Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:15, 10 May 2006

Mediation: 2006-03-19 Talk at Redshift

Please observe Misplaced Pages:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Misplaced Pages talk:Mediation Cabal.

Request Information

Request made by: Flying Jazz 19:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

Talk:Redshift

Who's involved?

User:Iantresman, User:ScienceApologist, Me (User:Flying Jazz).

What's going on?

One user, Iantresman, engages in five types of behavior in the talk pages that are disruptive and prevent others from engaging in reasonable debate.

1) Iantresman misrepresents what others have said on Misplaced Pages. This damages the community and the talk space becomes a comedy of misunderstandings rather than maintaining focus on the article.

2) Iantresman misrepresents what others have said off Misplaced Pages. This is damaging to the article because the misrepresentations are believed and sway opinions in content disputes. This happens most often when Ian says "There are 40 (or 100 or 200) articles that support my point" when in actuality, a brief look at a sample of those articles shows that they only use the same keywords that are contained in his point, and often the articles disagree with him.

3) Iantresman replies at length in the talk space to posts that are not addressed to him or to his opinions. This prevents consensus and true conversation from taking place among multiple editors.

4) Iantresman repeats the same arguments and fills the talk page with lengthy lists even after the argument has been concluded and consensus reached. This prevents other editors from focusing on specific issues under discussion about the article. In particular, the arguments he made during a request for comments continue to be made months after the RfC ended.

5) Iantresman and ScienceApologist repeatedly engage in very long and repetitive debate on this talk page that is full of baiting and tangential information. Editors who hope to achieve a compromise or have a point must slog through their debate in order to reach occasional tidbits that focus on the article itself. In recent weeks, ScienceApologist has improved in this regard. Iantresman has gotten worse.

What would you like to change about that?

I would like one or more neutral opinions, not about the content itself or the content dispute, but about the behavior of both editors and Iantresman in particular. Hopefully, when this opinion is expressed, their actions on the talk page will improve and grow more article-focused, and more good editors will actually come and contribute to the disputes taking place there. I would like this talk page to stop being the Iantresman-and-ScienceApologist-show.

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

I prefer openness.

Would you be willing to be a mediator yourself, and accept a mediation assignment in a different case?

This is, following the Categorical Imperative, the idea that you might want to do

what you expect others to do. You don't have to, of course, that's why it's a question.

Yes

Mediator response

Evidence

Please report evidence in this section with {{Misplaced Pages:Mediation_Cabal/Evidence}} for misconduct and {{Misplaced Pages:Mediation_Cabal/Evidence3RR}} for 3RR violations. If you need help ask a mediator or an advocate. Evidence is of limited use in mediation as the mediator has no authority. Providing some evidence may, however, be useful in making both sides act more civil.
Misplaced Pages:Etiquette: Although it's understandably difficult in a heated argument, if the other party is not as civil as you'd like them to be, make sure to be more civil than him or her, not less.

The evidence for the behaviors is on the talk page in question and on its archives.

1) Misrepresentation of opinions on Wikiepdia: Ian's request for comments brought me to the redshift talk page. Many people contributed to the RfC in complex ways, leading to big improvements in the article, including incorporation of part a of Ian's proposal. 10 days later, Ian posted this table summarizing his impression of people's position followed by the statement "Apologies if I have misrepresented anyone, it is not intentional." Changes to the table indicate what happened next. People can (and did) edit a table like this if their opinions have been misrepresented, but it's a waste of time, diverting attention away from the article. Later, the following comments were directed to Ian:

...Is there any editor other than Ian who thinks that the current discussion of scattering is inadequate, specifically that a list of scattering mechansims would be an improvement? --Art Carlson 09:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Not me, for one.--Serjeant 11:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Both of these editors were initially represented in the table as agreeing with Ian's proposals. There is also this comment directed at Ian about a comment made during a Featured Article candidate nomination:

...you have been systematically misinterpreting my comments to favor your position, to such an extent that I find it difficult to maintain good faith and blame it upon miscommunication. Anville 10:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

After a lengthy exchange last month beginning here and ending here, a number of editors including myself convinced ScienceApologist that the Wolf Effect should be mentioned in this article (Ian's position). That was done by discussing the Wolf effect itself. After that exchange, another editor added a section on another effect--CREIL--to the article, and I removed it because that effect *is* scattering. After that removal, Ian and I had this exchange where all of Ian's previous positions, most of which had been rejected by consensus months before, were brought up yet again, and I was told: "Scattering effects, redshifts in a vacuum, and changes of reference, ALL CHARACTERISES redshifts, THEY ARE NOT ARBITRARY GROUND FOR THEIR INCLUSION OR SUPRESSION." and "NO weight or a single mention by phrase is derisory." It is a mischaracterization of the intent of other editors to describe the removal of content as supression or derision.

Agreement with Ian leads to statements from him like "thank you for your support" as if other editors are helping him with a campaign and disagreement leads to long lists of wikipedia policies and accusations of suppression. This leads me to believe that Iantresman misrepresents the opinions of other editors in order to always place them in the black-and-white categories of "agrees with me" or "disagrees with me." If an editor is in the former category on one issue, their opinions are misrepresented by him as if they agreed with him on other issues. If an editor disagrees on one issue, their opinions are misrepresented by him as if they are looking to suppress information. I agree with Anville's previous statement. It is difficult to maintain good faith and blame problems on miscommunication with this editor. I don't know whether the behavior is intentional, but I hope it is controllable and I hope it stops. Flying Jazz 07:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Compromise offers

This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.

Comments by others

While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Misplaced Pages is based on consensus.

Although Flying Jazz doesn't want to talk about the content, I think considerable understanding of the arcane content is often required to understand which adversary is being unreasonable at the moment. The underlying disagreement is that Ian Tresman advocates nonstandard cosmology, and ScienceApologist advocates standard cosmology, and they and others have fought at least since September. Their arguments devote thousands of words to what seems to be relatively trivial questions such as whether the words "Wolf effect" should be mentioned in the article. Sometimes it seems like they each consider the other to be so awful that they must oppose each other right or wrong. Art LaPella 05:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Intial comment from Ian Tresman

I am quite happy for mediation to go ahead. But I would appreciate a couple of specific example of each point using History Diffs, so that I can try and answer them, which I'd like to try and do in one block of text, rather a little here, a little there.

I would not be happy for Flying Jazz to mediate this particular case. While I respect his opinion, I think there would be a conflict of interest. --Iantresman 20:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps my complaint #1 is supported by this initial comment. I think you misrepresent what people write because you simply don't pay attention to what they write. I will now state this explicitly. I'm not asking to be a mediator between you and ScienceApologist. I am seeking a neutral outside mediator between myself on one side representing a reasonable talk page and mostly you but also ScienceApologist (just to make this perfectly clear: together, on the other side, on the same side as each other, the opposite side from me), representing what I find to be an unreasonable talk page. I'll add specific evidence to the evidence section, if needed, once a mediator is found. Flying Jazz 21:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The question "Would you be willing to be a mediator yourself" is misinterpretable. Art LaPella 04:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Initial comment from ScienceApologist

I am receptive to mediation regarding talkpage reasonability. --ScienceApologist 02:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Well I have been assigned as your mediator. Let's start by trying to find places where we can agree. I would propose that:

• we agree to have civil discourse on this page
• we agree to avoid arguments about semantics
• we agree to be responsive to each other
• we agree that the purpose of the talk page is to work together to improve the article
• we agree that the purpose of the article is to represent factually the state of science in this field
• we agree that this is not the place to determine the correct theory
• we agree that our personal viewpoint is irrelevant
• we agree that not all theories are equally accepted
• we agree that each theory should be represented proportionally to its prevalence and acceptance within the scientific community
• we agree that any single citation is not definitive
• we agree that there are some theories that are not sufficiently prevalent to warrant inclusion
• we agree that there is room to present alternative theories of sufficeint merit (as alternative theories)

Let me see if we can agree on these principles before we proceed. I would very much appreciate your cooperation. I would hope that we would all end up satisfied with the eventual results. Let's start a new era of consensus building.

Are we all agreed on these principles??--Nick Y. 23:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

SA? Yes on talk page

IT? Agreeable but not definitive yes, yet. --Iantresman 08:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

FJ? Thank you for replying to my request. I agree with your bulleted points with one exception. The exception is "we agree to avoid arguments about semantics" because an encyclopedia at its heart is often about the meaning of words and how words are used. These are inherently semantic issues, so arguments about semantics will and should occur, and they can lead to improvements in articles. If you meant to avoid arguments about semantics here on the mediation page then I agree with all your bulleted points. Flying Jazz 01:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to ask that as mediator you allow me to lead the mediation. This is for the benefit of all. From your conversations I think the biggest thing you need is to keep the conversation focused. So, for example at this point I am asking for a yes answer from all. If you have a no answer concisely tell me what you disagree with and why? Do not address each other at this point. That comes later, when it can be productive.--Nick Y. 23:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright, my understanding from my observations is that the two of you spend way too much time arguing about subjects that are really tangential to the article. I would like to ask each of you to summarize as concisely as possible (and yes this is an excercise in being concise as well) what the problem is with the article. Do not even refer to each other. Only the article. It seems to me that there may be a few very minor issues with the article. Be very specific AND concise. We will get to eachother's behavior etc. soon, but ignore that for now at all costs. Again do not repsond to each other or address eachother in this exercise. Also don't be afaid of overlooking some minor detail, this isn't binding.--Nick Y. 18:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Problems with the article

Right now, there are no problems with the article in terms of the earlier disputes. --ScienceApologist 22:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The article focuses on redshift as applied to astronomy and cosmology, while marginalising redshift in other disciplines, and completely ignoring redshift as theorised in other areas.

For example, we learn in "Redshift mechanism" that there are only three distinct "phonton in a vacuum" mechanisms, but why do we exclude other proposed types of redshift mechanisms?

For example, the Wolf effect is described as a Doppler-like redshift (not a reddening). Not only is this peer-reviewed, it is apparently demonstrated in the laboratory, and there are reportedly over 100 papers on the subject. This is not trivial. And there are many other examples. How about theoretical (Here, Ian means "hypothetical".--ScienceApologist 05:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)) redshifts, such as Intrinsic redshift, or "Redshift quantization"? Again, all peer-reviewed with more than one article and more than one researcher.

Jimbo Wales himself said that "Usually, mainstream and minority views are treated in the main article, with the mainstream view typically getting a bit more ink, but the minority view presented in such a fashion that both sides could agree to it.".( Ian fails to include the next part of the quote becuase it contradicts the very next thing he writes. After this "Jimbo Wales himself" wrote: "Singular views can be moved to a separate page and identified (disclaimed) as such, or in some cases omitted altogether."--ScienceApologist 05:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)) But in some cases, we have NO view, and in other cases minority views are represented inaccurately, or reduced to a link. --Iantresman 23:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Response

SA - Although I think your intentions were good. Responding within Ian's statement might offend him. Also I asked you not to repsond to him, yet. With that said I would like your repsonse now. Again about the article not about Ian. Things you should address are proportion, minority views etc. Do not directly respond to Ian but address how much of these particular things should be included and why or why not. Ian be patient with me while I get SA's viewpoint.--Nick Y. 22:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)~

Redshift is a heavily-used term in physics/astronomy meant to describe a sepcific wavelength independent phenomenon associated with frame of reference transformations. There are other phenomena which may mimic superficially redshifts, but are not associated with reference frame transformations. Such phenomena are mentioned in the article as a means to help avoid confusion. Thus, radiative transfer and physical optics effects (read Wolf effect) are relegated to a section which explains that the frequency shifts of these phenomena are not generally considered redshifts by those who study the subjects.

Intrinsic redshifts, redshift quantization, and other suggestions from nonstandard cosmologies are also linked in the article through a link to nonstandard cosmologies. These viewpoints are very fringe and we risk violating undue weight to include detail explanations of them. We do have articles on the individual subjects Ian believes are not represented (which I have encouraged Ian to expand) that are linked from the nonstandard cosmologies page. A curious reader can find them there, but explanations of these out-of-the-way subjects which have an admittedly small but loyal and vocal-on-the-internet following do not belong on a page which is devoted to explaining a concept that is defined and used (for example) in almost every introductory astronomy and introductory physics class without mention of these assertions made by people who are, for whatever reason, upset with the mainstream interpretation of redshift.

--ScienceApologist 12:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Mediator Response

It seems that most of the problems on the talk page come primarily from Ian's insistence on including relatively non-standard uses of the word, or relatively obscure phenomenon that don't fit SA's definition of the word. In my experience SA's definition is technically correct with less common usage in a technically incorrect way not completely uncommon. It is usually clear what is ment by "redshifted" even if it is due to a frequency dependent phenomenon. I think that it is worth mentioning this usage. I think it would be most appropriate to have a small section that defines this alternative, though technically incorrect, usage and gives links to phenomenon where it has been or could be used. This should not be excessively disparaging of such use but simply point out that it is considered technically incorrect for the most part. I do not think that full inclusion of every possible explanation of redshift is helpful to the reader. Many of these issues and the issues you have been debating should be debated in the scientific literature NOT HERE. I think there is room for relatively non-mainstream ideas on redshift but they should not be included in full in the main article. Many of the issues being argued don't even represent minority viewpoints but more possibilities. I think that including a link to things such as the wolf effect in a section labeled "other possible explanations/contributions" and explaining how it might contribute in the wolf effect page should be a very full complete explanation of how the topics are linked. Remember you are editing for a reader not for yourself. Ian you should not be discouraged by this but realize that you have a great opportunity to contribute and inform people about these alternative explanations and frequency dependednt phenomenon without becoming embroiled in an argument with SA. I can guarantee you that most people that hit this page are interested in the main explanations listed. Those that are interested in alternative explanations want complete explanations not a couple sentences wedged into the main article. By separating into multiple articles I think it is more clear and useful to both readers. By trying to include everything in one article it becomes confusing. We should place priority on the reader. So there should be links galore to alternative explanations that are identified appropriately as alternatives. Again th e reader interested in these alternative can easily find what they are looking for. SA you should be generous about this. I do think that it would be best as a separate section rather than links everywhere in the main body giving an alternative to everything. The two of you should work together on accurate representation and realize that separating out the alternatives and non-standard uses are not bad but good for such non-standard uses and alternatives but most importantly GOOD FOR THE READER. I would like for your discussions to consider the impact on the reader even before accuracy. Sometimes a simple but technically incorrect explanation (followed by a correction) is better than a fully accurate explanation in one fell swoop. Your arguments should start with "I think it would be more clear if..." or "I think it would be easier for the reader to find what they are looking for if..." If the Wolf effect could be in some limited circustances frequency independent is pretty much irrelevant to the reader of this article. It might be relevant to the reader of the wolf effect article. Again please work together to find appropriate labels for the link sections for situations of this sort.

Now let us address eachother's behavior. I think the issue of content is solved. If you would like to repsond to me you may do so, but please separate it into two sections. Please be generous with eachother but state what behavoir you object to. This specifically excludes content. This is about how eachother argue not about which side of what you take. Again adress me not each other

Thanks for your consideration, it appears that you have spent quite some time going over everything. I shouldn't argue as I am pleased with the outcome. But I'd like to clariify a point; I hope this is not an "arguments about semantics".

Reponse to the mediator

Since we already do all that the mediator suggests to do in the article including the disambiguation to alternative uses, linking to alternative mechanisms through nonstandard cosmology, and explaining misconceptions, I'm convinced that abiding by your decision would mean the article stays as is. Correct? --ScienceApologist 17:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Ian's repsonse

I agree that the astronomical use of redshift is the most common and most accepted; but I would suggest that this does not make it "technically correct", but a "more strict" use of the term. Otherwise it implies that other uses of the term are incorrect, when that is how they use the term. I think this is important because Wiki policy examples notes that no "one group 'owns' a word and has sole authority to define it" . And it does seem that the less strict use of the term is quite commmon (recall that Misplaced Pages has not "adopted a 'scientific point of view'). Here's how I see it:

--Iantresman 17:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Response by Flying Jazz

Thank you for reminding us to emphasize what is best for the reader. The current article categorizes observed redshifts into broad classes--frame-shifts, bathochromic shifts, coherence effects (including Wolf effect) and scattering--so that, as far as I know every known redshift mechanism falls into one or more of these functional classes. Why is bathochromic shift separated by a disambiguation? Because, unlike everything else in the article, a bathochromic shift is about materials. Material A is changed to material B, and the result is a bathochromic shift. In other words, this one "redshift" is about chemistry that utilizes light, not about the physics of what light can do. The reader is well-served by this disambiguation.

