Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-02-11 Electric Universe Concept, NPOV clarification

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Request for cabal mediation 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Comments by others 1.3 Mediator response 1.4 Wraping up 1.5 Lets start over 2 Undue Weight 3 No Electric Universe article

[edit] Request for cabal mediation

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: Iantresman 14:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

Electric Universe (concept) | Talk

Who's involved?

• Iantresman
• ScienceApologist
• zowie

What's going on?

I contend that in a specific article subsection "Electric Universe proponents' predictions regarding Deep Impact", that the phrasing of some of the information, fails Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy, because certain interpretations are presented as fact.

The section in question solely concerns predictions made by Electric Universe proponents concerning the Deep Impact probe and its encounter with comet Temple-1. I contend that the description in this section is not a Neutral point of view for the following reasons:

• The section mentions that "the predictions did not come to pass". I consider this statement to be (a) judgemental and presented as fact (b) based on interpretation of the data. This makes the statement a non-neutral point of view. I contend that the NPOV style of phrasing would be to paraphrase (or quote) extracts from the citations given; this is consistent with Wiki's policy on verifiability, but the judgement is a non-neutral point of view.

• I had provided my own citations from peer-reviewed papers that also comment on the predictions [1], but these were removed [2], presumably because they appear to support the predictions, but were claimed to be "Velikovskian POV pushing" (??). This contravenes Wikipedia's NPOV policy specifically on Information_suppression

What would you like to change about that?

I'd like an indication on whether the current content, or proposed content described does indeed break Wiki's NPOV policy.

--Iantresman 17:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

...

[edit] Comments by others

From zowie:

Hmmm, as with any disagreement there is more than one point of view here. Ian has been part of long-time effort to promote the Electric Universe, which may (kindly) be described as an alternative theory of the cosmos, as physical law. He has a history of padding the EU article with large numbers of irrelevant citations into the scientific literature.

Ian is concerned about a section titled (roughly; it has changed multiple times) "Failure of Electric Universe predictions surrounding the Tempel-1 Impact". Just before the impact of the Deep Impact spacecraft onto a comet, Electric Universe proponents at the Thunderbolts website (linked to from the article) made several specific predictions about the impact, based on their thinking about the cosmos. Two of those predictions are easily checked by anyone with access to the JPL archive (one is that the debris fan should be a column or collection of discrete filaments, and another is that the crater should be smaller than predicted by planetologists in advance). Even a cursory look at the actual data (or even publicity images and scientific summaries) available at the Deep Impact web site at JPL (linked from Electric Universe (concept) page) shows that these did not come to pass.

Although Ian asserts that he believes otherwise and hence has a legitimate dispute, he has failed to explain why or to provide relevant citations into the scientific literature (he has certainly provided plenty of citations, simply not relevant ones).

At question here is really whether it is to be considered POV to present compelling evidence that an idea is incorrect. I do not consider this to be a case of a "scientific POV", since there is nothing religious or philosophical at stake here -- the dispute, to my mind, is really over whether easily verified experimental evidence should be construed as fact even when a vocal but unpersuasive minority objects.

For what it's worth, I am a professional astrophysicist and well versed in image data analysis; it is what I do for a living. (It might not be worth much: on the one hand I am pretty well qualified to test scientific theories; on the other, I am part of the "conventional science" organization that EU proponents such as Ian see as persecutors. zowie 23:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC) (Comment corrected: added a missing sentence zowie 23:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC))

BTW, Yes, I'm willing to participate in mediation. zowie 18:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

From ScienceApologist

User:Iantresman has had a historic problem of appealing to the wrong parts of the dispute resolution process. In particular, what I think could be resolved by a simple RfC if Ian really feels this strongly about this has been elevated to a mediation request. I believe this to be inappropriate and think this should be referred to RfC. --ScienceApologist 17:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

>RS<

I was a reporter and understand the need for a 'balanced' article. I read a few electric universe websites and found the subject interesting. However, when I checked further in the issues around Tempel 1 and Deep Impact, I found the article in question is not balanced.

There are a several predictions which came to pass, but those are not reflected in the section. As I proposed in the discussion section, to be fair, all predictions of the EU proponents should be displayed with a confirmed/failed, undetermined status or , including support statements. Also there should be a corresponding explanation of what was expected by the Deep Impact project and accepted modelling of comets (as a definition, if they teach it in school, its the accepted model).

Also where there is disagreement over what caused a specific result, both explanations should be included. An example is the double flash that EU predicted and JPL confirmed (see discussions for links). The EU crowd says it is due to the double layer being 'broken' by the impactor and then the actual impact; the non-EU crowd claim it was debris or the powdery composition that caused the first flash and then the actual impact caused the second.

The best way to show the accuracies and flaws of the prediction is to show them all, enter the observed results with links to where the info was obtained, and whether the result matches up to the prediction. Then let the reader decide the validity of the prediction. >RS<

Response from zowie:

As discussed in the talk page, I don't believe that a complete categorization of all the predictions would be helpful, because (A) some of them are contentious -- there is not an obvious answer to whether the experiment actually fit the prediction or not, and (B) even one strong violation is enough to rebut the concept.

For example, consider "Zowie's Theory of Gravitation", which states that the main force holding the Universe together is bovinity. Although I can't give you a specific framework for ZTG, I can issue some predictions based on it:

-(A) apples fall when dropped (due to the fact that they seek the bovinity in fossil cow dung under the Earth's crust);

-(B) ineffable spiritual essence floats in midair when dropped, due to the fact that spiritual essence is composed of raw bovinity; and

-(C) beefsteak floats in midair when dropped, due to bovinity rays emitted by the beefsteak.

Clearly, Zowie's theory of gravitation is complete bullocks. However, >RS< would have it be presented thusly:

• Apples fall - success
• ineffable spiritual essence floats in midair - maybe (3 experimenters report success, 1 experimenter reports inability to see ISE)
• Beefsteak floats - failure (though experimenters at Thundercow.com report a 25% reduction in mass in aged beef)

Then ZTG supporters would point out that ZTG was successful at predicting the fall of the apple. Never mind that accepted theory already does that -- the interesting question is the one that disagrees with accepted theory. Anyone can verify that beefsteak doesn't float, just by dropping one. zowie 23:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Response from >RS<:

I agree with you. Any theory that fails in one of its aspects indicates the theory as a whole is incorrect. That's when the theory is modified to conform to the new observations. However, by applying this standard to the accepted theory of how comets are formed, the accepted theory is a failure. First comets were iceballs, then dirty snowballs, then snowy dirtballs and now they are loose conglomerations of dust according to the latest assumption of JPL scientists based on the Deep Impact results.

Further to the general argument of one disagreeing with accepted theory that explains the falling apple, the reason all predictions should be included is the accepted theory does NOT predict or explain events observed with comets (for a perusal of such incidents check out http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060119comets.htm).

When such luminaries as Carl Sagan says science can't explain certain comet behaviour and another theory is presented that does explain the comet's behaviour, then it should not be dismissed.

EU proponents say comets can be better explained in terms of electrical phenomena than the accepted theories maintained by JPL/NASA.

