLP is about the book, and almost everying presently in the article is about the book and the theory presented in it. Now, if the LaRouche allegations could be substantiated, that might be different. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
To claim that our biographies of living persons policy actually supports this move applies the policy in a manner manifestly contrary to its purpose, which is to protect the interests of the subjects of our biographies, not to harm them. Is it seriously contended that removing all information concerning Eric Lerner's numerous scientific articles printed in mainstream journals and magazines, and describing only the fact that Lerner wrote a book which has been the subject of extensive criticism, actually results in a more fair and balanced treatment of Eric Lerner? John254 14:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Just FYI Arthur, we can substantiate that Lerner was involved with what was ultimately a LaRouche affiliated group, however he was opposed to the "LaRouche" faction/aspect of it. What is far more notable though (since being involved with a group associated with a known person is not notable) is his recent work with the New Jersey Civil Rights Defense Committee which is mentioned in several secondary sources (brief mentions in newspaper articles basically). There are also other past political activities for which we have sources (though the sources are not so great). If you feel that some small measure of notability beyond the book is worthy of keeping this article (as your comment re: LaRouche suggests), then I think it is the case that we have sources to establish that, even though they have been deleted from the article per a previous discussion.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll support this. Guy (Help!) 14:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think the article is actually looking pretty good now, although I think the Van Allen quote ought to be included also since he was a notable figure. Anyway, Guy's edits to the article have really helped tone down the biased phrasing to make it more neutral. Much improved. Good job. ABlake (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Good idea. As was mentioned in the AfD, Lerner doesn't appear to be very notable outside of his book. Jefffire (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. There's not much to be said about this guy other than what can be said about the book. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Question. I'm not completely opposed to this (though I feel it makes more sense to have the article here), but I do have a question about how this would work. If we move the content to an article on the book, I'm wondering if would we allow for a more general discussion of Lerner's work if that was appropriate (I know there isn't much of that in the current article, which in itself is probably a problem). If we have the sources, it would probably be useful to contextualize the book by describing some of Lerner's work both before and after, and also by describing some of his professional affiliations. I know some folks feel such work is not notable and should not be included, but I'm wondering if SA and others who support the move are open at least in principle to discussing at least to some extent Lerner's overall work in the article on the book. Again, I think it's easier to keep this article and not have one on the book, but if we are going to do the latter I want to make sure it doesn't just end up being "people hated this book" rather than giving some context by describing Lerner's own work, his professional affiliations, etc.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
If you want to know whether ScienceApologist is "open... to discussing at least to some extent Lerner's overall work", I believe that [11] provides a compelling answer. (Note that The Astrophysical Journal is one of the most reliable sources that we have for cosmology.) The whole purpose of this move would be to abandon any pretense of providing a comprehensive biography of Eric Lerner, remove the remaining information concerning Lerner's professional activities, and only describe Lerner's book, or, more precisely, the criticism of his book, since the current version of the article makes little effort to provide any more than a cursory description of the theories presented in the book, and unreasonably excludes the favorable review by James Van Allen. ScienceApologist's latest argument for the exclusion of the quote is that space physics, in which Van Allen is a recognized, notable expert, is "a totally unrelated field"[12] to physical cosmology, a claim that is completely without merit, since the universe, or at least the baryonic matter that it contains, is comprised largely of astrophysical plasma. John254 00:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Wow, you sure do have a knack for making it personal. Simply parroting your tired and discounted ideas over and over again does not make them more convincing. Your comments are so vacuous and grounded in plasma cosmology fantasies that we really cannot proceed. It's good, at least, that your bias against mainstream cosmology is finally rearing its head. Maybe you can tell us what seminal work of layman's (non)fiction you read that shed the light for you? Was it Lerner's book? Scott's book? Velikovsky? ScienceApologist (talk) 14:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the fact that the baryonic matter in the universe, at least in its present state, is comprised largely of astrophysical plasma is a point conceded by both the Big Bang theory and plasma cosmology. Where the theories differ with respect to this issue is in the mechanisms they propose for phenomena that cannot be explained by gravity and baryonic matter alone -- i.e. how galaxies are held together despite an apparently insufficient quantity of matter to do this through solely through gravitation, etc. The Big Bang theory posits the existence of dark matter and black holes for this purpose, while plasma cosmology claims