I agree with ScienceApologist that the mediator's suggestion of a section dealing with other possible explanations/alternatives is already in the current article in the section called "Effects due to physical optics and radiative transfer." Should we divide up these usages based on perceptions of what is "common", "classical", "strict", "Doppler-like" or some other similar artificial categories, or should we divide up these usages based on the differences in the phenomena themselves? Some redshifts are due to scattering, some are due to changes in reference frame, and some are due to partial coherence effects. The second set seem to be more encyclopedic divisions that serve the reader much better than any impression about what is strict or common.

The mediator wrote "there should be links galore to alternative explanations that are identified appropriately as alternatives" and "Those that are interested in alternative explanations want complete explanations," but I don't understand how this can be done better than what we have now. If a section is titled "other possible explanations/contributions" then it begs the question "Alternative explanations for/contributions to what?"

If an experimentalist produces a redshift in the lab, there doesn't need to be an alternative explanation because the experiment was designed to produce a redshift due to a particular explanation. If the mediator meant alternative explanations for observed astrophysical redshift then my impression, even though I'm not in the astrophysics field, is that providing complete alternative explanations of observed astrophysical redshifts is not possible because, as noted in the non-standard cosmology article, no complete alternative explanations exist.

If the mediator meant alternative hypothetical explanations for astrophysical redshift then which untested, untestable, or historical hypotheses should be selected for inclusion in an article about an observable that already has a successful associated theory? I think the reader would best be served by having no unaccepted theories presented in an article about an observable that is well-explained by accepted theory. However, I would support including a link to the non-standard cosmology article so readers who are interested in alternative explanations involving cosmology can find them there.

Ian's table above concerns me and I see it as an example of behavior #4 in my list about what goes on in the talk page. Please see my post here. Flying Jazz 08:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Mediator response to response to mediator (ha ha)

I don't see any particular objection to your point Ian that it is simply less formal or strict. I do not think that that changes anything in terms of proportionality. I think that we can accurately characterize the "less strict usage" without giving as strong of a label as I did. I still think that although not uncommon especially in certain fields the term is used in a loose way which does not intend to overturn the strict definition but is simply used for brevity. There is nothing "wrong" with such usage however it should be clear that it is less strict and an informal usage of the term. You should not necessarily pass judgement but rather make it clear to the reader the difference. I imagine a short paragraph say something like "The term redshift is used in many fields suchs as.... in a less formal and strict sense indicating simply a decrease in frequency due to a physical phenomenon regardless of cause or frequency dependence. Examples of this usage can be found in the following articles: Link1, Link2 , Link3...." Maybe the title of the section could be "Less formal uses of the term redshift". Again this would be information useful to the reader while not being incorrect. It would point the optics reader to the the right places and educate him/her to the fact that the optics use sometimes does not conform completely to the most formal definition. Again I think that most readers that hit redshift will be looking for the astronomical usage. I think giving the less strict defintion is helpful too. SA may want to choose language which is somewhere between my "technically correct" and Ian's "less strict" to be happy. Again I do not think the article needs a lot of examples of this alternative usage explained in detail. Just a definition, examples of fields in which it is used and links to articles that use this less strict definition. A little more on it could be helpful? but not a whole lot. By the way is your graphic incorrect? I though cosmological redshift was frequency independent and Raman scattering was frequency dependent? I'm no expert? Just curious. A graphic like this might be useful in explaining what are less formal uses and what are incorrect uses.

Yes, the table headings are backwards. Art LaPella 18:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Mea culpa. Now fixed. --Iantresman 19:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

SA- Your conclusion that the article is good as is is essentially correct. The one point that maybe you are missing is that the article is somewhat lacking in clearly presenting (and I don't mean with particularly greater proportion) the other uses. The two uses should be clearly distinguished in simple language which is both clear to the novice and correct to the expert. Yes, I do not think there needs to be much more than links for the most part to other explanations/contributions that do not fit the strict definition but more clarity could be achieved. Again the readers that do come here for the other definition should be both educated as to the difference and easily find additional information. I think they can also be well served.

I think the two of you could really make this a very good article if you focus on the reader. I think we are really close to reaching a working consensus and a path forward that is reader focused.

--Nick Y. 18:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Yet another round of responses & free discussion that does not revert to the bad discussions before

As far as I know the "other uses" for "redshift" are summarized in the disambiguation at the top of the page and the final section. How is that not clear? --ScienceApologist 18:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Because the disambiguation page (and the "Non-standard cosmologies" page) are not "the article". In other words, the information is omitted from the article. As Jimbo Wales himself wrote: "Usually, mainstream and minority views are treated in the main article, with the mainstream view typically getting a bit more ink, but the minority view presented in such a fashion that both sides could agree to it. Singular views can be moved to a separate page and identified (disclaimed) as such, or in some cases omitted altogether" And we're not talk about "singular views" as I can provide citations to multiple authors. --Iantresman 19:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC) (Sorry, shouldn't have replied)

I think "free discussion" means the end of "address me not each other". Art LaPella 20:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes you may address each other but start every paragraph with "I think it would help the reader if..." or "It would be more clear if..." AND KEEP THAT TONE. IN other word arguments about the wikipedia rules and technical details are out. (btw I just changed the title).

Bravo Ian on catching yourself. Let's try some open constructive discussion though, trying to keep the tone constructive and non-combative. SA don't you think the last section that mentions all of the other effects does not clearly distinguish these effects from the formal redshift? Don't you think it might be excessively long? Couldn't it be improved to both make it more clear that theses are not what is ment by the term redshift in the strict sense. It seems like a mismash of concessions to Ian carefully worded to deal with Ian's objections. I would like again to suggest my language above or something like it to clarify that these uses are informal and very different. On the other hand Ian don't you think that the reader interested in such subjects might be better informed by going directly to other articles rather than having some sort of half-ass explanation here. I do think there there could be some limtied broad explanation such as a discussion. SA- I don't think that it is clear to every reader that they are interested in bathocromatic shift. A small section explaining that the term is used informally to mean a shift in frequency due to many other phenomena such as... might lead them to the right place. SA - I would like to also suggest that there could be a sentence to your liking in this section that would read something like this: "This informal usage is considered by many astronomers and cosmologists to be technically incorrect but is common in many fields." I think that would be a simple concise one sentence explanation of both of your points, AND it is a fact. This would be informative to the reader. They would then know they might look like an idiot and be chastised if they use it in that way with a cosmologist but maybe not so with a optics expert. By the way I am suggesting that the last section be shorter and sweeter. SA gets the shorter, Ian gets the sweeter and it will make more sense to the reader which is teh real goal anyways. --Nick Y. 20:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to ask ScienceApologist for his interpretion on how Wiki policy distinguishes a "singular view" (or a "tiny view") from a "minority view", and how we can objectively assess it for any particular view. --Iantresman 20:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC) Changed my mind.

I would like to suggest that we include the table above, with a brief mention of what is meant by the strict, non-strict and "colloquial" definitions of redshift, and perhaps a comment on "Common" vs "Non-common" usage. That way we reduce the size of the last paragraph considerably, but still retain a comparitive view of the different kinds of redshift (without having to say anything about them!); and that should include the references as footnotes. Something along the lines of:

In astronomy "redshift" has a strict definition referring to a shift in frequency that is both independent of frequency (ie. the shift is constant across the entire spectrum), and distortion free (except for known thermal and kinetic source effects). The term "redshift" may also be used with a less strict definition in which the shift is not frequency independent, and an informal use of the term is also used (see table). Scientists often refer to a spectral line as having been "redshifted", irrespective of the type of redshift causing it.

By far the most common and accepted usage of the term redshift is that applied to three types of redshift used in astronomy. Other less common types of redshift have been considered over the years, but none have reached the acceptance of the astronomical redshifts. --Iantresman 20:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that the table above is confusing to readers because it makes rather poor distinctions between phenomena which are related in a variety of ways. Currently the article does a better job of explaining redshifts in a clearer way. --ScienceApologist 21:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I should also point out that the table is misleading because, as Ian has currently made it, it is not exhaustive and seems to lean heavily towards those "redshift mechanisms" popular with people who share Ian's POV rather than being justifiably neutral. --ScienceApologist 21:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Response to inquiry about the final section

SA don't you think the last section that mentions all of the other effects does not clearly distinguish these effects from the formal redshift? Don't you think it might be excessively long? Couldn't it be improved to both make it more clear that theses are not what is ment by the term redshift in the strict sense. It seems like a mismash of concessions to Ian carefully worded to deal with Ian's objections.

I might be in favor of shortening this section, but I am a bit confused by your distinction between "formal" and "informal" redshifts. "Redshift" is not an honorific term and I don't know of any source that makes a distinction between "formal" and "informal" redshifts as your proposed prose does. When a chemist calls a bathochromic shift a "redshift" they may be speaking "informally", but to focus on this is misleading. Bathochromic shifts are redshifts like any other redshift, they just aren't typically considered to be redshifts as described in most texts which define the term. Our text makes the distinction clearly by refering to vacuum, frame-dependent, single-photon effects. This allows us to be clear in our definitions. I actually like the last section right now (except I think that the Wolf Effect may feature too prominently) because it mentions plenty of phenomena which are redshifts in the most crude sense and explains their mechanisms without making any claims as to their applicability to cosmology (which is the POV issue seen in the article).

--ScienceApologist 21:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

""Redshift" is not an honorific term" - That gave me quite a chuckle. I assume you know what I ment. "but to focus on this is misleading." - I agree, as I think Ian does too. I think it is however beneficial to THE READER to be given a brief layman's explanation of how this usage differs. I would characterize such usage to be informal, considered by many to be technically incorrect but acceptable in some fields with the general meaning being clear to most everyone even if frowned on. This is useful information to the reader. This does not mean this is the focus of the article. It should be very brief. I think we should agree that this paragraph is not helpful to the expert for whom it is a rather discombobulated list and not helpful to the novice who just will not get it.

--Nick Y. 16:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the distinction since I don't think that there actually is a distinction between "informal" and "formal" usage. The reason that we should avoid making the distinction is because it isn't verifiable and is not used. --ScienceApologist 17:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Two uses of redshift?

The two uses should be clearly distinguished in simple language which is both clear to the novice and correct to the expert.

I actually think that claiming that there are "two uses" for redshift is misleading. There isn't. Redshift means what the article describes it as. --ScienceApologist 21:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

When most of these 250+ articles use the phrase "intrinsic redshift", are you saying that's its use corresponds to one of the three main astronomical redshifts?

When James and Wolf write: "We see that just in the case when the shift is due to the Doppler effect, the relative frequency shift z induced by this mechanism is independent of frequency and can take on any value in the range -1<z<, even though the source, the medium, and the observor are at rest with respect to one another." . Again, does this use of redshift correspond to one of the three main astronomical redshifts? --Iantresman 22:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Quoting the article: "In physics and astronomy, redshift is an observed increase in the wavelength and decrease in the frequency of electromagnetic radiation received by a detector compared to that emitted by the source." --ScienceApologist 22:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

So frequency independence is not part of the formal definition, it just one way to characterise redshift? And so redshift due to Brillouin scattering, as mentioned in the title of these two papers is also consistent? --Iantresman 22:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Redshift is crudely defined as quoted in the article. There are many ways to get frequency shifts. The most commonly cited are included in the article. The less common ones are included via discussions in appropriate sections. --ScienceApologist 00:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

SA- I think you could agree to that some people and even some fields use redshift in an incorrect fashion?? Maybe you could agree that those people/fields that use it (incorrectly) do not see that it is incorrect? Our job is to characterize the state of what is. Not what should be. The only questions are: How common is this usage? What fields is it used in? What do they mean when they use it in this way? How disdainful are astronomers and cosmologists to this usage? I think this usage is worth mentioning but should be kept small. Be aware that by including this you are not only informing people about this uncommon (perhaps mistaken) usage but you are also educating people about what the proper use and definition is. (My language is harsh here and will need to be less judgemental, but the meaning in your eyes can remain the same.)

--Nick Y. 17:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that I've seen an instance where people have used "redshift" "incorrectly". Rather, I've seen people insist that redshifts can be explained by some novel phenomena which can produce frequency shifts, but are generally not referred to as redshifts in the contexts where redshift is used. This may seem to be semantic nitpicking, but I think it is important because I don't see there being "correct" and "incorrect" redshifts. --ScienceApologist 17:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Bathochromic shifts

I don't think that it is clear to every reader that they are interested in bathocromatic shift. A small section explaining that the term is used informally to mean a shift in frequency due to many other phenomena such as... might lead them to the right place.

I think if someone comes to this page looking for bathochromic shift they are likely to recognize this at the start. The only references to bathochromic shifts being called "redshifts" are buried deep in chemistry literature. It is my opinion that including a section on the subject will cause more confusion than the way we currently handle the subject. --ScienceApologist 21:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

What about people coming to the page looking for "redshift" that is used in areas other than the the three main astronomical redshifts, AND want to know how it is different from them? --Iantresman 22:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Give an example. --ScienceApologist 00:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Issues of interpersonal behavior

This impasse is a good sample of the last several months of debate over several cosmology articles. I've never been able to determine what the real uncompromisable issue is. Here, for instance, is it:
A: There is a major difference in how well the reader can understand different uses of the word "redshift" between the two versions, that is, between Ian's paragraph and table versus redshift#Effects due to physical optics and radiative transfer? Each version mentions the dread Wolf effect, for instance. Or is it
B: A is a ruse to cover for a POV issue, in this case the choice of entries in Ian's table? Or is it
C: A and B are ruses to cover for each editor's determination to teach the other a lesson by opposing his edits come hell or high water? Art LaPella 23:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Undoubtedly, we all have our own points of view about what should, and should not be included. Ultimately, the reader should be left to decide, not the editors; and that means being inclusive. Including an item is not POV since any competent editor can do so in a NPOV style. And none of the views are "singular", unless ScienceApologist can tell us how we can differentiate between a "singlular view" and a "minority view" in an objective manner? --Iantresman 00:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Inclusiveness is SA's cue to recite his favorite Misplaced Pages policy about "undue weight". In this particular issue, what specifically isn't already included in redshift#Effects due to physical optics and radiative transfer? Is it a list of specific phenomena? I thought the Wolf effect was the main issue, and it's already there. Art LaPella 00:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I have two problems with the last section (1) I think it is inaccurate in places, and doesn't provide any comparison between the three astronomical redshifts, and "other" uses of redshifts (2) Yes, I feel that some "types" of redshift are omitted despite being a significant minority, including "Intrinsic redshift", "Redshift quantisation", "Non-cosmological redshift", "Non-Doppler redshift", "Wolf effect"

The final optics section is inaccurate (or misleading) in several ways (a) It gives the impression that ALL these optical effects are only a form of "reddening", when Brillouin and Raman scattering, and the Wolf effect all produce frequency-dependent redshifts, and there is no hint the the Wolf effect will produce a small frequency-independent Doppler-like redshift.

As Nick Y suggests, the last paragraph would be better if it were shorter but sweeter; for example, the last two paragraphs in the last section provides detail about reddening and scattering... but not in the context of redshifts, so they can go. And yet we can't mention the word "Intrinsic redshift", let alone describe it. Likewise, the last paragraph in Extragalactic_observations is all about the Big Bang, and nothing to do with redshift, and yet we can't mention the phrase "Non-cosmological redshift", let alone define and describe it.

It is quite clear what ScienceApologist thinks of phrases like "Intrinsic redshift" , and non-mainstream ideas ; and while he may consider "significant minority views" to be "fringe" or "pathological skepticism" , he can not impose those views on Wiki readers.

--Iantresman 01:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I began this mediation case because of interpersonal behavior issues. I have placed evidence for behavior #1 in the evidence section. Evidence for #2 to #5 will follow. Flying Jazz 07:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

There do indeed appear to be interpersonal behavior issues, though I feel it is because ScienceApologist is being unreasonable. I have edited dozens of other articles, and the only ones in which there are problems involve ScienceApologist. I edit some articles that Art Carlson is also involved with; we often disagree, but I don't think we've ever had discussions that are anything but cordial.

I feel that this all boils down to ScienceApologist's view that the article is only about "astronomical redshift", and his use of "Undue weight" to utterly CRUSH all mention of non-mainstream ideas (even minority views) .

This brings in your other criticism of my behaviour regarding my citing of articles; do they stand up to scrutiny? I recently mentioned that there appear to be 250+ articles that mention "intrinsic redshift". Scanning through the list, I notice some quotes that are indeed inaccurate. A quick scan down the first page of 100 results, I note about 15 are not using the phrase "intrinsic redshift" appropriately. Are my citations 100% accurate? No. Is 85% a significant figure? I think so. I don't think that my citations worthless because 15% are inaccurate?

Recall that I give the citations to counter ScienceApologist's arguments against "intrinsic redshift". I think he's implied "undue weight", I think that 85% of 250+ articles that mention it demonstrates otherwise. He's suggested that the phrase is "neologism", yet the first page of citations go back to 1970, demonstrating otherwise.