If the we are to maintain the NPOV, then the article should either include all the successful and failed predictions for both models or explain that neither the EU or JPL/NASA have a workable comet theory. >RS<

Counterpoint from zowie:

Now I understand -- we're talking through each other. You seem to be concerned because current thinking on the origin of comets cannot explain all of the comets' current behavior. I am concerned that EU (which may or may not be able to explain current cometary behavior) violates the currently accepted laws of physics and hence requires extraordinary evidence. Nobody knows (yet) exactly what comets are made of, or how they came to be -- but the mere fact that we do not yet have a clear theory of comet formation does not mean that a new theory of gravitation and the cosmos is required to explain them.

In other words, invalidating a current model of comet formation does not equate to invalidating current basic physics. Certainly the Deep Impact results invalidated some models of comet formation -- but that does not equate to a result supporting the EU ideas.

You're right in quoting Sagan that alternative theories should not be dismissed arbitrarily. In this case, EU should be dismissed because:

• it can't predict all aspects of comet formation (as you pointed out, so should several cometary formation models, for the same reason);
• it appears to disagree with known physical law (charge conservation and stellar stability are two aspects that appear suspect); and
• it is a mess of incoherent gibberish (without a published, rigorous way of generating predictions about the future).

Such dismissal is not arbitrary. Neither is it a partisan issue like politics -- in a political debate, it is possible for rational, informed parties to disagree. In this case, within the confines of the scientific method, it is not. Calling out the failures in the Tempel-1 section is the quickest path to demonstrating that EU is at best incorrect -- but there are other, grosser violations that do not enjoy the benefit of being so obvious to the layperson in web-available images. zowie 21:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Counterpoint from >RS<:

I just checked out a couple of the links to opponents of EU and found them quite enlightening (although in a couple of spots they also rely on what ifs when discussing Tau neutrino detection). However, the issue of showing EU is correct or incorrect shouldn't rely on only presenting the results from one particular side while refusing to reveal information contrary to 'your' position on the issue. This is why a number of peer-review magazines are changing their peer review policy in regards to submitted studies.

You say, in the context of the section, that the two selection shown "...is the quickest path to demonstrating that EU is at best incorrect...". That may be true, but if I, as part of the readership of the article, then find there are 10-15 other predictions and some appear to have come true, then I would may conclude politics has come into play, obscuring both arguments for and against EU. I then can't trust any of the article and the chance to demonstrate that Deep Impact did not confirm the EU 'theory' of comet formation and behaviour.

If you wish to show EU is invalid "...but there are other, grosser violations that do not enjoy the benefit of being so obvious to the layperson in web-available images.", then explain why each prediction is wrong in either the way it is stated or the evidence obtained by Deep Impact. Some examples:

Prediction: An abundance of water on or below the surface of the nucleus (the underlying assumption of the “dirty snowball” hypothesis) is unlikely.

The term unlikely is wriggle room and shouldn't have been included. However, as the current theory from JPL/NASA is comets are big fluff balls, then this prediction was true. As such it raises the question of what the jets and coma is created from as water (or any liquid that forms an ice) has been eliminated, etc.

Prediction: The discharge and/or impact may initiate a new jet on the nucleus (which will be collimated—filamentary—not sprayed out) and could even abruptly change the positions and intensities of other jets due to the sudden change in charge distribution on the comet nucleus.

There was no observation of a change in jet position or intensity or a new collimated-filamentary jet. This prediction is considered false.

Prediction: Any arcs generated will be hotter than can be explained by mechanical impact. If temperature measurements are made with sufficient resolution, they will be much higher than expected from impact heating.

As this prediction doesn't provide any information as to what mechanical impact temperature is expected to be on impact and there is no prediction, other than 'more', then this prediction cannot be falsified as stated and should be discarded as neither true or false. If there had been specifics, then it would be falsifiable.

This Section on Deep Impact also contains a disingenous opinion which is being allowed to creep in the section. On 20 February 2006, ScienceApologist made the following change to Electric Universe proponents' predictions regarding Deep Impact:

"Note the formations indicating a powder composition -- powder holes carved from snow, grooves, lumps, and so forth, giving lie to the specific predictions referenced above on thunderbolts.info that "The model predicts a sculpted surface, distinguished by sharply defined craters, valleys, mesas, and ridges." Obviously, then, Tempel-1 is powder, through and through."

Based on the picture he also provided, I can clearly see one crater in the lower half and 4-5 other possible craters in the upper half. The top part appears to contain a mesa, a raised section with a flatish top,etc. Many of the features appear quite defined. There is no accompanying information how powder can be shaped into defined features without a bonding agent and what would that bonding agent be (remember this is powder, not ice/snow). This viewpoint is guilty of what opponents accuse EU proponents of, making unsubstantiated, untestable claims.

Worse is the statement: "Obviously, then, Tempel-1 is powder, through and through." The obvious features he mentions were assumed to be carved from ice and snow before Tempel-1 was smacked by Deep Impact. Now, in his opinion, the evidence suddenly shows the features are powder formations. There is nothing to support the statement. The evidence of the features themselves would discount the assumption that a comet is made of powder, but somehow they 'prove' this according to ScienceApologist.

The only reason powder is being offered that I could find is to explain the double flash and the lack of liquid and ice from the impact. In such case, either solid rock or loose powder fits the theory and both should be presented until there is evidence that one or the other is not possible.

If a NPOV cannot be maintained, then a balanced view should be used so both sides can present evidence and interpretations and leave it to the reader to make their own determinations.

>RS<

RS: I do not condone the current section by ScienceApologist - I agree that it does not come across as NPOV. I have not edited it because I am refraining until the mediation is complete. zowie 01:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I did not write the "current section" in question. --ScienceApologist 18:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Reply to ScienceApologist

I checked the edits page and it shows the userid ScienceApologist as the author of the current phrasing about the different features proving the comet is made of powder. If I have misread this, you have my apologies. >RS<

• Sorry, ScienceApologist -- I had just looked at the most recent name -- I think the lines in question may have come from an anonymous contributor. zowie 22:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediator response

Firstly, are there any civility concerns, or other policy violations here? Because from what I see the problem is more one of content than of personalities. I read the talk page, and while Zowie once brought up "vandalism", he did so in a polite manner, and seemed to accept that was the wrong word for what was going on (Vandalism would be something like replacing the entire article w "Todd is GAY!" ;)

I admit I have no clue who is right about the facts here, but there are some general rules to go by. #1 Cite sources, cite experts interpreting sources, but don't interpret the sources for the reader. #2 Write an article that all reasonable, informed parties can live with. Partisans from both sides should be able to read the article without screaming "Lies!" ;) #3 seek outside opinions. I know thats probably what you ment to do here, but my job is not to decide who is right or wrong (which I can't, because it is a technical matter, and everyone seems to be within policy guidelines). So... unless there are some interpersonal disputes, I have to advise you to try WP:RfC or something of that sort to bring in outside input... OR you could focus on areas everyone can agree to, like citing sources and letting the experts speak for themselves...