that electric currents flowing through astrophysical plasma create the effects observed. There's no question, however, that astrophysical plasma is at least present in significant quantities in the universe. Thus, to the extent that space physics "is the study of plasmas as they occur naturally in the universe", it is quite relevant to cosmology. Consequently, attempts to dismiss and exclude the opinion of James Van Allen from this article on the grounds that he was a space physicist, not a cosmologist, are unjustified. Furthermore, I find it highly objectionable that you are unwilling to participate in a rational discussion of this issue, but instead insist on responding with unfounded personal attacks. John254 15:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Glad to get your amateur opinion. Now maybe you can go ahead and get yourself a degree or two and I'll be happy to engage in a discussion in another venue. In the meantime, we have an encyclopedia to write without all the posturing from peanut galleries. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
The fact that you are unwilling to respond except by means of personal attacks strongly suggests that your position is intellectually bankrupt. John254 17:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
You can e-mail me your thoughts on the matter through the Wikipedia e-mail function. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
The above exchange does not address the question I asked (John, please refrain from replying here, my question was clearly not directed at you). I'd still like to hear from ScienceApologist or others regarding my initial question above.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I anticipate that any article about a book will provide context. That context, however, will also include reasons why the academic community dismissed Eric's work so heartily and why it continues to this day to marginalize him. I do not anticipate a detailed explanation of all Eric's ideas to be included. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the reply. Obviously the negative reaction needs to be there front and center. And a detailed explanation of all of Lerner's ideas is clearly not needed as you say, however some discussion of his overall work, professional affiliations, etc. seems warranted in the book article and I gather you agree. Given that, I don't have a strong objection to moving this into an article on the book, though I still think it makes more sense overall to keep it here. So I guess you can chalk me up as a weak oppose.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigtimepeace (talk • contribs) 20:21, 20 April 2008
  • Support per my comments at the linked AfD.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Relata refero (talk • contribs)
  • Oppose merging [Person] Eric Lerner into [Book] The Big Bang Never Happened. Logically, wouldn't it make more sense to reverse the direction of the merger, if there was consensus? IE, [Book] The Big Bang Never Happened is a subset of [Person] Eric Lerner's life / work. [Person] Eric Lerner is not a subset of a single book or article he has authored. It seems like it would make more sense (if a merger is in fact necessary; not convinced it is) to merge the book into a section of (BLP) Eric Lerner than to merge Eric Lerner into a section of the book's article. In that way, both the book and the person remain covered topics, but it would not exclude discussing other aspects of [Person] Eric Lerner not related to [Book] The Big Bang Never Happened. My 2c. Mgmirkin (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak support of merging the book into a section of the Eric Lerner article (only if it's really and truly necessary), as opposed to merging the person into the book (which would seem to exclude discussing aspects of Eric Lerner not associated with the book, such as his work on focus fusion, other published articles, etc.) Mgmirkin (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear, no article currently exists for The Big Bang Never Happened (it's just a redirect to this article). So the proposal here is not about merging this into an existing article. If there was consensus for this proposal (which at this point is iffy), I imagine we would redirect Eric Lerner to an article on the book and simply move much of the content over to that article.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose If it's one or the other (a person's article talking about their book vs book's article talking about the author) it makes more sence to me to keep the current article. I've got no dog in this race as I accidently found this (doing background research for another article), but he definitely seems notable according to wp:prof. For example, last year he gave a lecture at Google about his research, and he used to write prolifically for the American Institute of Physics magazine [13]. He seems to have been published quite widely in scientific literature besides that. His book makes him notable as an author as well (from wp:bio: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, ... which has been the subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews). NJGW (talk) 01:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Seeing as Lerner seems to fulfil some notability criteria it makes much more sense to contain his book within his page than vice-versa, sheerly by the fact that a short biography would feel out of place on a page about a book. We should ask ourselves: what does wikipedia have to gain by this move?Sillyfolkboy (talk) 16:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, makes sense. Shot info (talk) 23:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Lerner appears to be notable. He may well be wrong but that doesn't make him non-notable. Andrewa (talk) 06:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments on various "oppose" votes