As a comparison, the Redshift article mentions that well known phenomenon of the "transverse redshift" , total number of citations, thirty-six, yet we mention it, describe it, and put it in context. Do I have any problems with that? None. Total lineage, one line. Are "transverse redshift" and "intrinsic redshift" getting "fair" coverage, bearing in mind that one has 5 times the numher of citations? No, "intrinsic redshift" is mentioned zero times throughout the entire article, and even the addition of a "See also" link was crushed .

--Iantresman 11:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The "number of articles" argument does not help build a better encyclopedia entry. As pointed out in December on Archive #5 by another editor in another dispute where the number was 500:

The list of "500 peer-reviewed articles" is suspect as it was not collated carefully. I skimmed through the list and a few dozen abstracts and found:

1. "peer-reviewed articles" that are conference abstracts and so neither articles nor peer-reviewed.

2. articles, especially in the compton scattering list, which happen to mention redshift in the abstract, but do not connect scattering and redshift.

Even if most of the 500 are articles that use redshift in a non-doppler sense -- which it isn't clear to me is true -- that is a small fraction of the scientific literature. I did my own search in Web of Science for red shift, and it found 13657 articles {out of 24171224 indexed}.

You misrepresent these articles as expressing an opinion about what constitutes a significant minority view. Some authors write articles for the purpose of dispelling poor ideas and bad models by using scientific evidence. These authors often mention the phrase in their abstract for the purpose of identification of the concept that they wish to address and dispel. Then you come along with your abstract keyword search and see that they used the phrase in their abstract and used it properly, and you use this fact as evidence that the author supports your position that the phrase should be included in an encyclopedia article on redshift. It is an abuse of the scientific literature to do this, and it is an abuse of particular authors and their efforts. It is Misplaced Pages putting its worst face forward. In the past when this has been pointed out to you, you have responded in the following way:

(to ScienceApologist) "The only person who rubbishes 500-peer reviewed references to other uses of redshift (except in respect to Raman scatting) is yourself."

(to me after I rubbished them) "I accept that the 500 peer-reviewed references are not to a very high standard." and "The 500 references were acquuired rather quickly, and their quality was not as good as they could be."

The problem is not with the references themselves. Their quality is probably fine and they are probably at a very high standard. The problem is with your misrepresentation of them as agreeing with a point that you wish to make. Since that time, you've done the exact same thing again and again, now including here on the mediation page. Every time you mention a number of articles based on an abstract search, you are filling up the talk page with garbage, and when someone points this out to you, you come up with another nonsense percentage of the articles (this time 85%) of the articles that are "accurate". Please find ONE article that we can read that divides up the USAGE of the term redshift in a way that you like and in a way that you think the Misplaced Pages article should divide them. I thought you did this with the Reboul article here but when I asked you whether this was the case here you wrote "I agree that we should not use Reboul's terms. As he writes in the article, "we arbitrary define as trivial..", and I can find perhaps only one or two other articles that use the terms "trivial redshift" and "non-trivial redshift"." Reboul used trivial/non-trivial. Your most recent table above uses common/less common. In the course of the debate on the talk page, you have suggested and retracted dozens of other qualifiers. These misrepresentations are not a result of ScienceApologist being unreasonable. Sometimes he is unreasonable. That is not an excuse for you to pretend that hundreds of authors agree with you when they do not. Flying Jazz 12:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I think I see where you're coming from. Are we differentiating between (1) Citations to articles that support "intrinsic redshift" (2) Citation to articles merely using the term "intrinsic redshift".

I don't think I've tried to claim that mere mention of a term is support for a theory. Where I claimed 500 references for non-standard redshifts, I did states that they were provided to show "use of the term" , and not support. Doesn't there mere use of a term demonstrate a familiarity with it, regardless of whether the theory is right or wrong.

Even if all 250 articles mentioning "instrinsic redshift" are to criticise it, and to demonstrate it is false, the "concept" is nevertheless prominent in 250 articles, irrespective of wether it is true or false.

Undue weight also tells us that a significant minority view requires us to name "prominent adherents", and it seems reasonable to be able to verify this. This will of course be a much small number, compared to the total number of articles that use a term. But here is a specfic list of citations to articles that appear to be from authors that support (or consider) "intrinsic redshift":

• Arp, H., Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 183, pp. 411-440 (1973) "the higher redshift of some of its members is due to an intrinsic redshift " (p.434)
• Bell, M. B., The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 566, Issue 2, pp. 705-711 (2002) "Further Evidence for Large Intrinsic Redshifts" (Title)
• Burbidge, G., Astrophysical Journal, vol. 154, p.L41 (1968) "it is concluded that large intrinsic-redshift components may often be present." (Abstract)
• Russell, David G., Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 298, Issue 4, pp.577-602 (2005) "Evidence for Intrinsic Redshifts in Normal Spiral Galaxies" (Title)

--Iantresman 14:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry I put this here and you guys interpreted it as being free discussion time. I ment for this to be more structured and brief future discussion. My intention is to reach an agreement on the outstanding issues and then address interpersonal behavior. Essentially decoupling the two. Not that there isn't a lesson as to how to work constructively together in the resolution of this issue. ;)

--Nick Y. 17:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

STOP STOP STOP STOP Refocus

Let's refocus. I think there is only one issue here. The endless debate about undue weight is not necessary. No matter how many articles cited I think we all agree that the usage that Ian is trying to have included is a minority view at best. I think Ian concurrs. Alright we are done with that. SA has already included them to a degree that is reasonable plus/minus. The only thing remaining is clearly and sufficiently explaining to the reader about this issue. There is no need to argue about these issues. I think the zinger you should use against each other is "remember our job is to inform the reader". There is a reason for the rules. Undue weight is there so that the reader is not misled etc.

Here is what I think we should agree on regarding the last paragraph:

• It should be (briefly, i.e. mostly links) inclusive (except fringe elements)
• It should disambiguate meaning (and report judgement from a third party perspective)
• It should be shorter
• It should be clear
• Most importantly it should be informative to the reader.

Can we all agree? This is your one task today. Once Ian and SA agree please offer suggestions as to how to achive these goals.

--Nick Y. 17:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess I agree with this, but I have some reservations:

• I don't know what "inclusive" entails. I think the last section should be descriptive.
• I don't know who a "third party" represents in this discussion. I reject the assumed bifurcation between myself and Ian, for example. It's artificial and unnecessarily polarizing.
• I don't know what material is unneeded, though I'd support good edits that summarized information in a better manner.
• I think the section already is clear, so no problem here
• I think the section is already informative to the reader, so no problem here.

--ScienceApologist 17:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

SA- I don't think undue weight is risked by simple links most of the time. I'm asking for you to agree to links to other articles which clearly are described as informal usage (that are judged by some to be incorrect usage) in this section. By third party I mean mostly in the uninterested third person. Perhaps -- "Many scientists especially astronomers and cosmologists consider this less strict definition to be unacceptable, however in certain fields it used nonetheless." The exact language is to be determined. I do not mean that material should be dropped just more succinct and clear. ON your last two questions I think it could be improved for the layman. --Nick Y. 17:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

"Simple links" are not so "simple". I, first of all, reject the formal/informal distinction as being artificial and unclear, and I don't think just because some effect is discussed in relation to redshifts by some fringe group that it necessarily deserves a link on the redshift page. As the page is right now, we have the appropriate number and kind of links for subjects that are outside the mainstream. --ScienceApologist 20:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the mediator that the last paragraph could use major improvements. I feel that the reader would be best served by focusing on what light can do or what can be done to light so that it increases in wavelength between the source and the observer. This is what the reader deserves here: information about what can happpen to create a redshift that is not due to a change in reference frame. This factual information is not contained in prefix-words like "trivial/non-trivial, classic/non-classic, intrinsic/non-intrinsic, conventional/unconventional, Doppler-like/non-Doppler-like, or common/uncommon." Those prefix-words, in my view, will confuse any reader who is looking for information about redshift. Those words are about the sociology and recent history of scientific subdisciplines and cosmological controversies, and they convey no information about what light can do. An inclusive article in terms of categorizations of usage would contain all of these prefix-words and many more of them. That is why this sort of inclusive-usage-article would not be a good article. An inclusive article in terms of categorizations of physics is the article as it appears now. However, the mediator is right that the reader would be very well-served by making the last paragraph more succinct and clear and improved for the layman. Flying Jazz 02:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree totally. Let's work to resummarize the last paragraph. --ScienceApologist 03:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Flying Jazz, I agree that prefixes such as conventional/unconventional, and common/uncommon are confusing. But I note that:

I wonder whether we can use the same editorial skill in explaining the first group, in explaining some of the second group, all of which seem to have specific meanings (for all I know, they might all refer to bogus, disproven or fringe theories, but specific meanings they do appear to have). --Iantresman 14:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Countless adjective in the human language may be applied to this phenomenon. Most of the redshifts on the left describe what light can do or have done to it. Most of the redshifts on the right represent somewhat arbitrary classifications of hypothetical possibilities that remain when the phenomena on the left are not considered. Of course these adjectives are used in the scientific literature, like hundreds of others--including dozens of others that you have wanted to mention in the article in the past. That is why most, if not all, of the right column does not serve a reader looking for information from an encyclopedia article about redshift, and that is why editorial skill in explaining the second group would be a wasted effort. An article that defines every term (or an arbitrary subset of terms) simply because they are defined in verifiable literature would be a bad article. An article that serves the reader by categorizing what light can do or have done to it in order to increase its wavelength would be a good article. Flying Jazz 21:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll agree with part of that, so if we remove synonyms and generic prefixes, that reduces the list down as follows:

The Intrinsic redshift article defines the term as some known or unknown effect that is not due to the three reference-frame shifts. This does not say what is done to light or done by light, so in my opinion its inclusion would not inform the reader about redshifts. "Periodic" or "constant" are just adjectives like "large" or "small" or "anomalous" or "understood." The word does not indicate what is done to light or done by light. Brillouin and Raman are two examples of adjectives that represent scattering out of dozens or maybe thousands of possibilities or combinations of possibilities that are all scattering. Why do you select only these two today when in the past you selected Compton, CREIL, and others? The Wolf effect is the only name I know that's been given to wavelength increases (when viewed from certain locations) due to coherence effects.

What can happen for light to increase in wavelength between the source and observer? There are the three reference-frame shifts, light can scatter off of matter, and there is partial coherence (Wolf). Scattering off of matter is radiative transfer, and the Wolf effect is physical optics. That's why the final section, for now at least, is called "Effects due to physical optics and radiative transfer." Flying Jazz 00:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Although there are lots of scientists who consider an Intrinsic redshift, I think it is refreshingly honest to say that there are lots of theories, though none are conclusive.
• Periodic/quantized redshifts describes a characteristic of redshifts as measured by Tift and considered by others; IF there is a periodicity, then something is happening to redshifts.
• I selected just two scattering redshifts, because I wasn't sure whether Compton and CREIL produce frequency-dependent redshifts, or just reddening.
• And I am pleased that the Misplaced Pages has been informative in describing the Wolf's redshift, though you wouldn't think so from reading the last paragraph.

--Iantresman 09:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Response

I suggest the text/table I mentioned earlier. I accept ScienceApologist's view that some of the table labels are not "standard phrases", but they are descriptive. This also fulfils all the other requirements for less text, sweeter text, context, comparative information, and optional links for the reader. --Iantresman 19:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I totally disagree with this suggestion as I think it is confusing and lends an air of "equality" to Ian's promotion of "alternative redshift mechanisms" that smacks of POV-pushing and is therefore not helpful to the reader. --ScienceApologist 20:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

hello

I've been watching this very annoying debate for a long time. I must say, this discussion is particularly harsh on Iantresman, however it seems he can take it. Now this is my two cents: if one is going to talk about red shift it is important to realize that many different sub fields use the same term.

In optics the wolf effect is most assuredly considered to be well proven and understood, having been both theorized and confirmed by experiment. Further it is considered a type of red shift. Dr. Wolf is one of the most famous names in optics today, so if Ian did contact him and didn’t fake those letters then those words should carry a lot of weight.

In cosmology, the wolf effect is not been well accepted as having anything to do with observations but several things have been purposed, but I would not give those much weight.

Optics is earth-bound and something that we can study in the lab. Analysis of astronomy observations are constrained by our cosmology models, and thus based finally in what we can observe about matter and space here at home. All this means is that the fields are very different in their methodologies, and ignoring the standards of either field is giving undue weight to the other.

Thus I suggest we stop bickering about a subtle point and put the wolf effect in the article and note that it is widely accepted in optics. We can also note that it has never reached wide acceptance as a part of any cosmological model. I would like to see wikipedia grow in quality and think that being as interdisciplinary as possible, and broad and all encompassing in our articles is completely necessary. --PhysicsDude 20:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The Wolf Effect is in the article already so asking to "put the wolf effect in the article" seems a little strange. --ScienceApologist 21:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess it's because:

• The article does not note that the Wolf effect is widely accept in optics
• The article does not note that some scientists have proposed an application to cosmology, but that it has not been accepted.

And also:

• The article implies that there are just three redshift mechanisms , even though the radiative form of the Wolf effect will also produce a Doppler-like frequency independent redshift, albeit small, that has also been demonstrated in the laboratory.
• The article notes that the Wolf effect is a radiative effect , but not that it has analogues in scattering too.
• The article notes that "light-matter interactions that result in energy shifts in the radiation field are generally referred to as 'reddening' rather than 'redshifting' ", though the light-matter Wolf effect interaction does not produce a reddening, but an actual redshift.

I'm not suggesting that we include all this, but we should be accurate and fair.

--Iantresman 21:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• It most certainly does mention it's accepted in optics. That's the name of the section!
• As far as I can tell, exactly one paper has made this claim with respect to anomalous quasar redshifts. That's not worthy of inclusion.

And also:

• The Wolf Effect is mentioned in the article. That it's not mentioned as a mechanism is silly because no sources that list redshift mechanisms list it as one of the mechanisms.
• The article notes that the Wolf Effect is a physical optics effect.
• The light-matter Wolf Effect is associated with distortion and is related to scattering. Claiming it to be an "actual redshift" is silly because the distinction is arbitrary.

The article is already accurate and fair to anyone who bothers to read it.

--ScienceApologist 21:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Papers that suggest a link between the Wolf effect and quasars include these:

• "The Wolf effect and the redshift of quasars
• "Noncosmological redshifts of spectral lines"
• "Non-Doppler Redshifts in Dynamic Multiple Scattering and Implications for Interpretation of Quasar Redshifts"
• "Shift of spectral lines due to dynamic multiple scattering and screening effect: implications for discordant redshifts"
• "Correlation-induced spectral changes"

• Here's a University book on redshift , that not only mentions "astronomical redshift" mechanisms, but also includes an entire chapter on "unconventional redshifts", including "tired light", the "Wolf effect" and "quantized redshifts".
• Prof. Dan James replied to you directly as a contributing editor in the redshift discussion pages, where he wrote "My paper with Emil Wolf in Physics Letters A vol.188, pp. 239-244 (23 May 1994) dealt with this issue in detail and at length. I stand by the conclusion stated there: "the frequency shift will be the same for every line present in the spectrum of the incident light". The term "light" should be interpreted in a very broad sense of anything that obeys the E/M wave equation, not just that with wavelengths between 400 and 700 nanometers. The expression for the frequency shift depends solely on geometrical factors which are the same for all wavelengths. The Wolf effect is a universal phenomena for all types of wave: indeed one of the earliest tests was for sound waves at a kHz frequencies"
• Prof. Dan James also told us that "The term "redshift" is not used just by astronomers. it refers to any process which increases the wavelength of light, or more broadly, any wave. Thus to include only effects which cosmologists think important would leave an article that is incomplete and misleading, to say the least."

--Iantresman 22:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

A couple of quick observations from the mediator: I think that this exchange is productive so far. I don't have much time at the moment but I think that this could lead to a better working relationship. I see some level headed discussion occuring. PLease try to se eachother's points. I have looked at these specifics and I think that in general the article is accurate and fair. Ian's points are valid and perhaps minor improvements can be made. I would like to point out however that the implication that there are only three redshift mechanisms may simply be due to clarity. It is not uncommon to be inaccurate in an explanation only to later introduce caveats for the sake of not confusing the reader early on. In this particular case I think this is very well justified. Please accept that the choice to simplify is in good faith. I do not think that the Wolf effect or it's acceptance in optics is particularly relevant to redshift. Mentioning it and allowing the reader to pursue it further in the Wolf effect article seems reasonable. After all this article doies not say that it is not accepted or the like. I think Ian's point about frequency independent effects of the wolf effect may be helpful and worth half a sentence. "although some radiative and scattering effects in rare cases can be frequency independent (See wolf effect)."