To sum things up, I am pretty impressed with the quality of debate here. I really appreciate the respect you have both shown to each other. You seem to know and care alot about the particulars, and as frustrating as it is, I think the article will be the better for your efforts. Sam Spade 13:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for your reply. I would say that this particular case

• I agree that this is not a civility issue
• That you don't need to know who is right or wrong about the facts
• I agree with your general summary of the rules
• But I believe that some of the text indeed contravened the first rule, because it does "interpret the sources for the reader". I gave as a specific example, that the section mentions that "the predictions did not come to pass", which appears to be an inerpretation.
• That removing other citations (containing no apparent editorial interpretation), contravenes Wikipedia's NPOV policy specifically on Information_suppression

So I'm not asking for an assessment on who is right or wrong, only whether some text adheres to the rules --Iantresman 13:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm supposed to refrain from bring[ing] up [my] own opinion, but since you are clearly asking for a third opinion, I will, say that this does not strike me as NPOV either (and zowie seems to agree). But please, when rewriting it, try hard to observe the suggestions I made above. Have at it, Sam Spade 15:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for your input. Although I think that parts of the whole section may not be NPOV, I acknowledge to Zowie that it is unlikely that every single phrase deviates from NPOV. Just to help us all, and to leave no doubt for ambiguiity, could you specify which phrases you currently consider are not NPOV. since it may be that we can leave some of the text in tact? --Iantresman 16:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

These two sentances seem to be providing an editorial POV:

Initial reports from the Deep Impact team [3] showed the predictions did not come to pass

One can clearly see that the comet is a "pile of powder" from one of the many available NASA pictures

A better way to have worded things would have been something like:

'according to Deep Impact team reports the comet is a "pile of powder"[3]'

Sam Spade 17:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for that, it is very helpful.

Are you also able to comment on the selection of verifiable citations? For example, some editors have chosen quotes from various sources which describe a particular point of view. I may not agree with them, but I can't argue with them as they are verifiable. However, some other quotes and citations which descibed another point of view [3], have been removed. The selection of quotes which support one view, and removal of others that support another, also seems to violate NPOV? --Iantresman 19:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Ian -- please remember to point out that you have a tendency to include many disconnected citations in large lists with little or no summarization; this has been interpreted by me and by other editors as an effort to snow the reader with detail, which is part of how we got to the impasse that lead to you asking for mediation. zowie 19:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly not the intent. In this particular instance, I had extracted specific quotes, along with citation [4].

In the past where I have provided long lists of references, I feel they have been justified. For example, when I created the article on "Intrinsic redshift", ScienceApologist claimed the article was ".. based on an obscure clearinghouse paper published in the 1980s"[5]. I then countered with a list of over 40 citations [6] from the NASA ADS database which mentions "intrinsic redshift" in the abstracts. --Iantresman 20:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm.... Inserting a list of 40 citations based on a keyword in the abstract is questionable in the best of circumstances. At the very least one should have the courtesy to summarize them ("There are 35 abstracts related to this topic in ADS (insert ADS URL here). 10 of them are about ZTG as it relates to extraterrestrial bovine life forms, 15 debunk the concept of ZTG, and 5 mention it in passing as part of a list of alternate models of gravity.") rather than merely exhaustively copying the titles and claiming (incorrectly) that they all support the idea you are supporting. A better way to proceed is to analyze the citation index to find out which papers are the most influential (and whether the citing papers are supporting or disagreeing), and then describe the ideas presented in the most influential papers only, as they are the most likely to represent scientific consensus. It's important to remember that, for example, something like three quarters of papers in the Astrophysical Journal contain significant errors despite the refereeing process -- the articles themselves are far from gospel! zowie 21:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

In this particular case, I was demonstrating general usage, as I have also done on several occassions previously. I have also pulled out individual quotes from numerous references [7] [8] when required. --Iantresman 21:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why Ian thinks it is ever a good idea to link to searches he does on adsabs. We've had this disagreement before. In general, actual papers should be referenced, not searches, Ian. --ScienceApologist 13:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Links to searches are not usually a good idea for the article space, but I can't really comment on some of the subtleties of these links. What I can say is that it is best to let the experts speak for themselves, and that the narrative should not express a POV not shared by a significant body of notable persons.

From what you are saying (and only that, I havn't investigated these matters) it would seem that links were used in a flooding manner. Links should be specific and reinforcing to a specific phrase in the article. Please see Wikipedia:Footnotes, WP:CITE, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and this featured article on a controversial topic: Big_Bang. Take special note to how the citations are handled. Sam Spade 11:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, citations in articles should be exactly as you have described. Those mentioned above were in discussion only, and used to show a preponderance of evidence, in a similar manner to how a "Google test" might be used. --Iantresman 12:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I misunderstood. Talk page citations have little if any standards (other than being on topic, hopefully...), and agoogle test is a perfectly normal thing to put there (I do that all the time when deciding on a name for an article). My comments were assuming the 40 + links and search engine results had been put in the article. Sorry, I assume the worst in cases like these, maybe I shouldn't, my apologies. Sam Spade 12:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

That's not to say that I haven't used numerous citations in articles, see for example my article on "Redshift theories (alternative)" (originally called Intrinsic redshifts) where I included 50 citations, in context. However one of the co-editors claimed the article was based on "an obscure clearinghouse paper"[9], effectively ignoring the other 49 citations --Iantresman 13:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

this may not be 50 citations but it is a good example the behavior that we are presently arguing about. It is 21 citations, none of which appears to be about the Electric Universe concept, and which are cited without explanation in an attempt to build credibility for that concept. zowie 14:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't comment on the quality of those links, but the table looks nice. I do think footnotes would work better tho, at least when possible. Has anyone had a look at the links I mentioned? Sam Spade 15:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I had a look at the links you mentioned, but part of the problem here is that there doesn't seem to be an official policy on when a reference is not appropriate. This is an important aspect of the NPOV debate we're having, as a big part of the tug-of-war between EU advocates (such as [[User::Iantresman|Ian]] and the quasi-anonymous user RS) on one side, and the scientific establishment (as embodied by me, ScienceApologist, and Joshua Schroder) on the other is the appropriate use of citations and references. Ian's table in July looks pretty but is counterproductive: it looks authoritative and appears to list a large number of scientific articles that are either in support of or relevant to the EU concept; but in fact those articles were written by people who (A) probably didn't know that the EU concept exists, and (B) would probably reject it thoroughly as an incomplete mess of ideas at best and a crank idea at worst. At one time Ian seemed to be trying to claim that Hannes Alfven, the Nobel prize winner and inventor of magnetohydrodynamics, would have been an EU advocate, were he alive today. While I'm sure Ian is well meaning, the sum total of these mis-references and mis-associations is an incorrect, artificial inflation of EU's importance to the mainstream science community. The only reason I (an astrophysicist) am even aware of this stuff is that I saw a link from Ian's contributions in magnetohydrodynamics or someplace. I have stuck around mainly to prevent it being represented as accepted physical theory, although during a VfD round last summer I championed it being kept in Wikipedia as a body of thought that is interesting in itself. zowie 15:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Eactly, this sort of stuff should be kept, and neutrally discussed, thats what people expect from encyclopedias. While we can't go around saying dead guys accept theories they never heard of, we can cite instances where they held similar views, or notable people claiming "dead guy X would have supported alternate theory Y if he were alive today". The key is in allowing an informed reader to make up their own mind, rather than spoon-feeding them our POV. Having editors on both sides of the fence helps alot, because you guys (if you all follow the "wiki spirit") will strive to present information in the article every reasonable, informed party can live with.