I note that there are a lot of new accounts showing up here to voice their opinion on this matter and the matter below. I find this to be very disturbing because one of the places I'm monitoring is encouraging people to sign up new accounts to vote "oppose" on this move and advocate for the Van Allen quote's inclusion. Very poor form. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I count seven people opposing the move. Of those only one is even remotely a new account, Sillyfolkboy. On the surface at least, that editor does not seem to be a single purpose account set up to prevent this move from happening. Most of their edits relate to Tim and Jeff Buckley. They also claim these contributions as an anon IP going back to last October. So I don't see a problem with any of the accounts who commented in this section at least. It's also worth pointing out that there are 6 support to 7 oppose comments (including my weak oppose) so there does not seem to be consensus for a move at this point.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
You missed User:NJGW who is clearly a single-purpose account in support of "energy innovation" if I've ever seen one. One thing that I find disturbing is User:ABlake, User:Jonathanischoice, User:Mgmirkin, User:John254 all coming out to oppose the move. The first three are devoted plasma cosmology adherents or Eric Lerner associates who have fought tooth and nail to get Wikipedia to right the great wrongs of hiding the truth about the plasma universe. The last is, well, also admitted to being a devotee of this religion. So I'm concerned that we're experiencing railroading and povpushing on a rather grand scale. I think what we have is an attempt to circumvent the typical Wikipedia process. This is disturbing. There is enough evidence for vote staking here and outside canvassing that I'm afraid that there is no fair way to determine what the community consensus is. It's as if we had a question about moving a page about an intelligent design theorist to another page and all the creationist's colleagues and devotees showed up to oppose it. Highly suspect. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Well that might well be an issue, but your original reference to "new accounts" was all that I was responding to above. Personally I find these kind of problems crop up on most articles. Whenever there is a "poll" of some kind the folks who "vote" generally have a strong interest in (and POV with respect to) the issue at hand. You also have a POV with respect to this article, it's just that your view of Lerner's work is the one held by most of the relevant scientific community (which does not make it any less of a point of view, though obviously the fact that it is the mainstream point of view must be pointed out). I don't think simply because an editor supports plasma cosmology (or any other similar viewpoint) it should be the case that they can't comment on articles relating to the topic (though I don't think you're actually suggesting that). Overall though it's obviously more concerning when POV pushing happens in the article itself. This discussion is just about moving the page to a different title (not incidentally, after a failed AfD). I don't think the fact that some editors who agree with Lerner (apparently, I haven't looked closely at their contributions) are commenting on this particular issue amounts to railroading. I think it makes sense to keep the article here and am not an adherent of plasma cosmology, so obviously it is possible to make such an argument without being completely biased.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The problem is when we get groups who are true believers in a subject try to establish a consensus is artificial. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Wow, that's paranoid (Re deletion - Fair enough, it's late). I can't speak for anyone else, but I drop in to montior my watchlist from time to time. I've no idea who the other editors are, but I am not part of any religion, fanclub or conspiracy. I concur with SA with regard to pseudoscience and quackery from the likes of Velikovsky, the Cosmic Thunderbolt theories, creationists, flat earthers and so on. I just don't agree with pointless nitpicking and filibustering. Rather than debate the plasma physics involved, his arguments seem to be always about whether things are notable, sources are reliable, people are trustworthy qualified or authoritative, and so on. I tend to randomly gnome these days rather than get dragged into these sorts of pointless debates. Jon (talk) 13:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Paranoids have enemies, too. I'm not convinced that Lerner's (article's) supporters are primarily true believers, but there certainly are articles which are only in their miserable state because of true believers and false consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
While it appears extraordinarily improbable that this pagemove will actually occur, those who contend that Eric Lerner is only notable for his book should note that Lerner's efforts to use the dense plasma focus to produce aneutronic fusion have been the subject of a multi-paragraph description in The New York Times, one of our most reliable sources -- see Kenneth Chang, "Practical Fusion, or Just a Bubble?", New York Times, February 27, 2007. John254 18:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I count about 12 sentences in that article as being about Lerner. The most interesting one describes him as "president and sole employee of Lawrenceville Plasma Physics". I found nothing on the LPP web pages that would contradict the NYT in this point. I find it a fact that helps the reader put this compny in perspective and would like to mention it in the article. --Art Carlson (talk) 19:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
For anyone who cares or is keeping track, the current edition of Discover magazine has a section on his fusion work, pg. 64. ABlake (talk) 00:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems, then, that we have sufficient coverage of Eric Lerner's aneutronic fusion research in third-party reliable sources to describe it more extensively. John254 00:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.