• Please keep this going with a civil tone and make an effort to see each other's points. Perhaps each of you could write an argument for each other. Actually instead I would like for you to summarize as fairly as possible each other's points.

--Nick Y. 23:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem, though I'm going to tackle this in the morning (it's gone midnight here, UK time). I'd also like you, Nick Y, to consider replying to ScienceApologist's comments in the "STOP STOP STOP STOP Refocus" and "Response" sections". --Iantresman 23:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

ScienceApologist's summary

I can summarize Ian's position on redshift. He wrote it on the Halton Arp forum here: . POV-pushing, pure and simple with an eye to attacking the mainstream and hiding behind Misplaced Pages policy. His advocacy on this and other articles make it very difficult for me to assume good faith, I'm afraid to say. I try to work superficially, but when people claim that he has "points" it makes me laugh. Yes, Ian has points. He wants his version of Velikovsky catastrophism to be legitimized on Misplaced Pages and he thinks mainstream science is in the way. --ScienceApologist 01:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure Ian has some points, although Velikovsky is probably one of his worst ones. His personal webpage mentions Velikovsky, but I haven't seen him mention him on a cosmology page. He says you're the POV pusher, but he did call for pushing his own POV on that Arp forum. So anyone responding to that forum should be disregarded for the purpose of determining a consensus. I thought we were going to discuss behavior after we agree on the redshift article? Art LaPella 03:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought we were going to do that too, but Nick Y. asked me to summarize as fairly as possible Ian's points. This is my attempt at it. --ScienceApologist 03:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to respond to ScienceApologist's summary of my viewpoint (or is it my summary of my viewpoint?), first. I plead guilty to pushing the non-mainstream view of redshift/cosmology, a view shared by at least hundreds of scientists and engineers . I note the following, directly quoted from Misplaced Pages:

• "POV pushing refers to the act (or attempt or intent) to evade, circumvent and undermine Misplaced Pages's neutrality policy (Misplaced Pages:NPOV) by creating and editing articles so that they show only one point of view."
• "At Misplaced Pages, points of view (POV) are often essential to articles which treat controversial subjects."
• "NPOV requires views to be represented without bias."
• ".. editors may unwittingly or deliberately present a subject in an unfair way omitting significant citable information in support of a minority view"
• "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme."
• "Displaying a reactionary, hostile and intolerant stance regarding new ideas."

--Iantresman 10:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Ian's Summary

ScienceApologist would like to present the article on redshift, as it is commonly accepted throughout the academic world, in the most interesting, informative and accurate manner. I wholly endorse this aim, am delighted to contribute in any way that I can, and am happy for the article to be whatever length is necessary to convey this point of view, and push it in a neutral style. ScienceApologist appear to have "reservations" concerning all other views, and would appear to favour excluding them, rather than describing them.

Note that this is my own personal view of ScienceApologist's view, and consequently is not necessarily verifiable, and may not accurately represent his true view. Hope it wasn't too over the top. Now I'm off to recite my Velikovskian mantra, and write an article on minority rights (or maybe I should exclude them altogether. ScienceApologist, what do you think?) --Iantresman 11:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Last Section Rewrite

I'd like to congratulate Ian for his honesty. I think it is absolutely wonderful that he admits that he has a POV that he cares about. I would like to ask SA to consider that Ian is being honest. He may be a minority viewpoint but that does not exclude him from contributing in a constructive manner. Maybe Ian holds minority opinions but that does not necessarily mean that he will unduely push his POV. I think every one has agreed that this last section is:

• A summary of minority viewpoints or accepted minor contributors to frequency shift
• In desperate need of improvement

I would like each of you to rewrite the last section, keeping it the same length and trying not to exclude anything that is currently present. You may reduce some elements to links while expanding others. Please consider clarity before undue weight (either towards your POV or the oposite POV). Do not argue over it, just do it.

--Nick Y. 18:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I reject both of your bullet points:

• The last section is totally not a summary of minority viewpoints. It is an attempt to clear-up misconceptions about physical processes.
• The last section is not in desperate need of improvement. It may benefit from some summarizing and shortening, but I actually don't care if that's done.

So, I'm finished with this particular assignment as I present the article as is.

--ScienceApologist 04:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I partially reject the mediator's bullet points because I see this as an issue of word usage, not viewpoints or contributions. I see the last section as:

• summarizing frequency shifts due to other effects besides changes in reference-frame
• a minority usage of the term "redshift"
• needing improvement, but without excluding effects that are currently present and also without including effects that are currently absent. Flying Jazz 00:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

If the last paragraph is due to an issue of word usage, why don't we describe the usage? Whether "intrinsic redshift" is real, theoretical, arbitrarty usage, or a matter of definition, there are nonetheless at least 200+ articles that use the phrase in a manner that is not as obvious as something like "large redshift". We already have a sentence that mentions "tired light", and I cna see no reason why the sentence can not be edited to include "intrinsic redshift" so that readers can link through to the article for further information.

I am happy for the last article to continue to describe "optical" redshifts, but agree it needs in improving, such as not implying that all such "optical" effects produce ONLY reddening.

--Iantresman 10:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry for my poor characterization of the last section. I didn't mean to pass harsh judgement or change its focus. I just ment to figure out how far apart are we in language and to encourage a rewrite not based on shoe horning in one point or another but a holistic rewrite to consider the issue from the ground up with the reader first in our minds. It was ment to be an excercise in working together with open minds. The next step was to consider how each parargraph would more or less clear to the reader and then accuracy and then proportionality. Would you guys still be open to trying this exercise? --Nick Y. 19:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Interpersonal Relations Part 2

Since the last one got out of control. I will keep this very constrained. Let's keep focused on the article as we build this part slowly. I just want to start the dialog since that is why we are in mediation. I have been focusing on the article because that is the area in which you will put into practice working constructively and harmoniously together. I may go slow here but be patient.

--Nick Y. 18:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

First assignment:

List 5 bullet points of the redeeming qualities you see in each other.

Second assignment:

List 5 bullet points of the annoying qualities you see in each other.

The best qualities of Ian Tresman are:

• He has uploaded some nice images.
• He's very adroit at certain coding (being especially fond of tables).
• He is generally courteous in direct conversations.
• He has respected personal requests of mine in regards to how to address me on talkpages.
• He can, on occasion, be reasonable with respect to certain editting (just recently shown on the Plasma cosmology page).

The most annoying qualities of Ian Tresman are:

• He thinks that NPOV means equal time/space as long as he can find fringe scientists to back up his particular anti-scientific perspective believing that because the standard for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability and not proof his prose should be free from editting/culling.
• He has been a practioner of vexatious litigation against me, filing multiple complaints, RfCs, RfArbs, administrator notices that have invariably gone nowhere because they are frivolous.
• He has harassed me outside of Misplaced Pages going as far to e-mail colleagues of mine for purposes I can only surmise.
• He hides behind policy and has insinuated that concensus should play second fiddle to protecting his minority viewpoint, going so far as to claim that any subject that the fringe science he supports has commented on should explain the fringe science position generally in ways that don't point out the lack of support for these ideas and don't admit any problems (putting them on equal footing with mainstream science),
• He seems to have a goal of changing Misplaced Pages policy in what at times has appeared to be a personal vendetta to get rid of me. For example, after I made some disparaging remarks about some of the sources he favors, he tried to get WP:NPA changed to apply to non-Wikipedians and dead people.

--ScienceApologist 04:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to summise why I contacted your colleagues by email, because I am happy to tell you (you only had to ask).

• If you recall, I asked whether you were a scientist or science writer
• You replied that you were a professor of physics
• I then found a press item and I was curious whether it was you, and noted that two years from senior to professor was quite impressive
• You were modest in your response, and mentioned that you were currently at a Chicago college
• Curiousity got the better of me, and I emailed an administrator at the college, to ask if you were a professor there. They replied that you were a "teaching admninstrator", from which I deduced that you must be a professor elsewhere.

--Iantresman 15:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Ian's contribution

5 redeeming qualities of ScienceApologist

• Passionate about science
• Knowledgable on mainstream science
• Able to write scientifically
• Consistent
• Would make a great editor, of a newspaper like Pravda.

5 annoying qualities of ScienceApologist

• Will not give minority views fair coverage (I've never sought equal coverage), admitting he "wants to keep the redshift page free from non-mainstream POV creep". . While any minority view can be respresented fairly in a NPOV style, excluding such views is consistent with the definition of POV pushing, and against policy.

• Claims certain views are included (eg. "intrinsic redshift", "redshift quantization", "Non-Doppler redshifts", "Discordant redshifts", etc), when he means that the article links to another article that may happen to mention them.

• Disrespectful to career scientists, labelling "(the late Prof. Paul) Marmet and Carezani are well-known woo-woos" , Halton Arp's work as "pathological skepticism" , Big Bang critics as "a list full of 'critics' who range from geologists to the out-and-out insane (such as Van Flandern)." , and even removing the credentials from articles on some scientists

• He decides on the merits of an article, labelling the Hannes Alfvén's theory of plasma cosmology as "junk" and labelling it as pseudoscience , claiming "intrinsic redshift" as ".. Original Research and a POV-fork and will go." (which is slightly at odds with suggesting that I am encouraged to write and expand such articles, ), and marginalising the work of Emil Wolf. It is notable that Halton Arp, Hannes Alfvén and Emil Wolf are included in the list of the Top 1000 scientists of all time (and Alfvén has a Nobel Prize too).
• ScienceApologist is judge and jury, which means we can't satisfy the NPOV policy that "Readers are left to form their own opinions". In other words, "Undue weight" does not mean "no weight".

--Iantresman 14:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright. Next interpersonal relation step. Respond to the annoying bullet points of eachother's list by addressing your intentions. I.e. do not deny what has been said about you. Simply indicate your intentions and why you may be percieved that way. Do this in bullet point format (be brief). e.g. to respond to "Nick is a biased mediator" I might say "I am interested to see this dispute resolved and the integrity of the information of this article improved. I would most like for this to occur on an ongoing basis without my involvement since this isn't an article of specific interest to me." SO five bullet points from each of you.

--Nick Y. 21:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Text change suggestions

I suggest the following changes to two areas of text, which try to take in the comments above.

The following removes the spurious link to "non-standard cosmologies", and adds only half a sentence, that surely can not be considered undue weight, nor confusing:

• From: Alternative hypotheses (for example, tired light and other suggestions from nonstandard cosmologies) are not generally considered plausible. (In "Observations in astronomy")
• To: Many other redshift mechanisms have been proposed over the years , such as various tired light theories, intrinsic redshift theories, and quantized redshifts, but are considered by only a small minority of scientists. (Move to end of "Redshift mechanisms")

In the Final paragraph, I would like to see the following points clarified:

• That some "optical effects" result in (a) Frequency dependent redshifts (eg. example), (b) Reddening (eg. examples).
• All "optical efects" do not involve "references frames" and nearly all involve some kind of scattering.
• A non-scattering form of the Wolf effect due to "coherence" will produce a tiny fequency independent redshift.

--Iantresman 10:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

SA - It does not seem to me that Ian is trying to mislead with these text changes. I fully understand the need to prevent the creep of fringe ideas. I hope you can agree that mentioning minority views or even fringe science does not endorse if it is properly characterized as such. In fact it may be very helpful to those that are interested in avoiding such materials. Could you, for now as an exercise only, try to include Ian's changes while choosing the appropriate characterizations. Please try to characterize in ways that are closer to consensus with Ian while choosing language you will be happy with.

Ian - Could you try to find some language on these changes that you can live with that is closer to SA.

--Nick Y. 19:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

What we have currently is an article which gives the weight to the non-mainstream concepts in proportion to their notability and relevance. To wit, the phrasing about "alternatives from non-standard cosmologies" encompasses the discussions of intrinsic redshifts and redshift quantization. The reason it doesn't make sense to mention "intrinsic redshifts" and "redshift quantization" directly is because these concepts are theoretical proposals with arguably no support in the cosmological community beyond the fringe and therefore are rightly expounded upon and mentioned on pages devoted to explaining fringe ideas which are not fringe ideas about "redshift" per se, but in actuality fringe ideas about cosmology (a level of specificity removed from the subject of the article). If people are interested in what the fringe has to say about cosmology and its relationship with redshift measurements, we rightly direct them to nonstandard cosmologies and leave it at that. It's best not to distract an article on a subject that has so much that is consensus with tangential discussions of controversial phenomena relatable by means of another level of abstraction, especially since the phenomena in question are considered by the vast majority of scientists to be nonexistent. To put this another way, I see including direct links to intrinsic redshifts and redshift quantizations to be akin to including direct links to homeopathy and polywater in the article on water.

Ian apparently doesn't realize that all of his remaining suggestions are currently explained in the final paragraph to wit:

• There is really no verifiable distinction between frequency-dependent redshifts and reddening. To try to attempt such a bifurcation is original research. Reddening is a phenomena associated with scattering of light -- that's all. Inasmuch as it causes the radiation field to appear to shift to lower frequencies, it can be crudely refered to as a redshift.
• The distinction between scattering and reference frames is made clear already in this first paragraph of the last section.
• Coherence effects are covered under the discussion of physical optics.

Therefore I offer as my proposal the article as is.

--ScienceApologist 20:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I don't think ScienceApologist has a problem with the language, only the mere mention of some minority views. I think this is illustrated by the removal of a "See also" link containing the non-judgemental phrase "Intrinsic redshift". --Iantresman 20:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I found one idea of Ian's that I was able to NPOV-incoporate into the article. See the last change for more details. --ScienceApologist 20:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Polywater has a direct link from the article on Water (molecule)

Just as I can imagine having a see also link if there was enough material to have an article entitled redshift mechanisms. However, we don't have such an article so the main article on the subject serves as a good example of how certain specific iterations need not be included. --ScienceApologist 00:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Homeopathy is mentioned in over 150 articles on Misplaced Pages

What is this supposed to show? --ScienceApologist 00:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• In the mainstream article on the Large-scale structure of the cosmos I note the following paragraph:

"Finally, there have been occasional claims of the quantisation of redshift. Although there have been numerous studies investigating this phenomenon, it is not widely regarded as valid, and remains the subject of considerable controversy."

This article has been acknowledged by many editors to be in desperate need of a cleanup. --ScienceApologist 00:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This statement (or text very close to it), has been in this article since it was written in Sept 2001 (ie. over 5 years), and the consensus seems to have had no problems with including a controversial phenomenon in all that time.

--Iantresman 22:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Ian - Perhaps you could explain why explicit mention of specific minority or fringe views is helpful to the reader of this article. How is this better for the reader than what we currently have? How is it better or less biased than giving a link that expands more fully on non-standard cosmologies? --Nick Y. 21:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Policy says that the reader decides. By giving them a direct link, they can instantly get more information. Are we really going to make them read throutgh an entire article on cosmology, just to find a link (or is it two, or maybe three?) to the article they want? More importantly, why should they read an article on cosmology, when "intrinsic redshift" (or the Wolf effect) is to do with redshift, not cosmoglgy. Additionally...
• Since editors are impartial, it is not for us to judge what are minority/tiny views. How do we know whether 10+, 100+ citations that mention a controversial subject are (a) minority/very minority (b) right/wrong. We can not know for sure, although we all have our own opinions. That's why verifiability, and not perceived truth is the criteria of inclusion in Misplaced Pages.
• I do know that a group of scientists, who are peer reviewed (by their peers, not us anonymous editors), consider their ideas of sufficient merit to warrant publication. Are they right? Who knows. But if the ideas were that controversial, they'd never get published in the first place. And that makes such ideas part of the mainstream.
• Mention of a controversial subject does not endorse it. It does not diminish the main article (since the latter can say everything that it needs). But it's mention does let the reader know that the controversial idea exists, citation(s) gives a fair indication of whether it has merit, and a link to the article on the subject provides more information. Undue weight is about proportionality of text, not about its mere inclusion, because a good editor can write about any subject in a NPOV style. (See the example in section above)
• More importanly, do we let a bunch of anonymous and unaccountable editors (and I include myself), dictate whether ideas from Nobel Prize-winning scientists, peer-reviewed scientisits, and Top 1000 scientists, get mentioned in an article, let alone described.

--Iantresman 22:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Policy statements for or against inclusion of minority views

I've taken the liberty of reading through the Misplaced Pages policy pages on Verifiability and Neutral Point of View, and summarised those statements that appear to support the inclusion of minority views in an article on a majority view. I've highlighted in red, those that appear to be most conclusive.

I think the statement on the the flat earth is most telling:

• the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority .

If we can include mention of the flat earth, a view for which there are NO CITATIONS, then we must include views for which there are many. --Iantresman 09:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Here are the words SA would have colored in red:"...to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading..." The undue weight policy states several times that some opinions should be omitted. I would have piped up before, but here's what Nick said about this: "IN other word arguments about the wikipedia rules and technical details are out." Art LaPella 20:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It's about the readers guys

Ian I understand your point; however, it does not relate to the question I asked. You answered a different question. Could you answer how it is beneficial to the reader to directly link to these subjects? Take into consideration that a direct link can be distracting from an article if it results in a list rather than a coherent explanation. What I would like both of you to do is to disscuss amongst each other what would be best for the reader leaving all else behind. Forget about proportionality and even acuracy for the moment and place the reader first. (Yes, many of the other factors follow naturally from the optimization of teh article for the reader, but that is part of the point.) The rules are here to help us write good articles for the reader not to encourage incessant arguing. As Art points out above the rules require judgements and thus there are judgements to be made regardless and we are to make those judgements. Our judgements should be about what is best for the reader. Let's not mislead by mentioning small minority views unduely nor by selectively excluding views. What's best for the reader. What's best for the reader. What's best for the reader.

--Nick Y. 20:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I think what is best for the reader is to have an article on redshift that can serve as an exhaustive resource for any student taking a class where they have to worry about the term or for any layperson who reads "redshift" in a newspaper article or hears it on a television show. We need to illustrate what redshift is and why scientists are interested in the phenomenon. We might also clarify misconceptions about redshift such as looking at other processes which cause a photon field to shift in frequency and distinguish these from redshift. Finally, we should mention those mechanisms and contexts where scientists see and use redshift the most. I don't think including links to redshift quantization, intrinsic redshift, or a detail arguments about various scattering phenomena is helpful to the reader because such points are two levels of specificity removed from the subject: they are points that a reader who is interested in non-standard cosmologies might find interesting, but I cannot envision any other reader being helped by such discussions. I don't want to mislead readers into thinking that there are controversies and "problems" where there aren't. So I think linking to non-standard cosmologies which has all the links and discussion of those issues anyone could desire is the appropriate way to go. That way, if there is a reader who is looking for information about such subjects they can go to that article, but those readers which are just interested in seeing a descriptive and informative discussion of redshift can do so without being distracted by the rather extensive arguments by a tiny minority. --ScienceApologist 21:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Ian's response

• There is no typical reader, just as there is no typical editor. ScienceApologist is absolutely right in saying that the article should serve as a "resource for any student taking a class". I have no doubt that there are readers who want the mainstream view, period. But it seems that ScienceApologist is excluding all students of optics, and students of theoretical physics (who might investigate intrinsic redshift).

• Additionlly, Misplaced Pages is (a) not written from a scientific point of view (policy), (b) if ScienceApologist want a text book, then he should contribute to Wikibooks "a collection of free, open-content textbooks that you can edit".

• But there are also readers, other than students, who don't just want the mainstream view, want to know whether there are other views, or would be pleased to learn about them. Links and descriptions of non-mainstream views will help them. Misplaced Pages policy says time and again, that it caters to many views, "presents controversial views", and "Readers are left to form their own". They can't do that if views are excluded.

• ScienceApologist says that he "cannot envision any other reader being helped by such discussions." And yet we had a comment (above) from PhysicsDude saying otherwise. A link to non-mainstream theories are for PhysicsDude. We also had support from Harald88, DavidRussell and Jerry Jensen. The link is also for people like them.

• Such links are also for the THOUSANDS of other readers who presumably have read the 100s of peer-reviewed papers I've citated. If the issue was as clear cut as ScienceApologist makes out, there are would be no peer-reviewed papers on the subject.

• If we accept that "... to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading... ", then have must equally accept that excluding a view might also be misleading. The trick is it include a view in such a way that it is not misleading... that trick is called NPOV.

--Iantresman 22:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Ian seems to be taking a lot of quotes of other authors out-of-context. I submit that his advocacy is to push his POV as described in the post he made to Halton Arp's forum. He doesn't have the best interest of readers in mind. He wants to sway opinion towards fringe science. --ScienceApologist 22:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not my point of view, it is the point of view of others. Presenting points of view, is not against Wiki policy (ie. it is not the opposite of NPOV), and is encouraged. POV pushing, defined as "... creating and editing articles so that they show only one point of view..." appears to be consistent with your suggestions, and "... undermine Misplaced Pages's neutrality policy". I have the interest of all readers in mind, not just a bunch of astronomy students. --Iantresman 23:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Every article on Misplaced Pages caters to minority views (it's policy!). The mainstream article on the Large-scale structure of the cosmos has mentioned the minority views of redshift quantisation for the LAST FIVE YEARS. The "Earth" article mentions the extreme minority view of of the "flat earth". There is no reason why articles edited by ScienceApologist should be any different. --Iantresman 00:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a pretty good discussion going here; however you guys need to not dig in your heels so much. It is close to reverting to an argument. I'd like to point some ways around this discussion turning into an argument. One is that SA does not say that minority views and even fringe science or mysticism should be excluded from wikipedia. He in fact specifically wants to link to such information. I would hope that we could agree that in general more articles that thoroughly explore more specific subjects rather than one big article that covers many subjects can be good thing. What we are looking for here is balance. Again please try to keep this about the reader and not about policy etc. The question is mainly about organization and not about exclusion of inclusion. How should information be linked together to give the most natural flow of information to the reader. Although I see your point Ian I think we could all agree that the majority of readers will be looking for the mainstream information at the undergraduate or graduate school level. I think that contributing to an even more advanced level and even cutting edge science is a great contribution. These more advanced questions need to be disabiguated and even somewhat less available (prominant) but obvious for the person looking for it. I.e. the novice should find the mainstream material first, the optics grad student should find the optics information ASAP and the fringe crazy person should find all of the best information to discredit the mainstream, but these should not be confused by any of tehse audiences.

--Nick Y. 20:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Nick Y, I think you're doing a great job mediating.
• I agree with you 100% that most readers want mainstream information, and that should not only come first, but may not mention "optics effects", nor minority theories; don't want to confuse anyone!
• But I feel that you might be a touch optimistic concerning progress, as I am pretty sure that ScienceApologist does not want to include links that mention certain minority ideas, at all, let alone write anything about them, ANYWHERE on the page.
• Wiki policy describes the "flat earth" theory as an extreme minority view, which I take to mean "tiny minority view"; in the article on the Earth (a mainstream article), the Flat Earth gets a paragraph to itself, PLUS, another mention further down the page. "Flat earth" is not peer reviewed, and there are no prominent adherents. It seems to me that any peer reviewed theory with prominent adherents (ie. minority view) should receive at least as much coverage, and I am happy for that to appear after the main article. --Iantresman 21:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Ian - I mean this in the most constructive and least argumentative sense (since I am mediator) but I would like to point out that the flat earth theory although absolutely discredited today is of extreme historical importance and an essential part of understanding the world view of much of human knowledge and the nature of the concept of the earth itself as it has evolved in history. It is therefore of great importance to the reader. Other discredited science appears frequently to explain theory as it is refined to help the reader understand step-by-step just as scientists understood step-by-step over a longer period of time. The Bohr model of the atom still has a place in the classroom and is featured prominantly because it is simple and easy for the layperson to understand. To jump directly to quantum mechanics is confusing. Again the reader should come first. Keep this going guys! I would like to see more dicussion about what is best for the reader. Maybe even some heated debate about what's best for the reader! Not rules nor inclusion/exclusion but about organization and clarity!

--Nick Y. 22:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The flat earth example would be an objective comparison to others' judgment on what the reader wants to see, if it weren't such an extreme example. Remember my intuitionism example? Also, the "ScienceApologist does not want to include links that mention certain minority ideas" sentence seems at least incomplete, without mentioning what's already in the redshift article. Art LaPella 22:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes valid arguments (which policy says we describe, not engage in). And yes, I over-generalised with ScienceApologist's stance on representing minority views. But there are a number of phrases that he won't accept. (a) "Transverse redshift" appears to be mentioned in about 30+ articles , and is included (b) "Intrinsic redshift" is mentioned in seven times as many references (210+) , and not included (c) Periodic redshift / "Quantised redshifts" get 200+ reference, and gets no mention.

Another exmaple, I see that ScienceApologist has continued his inquisition and unilaterally removed the scientific heresy of the "quantised redshift" paragraph from the Large-scale structure of the cosmos; no discusion or explanation, even though the paragraph was the subject of this mediation. It's just like his edits to the Redshift article itself, while mediation is in progress .

I would like to ask ScienceApologist (1) How Wiki policy distinguishes between tiny and minority views (2) What proportion of an article, Misplaced Pages policy suggests we give to them? --Iantresman 23:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to interupt too early but I would like everyone to remember that we are supposed to be talking about what is best for the reader. Let's not get distracted. I would like to see some of the points made in the context of "it would be more clear if..." and a response of "Are you insane!!! That would be totally confusing." (I'm joking about the overly exclamatory language)--Nick Y. 00:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Final paragraph suggestions to help the reader

Well, I think the article as it currently stands is pretty good and will help the reader learn what they want to lear about redshift, but would love to hear some suggestions for how to improve the final paragraph (or even some hints as to what is wrong with the final paragraph). Right now, I think the last paragraph does a very good job at explaining a lot of disparate phenomena in a succinct way, but maybe there are some things we can remove? What's the good word? --ScienceApologist 00:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

You each ignore each other's best points, and I don't think it's because I'm the only guy who can keep track of them. If either of you think that's the best way to deal with "infidels", then maybe you should explain it to me where the enemy isn't listening. Here I'll summarize the best points of each side so far. SA doesn't refuse to mention minority opinions - the existing redshift article already links to nonstandard cosmology and discusses it. Ian offers more than "hints as to what is wrong", but it's been so long since we discussed the specific language that I can't even find the paragraph that goes with his table any more. SA says "such points are two levels of specificity removed from the subject...I don't want to mislead readers into thinking that there are controversies and "problems" where there aren't." Ian promotes the noteworthiness of those opinions by counting references for how often his allegedly tiny minority views are referenced. Those figures have been heatedly debated but I think the disagreement there is a factor under 50%. Doesn't that summarize the real difference here, or am I missing something? Art LaPella 03:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Last section rewrite

Here's my latest attempt at rewriting the last section. The aim is to clarify scattering processes and reddening from radiative effect (Wolf effect), and to briefly mention alternative theories.

Okay, at least we have something to work from here. Here are the major problems I see with this revision:

• There is no mention of the reference frame changes any longer. This is an important distinction.
• There is a lot of wording that is novel in a nearly original research fashion. For example "complex spectra" is not defined and is not a standard term.
• There is no point of talking about duplication of spectral lines. Multiplets are irrelevant to redshifting and if such mechanisms cause multiplets they deserve mention in this article.
• The selection of scattering mechanisms is completely arbitrary and is a very artificial selection. For example, Thomson scattering and Compton scattering are left out (not to mention many others from the scattering article). There really is no reason that the scattering mechanisms should be specifically mentioned because we can refer people to the scattering article if they are interested in the subject.
• Ian's mention of color temperature has reminded me that there are such things as photometric redshifts which is really what he is referring to. As such, this should be in a different section because it is about redshift observations. In fact, a shift in color temperature is only imprecisely what is going on in Rayleigh scattering of sunlight.
• The Wolf Effect is an effect of physical optics. It isn't a "radiative effect" which is a term that is somewhat throwaway.
• There is no reason to have an entire subsection on the Wolf Effect as it is basically understood as an extension of resonance and interference. Anyone interested in this can click on a link.
• "Radiation physics" includes the "scattering of light". The sentence that distinguishes between them makes no sense.
• A "redshift that is less than the width of a single spectral line" is so exceedingly tiny that mentioning it here seems bizarre. And I've never seen a reference that shows how this can be the case for radiowaves and gamma-waves for the same scenario (in fact, I expect that it is actually not true). It isn't a good idea to mislead readers with this.
• The tenative proposal for quasars was done many years ago and hasn't been updated since then. I haven't seen a single source that quantifies how important the effect is for quasars nor what must happen in quasars in order for this effect to occur. As such, I think that this suggestion doesn't belong in the article (it mostly harkens back to days when there was controversy about the nature of quasars, days which have passed).
• You'll note that the reference to "many other redshift theories" is already in the article in a much more neutral fashion in terms of wording. It was a compilation that was done before people had the internet to do their dirty work.
• The three "alternative theories" listed are all astronomically related. As such we should evaluate them as warrants the discussion of redshifts in the context of astronomy:
  • mention of tired light currently in the article makes sense as it is a fairly well-known "also ran" idea from Zwicky, Hubble, etc. back in the 30s-50s.
  • mention of "intrinsic redshift" theories makes no sense to me. The definition of "intrinsic redshift" is redshift that isn't modeled. It is a catch-all phrase meant to encompass a lack of knowledge and it isn't explanatory. Since it is usually used in the context of Arp and those who need to break down the Hubble Law in order for their ideas to fly, I also think that may be too controversial a link for this article. We don't have the space to properly explain the arguments for and against "intrinsic redshifts" in this article. Instead, it would behoove the reader for us to leave it to nonstandard cosmologies which is the only context in which intrinsic redshifts is discussed.
  • Quantized redshifts suffers from the same problem as intrinsic redshifts except it is worse because many scientists argue that the proposal has been falsified already. To include a discussion of this in the article is also highly tangential and unhelpful to the reader.
• As it is, we already link to non-standard cosmologies elsewhere. I propose that the final "section" is totally problematic and doesn't belong in the article for the reasons I stated above.

--ScienceApologist 12:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

--Iantresman 10:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I've tweaked the introductory paragraph. Other notes:

• Although "complex spectra" are mentioned in many places (Google=75,000 | Google books=1950 | ADS Abstracts=700 times), if you know of a more appropriate phrase, please use it.
• References suggest that scattering may produce spectral shift multiplets, that are often described as redshifted and blueshifted , sometimes as redshifts and blueshifts . An example is the so-called "Brillouin shift".
• The selection of scattering mechanisms provides specific examples where spectral shifts occurs.
• I didn't call the Wolf effect a "radiative effect", but an effect in radiation physics, which is as described by Prof. Daniel James. I gave it a seperate section (a) Because it produces a small Doppler-like frequency-independent redshift (unlike scattering) (b) Does not produce reddening (unlike scattering)
• That you consider the Wolf effect to be "not true" is clear from your assertion that you've never considered it a redshift , despite numerous references to the contrary, confirmation from one of the paper's authors, and your eagreness to remove peer-reviewed, verifiable citation. This is precisely why Misplaced Pages policy indicates that "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth."
• Although the first paper on redshift and quasars was produced "many years ago" , more recent peer-reviewed articles have appeared in 2000 and 2004 in Astronomy and Astrophysics.
• Reference to "many other redshift theories" does indeed already appear in the article, though I assumed you'd be removing from the main article so as not to confuse all those astronomy students. I think my wording is also NPOV.
• That "intrinsic redshift" makes no sense to you is irrelevent; it's context makes it clear what it is, and link is provided for more information.
• That "Quantized redshifts" may already have been falsified is down to one peer-reviewed paper and your assessment. This seems a singular view to me, and we shouldn't give it undue weight. Either way, Wiki is based on verification, not your "truth".

--Iantresman 14:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Can you explain what you are trying to communicate to the reader when you use the term "complex spectra"? What is the difference between a "complex spectra" and another kind of spectra?
• I understand that scattering can cause frequency shifts as is currently discussed in the article. The problem is that the selection of mechanisms is artificial because other forms of scattering also cause frequency shifts that are not mentioned. Why do you think the specific list of scattering you put forth is relevant to a reader?
• It is better to refer to the Wolf Effect as a physical optics effect.
• I don't consider the Wolf Effect to be not true. However, I have yet to see evidence that it is frequency independent from gamma rays to radio waves. I see no indication that this is correct from any sources you've provided so to claim this in the article is original research at best and outright false at worst. There's nothing worse than promoting false information to the reader, IMHO.
• Subsequent papers on the research invovling quasars and redshfits do not seem to keep up with the current state of investigations. Quasars are studied by probably close to 1000 researchers in some form around the world. I can name less than five who believe there are discrepancies. This seems to be a misleading statement in your rewrite, therefore.
• I've stated many times before that the current wording of the article is fine by me. I'm not planning on removing anything, though I find your rewriting to be problematic for these and other reasons.
• If the reference to "intrinsic redshift" is confusing, it needs either to be clarified or removed from simple editorial standpoint. We need to write an article that is easy to understand.
• The falsification of quantized redshifts, if it is to be discussed at all in the article, must be mentioned. I don't think that this tangential and fringe controversy needs mentioning at all by undue weight. Debunking cranky ideas is not the foremost priority of most research scientists and the number of papers published debunking does not indicate that scientists accept redshift quantizations. They don't. You know this, Ian, and attempting to paint the subject another way is misleading to the reader.