I agree that the verifiability and citations policies could stand some improvement, but I also think they can be quite helpful in this situation, as well as others. Sam Spade 16:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Proper citations certainly can be useful - but the nubbin of the past few paragraph's tussle is that I (and others) don't believe Ian's citations are useful. It's very easy to take the politically correct stance that more citations are better, but in this case many refereed journal articles are being cited to support an idea that is completely different than what they support. It is like the old Saturday morning TV commercials - they used to say things like "TRIX is a part of this nutritious breakfast", which included juice, toast, milk, eggs, and TRIX. Actually, the nutrition in the breakfast is ALL in the other ingredients and not in the TRIX -- it was disingenuous and deceptive to include TRIX in the list. Similarly, citing scientific papers about the Jovian magnetosphere to support the idea that EU is important scientifically is deceptive. At the bare minimum, those papers should be summarized and their relevance discussed - otherwise the overall presentation becomes deceptive in the same way as the TRIX commercial. zowie 17:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that is a fair example. I consider the table and references valid; It is not claimed that they support the Electric Universe theory per se. But since the Electric Universe theory considers the role of electricity in astronomy to be significant and underestimated, this particular table demonstrates that. Otherwise the description of the Electric Universe theory is open to the criticism that electricity plays no significant part in astronomy.

Critics are quite correct that just because peer reviewed citations are given, it does not imply ANY direct validity of the Electric Universe theory itself. But it is equally incorrect to assume that just because the Electric Universe theory is not accepted, it can share no values with accepted mainstream science. In otherwords, the Electric Universe theory and mainstream science are not mutually exclusive.

I don't think I ever implied that Hannes Alfvén would have supported the Electric Universe theory (I'd have not way of knowing or verifying). But there is no doubt that the Electric Universe proponents consider Alfvén's work to be the foundation of the Electric Universe theory. You can see my version of the article before it was decimated, here. --Iantresman 17:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

(We had an edit conflict as I went to add the following):

Hmmm -- I should mention that, at this time, there appear to be zero refereed publications in the scientific literature that discuss the Electric Universe ideas explicitly. If such citations did exist, listing them (even 21 of them) in a table in the article would be productive. But the proponents have been unwilling or unable to get their ideas past even the low level of rigorous scrutiny offered by the refereeing process. zowie 17:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't dispute any of that. But Wikipedia policy says there is no obligation to present articles from the scientific point of view. And if the Electric Universe theory claims that the Moon is made from green cheese, because there is a history of the Moon being considered to be made of cheese, then providing citations on the latter [10] can only help the reader? --Iantresman 18:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

If EU proponents were to claim that the Moon is made from green cheese, it would not be useful to cite articles on the nutrition value of stilton vs. cheddar or on the importance of penicillium to the world economy. At best it would be irrelevant or distracting; at worst it would be a deceptive attempt to build credibility. Most importantly, those articles would not be notable in the context of selenitic caseology. In this case, Ian, citing articles about the importance of the magnetic field in forming and heating the Jovian magnetosphere, or on the peculiar induction effects surrounding Io because it encased in that magnetosphere, is irrelevant to the main tenets of EU, one of which is that electrostatic attraction and repulsion (rather than gravity) dominate astrophysics. In this case, it is deceptive because citing articles from ADS makes EU appear to the casual reader to be a valid scientific theory, or at least one worthy of consideration as such. It does not meet several of the important criteria of falsifiability and rigor that a real theory must pass, and therefore should be presented as a body of ideas and not as a possible fact. zowie 19:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

But I'm not citing articles on cosmic electric currents to support the importances of electrostatic forces in space. If I want to attribute the latter, I can provide a relevant citation, eg "Interstellar clouds could be formed by electromagnetic contraction" [11]. The table of citations on electric currents support the Electric universe theory that cosmic electric currents are not only important, but exist (contrary to those who claim that there are no electric currents in space). --Iantresman 21:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Who claims that there are no electric currents in space? Perhaps during the time of Alfven many people believed that there were no such currents, but they are commonly accepted and have been for lo these past 40 years. Birkeland, Chapman, Alfven and Parker won the debate. It's over. No, the problematic claims are not about the presence of electric currents in space. Some of the problematic claims are that "the Sun and stars are powered by an external electric current" and not by nuclear fusion, that the observed craters on the Moon and elsewhere were formed by electrical discharge rather than impact, and that electrical phenomena are more important than gravity at shaping the Universe as a whole. Those claims are not addressed at all by the papers you cite -- the subjects are as different as chalk and, well, cheese. zowie 22:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

According to a straw poll [12], 80% of people do not consider the plasma of space to be conductive (I know, small sample size, not quite the point at issue), let alone that there are actually electric currents.

Regarding the "electric sun" you'll note hardly any citations, because there are very few (so they're hardly misused). And regarding craters formed by electric discharge, the section has yet to be written. --Iantresman 22:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, if cosmic electric currents are so well-known, can you find any article in Wikipedia on astronomy that mentions them? --Iantresman 22:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Sun, solar flare, birkeland current, heliopause, magnetopause, current sheet, magnetohydrodynamics. Not all of these refer explicitly to electric currents, but they all refer to sudden shifts in the magnetic field direction, which is the same thing according to Maxwell's equations. zowie 05:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Alfvén pointed out the importance of taking into account the electric current description of plasmas, compared to the magnetic description; although Maxwell's first law shows the translation between both descriptions, the diplacement current is typically ignored which may lead to incorrect results. [13] [14]

But I must also congratulate you Zowie, as you appear to be the only other person contributing to Wikiepedia who has specifically mentioned cosmic electric currents, in your article on current sheet. --Iantresman 19:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

 :-) I know that, in the solar/heliospheric science community, most folks don't think about the currents explicitly in most cases, because the magnetic formulation is exactly equivalent and is rooted more in the kinds of things that are directly observable. It is very rare to find, for example, a solar feature that traces an electric current -- but quite common to find features that trace magnetic field lines. So people tend to focus on how to predict and understand the features they can see -- it's more connected to the observations than the currents, which, after all, are derivable from the form of the magnetic field. But folks who study in situ measurements like the ones from POLAR or ACE tend to talk in terms of both magnetic fields and currents. zowie 05:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi. "Quasi-anonymous user RS" here and I would like to point out that a lot of the issues being raised here are about the validity of the EU theory. That is perfectly acceptable, except in the section that was being offered for NPOV. Only results that denied the EU view were being offered for public consumption. To slightly change my previous suggestions: put in everything whether it is considered important or not and then have both sides express their view on the result. That way everyone can express their viewpoint and the reader gains insights into both sides of the argument. You can say why the other viewpoint is wrong in your viewpoint, but the individual viewpoints are left alone. >RS<

Well, actually the issues surrounding validity of the EU concept are key to the NPOV debate. The fundamental problem here is that one faction (you guys) is presenting EU as fact, and another faction (the several physicists who have been debunking and editing) is striving to keep it well marked as a body of ideas that do not qualify as such. I have to admit that it's rather puzzling -- it's as if a bunch of "folks" started rigorously defending the idea that Iraq doesn't exist, or that cars aren't powered by gasoline at all but rather by mangoes.

Ideas like EU are interesting to present but should not be presented as truth. I've already pointed out (in the talk page) some ways in which EU isn't even wrong -- which is why I refuse to refer to it as a theory. It simply isn't well enough formulated to be called that. The section that started this whole debate is about one of the few cases where the Thunderbolts EU advocacy site made a prediction that was well enough formulated to qualify as right or wrong. A big part of the ensuing debate (over the last several dozen kilobytes) is whether it is "POV-pushing" to assert that something is wrong, or to combat attempts to make it appear more plausible, if in fact that thing is both implausible and wrong.

This recent spat about Ian's tendency to flood articles with citations is one example of this central tension: lacking any citable journal articles about EU itself, Ian must cite dozens of vaguely similar articles in the hope that they demonstrate electric current is important, and when they are erased as a crapflood he complains of POV censorship. Lacking the will or ability to calculate easily measurable (or at least comparable) things like the predicted lifetime of the Sun, the precession of Mercury's orbit, or the character of the dust and rays aound lunar craters, EU advocates in general cry that they are persecuted by mainstream scientists who refuse to listen or who have a grudge. Well, no, not really -- it's just that there are serious problems with the theory, that should be pointed out in any balanced article. zowie 05:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I've never presented the Electric Universe theory as a truth, unless you can find any statement which suggest otherwise my original text? And regarding citations, as I've described previously, I've provided citations to verify specific statements, again unless you can find those that suggest otherwise.

It sounds like you're suggesting that I can't use peer-reviewed citations to verify certain statements, in case people think they equally apply to those statements which can not be verified. Dammed if I do, dammed if I don't --Iantresman 14:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... To be perfectly clear, Ian, I believe you use peer-reviewed citations that are at best marginally to the point your are making, to make it appear that you have verified that point. From my perspective, you are not "damned if you do" make use of citations appropriately. But you don't -- you appear to use them in the associative way I described above. zowie 17:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

In which case I accept your concern, and ask only that you highlight such problematic citations. --Iantresman 19:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wraping up

So.. are you guys willing to resume editing? Sam Spade 18:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Heh.  :-) I knew we here here for some reason or other... Before we wrap up, I'd like to come to some sort of consensus on the content or presence of the "Tempel-1" section. My position going in, which I find I still keep, is that either it should highlight the clearest failures of the theory (I think the "powder, through and through" statement is too strong but it is also clear just from the preliminary analyses at the JPL web site and elsewhere that the comet is not composed of solid rock), or should be deleted altogether. The results that aren't in yet aren't, in my opinion, notable; neither are predictions that agree with conventional theory.

I believe that it would misleading to the point of being POV to include the "balanced" account that Ian and RS have been promoting; this is similar to "teaching the controversy" (the ostensible aim of the Intelligent Design lobby) when there really is no serious controversy. If the current highlighting of experimental discrepancies is unacceptable to Ian and to RS, I propose that we delete the section entirely and leave the shortened article more or less as-is.

The shortened form of the article, in my opinion, meets well with the Wikipedia goal of explaining the idea and providing links to outside resources where one can find out more. It draws attention to the fact that the EU concept is outside established physics and indicates its main tenets and principle sources of inspiration. I believe that anything beyond that is rather too much, and I remain conflicted about having written the Tempel-1 section at all: even though the main debunking results are quite obvious in the preliminary data, it is too close to original research for my comfort as an encyclopedian.

Incidentally, Ian, through the course of this I have not lost sight of the fact that you have made many valuable contributions elsewhere -- particularly early work on magnetohydrodynamics, Birkeland current, and related articles -- you are a valuable member of the WP community and I'd like to see you continue contributing. zowie 19:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree philosophically, and think "teaching the controversy" is the right way to go, altho again I am unaware of the specifics (astrophysics isn't my area). My opinion is that in order to conform with NPOV, the Electric Universe (concept) article (as opposed to other articles on physics or etc...) needs to go over this particular in detail, citing the experts and their views. Deleting such referenced information (assuming that is what it is, or will be) is against the readers best interest.

Original research and unverified POV should not be there, we agree. Something well referenced and neutral should be placed in it's stead however, particularly since this appears to be a rather signifigant event in the "electric universe" ;) Sam Spade 20:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. Regarding a shortened form of the article, I see no reason not to add more detail. As Wiki policy mentions: "None of this, however, is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to those views. There is no size limit to Wikipedia."[15]. Article size is not proportional to an article's significance, importance or veracity.

As for the section in question, I admit that I still don't understand why it is felt detrimental to include additional citations which I feel are positive towards the Electric Universe theory. I understand falsifiability, but I genuinely don't believe that showing any of these predictions to be false, indicates that the theory as a whole has been falsified. It would be like suggesting that the Temple-1 falsifies the icy snowball comet theory; it doesn't. It just shows that this particular comet does not fall into the icy snowball class of comets.

I also have a problem with the description of the predictions.

• The section mentions "Of these several predictions, two stand out as easily verifiable...". Except that I see the quotes as describing at least SIX predictions:

• The discharge and/or impact may initiate a new jet on the nucleus...
• (which will be collimated—filamentary—not sprayed out)...
• and could even abruptly change the positions and intensities of other jets due to the sudden change in charge distribution on the comet nucleus.
• The impact/electrical discharge will be into rock,...
• not loosely consolidated ice and dust...
• The impact crater will be smaller than expected.

• I feel that the citation provided suggests that perhaps the "impact into rock" predictions is false; I can't find an indication of whether the large crater size is smaller or larger than that expected). And the first three predictions do not seem to be falsified at all, with the prediction of new jets apparently confirmed [16]
• Of course theories are always modified as a result of new data. Only recently, dark matter predictions were shown to be inaccurate "Current theory had predicted dark matter particles would be extremely cold, moving at a few millimetres per second;" [.. the] "speed actually - about 9km/s" (off by over 6 orders of magnitude) [17] --Iantresman 21:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I see that ScienceApologist has reverted a recent edit [18], thereby endorsing such judgemental statements as "giving lie to the specific predictions" and "Obviously, then, Tempel-1 is powder, through and through." I'd imagine that you'd need x-ray vision to confirm that! --Iantresman 21:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with adding verifiable citations that discuss Electric Universe specifically, provided that they are both relevant and summarized in the article. (However, links to thunderbolts.com should be labeled as links to an advocacy site, not as authoritative references which they are not). I do object to irrelevant citations or ones that are not properly incorporated into/summarized in the text. No time to respond to the other business just now -- perhaps later. zowie 01:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --Iantresman 12:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Terrific. The other half of what we need to decide is what happens to the Tempel-1 section. It seems that not everyone will be satisfied if we mention any less than all of the predictions made by thunderbolts.com, so I suppose I'm going to have to concede that can happen without the world crashing down around our ears. However, a full-on bulleted list or table is too bloated for proper presentation; the write-up should be 2-3 paragraphs, rather than a full-on table. Agreed?