--ScienceApologist 17:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I like the focus of the discussion so far. You guys are doing a good job in keeping focused on writing an article. I see some danger of losing the focus via issues of accuracy; however, accuracy is an important part of a good article. Realize that while truth is not particularly relevant and verification is important the ultimate goal is informing the reader without misleading. There are ways around contraversial issues and genuine disagreements that don't involve hashing out the truth. Let's keep this up and try not to get bogged down in scientific disputes or disagreements. There is a place for relating the back and forth of contrvesial issues (as a reporter) but perhaps those reporting of debates should be in much more specific articles.

--Nick Y. 18:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Ian focuses

• Prof. Daniel James writes: "Other important optical effects which produce spectral shifts are the closely related scattering phenomena known as Brillouin scattering and Raman scattering . Both of these effects produce changes in the wavelength of light due to interactions with excitations of internal degrees of freedom of a scattering medium, such as rotational excitations of molecules or vibrations of a crystal. However, these effects do not produce simple spectral shifts: the spectrum of scattered monochromatic radiation contains various discrete frequencies (a triplet in the case of Brillouin scattering, multiplets in the case of Raman scattering)." (my emphasis) (PDF| ABS)

Since redshift is by definition a simple spectral shift, why is this relevant to the article? --ScienceApologist 07:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Prof. Daniel James writes: "The Wolf effect is the name given to several closely related phenomena in radiation physics dealing with the modification of the power spectrum of a radiated field due to spatial fluctuations of the source of radiation." (PDF| ABS)

Agreed. Isn't it therefore accurately called an effect of physical optics? --ScienceApologist 07:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Prof. Daniel James wrote: "... since the spectral shift depends entirely on geometrical factors, it holds for *any* wavelength. A variety of applications of this effect have been studied, including synthetic aperture imaging, cryptography, optical frequency standards and a possible role in interpreting the spectral shifts in cosmology." (my emphasis)

But geometrical factors are often wavelength dependent in physical optics. E.g. diffraction. I imagine that qualitatively the shifts are the same and the effect will happen at any wavelength, but the question is: will it be the same z? --ScienceApologist 07:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Twenty papers mentioning "anomalies" and "quasars" , perhaps many more.

I think this list is irrelevant to the article. --ScienceApologist 07:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• I choose to clarify "intrinsic redshift".

? --ScienceApologist 07:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• I have no problems mentioning evidence against quantised redshifts, as long as it's sourced, and does not suggest that the paper's conclusion is definitive and absolute.

That belongs, in my opinion on the redshift quantization page not on the redshift page since the minority controversy is distracting from real issues of defining redshift. It is more beneficial to the reader to have a link to a clearinghouse of controversial ideas rather than directing them to quantized redshifts. --ScienceApologist 07:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages does not judge verifiable ideas as "cranky" or "truth"; though I notice that Pseudoskeptic "Assume unverified or incorrect facts to justify a predetermined skeptical conclusion" --Iantresman 19:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

What does this have to do with anything? We are the editors of wikipedia. We can determine whether a verifiable idea warrants mentioning in an article because we are editors -- not automatons. --ScienceApologist 07:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Although one definition of redshift refers to simple spectral shifts, other usage clearly indicates redshifts that refer to non-simple shifts. To be inclusive, we should cater to those students whose minds can cater to more than the simple.

Can you give me a reference to a definition that refers to a definition of redshift as it relates to "complex spectral shifts"? Mind you, this looks to me a lot like original research. --ScienceApologist 14:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Sure, the Wolf effect can be called an effect of physical optics, but it seems more descriptive and informatitive to the reader to be a little more specific.

Why? --ScienceApologist 14:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Geometrical factors may often be wavelength dependent in physical optics, I do not dispute that. But I also have Daniel F. V. James a professor in Theoretical Optical Physics and Quantum Information at the University of Toronto , confirming that Wolf effect "holds for *any* wavelength"; since he has written several papers on the subject, I am inclinded to give him the benefit of the doubt. More importantly, references clearly say that the Wolf effect may be frequency-independent, and verifiable citations take precedence over your opinion.

James said that the Wolf Effect holds for any wavelength band. He did not say that you would obtain the same z for radiowaves and gamma rays for the same physical scenario. This effect we are talking about applies only for lines and can only shift the lines by at most a linewidth. Since linewidths will vary as wavelength too, doesn't this indicate that z won't be the same across the spectrum? What the references you've been piling on don't do is explain whether they've limited their wavelength band (which is often done in physical optics). --ScienceApologist 14:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• You suggested that you "can name less than five who believe there are discrepancies ". That is your opinion, and is your opinion that the list of citations I gave is irrelevent. What is more important, is that the citations I gave are verifiable, and suggest that more than five people believe there are discrepancies.

Let's put it this way: we can try to name all the researchers who currently believe there are discrepancies with quasars. I think it's limited to Arp, Narlikar, Tifft, and Cocke (not sure if he still considers there to be discrepancies). Please list some other prominent members of the astrophysics research community that believe your assertion. --ScienceApologist 14:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• You suggested that "intrinsic redshift" is confusing, it needs either to be clarified or removed. I choose that we clarify it, rather than remove it, as it will provide a view to those students who are not just interested in simple spectral shifts.

But you offered no clarifications that we could include in a neutral fashion in the article. --ScienceApologist 14:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Mentioning "quantised redshift" does not diminish describing the "real issue" of redshifts, and more than mentioning "dark matter" and the "big crunch", diminishes the rest of the article. I am also fine linking to an article on quantised redshift. My objection would be removing "quantised redshift" altogether, though I think a one sentence explanation does no harm... and might even inform the reader.

I disagree. As the phenomena doesn't exist but is esoteric enough to provide confusion. It's like linking to modern geocentrism in the article on general relativity. Definitely inappropriate and misleading to include a link here. --ScienceApologist 14:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Editors do not decide whether significant verifiable facts are included in an article, the decide how they appear in an article. --Iantresman 13:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

They decide whether the facts that are included in the article are signficant enough to warrant inclusion. --ScienceApologist 14:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, you have a good argument for wanting the redshift article to be aimed at students, and to be written as a text book article. There is also an argument for suggesting that most readers will be the general public and largely uneducated in astronomy and physics. I don't think that there we would disagree, that a high-school senior or amateur astronomer is as likely to visit the article as a 12-year-old or general member of the public.

It seems reasonable to assume that if "non-mainstream" material is deemed "confusing" to the reader, then clearly some of the more "advanced" concepts in the redshift article, are equally "confusing" to the 12-year-old or general member of the public.

But you would be right to argue that a decent writer and editor can make the "confusing" interesting and informative, no matter who the audience is. Nevertheless, do we really think that a 12-year-old, or general member of the public is not going to be confused? Of course they will be, but it won't stop us trying to explain new concepts to them. --Iantresman 13:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

My point is that the confusion arises not from content but from simple presentation. In my opinion, the reason that there is an undue weight section of NPOV is to avoid this kind of problem. Sometimes fringe opinions do not warrant inclusion or discussion in articles by virtue of their nature as fringe opinions. This isn't to say that they should be excluded outright from the encyclopedia, only that articles that encompass more than the fringe need to be written about in a fashion that summarizes fairly and plainly the current understanding of the subject material. If we include your proposals, to make them NPOV we would end up incorporating the pseudoscience controversies themselves onto this page which isn't about these issues. We have a non-standard cosmology page for this very reason -- so that we can relegate the discussion of these ideas which get promoted by tireless internet-amateurs such as yourself who disagree with mainstream science for some reason or another. What we don't want to do is bend over backwards to accomodate them because this skews Misplaced Pages in favor of this bias that is, frankly, an accident of the bizarre "technological mob rule". There are many cranks and charlatans out there who will gladly spend their time creating reams of documents such as the one we are currently writing in order to get a sentence included that promotes their viewpoint. That's what I see as your major agenda. The only reason I resist it is because I think that this particular project is going to be used in the future as an important internet resource. When I arrived here nearly every article on cosmology and astronomy was filled with caveats and ramblings of this sort. I have been working systematically to remove these problems where I have found them. If you want to see what a terrible article on redshift looks like, check out the article before I arrived.

Some claim I am exclusionist or deletionist to too great an extreme. However, I believe that Misplaced Pages has clearly dilineated policy to encourage the following structure: 1) Summary articles on broad subjects that describe in proportion to notability and prominence the current understanding of the sum total of humanity's investigation into the subject. 2) Specific articles on very narrow views that describe a limited perspective with a context to the larger investigation. What Misplaced Pages does not (and should not, according to parts of NPOV, RS, and V) do is include in articles of type 1) unnecessary baggage associated with articles of type 2). It is my contention that the points you are raising here all belong on the pages about the subjects themselves. Why don't you include them there?

--ScienceApologist 14:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion for motivations

Let's face it: there are many different kinds of readers out there. Why does Ian want to see links to certain articles included in the redshift page even though these articles are on the views of a handful of individuals? I don't think it's to inform those people who are already aware of those views. If a person who knows about intrinsic redshifts comes to Misplaced Pages wants to be informed about intrinsic redshifts, they'll go to the page on that subject. No, I think that the reason Ian wants to include this is to catch people who would come through hoping to learn about redshifts in general who know little to noting about the subject. They are proverbial blank slates and are the readers that are most likely to be led into the perspective that Ian advocates.

Now, let's consider the current state of the article. A "blank slate" reader comes to the article and sees that there may be alternative suggestions for redshifts offered by non-standard cosmologies. "Non-standard cosmologies? What does that entail". Clicking on the link, our intrepid reader discovers an array of possibilities most of which have very different conceptions of what causes cosmological redshift. There are discussions there of intrinsic redshifts, redshift quantization, even such issues as the starlight problem which Ian hasn't been clamboring for because he isn't of that particular persuasion. This reader is now given an excellent context for these "alternative discussions". They can move from there and NPOV is maintained because there was no value judgement associated with these points.

In the current state of the article, the reader arrives at the very last section and reads about some ambiguities related to the fact that a "redshift" is a somewhat imprecise term. There is nothing controversial about the prose and the explanations for phenomena that cause frequency shifts are neutral and verified. What I like about this section is that a nonstandard advocate will come to the article and read this section and say: "Aha! Here's the stuff I'm interested in!" We satisfy everybody. If the nonstandard advocate comes to the talkpage and demands: "Why is there nothing on intrinsic redshifts?" or some other point they are fond of making, we can point them to the undue weight policy and also point out that the article is totally exhaustive in terms of addressing the current state of the physics and observations regarding frequency shifts in general.

Now, consider the state of the article as Ian would want it. A "blank slate" reader comes to the article and sees a section about other redshift meanings and theories. What does this mean? The section is basically an imprecise compilation of arguments that have been made over the years by supporters of non-standard cosmologies. There is a seeming mish-mash of scattering effects that are for one reason or another popular with non-standard cosmology advocates. It isn't an exhaustive list of scattering processes even though every scattering process in principle can result in a frequency shift. To be honest with the reader we would have to explain that this list is skewed towards non-standard....

....(after being apparently cut-off) interpretations of redshift. But that would require an explanation of these non-standard ideas in order for the article to make sense and bring us way-off track. Now the reader is bogged down in a discussion of whether redshift is properly explained by the page in the lead-off -- hardly the direction we want to take readers in (especially because this is not in-line with verifiable and reliable sources which describe redshift in other contexts). I think that the current article does a better job of avoiding this spiral and novel problem of leading readers down an original presentation garden path. In fact, we do it while still preserving the information that there are "other opinions" out there. --ScienceApologist 01:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Your comment concerning "intrinsic redshift", that "the phenomena doesn't exist but is esoteric enough to provide confusion", highlight two fundamental conflicts with policy.

1. You are stating your opinion concerning whether the phenomenon exists in some form. I have no idea whether there really is an "intrinsic redshift", and not only do you not know for sure, we can questions "cosmological redshift" in exactly the same way. And that's why Misplaced Pages policy states: "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth" . NO-ONE knows whether these theories are the truth, and Misplaced Pages policies recognises that.
2. Mentioning an "esoteric" or "obscure" or "minority" theory does NOT cause confusion. Bad English causes confusion. Policy on Undue weight tells us how to handle issues like this: "f a view is the majority view of a broad consensus of scientists, then we say so. If a view is a minority view of some scientists, scientists who are respected by the mainstream that differs with them on this particular matter, then we say so. And if a view is held only by a few people without any traditional training or credentials, and if that view is dismissed by virtually all mainstream scientists, then we can say that, too." (my emphasis)

Our motives for including/excluding material is irrelevent. Can you think of any revealed motive of an editor which would cause you to remove a verifiable statement from an article? Statement surely stand or fall on their own merit.

--Iantresman 15:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I can think of plenty of verifiable statements that need to be removed for NPOV reasons from many articles. E.g. the evolution article often has verifiable opinions of creationists removed. --ScienceApologist 01:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you give an example? I can't see a statement failing an aspect of NPOV, but it can surely be edited to become NPOV --Iantresman 08:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is an example: . --ScienceApologist 13:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

As it stands, the statements do not appear to be verified. However, if they can be attributed, then they would be fine. --Iantresman 14:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Believe me, each of those statements are verifiable and are present elsewhere in other forms in Misplaced Pages. However, they do not belong on the evolution page. -ScienceApologist 17:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Ian really believes this point either. If the evolution article included every verifiable creationist quote that someone wanted to insert, I think the result would look like Chick Publications. Rather than decide this by who can say "notable" or "not notable" the loudest, maybe I can get at least one of you interested in a more objective criterion like the one I used last Thanksgiving at Big Bang. If the redshift article's discussion of the Wolf effect had the same proportion to the redshift article as the proportion of Google Scholar hits of "Wolf effect" versus "redshift", then the Wolf effect would get 4.3 words. "Intrinsic redshift" would get 2.9 words. "Redshift quantization" or "quantized redshift" (eliminating duplications) would get 1.5 words. That is, if the article said "See also the Wolf effect, intrinsic redshift and other nonstandard cosmologies.", the time would be up. That seems like a more scientific way to determine what the reader is really looking for. Art LaPella 23:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent suggestion. Per this, I will add an intrinsic redshift link to the appropriate part of the article. --ScienceApologist 05:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I applaud Art's suggestion in principle, for an objective method of determining prominence. But I object, yet again, to ScienceApologist taking it upon himself to be judge and jury, and updating the article during discussions. Let's take a more thorough look at Art's figures:

• I think the table shows two interesting things (1) That if we give the "Transverse redshift" 100 words, then the next most "obscure" or "non-mainstream" redshift can receive 8 times as much text without violating undue weight. (2) The "Doppler redshift" comes third from the bottom of the list (unless I've missed a synonymous phrase?)
• I also want to highlight that by taking the least most prominent redshift (ie. "transerse redshift") as our baseline, we can accommodate all other redshift ideas, and other policy statements are not violated; but if we set our inclusion criteria at an arbitrary normalised value of 1000, and exclude lesser redshifts, then we violate other policy statements (ie. bias by exclusion) --Iantresman 12:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Ian's suggestion is ignorant of the reason for doing the comparison in the first place. Transverse redshifts are not controversial and there are not undue weight issues with inclusion of such a subject. The undue weight and prominence issues come in only when dealing with controversial subjects in proportion to the main subject (here it is redshifts). Obscurity is only a judge of notability when the point is novel not when it's mainstream. --ScienceApologist 12:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Undue weight merely states "proportion to the prominence of each" ; there is no Wiki policy which states, of even hints that, supposedly non-controversial get bonus points. Once prominence has been established, Wiki policy then explains how to present them in an NPOV style. It is clear from the table above, that the "Transverse redshift" is an order of magnitude less prominent than "anomalous redshifts"; I have no idea whether there are anomalous redshifts (and our personal opinion on the subject is irrelevent), but I do know that many papers suggest that there are such redshifts; Wiki policy suggests that consquently, "anomalous redshifts" should be fairly described, including mentioning that it is controvesial. --Iantresman 14:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

there is no Wiki policy which states, of even hints that, supposedly non-controversial get bonus points. --> blatantly false. From NPOV: "for any topic on which there are competing views, each view represents a different idea of what the truth is, and insofar as that view contradicts other views, its adherents believe that the other views are false and therefore not knowledge." NPOV applies for controversial subjects, not to uncontroversial ones! --ScienceApologist 18:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure? It says "competing views" not "controversial views", so NPOV applies to all competing views, equally. --Iantresman 19:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

So what view competes with transverse redshifts? --ScienceApologist 21:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

So I asked in other places whether people thought that NPOV applied to just controversial articles. The replies so far suggest that it applies to ALL articles.

NickY, what is your view? Do you think that NPOV applies to just controversial articles? --Iantresman 00:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I think Ian wins a battle here by losing a war. Here's a quote from one of his replies: "...balance the amount of coverage given the different views in rough proportion to how widely held they are...", not choose the most overcovered subsubject and demand proportional representation for your favorite ones. I bet you'd get different answers if you asked it that way. Oh, and Nick is going to be mad that we're debating policy again. Art LaPella 01:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Claiming that NPOV applies to non-controversial subjects is a non-starter. The opposite of a controversy is consensus. If a subject is truly non-controversial, there are no verifiable views competing or contradicting it. So there is no way we can apply NPOV to it -- NPOV applies automatically. --ScienceApologist 04:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the non-controversial in question is "transverse redshifts". I don't believe there is any controversy over this subject. If there is, please show it to me. --ScienceApologist 04:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

fiNickY policies

NickY, it seems that we are not as focused as perhaps we could be. I know that your job is to mediate, rather than to make judgements, but I think it would help proceedings if you could give your interpretation of policy regarding undue weight. What sort of things does policy suggest should be excluded, and what should be included in an NPOV mannner? At least it will help us move away from the justification of facts, to the actual editing. It would also help if you use "intrinsic redshift" and the "Wolf effect" as specific examples. --Iantresman 16:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you guys have been doing a pretty decent job of remaining focused during my absence except I tend to not approve of the policy discussion. It's only redeeming feature now is that the reader is more of a reason for justifying policy. I think where this breaks down is when you take the second pass and dig in your heels and fall back on policy. There were some very interesting discussions earlier. I think Art's sugestion is a good guideline and metric but I do not think that sticking to some formula is what is best for the reader. It only informs us in our decisions. Rather than including 4.5 words exactly it might more more clear to give it ten or just a link or maybe to exclude it altogether. However it is clear that it does not deserve a paragraph. Exclusion of verifiable facts is just fine. This is an editorial decision. This is especially true of quotations and non-consensus opinions. There are many peer reviewed hypotheses and essentially opinion pieces. There are plenty of cooky nobel lauretes. Just because Linus Pauling says taking mega doses of vitamin C will make you live forever doesn't make it worth inclusion. I might include such a quote in an ascorbic acid article for historical curiosity and as a way to link to psuedoscience articles but then you have to clarify that it is largely debunked hypothesis never having much support to begin with. I wonder about your objection, Ian, to linking to the non-standard cosmologies article. I do not think that non-standard implies pseudoscience. I understand your desire to inform optics scientists that are not interested in cosmology. These two motivations need to be separated. Perhaps we could clarify the last paragraph by having two separate links sections one that is clearly without cosmological implication (alternative frequency dependent definition we discussed before) and one with non-standard cosmology relevance that could mainly be a link to the non-standard cosmology page. Sample language to get you started:

"The term redshift is also used in fields such as optics, ... and ... in manner that disregards frequency independence and simply implies a downward shift in frequency. Such effects where this less formal definition is sometimes used includes Link Link Link, and Link. Due to their frequency dependence such effects do not have cosmological implications and the use of the term redshift in conjunction with such effects is strongly disapproved by astronomers, ... , ... and cosmologists. There are some effects where the frequency independce is an issue of debate and there are other effects that are frequecny independent but their cosmological implications are still being studied and not necessarily widely accepted. Such hypotheses and active research areas are covered in non-standard cosmologies."

I don't mean to write the article but from a reader's perspective this seems to summarize, for me at least, the important information to lead me to the information I am looking for. I also see this as getting around many of the issues being debated here, by linking to more thorough articles. There seems to be at least two distinctions we can make frequency dependence and prevalence. We link to frequency dependent effects and we have the non-standard cosmologies for debatable frequency independence or frequency independent but debatable. This leads the reader to the place he/she wants to be. Just a suggestion to help resolve things and give you guys something to talk about. Remember its about the reader. Please try to start more sentences with "I think it would be more clear if.." And "The reader might get confused if..." or "The reader might get mislead if.." or "It would eb most informative if..." Keep it going please focus on the reader. Be careful to inform but not mislead. --Nick Y. 18:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

My rationlale for mentioning and linking directly to "non standard" redshifts, is to save the reader from having to read through an entire article on non-standard cosmology; presumably a reader's main interest in the redshift article is "redshift", cosmology is secondard. In other words, the place to find links to minority redshift views is from an article on redshift. It also satisfies Art's Google Scholar assessment.

Consequently, your paragraph looks like a good outline; the only thing I'd add, is to the last sentence, to read "Such hypotheses and active research areas are important in non-standard cosmologies, such as "tired light" theories, "intrinsic redshift theories", and "redshift quantization". --Iantresman 18:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Redshift quantization and intrinsic redshift are part and parcel to nonstandard cosmologies. They are not independent of them. There is no context in which someone refers to these terms without also involving a discussion of nonstandard cosmologies. In short, I'm arguing that absolutely no reader exists that is interested in intrinsic redshifts/redshift quantisation independent of nonstandard cosmologies. They absolutely must be related. What's more, most of the scattering redshifts you refer to are referenced with regards to nonstandard cosmologies as well, except in the bathochromic case or in the pure optical Wolf Effect case. However, we already deal well with this scenario so all of your concerns are adequately addressed by the article and the reader is informed and we should be able to move on. --ScienceApologist 21:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

SA - Hopefully you can see some of the value to such an approach. More concise, less inclusion of other topics, just some simple clarifications and links. Maybe you could try to incorporate Ian's desire for direct links with your desire not to mislead. I can see the obvious next step, but will let you do it. Take Ian's sentence, shorten it up a bit, integrate it into the more qualified sentences I wrote and we may just have a well balanced, informative, not misleading disambiguation to other subjects with some well qualified direct links to Ian's subjects of interest. Feel free to expand on what other levels of distinction can be made between these subjects other than frequency dependence and prevalence. The less prevalent should be covered in non-standard cosmologies and the frequency dependent should be clearly disambiguated. Try to find some qualifying language that is not misleading to the reader but informative and allows Ian to have his direct links. Remember Ian's stated motivation to allow the reader who is interested in such things to get there quickly. That does not mean that you can not qualify that it is a minority or even fringe position. But please be as fair as you can. Remember Ian will respond so make your qualifications defensible. There will be some compromise in the end.

--Nick Y. 21:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Nick, the sentence is already in the article. "Alternative hypotheses (for example, tired light and intrinsic redshift suggestions from nonstandard cosmologies) are not generally considered plausible." --ScienceApologist 21:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned that the current mediator has been making suggestions about how to proceed, but most of the suggestions are already implemented. We already disambiguate between frequency dependent and frequency independent shifts. We already indicate what mechanisms are more and less prevalent. We already do all of these things suggested above except for mention redshift quantization which I have already explained why it doesn't really deserve mentioning. I'm getting really tired of this quibbling because I get the distinct impression that no one is paying attention to what the article actually says and instead we are fighting over strawman articles. Let's proceed this way: point me to a sentence that's problematic in the article and we'll try to fix it. --ScienceApologist 21:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

SA, you didn't mention that Nick left unspecified whether he meant "in addition to" or "instead of". Perhaps it was a deliberate mediation tactic, which I'm not criticizing - I can't manage you guys either. Art LaPella 22:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, look in the negative space. Maybe there is too much said. Maybe you've let too much unrelated material creep into the article. Remember that I am mediator of the talk page not the article itself. My job is to help you work together effectively without disturbing others. If I can get you guys to get along but have heated debates about how to best write the article without disturbing others my job is done. I am primarily trying to get the two of you to let the conversation flow and the article evolve into something better. Just because something is there may make it sufficient but it doesn't make it as good as it ever will be. My message to you is that it can be better (in your opinion) AND in Ian's opinion. I.e. it can be more inclusive and less misleading. It can be easier to understand and more thorough and complete. --Nick Y. 23:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

My bottom line is to see the mention of some minority views on redshift. I don't care how those views are portrayed, as long as it is fair (ie. NPOV). I'm not after a paragraph on each, but if it needs a sentence to put them in context, then so be it... that is the NPOV and editorial bit. I wish to see: (A) Tired light (B) Intrinsic redshift (C) Redshift quantization (D) Wolf effect (E) Scattering/Reddening/Frequency-dependent redshift clarification. I think that the only one missing is (C) Redshift quantisation.

ScienceApologist may want to find a suitable place to mention Redshift quantisation, but if all these minority views are too "distracting", perhaps a sentence at the very end, mentioning them together is better? --Iantresman 11:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Redshift quantization redirects to Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies, the book by Halton Arp, whereas Quantized Redshift redirects to Redshift (which doesn't mention quantized redshift at all), and Quantized redshift and the English spellings (with an s instead of a z) are all red links. Furthermore, as Defender of the Faith, I don't know where to argue that (a) the best data show at most a very weak quantization signal, and (b) weak peaks in the power spectrum do not necessarily imply concentric spheres but are also to be expected from large scale structure with a scale length. I don't know how much belongs in this article, but the issue of quantized redshifts in Misplaced Pages certainly needs some cleanup. --Art Carlson 11:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that. I suspect that there is no decent article on the subject yet, and someone just redirected it to where they thought best. And if your points are verifiable, then they should definitely go into the article. --Iantresman 12:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps someone should get to work writing such an article. May that is a place where Ian and SA could work well together. Ian knows about it and is interested in it enough to read and follow it. SA seems to know the reasons why it is not accepted by most scienctists. Together you guys could write a great article. In any case having a link that leads nowhere is totally useless to the reader, so it's inclusion is kind of pointless. Even it being mentioned without any further info available is useless.--Nick Y. 19:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree on writing this article. I'll create it right now. --ScienceApologist 19:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It's such a shame that:

• You have to remove the word "hypothesis", presumably because it's too close to dignifying it as "theory". And I double checked it with an indpendent paper which also calls it a hypothesis
• That you define "quantization" as a "quantiziation"
• The use of "weasel words" such as "Those who claim..."
• The addition of the phrase "creationists to geocentrists have referred to such observations"; do you think that if I can find some references to "science fiction writers" and redshift, you'd let it into the redshift article?
• --Iantresman 20:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys. It seems that the redshift quantization article is coming along. Let's not get too particular and dig in our heels again. I do not see any major problems with the article so far. It seems that you guys may dig in your heels on some of the choice of words and editorial choices. Please try to avoid that. I think there is a middle ground that is most accurate. From my limited knowledge it seems that this subject matter is somewhere between pseudoscience and relatively obscure unproven hypothesis, with some largely contradictory evidence. I hope that we can agree on that? Being such I think the inclusion of those that promote it with alterior motives is important. Including that it would undermine the big bang theory could be expanded to how it is disregarded by many for this reason. I think it might be interesting to include a "redshift in literature section" in redshift for that matter. Overall it seems like a most informative article so far with a few wrinkles in the editing.--Nick Y. 22:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• I must disagree with you NickY, there is no comparison to pseudoscience whatsoever. The research is carried out by career astronomers in peer reviewed journals. A minority subject does not mean it is pseudoscience. A scientific study of, for example, UFOs does not imply pseudoscience. Redshift quantisation may turn out to be complete false. But that also does not make it pseudoscience.
• Tifft papers have been published in Astrophysical Journal, the same journal that I mentioned that criticised redshift quantisation.
• While I would welcome a section on "redshift in literature", I would feel somewhat cheated that we can mention "redshift and the Simpsons", but can't yet mention "redshift quantisation".
• I also think that if we mention the alledged motives of creationists in the redshift quantization article, then it seems reasonable to include in the redshift article the view of other alternative cosmologists on redshift in general.

--Iantresman 00:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say it was pseudoscience. What you are speaking of is not. It seems that there may be some pseudoscience going on around it, just as there is plenty of pseudoscience that goes on around all science. What pseudoscience primarily does is selectively take a little science mix it with some conjecture to reach a usually predetermined outcome based on scant evidence or to put forward an unprovable hypotheses. I think it is more towards the "relatively obscure unproven hypothesis" end of the spectrum. Making a hypothesis is part of the scientific method. It is also a hypothesis that may be tested. But the evidence is limited and contradictory. SA needs to make up his own mind. I was just trying to give a broad characterization spectrum for us to agree on. Ian, do you think it is more than a relatively obscure unproven hypothesis? On your last point I think that was the point of the non-standard cosmologies article. Again this goes back to the reader. Most readers want the mainstream, the curious ones may pursue more minority views. Some people are interested in pseudoscience and they should be able to find what they want too. The reader however should be informed. The important tags that need to be on the redshift quantization article are that it is a minority view, it is a peer reviewed scientifically driven hypothesis, it has contradictory evidence to support it and disprove it, and it is sometimes used by others in a pseudoscientific fashion to arrive at far reaching conclusions. Do you disagree?--Nick Y. 01:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• I've removed all unverifiable statements from the redshift quantization article (to the talk page, awaiting citations).
• I also removed the statement suggesting that there were no independent studies, and added verifiable quotations from three independent studies to the Background section.
• I tried to find another verifiable criticism to the two that I already included, but couldn't find any. --Iantresman 09:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I replaced all unverified statements. They aren't unverifiable and you don't need to remove them.

It is arguable as to whether or not many of those studies are truly independent. Some of the studies are actually being twisted away from their meaning by your selective quotations. We'll have to work to get an NPOV version of what they entail.

Sky and Telescope in the late 90s reported on one test that had failed. I'll dig up the reference (there was a professional paper associated with that study as well, if I'm not mistaken).

--ScienceApologist 12:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• It is a courtesty to provide citations where requested. If they are not unverifiable, then verify them, and then restore them.
• Your removal of the word "hypothesis" is used by Rudnicki , Croasdale and Napier , all career scientists, and its use is verifiable.
• Sorry, I thought you said "independent" first time around, not "truly independent", shall I withdraw them all? I hear that some of the scientists are on very good speaking terms, is that "truly independent" or only "independent"?

--Iantresman 13:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Ian, please Don't be a dick. I don't have time immediately to get the citations but I will get them. Give me some time. And by the way, Napier's work can hardly be said to be independent of Tifft when they worked so closely together. --ScienceApologist 13:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• OK, time is on your side. Though I see you've removed "hypothesis" yet again, despite my providing three citations.

• And since there are probably as many creationists as scientists, (so it's probably a significant view), I've added the following sentence to the Redshift article (fully referenced with citations):

Many opponents of the Big Bang from Halton Arp to creationists , have questioned the notion that redshift necessarily infers a Big Bang and expanding universe.

--Iantresman 13:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm having a very hard time believing you did this in good faith. Are you trying to make a point? Because, if so, that's very poor form. --ScienceApologist 13:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you both just chill? I thought we got off to a good start, but you two are as bad as my kids when it comes to bugging each other. I think it doesn't make a big difference whether the statements in question wait for their citations sitting in the article or sitting in limbo. But as long as the citations will be coming within a few days, and as long as no one thinks the statements are dead wrong (which would itself have to be verified), I think it is more helpful to keep them in the article as a placeholder. Can't you live with that, Ian? --Art Carlson 14:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes Art I agree, this is all very childish, but there are double standards.

I've restored the sentence to the redshift article, on the grounds that I'm following ScienceApologist's lead. If the similar sentence in redshift quantization has to wait for discussion or verification, then so does the sentence in the redshift article.

Why are there differenent editing rules for one article, and not the other? --Iantresman 14:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the sentence to the redshift article, on the grounds that I'm following ScienceApologist's lead. How can this be seen as anything but trying to make a WP:POINT? --ScienceApologist 18:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

NickY, editing and NPOV is all about fairness. Although you've suggested that we shouldn't be debating policy, it's policy that tells us how to write articles and behave. NPOV tells us that we should be "representing views fairly and without bias"

ScienceApologist is applying double standards.

• He says that "NPOV applies for controversial subjects, not to uncontroversial ones" . Opinion says otherwise
• He says that undue weight does not apply to non-controversial issues when policy makes no distinction.
• Justifies the inclusion of ''ad hominem''s despite it being described as a logical fallacy.
• Removes verifiable use of language (ie. "hypothesis"), but insists on including his own unverified statements
• Adds contentious statements about creationists to one article , but removes a similar statement from another
• Resorting to ad hominems again, with my "sore lack of education" , and not to be "a dick"

--Iantresman 19:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Again the conversation is not about the reader. Please try to geet back to that. Ian, yes your edit to redshift was to prove a point. SA your refusal to allow hypothesis seems over reaching in your desire to make the point that it is unproven and somewhat questionable. Yes many people confuse the meaning of the word. I also think that the emphasis on verifiablity is being taken a little too far. How about having a nice discussion about what you agree on. Reach a consensus on some parts. Otherwise we just have quotes. Very uninformative.