Another problem I have with a complete treatment of the comet section is that it throws the whole article out of balance -- the comet stuff is not central to the EU body of thinking, and only attains notability because it is one the few cases where specific predictions were made. If Ian or RS would consider writing a brief segment on how they think stars are powered, or on some of the other more central aspects of the theory, it would balance the article nicely. While Joshuaschroeder is not here to comment, I believe that the reason for that round of edits was because the previous text was huge, ungainly, and biased enough to be actually wrong rather than merely squirrely; hopefully we can avoid those problems this time around. zowie 15:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

There's a couple of sections I think need to be added, or expanded on, including:

• How electric stars "work"
• Electric comets (comets in an electrical environment)
• Craters formed by electric discharge and EDM (electric discharge machining)

Give me a while, and I'll do what I can. --Iantresman 17:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, all those sound good (as topics) to me. Please make sure to qualify phrasing, as in for example "EU proponents believe that the craters attributed by most planetologists to the Late Heavy Bombardment are not due to impacts with planetesimals but rather to lightning strikes between different bodies in the early solar system", rather than "Craters on airless bodies are due to electrical discharge". The former is a bit longer and more awkward, but it reports a true-believer's point of view rather than (as the latter)) taking a pro-EU POV. I think that it is that sort of phrasing that got the original article overhauled and started us all wrangling in the first place. zowie 17:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I really appreciate how constructive you two are being. It appears to me that now is the time for you two to team up and start editing in the same manner. Sam Spade 17:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Sam. I appreciate your effort and attention keeping us from spiraling out of control. Ian, are you still here? Do you feel that we've resolved your grievance? zowie 17:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

It sounds very promising. We'll see how the editing goes! --Iantresman 17:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Hoorah! Sam Spade 17:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

... and thanks very much Sam, much appreciated.

... I was wondering whether you might tackle another NPOV policy issue to which I have yet to have resolved, I can open another Mediation page with a description? --Iantresman 17:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, first of all what is it? I might prefer to involve myself in a non-neutral capacity (esp. if I know what the heck it is, unlike this electric universe stuff ;) Sam Spade 10:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll summarise it here, and copy it to a new page if you'd like to take it on, and request other editors' views before commenting:

• The Neutral Point of View policy states that
• ".. articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias" [19]
• "None of this, however, is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to those views." [20]

So on the one hand, NPOV says that articles should describe all views (in proporion to their 'significance'), on the other hand, articles about specific views are "devoted to those views".

Some editors have interpreted this to mean that all articles should describe all views. Other editors have interpreted this to mean that general articles should describe all views, but articles describing a specific (minority) view, should primarily describe that point of view (in a neutral manner), and NOT detail other points if view. As an example:

• A general article on political systems would indeed describe democracy, communism, dictatorships, etc.
• But a specific article on democracy would not detail the communist point of view, though it would probably mention it.
• Otherwise we end up with two similar articles that compare and contrast democracy with communism, and policy states that "Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in." [21] (my emphasis)

This issue has arisen spefically in relation to the Electric Universe article (a minority view), where some editors feel that other (majority) views should be provided for most statements, whereas other editors feel that this is not necessary, as long as the article makes it clear that the article describes the Electric Universe point of view (neutrally, accurately, and verifiably), and merely notes that there are other points of view, or links to the appropriate page using the appropriate keyword.

--Iantresman 11:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, well thats what were discussing here, isn't it? So no need for a new case, I shouldn't think. The majority view and the view held by significant experts should be discussed in every article, no matter how obscure the topic. This need not be done line by line, point by point, but I suppose maybe it could be... is that the problem here? In my experience w situations like this the problem seems to be that while some editors are skeptics, and some are believers (perfectly healthy positions), others are true believers, and pathological skeptics... (in other words unreasonable parties) Guys like me w no opinion rarely come in and edit.

Do we agree so far? Sam Spade 17:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the issue of true believer vs pathological skeptic is the situation we've fallen into.

From my own perspective I find the requirement of thunderbolts being labelled as an advocacy site instead of an authorative site, onerous. To say that any group that supports an alternative view is not authoritive of THAT view is incorrect. Whether they can prove that their viewpoint is the correct one, is another matter. (As an aside, could Zowie please present a list of websites or groups/literature that promote the electrical universe side that he would accept as authoritive. If not, then the labelling of any site as non-authoritive should be dismissed.)

zowie:Certainly. Here are a few: Astrophysical Journal, Physical Review, American Journal of Physics, Plasma Physics, Journal of Geophysical Research. I have frequently contended (and still contend) that peer review in a refereed journal is crucial to getting a straight story. Even a serious submission to a non-refereed site such as the arXiv would be a step in the right direction. zowie 22:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

To demonstrate how this appears to me I will flog a dead horse:

I was able to provide links to NASA/JPL that supported the existance of the double flash as predicted by EU proponents. The interpretation of why there was a double flash is still open for debate. As EU proponents predicted this and provided an explanation why it would occur, I expect the onus is on the mainstream group to provide an explanation of why the EU viewpoint is wrong and/or provide a satisfactory mechanism that explains how the double flash occurred from their viewpoint. Neither has happened.

zowie:I must admit that I have not searched the scientific literature on this -- however, extraordinary claims require extraordinary effort: I haven't seen any authoritative references on the timing of the flashes. You could in principle obtain that information simply by asking the experiment team. The timing is everything - for the extraordinary EU picture to be correct that the first flash was due to lightning, it would have had to occur before the physical impact -- but I have seen no evidence that is tha case.

zowie:This is an example of why peer reviewed journal publications are important -- a referee would jump all over you for that omission, and then (A) you would fix it and your case would be stronger, or (B) you would stop wasting everyone's time.

The EU proponents say the double flash is due to the difference in electrical charge between the impactor and comet. Mainstream proponents have come up with several suggestions: there was a thin shell of debris around the comet that the impactor struck first; there were tens of meters of dust sitting on the actual surface that the impactor plowed through before the real impact deep in the comet; the entire comet is a puff-ball of powder.

However, pictures of Tempel-1 just before impact show defined features and craters like you would see on the Moon or any other airless satellite. There is no debris apparent around the comet (the comet hit several grains of dust/sand that required course adjustments, but there were no corresponding flashes of light) and no explanation how a powdery object could retain craters after violent impacts.

zowie: Hmmm.. Lots of powdery objects (such as the few asteroids our spacecraft have encountered up close, and even the Moon) retain craters for a very long time. On the other side of the coin, if the comet really were electrically charged, there could not be large amounts of powder on the surface, because the powder would leave the vicinity due to electrostatic repulsion. Given that the size of the impact crater indicates at best very weakly bound particles or conglomerate on the surface, the preponderance of evidence seems to indicate that the comet was not charged to high potential as claimed.

Both sides have held to their viewpoints as true beleivers or pathalogical skeptics. There has been no reasons laid out by either side to explain the mechanism that supports their view (in this respect, EU proponents have provided general articles on double layers, etc., and applied them to Tempel-1, but no article or explanation specific on how this discharge theory would work with Tempel-1. From mainstream proponents I have found nothing to explain a mechanical method of the impactor on 'powder' that would cause an explosion of light).

zowie: I am not being "pathological" in the sense that of the Wiki article -- I am simply demanding a small modicum of rigor before accepting fanciful claims.

Zowie has mentioned before that EU theory violates the accepted laws of physics. If this is true, then an explanation of which laws and how EU theory violated them in relation to Tempel-1 would go a long way to supporting the non-EU viewpoint.

There were other predictions that EU proponents claim have been proven. Using information from the thunderbolts site, an example is the change in postion and distribution (and amount) of jets from the comet. There is a before and after picture on the article (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060303comet.htm) that purports to show many new jets. This appears to prove the prediction.

zowie: Perhaps. On the other hand, the Thunderbolts article challenges anyone to explain how the jets could have been re-arranged without a strong electrical charge. If, as conventional thinking holds, the jets are due to evaporation of cryogenically frozen gases under the heat of sunlight, and if, as conventional thinking holds, the comet is made of loosely consolidated material and not rock, then a major impact could certainly introduce new fissures and produce new jets -- so the result is not particularly surprising. (It is is like the ZTG prediction that apples will fall -- nothing new here, so it cannot distinguish between ZTG and Newton's law of gravitation). Of course, I could be wrong here since I'm simply typing off the top of my head -- it is now your turn to indicate why my thinking is wrong and the rearrangement of jets is in fact the newest thing since canned beer.

I would expect a mainstream proponent to explain why the claim of confirmation is wrong. This could be accomplished in one of several ways:

a) the images were incorrectly interpreted (along with a correct interpretation methodology),

b) the images are irrelevant (for specific reasons); or

c) the images are misrepresented.

If none of these apply, and no equally valid reason is provided, then the image should be accepted as evidence for the prediction and included in the article as confirmed prediction until such time as a reasonable argument could be presented that disproves it.

As I understand, that is the scientific method. That is the only way to avoid true believers and pathological skeptics.

>RS<

(I've taken the liberty of inserting comments throughout for clarity as to what I'm referring to). RS, your post is an excellent example of the need for refereed publication. The types of argument I'm giving are exactly the type of nit-picky arguments you need to be able to address and explain away (as much as you may hate to do so). They are not simple advocacy, they are a major part of the scientific process. To advocate a new theory such as EU and achieve respectability from scientists, you need to be able to address those arguments carefully and completely. The kind of effort I have been giving you is a great boon which you are not recognizing: arguments become stronger for having been attacked and having overcome the attacks through debate. Passing peer review and getting published in a scientific journal is important both because scientists respect the journals and because it improves your own thinking. The referee's job is to find holes in your argument so that you can address them before publication. The point of comments such as I have been making is not to make you feel attacked -- it is to help you improve your own arguments by pointing out the flaws in your current line of reasoning. The way to address them is not to assert that you are being attacked, it is to fix up your arguments and bolster your evidence.

Whining about bias in this case is about as reasonable as taking a new fighting technique to a dojo to try it out, and then complaining to the master when you get thrown to the floor.

Thunderbolts may be authoritative about the worldview of EU advocates, but it should not be considered a scientifically authoritative source simply because it does not contain properly peer-reviewed publications that have demonstrated they can get past a cursory check for rigor. Hence Thunderbolts references may, sure, be treated as authoritative about the mind or thinking of an EU advocate, but they should not be treated as authoritative about the debate over whether EU is a good representation of reality.

I mentioned several times in the talk page, and I'll mention now: EU advocates would do well to write up their ideas and submit them to just about any refereed scientific journal. Once they are cleaned up enough to be accepted, EU will have achieved a major step toward respectability. zowie 22:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I thank Zowie for demonstrating the point about the lack of NPOV of the Deep Impact section. The current method is to obliterate any reference in support of EU and only present information that denies there is any such thing. In other words, censor an opposing viewpoint, whether it is right or wrong.

What Zowie has done by interspersing his rebuttals throughout my comments is exactly what should be in the Deep Impact article. I state there appear to be additional jets as in the prediction. Zowie counters with the possibility that the impact created fractures and exposed volatiles that would produce jets (although both should have attributions in the actual article). Now a reader will realize the EU theory is not the only one that can explain the results and may delve further into the subject to determine the truth of the matter as far as he/she is able.

As for peer-review, I am in complete agreement. I like EU theory because it proposes to account for cosmological issues that the mainstream model can't. The mainstream can only account for 4-5 percent of the universe without making up fairy dust solutions such as dark matter and dark energy. EU supposedly accounts for the entire universe, including stellar objects that the mainstream is unable to figure out yet. However, these theories must be put before peer review and tested out.

Which does raise the subject of peer review. Simply saying it should be peer-reviewed, doesn't guarantee the peers will accept it for consideration. Check out the Halton Arp website for this abstract (http://www.haltonarp.com/Articles/PDF/Research%20With%20Fred.pdf) as an example. To summarize, Fred Hoyle presented a speech based on Arp's work and instead the ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL (first in Zowie's list) quashed publication of this speech, even though it was tradition to publish the Russell Prize Lecture. If they're willing to censor Hoyle, of what value is this peer-review magazine?

I also suggest checking out the wiki article for anti-gravity (needed to find something equally contentious). They divided the article into section for those proposing why anti-gravity is real and those who propose why anti-gravity cannot be real. Each presents their viewpoint (although there appears to be NPOV issues as well) and the better reasoning side would win (except with either true believers or pathological skeptics)

And lastly Zowie, it is perfectly acceptable to complain when the master locks the dojo door and hides when you come to discuss a new fighting technique that is unfamiliar to him.

>RS<

RS,

This is more of the same. You are complaining that I (and, by extension. the scientific establishment -- whatever that is) refuse to consider EU as a valid physical theory. What you are missing is that I have indeed considered it seriously, and found it seriously lacking. I have listed several major, gaping holes in the body of thought as presented, in rather specific terms, and discussed why I believe that certain scientific tests are more valid than others. I have gotten back essentially no discourse from you or anyone else on the matter: lots of words, but nothing to address the flaws I found and described. If EU is such a useful idea, why not address some of them? For example, you can simply get the information (which is probably already available) about the timing of the double flashes, and then my argument would be blown away -- I'd be forced to consider EU much more seriously. Likewise, if you could show that EU at least matches Newton's Theory of Gravity as an explanation for some of the phenomena that we can actually measure -- such as the precession of Mercury's orbit, or the rate of rotation of nearby galaxies, or the location, size, and character of the various major planets -- it wouldn't be such a laughingstock. I have seen no good reason to suppose that the Sun is powered by an external electric current, an idea promoted by Thunderbolts, and not by nuclear fusion as the rest of us suppose; perhaps you could expand on that thought a bit and address some of the physical clues that are clearly misguiding the rest of us. For example, you might want to discuss the helioseismology results and explain why the apparently overwhelming evidence for the standard stellar model is wrong. But that involves several rather difficult lines of attack -- perhaps it's best to start with simpler problems, like the timing of the double flash in the Tempel-1 impact.

In this case, the masters aren't locking the dojo door, they're knocking you down with very basic moves. You complain that you can't get more serious attention -- but these seemingly trivial points and objections *are* the scientific engagement you seek. You just aren't recognizing it.

Complaining about distant-past censorship in APJ counts as more whining. Surely the journals are not perfect, but if Bernard Haisch and Elden Whipple can get their alternative-physics theories (Stochastic electrodynamics and random world-line linking, respectively) published in the Literature, surely you can too. Have you tried? If so, did you address all of the referee's objections? zowie 14:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Zowie your replies remind me of Black Adder. When presented with evidence that confirms a prediction (not necessarily the mechanism, just the prediction) or effectively counters your argument (APJ censorship), your reply often consists of "I like not this evidence. Bring me other evidence."

The Wikipedia article is about the concept of Electricity playing a predominant role in the universe, more important than gravity in most instances. The purpose of the article is to articulate how the theory is applied and what is involved with the beliefs of this theory. For a balanced view, you should add a section to critique and rebutt the theory in whole and the particulars.

The quickest way to prove the EU concept is invalid is to let the proponents of EU present the theories and particulars without censorship. Then Zowie and others would add rebuttals to show why the EU concept fails to prove its point or that existing theory does account for the observations. In that way you could demonstrate why EU is wrong instead of saying "Don't look, just accept what we tell you".

Changing the subject to the specific point that Zowie has brought up a couple of times: "Likewise, if you could show that EU at least matches Newton's Theory of Gravity as an explanation for some of the phenomena that we can actually measure..." The problem is Newton's Theory of Gravity fails to explain some of the phenomena that we do measure. Einstein's theory of general relativity put the boots to Newton's theory. Asking that the EU adopt the standards of a superceded theory is funny in a sad way. Throwing up straw men will not add or detract from the EU concept. Solid reasons that effectively rebut specific theories or evidence presented by EU proponents would be far more effective. Just as those presentations that you are unable to rebut effectively would provide a firmer foundation for the EU theory.

A sample of what I am suggesting:

Fact: there was a double flash (supported by Nasa/JPL).

EU Theory: EU proponents predicted this would happen and say the double flash is proof of an electrical discharge due to the interaction of the copper impactor and an electrical field surrounding the comet (plasma sheath).

Rebuttal: What caused the preliminary flash was not observed. The impactor could have struck powder on the surface or orbiting debris before the main impact that caused the preliminary flash

Conclusion: The released information about the double flash so far is inconclusive.

This would be a better method as instead of having only one side or the other heard. The determination of what is true or false is left to the reader. Our job would be to provide our best evidence to assist in that determination.

As this example only addresses the double flash, Mercury's orbit isn't a consideration. That would be addressed in it own way (either a more generalized section on the overall theory or specific to EU and the orbits of objects).

>RS<

RS,

These arguments are useful and interesting and a good way to describe what should go into a refereed journal article, or better yet what should go into a scientific notebook as preparation for a journal article that discusses the line of argument. Remember, wikipedia is not a scientific journal, it is an encyclopedia that is meant to summarize human knowledge. These arguments (such as you discuss with your point/counterpoint) do not belong in an encyclopedia -- the summary and conclusion of the argument should be there, but certainly not a point and counterpoint. At one time we had a similar structure to what you describe - lots of stuff presented by EU advocates, interspersed with rebuttals. But a long argument like that is not informative -- it rapidly devolves into word salad.

I have no objection to you presenting EU concepts as a work of fiction or as a body of ideas that have no particular relationship to physical reality, but that appears not to be what you want -- you want to build advocacy for EU as physical reality, in the vain hope that it will then become physical reality. That (I had a look at the history files) is how I got interested in EU in the first place -- you or someone else tried to insert the EU idea that stars are powered by electric currents (rather than nuclear fusion) into Sun, which prompted me to idly come over here.

Well, EU is an interesting body of thought and I helped defend the article from a bid for deletion simply because it is, well, interesting. But it certainly can't be right, at least for the specific reasons I have mentioned (and which, I note, you still haven't addressed).

It is not censorship to object to you presenting EU as fact here in the encyclopedia -- EU advocates are free to shout from the rooftops, or proclaim on advocacy sites, or even (heaven forbit) submit to refereed journals. But much of EU appears to be not even wrong, and the few parts that are coherent enough appear to actually be wrong.

I'm afraid we're coming to an impasse here, both because you're not addressing the concerns I've brought up in earlier discussions and also because I'm losing sight of what you seek to accomplish here. Perhaps Sam (our friendly moderator) could step in and help figure things out. zowie 22:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lets start over

Sorry I hadn't noticed this was still active! It'll take me a moment to get stock of the situation. Until then could you guys try even harder to be nice to each other, please? Sam Spade 16:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess I misjudged you, from that big block of text I expected more problems! You two seem mainly interested in if this concept is true or not. Let me assure you, that doesn't matter here. Electric Universe (concept) is a place to present available informations (of varying qualities) regarding the electric universe concept in as neutral a manner as possible. You guys seem more focused on the research angle, which while admirable, doesn't have alot to do w the article. Regarding sources, major "EU" publications should certainly be presented for what they are: sympathetic witnesses. So long as all our sources are clarified for what they are (and are on topic), their is rarely a problem whaving to many of them, or the credibility being so low as to be useless to readers researching the topic. Sam Spade 16:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

In other words, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth"[22]. The Electric universe may well be incorrect, may well be based on false information, false reasoning, false conclusions, etc., but if that defines the Electric Universe, then as long as we can describe it accurately, neutrally, and without giving the impression that it is true, then so be it. --Iantresman 17:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with all that -- I think Ian and I eventually came to an understanding (is that your feeling too, Ian?) I think that this conversation with RS had more to do with whether EU is true or not -- which is only a small side issue to how (or indeed whether) an EU article in WP should be written. I think we all agree that the article should be present, and I hope we can all agree to try to present EU as a body of ideas and not to make representations that it is indeed true (because the jury is at best still out). Thanks for injecting a bit of grounding here. zowie 17:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Correct, and I still have to make my changes to the article based on our understanding. --Iantresman 17:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Undue Weight

On a separate issue, is there a guideline for what constitutes Undue weight? Wiki suggests that:

• Verifiability: "For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed. Sources should also be appropriate to the claims made" [23]
• Undue weight: "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents" [24]

On the Redshift page, I want to include a See also link to "Intrinsic redshift", but it is removed [25] on the grounds of "Undue weight".

• By definition, this is to do with redshift, so it is relevent.
• I acknowledge that Intrinsic redshift is a controversial subject
• But intrinsic redshift is mentioned in the title of several citated articles [26], and in dozens of (many peer-reviewed) papers [27], in several books [28], and on many Web pages [29].

I have no idea whether Intrinsic redshift is real, or not. But I do know that it is discussed in the literature. I would argue that at the very least, it deserves a "See also" link, preferably a short sentence describing the issue. --Iantresman 17:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

you make a very good point. When it comes down to absolute truth, a large portion of science is sure to be false. Yet even that which we know to be false is worth discussing, worth including. Its the intellectually honest thing to do. Sam Spade 19:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

So how do I go about including one lousy link in the redshift article, without it being removed on dubious grounds? --Iantresman 21:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

If I was you I'd just put it back once and awhile (once a day, once a week, once a month, something like that), and keep talking about it @ Talk:Redshift. Eventually some compromise should occur. Check out M:Eventualism sometime. Sam Spade 11:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I have already discussed "intrinsic redshift" ad infinitum on the pages, but it is difficult to present a case when EVERYTHING is dismissed.

Personally, I'd like to see a very small section on "Intrinsic redshift" with a link to the main article. A compromise would be a paragraph mentioning it, and several other minority views, such as "non-cosmological redshifts", and "redshift quantisations". At the VERY LEAST, a "See also link" is the absolute minimum acknowledgement that the article could possible have. It is not possible to compromise on the "absoloute minimum", and its removal is in contravention of Wiki policy.

Surely this is clear cut. Either it meets Wiki standards, or it does not. If it meets Wiki standards, then one or two individuals should not be override it becaus in their "opinion", it is insignficant? --Iantresman 14:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I actually know next to nothing about all this, but it would seem to me that if the one relates to the other, a sub-section would be reasonable (provided there are not excessive space concerns). There appears to be room for a small subsection near the bottom. Sam Spade 16:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No Electric Universe article

I can't find any Electric Universe article except one that refers to a band of that name. In light of this article, http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/18/comet_holmes/, perhaps the topic will undergo a resurrection. ^rossnixon 09:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)