So what is the justification for including the statement in one article and not the other? --Iantresman 20:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not think it is necessary to qualify the scientific use of science. I know what you put in there is different but the more equivalent statement would be to warn the reader that they are learning about science. "The matters discussed here are current scientific consensus in this area, using the scientific method and peer review; however, such methods are not infallable and consensus does not represent all views." I think this is a ridiculous statement that everyone understands. The reason pseudoscience needs qualification is that it purposely disguises itself as something it is not. Again redshift quantization itself is not pseudoscience but a hypothesis that is used by pseudoscience. The reader needs to be warned about that so that they can have more faith in the science, sans pseudoscience, or embrace the pseudoscience in an informed manner. I would think you would be the first to promote distinguishing between the crackpots who want to push a predetermined solution and those that are guinuinely asking a scientific question. It lends greater credibility to the scientific work. Perhaps you could add some statments about it being a serious scientific inquiry that rejects the pseudoscientific hidden motivations?--Nick Y. 21:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The EXACT same argument applies to the statement I added to the Redshift article. Anti-Big Bangers and creationists DO dispute the cosmological redshift. I actually have no problems including the statement; or excluding the statement, but the SAME reason has to apply to both articles. Take a look at the statement, and the footnotes:

Many opponents of the Big Bang from Halton Arp to creationists , have questioned the notion that redshift necessarily infers a Big Bang and expanding universe.

Cosmological redshift IS controversial among some scientists and certainly creationists, and more so that the more obscure redshft quantisation. --Iantresman 22:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Is redshift quantization a hypothesis?

My change from "hypothesis" to "proposal" was meant simply as a stylistic (read editorial) choice, and after all the blustering I have tenatively changed the wording back to "hypothesis" even though I have reservations. To explain myself, I wasn't concerned about the "unproven" nature of quantization of redshifts being not well-described by the term "hypothesis" (it does that quite well, thank you), but rather I was concerned that redshift quantization may not actually be a hypothesis in the normal scientific sense of the word. Let me explain: in common parlance a "naked" hypothesis (no qualifiers) usually indicates an "educated guess" that hasn't yet been tested or has been tested with inconclusive results. While we may argue over whether the results were conclusive or not, what concerns me more is that redshift quantization is, fundamentally, not an "educated guess" in the traditional sense of the term. It is, in fact, closer to a "disputed observation" as it lacks the "hypothetical" quality that hypotheses usually possess. --ScienceApologist 19:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

We could debate it, or we could based it on what is verifiable. I choose the latter. We could have the same debate about Cosmological redshifts. --Iantresman 20:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess we can close this one out and call it done. SA has agreed to call it a hypothesis even though he has reservations. This seems like the sort of good faith effort that I have been asking for. Ian don't make it feel like a slippery slope for him. Instead thank him and return the favor with a good faith effort of your own. Again can we find places where we agree before launching into rhetorical argument? Please try to find the common ground in the section below.--Nick Y. 21:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about where everyone AGREES on redshift quantization

Please don't argue. Just say I do not agree. Or even better say what you do agree to. You know meet the other half way. In otherwords this is not a debate.--Nick Y. 21:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's my first attempt at writing some things that I agree with:

• Redshift quantization is a fringe subject in cosmology.
• The most notable proponents of quantization are Tifft, Bell, Narlikar, Arp, Napier and Guthrie, and their students (am I missing anybody)?
• There is redshift quantization due to galaxy clustering and geometrical factors associated with large-scale structure.
• Redshift surveys show a very smooth distribution of the millions of redshifts that have been collected with no evidence of periodicity larger than can be accounted for by large-scale structure.
• Generally, "supporters" of redshift quantization do not believe that galaxy clustering can account for the phenomenon.
• Redshift quantization, if true, would cast doubt on either the Hubble Law, the cosmological principle, or the Copernican principle.
• Advocates of nonstandard cosmologies (with the notable exception of plasma cosmology advocates) are more likely to refer to redshift quantization in their published works and are more likely to accept it as fact.
• Redshift quantization has been used by Arp and his supporters to claim that quasars are ejected from galaxies with an intrinsic redshift component that for some unknown reason causes quantization.
• Redshift quantization is often refered to by creationists as a prevailing reason to doubt the Big Bang.
• Redshift quantization is lauded by modern geocentrists as evidence that the Earth is the center of the universe.

--ScienceApologist 22:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Citations

1. e.g. The Alternative Cosmology group
2. See "Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science", ISBN 0-9683689-0-5
3. See "The Vacuum, Light Speed, and Redshift" by Barry Setterfield (1999)
4. See "A New Redshift Interpretation" by Dr. Robert Gentry
5. e.g. The Alternative Cosmology group
6. See "Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science", ISBN 0-9683689-0-5
7. See "The Vacuum, Light Speed, and Redshift" by Barry Setterfield (1999)
8. See "A New Redshift Interpretation" by Dr. Robert Gentry

Ian?

Where do you agree?? If you do not agree. Please do not point out the differences but he similarities. Point out how close you are to agreeing, not why SA is wrong.--Nick Y. 16:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is my selection of statements:

• Redshift quantization are redshift observations that appear to show redshifts clustered around certain values

Can we modify the above statement to "Redshift quantization refers to observations..."? --ScienceApologist 20:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• Redshift quantization was first reported by Tifft in the 1970s.
• Tifft based his results on his own observations
• A number of other astronomers have made their own observations, and produced results that appear to be consistent with Tifft

I disagree with the above statement. --ScienceApologist 18:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

A number of other astronomers have also reported redshift quantizations?

I still disagree. How about "Napier and Guthrie reported redshift quantizations."

How about "Redshift quantizations have also been reported by a handful of astronomers, including Bell and Fort (1973), Cocke (1985), Croasdale (1989), Guthrie and William Napier (1992), Holba (1992) and Holmlid (2004)

• Some papers have produced results that are inconclusive
• Some astronomers have been sceptical of Redshift quantization (eg. Rees)
• A recent redshift survey of quasars shows no Redshift quantization in quasars.
• Some astronomers have suggested that if redshift quantization is real, then it may have implication for standard and non-standard cosmologies

Can we change the above to just "...may have implication for cosmology"? --ScienceApologist 20:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• Other astronomers have made comments on redshift quantization
• Some creationists have made comments on both redshift and redshift quantization

--Iantresman 18:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with everything Ian writes except for one instance which I have indicated above. --ScienceApologist 18:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be heading in a positive direction, keep it up. Hopefully we can come to a consensus on these and quickly move along to more complete language that should be in the article. I especially like SA's suggestions for moderation of Ian's language without really changing the meaning too much, just slightly. Careful not to do so disingenuously though. Ian could you take the next step closer to consensus, maybe accepting some of SA's suggestions and proposing some middle ground on the one issue where SA strongly disagrees. Perhaps some more qualification to your language will be required.--Nick Y. 20:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm find with ScienceApologist's comments, and have reworded the offending statement. For fairness, I'd like to assume that the statement on creationists will go in both the redshift quantization article, and the redshift article, on exactly the same grounds for each article. Though I am also happy that it does not appear in both. --Iantresman 20:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

That is not the purpose of this discussion, Ian. You should stop trying to make your point. --ScienceApologist 21:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Ian's comments on statements made by ScienceApologist

• Redshift quantization is a minority interest/view in astronomy (indisputable?). That doesn't make it "fringe" which has a slightly disparaging connotation, and hence a value judgement. And I have no idea whether it counts as a category in "cosmology".
• Notable proponents; I recognise some of the authors of various papers, but I have no idea whether their students are proponents, and nothing to verify it.
• I've never heard of "redshift quantization due to galaxy clustering and geometrical factors", but am quite happy to include, if there is a peer reviewed citation.
• "Redshift surveys show a very smooth distribution of the millions of redshifts"; I'm happy to mention that if there is a citation. Whether that impies no quantized redshifts, I have no idea, but if there is a citation that says new redshift surveys are not consistent with quantized redshift, I'm happy to include it. But we can't included the conclusion of editors, because that it not verifiable.
• Generally, "supporters" of redshift quantization do not believe that galaxy clustering can account for the phenomenon; I have no idea what supporters believe. if you have a citation, please include it.
• "Advocates of nonstandard cosmologies"; I have no idea what they all believe. Again, if you have a citation, please include it.
• Redshift quantization has been used by Arp; I believe this to be correct, and am sure that even I can find a citation.
• "Redshift quantization is often refered to by creationists"; if you can find more than a couple of citations, then I am happy to include it AS LONG AS if I can find a couple of citation of creationists referring to plain old redshift, then I can include it in the redshift article for exactly the same reason.
• "Redshift quantization is lauded by modern geocentrists"; I've read nothing of geocentrists, and know nothing of their beliefs and reasons, but I'm happy to includes something if a couple of citations can be found, AND I can include something in the redshift article if I can find a couple of citations.

I beleive that much of ScienceApologist description is peppered with non-neutral points of view based on his own beliefs, and not from material that can be verified by citations.

Ian's unacceptable behavior

I'm trying to make a good faith effort here, but when Ian directly contravenes a request by the mediator (i.e. "Point out how close you are to agreeing, not why SA is wrong.") it makes things difficult. I'm going to refrain from responding point-by-point to Ian's baiting, but I want to let it be known that I'm doing this only in the hopes that we might come to a solution on how to write articles with the reader's interest in mind. --ScienceApologist 18:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think some of your statement were either right or wrong, and rather than throw them all out with the bathwater, felt that an explanation was needed. Do you really want me to just say "Agree" or "Disagree" or "Don't know"? --Iantresman 19:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I wanted you to say what you agree with, only. It would be acceptable to generously propose something that you could agree to. I specifically want to avoid arguments and specifically arguments about verifiablity. I also want you both to reach out and maybe give a range. It's somewhere between this and that. You know reach a consensus at all costs, even if it is a very broad consensus.--Nick Y. 19:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Is the purpose of these statement for (a) replacing what's already in the redshift quantization article (b) rewriting into the article (c) just out of interest? --Iantresman 20:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Or more likely (d), see what happens if you two get in the habit of agreeing on anything. Art LaPella 21:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I think Art nailed it pretty bluntly. But to answer your question: Whatever you reach a consensus on. Right now it is just learning how to have a civil conversation and will hopefully evolve into a full fledged article. Hopefully it doesn't have to be so structured but if it does we will slowly reach consensus on an article. Please try to work together in good faith to make wikipedia a better place for the reader. --Nick Y. 21:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Continued consensus building on redshift quantization

Please continue with the consensus building here. Whoever gets here first please restate the consensus and add three more sentences that you think may be agreeable. And yes, let's not get off track with negotiations, policy or arguments. We are working on building a consensus on redshift quantization and that is the only thing we are doing. Eventually we cna apply this consensus building to all articles the twoof you are working on. It seems like there was some pretty dramatic turn around in agreeing with eachother as soon as you looked for what can be agreed upon. Keep it up. Keep the good faith effort going.--Nick Y. 21:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• Redshift quantization refers to observations that appear to show redshifts clustered around certain values
• Redshift quantization was first reported by Tifft in the 1970s.
• Tifft based his results on his own observations
• Napier and Guthrie reported redshift quantizations in the early 1990s.

I'd like to imply that there is more than just two astronomers reporting quantized redshift. How about: "Redshift quantizations have also been reported by a handful of astronomers, including Bell and Fort (1973), Cocke (1985), Croasdale (1989), Guthrie and William Napier (1992), Holba (1992) and Holmlid (2004)"

Some of these papers aren't actually reporting unique observations. --ScienceApologist 23:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Like the Sloan Digital Sky Survey which is a unique set of observations re-hashed by everyone? --Iantresman 09:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• Some papers trying to show redshift quantization have produced results that are inconclusive

Is it just one paper?

Depends on what we mean be inconclusive.

• Martin Rees expressed skepticism about redshift quantization in the 1970s.
• A recent redshift survey of quasars shows no Redshift quantization in quasars.
• Some astronomers have suggested that if redshift quantization is real, then it may have implications for cosmology
• Other astronomers have made comments on redshift quantization
• Some creationists have made comments on redshift quantization

My attempt. --ScienceApologist 21:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Very nice. Seems like a good faith effort to me. Ian could you agree? If you do not simply state how you disagree. I.e. do not support your disagreement. You are also free to suggest language closer to consensus. From my understanding we have already agreed on what SA has written here but I may be overlooking something minor. If you do agree completely please expand on these statemetns in the best way you see fit (with consensus in mind). SA - you may in response give the same sort of constructive response you gave before (Language suggestions and unqualified simple "I disagree"'s). In no case are either of you to make an argument for or against anything. Either you agree, suggest new compromise language in good faith, or disagree. There will be more than this as needed but when and how I say so.--Nick Y. 21:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Ian's three additional statements:

• Su Min Tang found no periodicity in the 2dF QSO redshift survey.
• Su Min Tang found that "a periodicity around Δz=0.67 is detected in the full sample of SDSS QSO" (page 8)

I disagree with this statement since they go on to say: "a strong indicator that the peaks in low-completeness samples are caused by different selection effects in different samples. In sum, there is no evidence for intrinsic periodicity in redshifts of QSOs." This point should be emphasized.

• M. B. Bell and D. McDiarmid in their examination of "the redshift distribution of all 46,400 quasars in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) Quasar Catalog III, Third Data Release" to "to see if there is evidence for a redshift periodicity" and reported that "that the peaks found are not only in good agreement with the fundamental periodicity, but also with the sub-components predicted by eqn 1."

I disagree with this statement because it is actually a restatement of Tang's Δz=0.67 with editorializing. --ScienceApologist 23:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

--Iantresman 22:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

So I assume this means that we are completely agreed on SA's summary of what we agreed on previously. Ian - I should have said no quotations. Those are pretty hard to dispute. I'm not particularly interested in a list of quotations but a general summary of the subject in our own words. There is no consensus to be built in quotations. SA - Please follow the same path we were on before. In this case since there are quotations you may make the following responses "I agree that the quote is accurate" or "I disagree with the accuracy of the quote". I am however going to pull both quotes from our consensus list and reject any more quotes. Ian - you are free to come up with two more points of agreement to replace the quotes. SA - you have three more to come up with yourself. Both of you may respond to eachothers three proposed consensus statements with agreement, disagreement or suggested compromise language.--Nick Y. 22:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I made some notes on two of ScienceApologist's statements. And the quotes could easily be rewritten into NPOV language. --Iantresman 22:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I made some comments on comments and expressed objections to some of Ian's proposals above. --ScienceApologist 23:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I have a question Nick Y. If quotes are pretty hard to dispute, don't they make for the perfect starting point? In other words, a NPOV paraphrased quote should be indisputable. --Iantresman 09:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

One step Back

Alright back to the original ten points. Have we agreed or not?? Please each restate the ten points in a good faith effort to reach consensus. NO more talk about anything but these 10!!! Each of you state the ten points in your best most consensus building effort to date.--Nick Y. 00:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I resubmit my previous proposal. --ScienceApologist 06:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Redshift quantization Statements

In agreement

• Redshift quantization refers to observations that appear to show redshifts clustered around certain values
• Redshift quantization was first reported by Tifft in the 1970s.
• Tifft based his results on his own observations
• Martin Rees expressed skepticism about redshift quantization in the 1970s.
• A recent redshift survey of quasars shows no Redshift quantization in quasars.
• Some astronomers have suggested that if redshift quantization is real, then it may have implications for cosmology
• Other astronomers have made comments on redshift quantization
• Some creationists have made comments on redshift quantization

To be decided

• In 1989 Martin Croasdale reported quantization of redshifts using a different sample of galaxies. In 1992 Guthrie and Napier reported observing periodicity in 89 galaxies. In 1992, Agnes Holba, et al reanalyzed the redshift data from a fairly large sample of galaxies and concluded that there was an unexplainable periodicity of redshifts.
• Papers by investigating redshift quantization have reported inconclusive result
• In 2005, Su Min Tang found no periodicity in the 2dF QSO redshift survey, but a periodicity in the full sample of SDSS QSO; They suggested that this result due to selection effects and indicated no periodicity in quasars.
• M. B. Bell and D. McDiarmid examination the redshift distribution of all 46,400 quasars in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS, Quasar Catalog III, Third Data Release) for evidence for a redshift periodicity, and reported good agreement.
• Related phenomena to redshift quantizations have been described in other ways, including:

• "Redshift discretization", Thomas (1965) Karlsson (1971), Vardanyan (1994), Godłowski (2006)
• "Redshift-magnitude bands", Tifft (1973), Nanni et al (1981)
• "Redshift periodicities", Deeming (1970), Corso & Barnothy (1975), Green (1975), Will (1977), Kjaergaard (1978)
• "Redshift quantization", Cocke & Tifft (1983), Nieto (1986), Arp (1987), Buitrago (1988)
• "Redshift distribution gaps", Basu (1972), (1977), , (1983)
• "Cosmic density waves", Liu and Cao (1982)
• "QSO or, Quasar clustering", Drinkwater (1988), , Smith et al (1990), Shanks (1994), Loaring (2004)

--Iantresman 09:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

So we all agree with the following satements?

• Redshift quantization refers to observations that appear to show redshifts clustered around certain values
• Redshift quantization was first reported by Tifft in the 1970s.
• Tifft based his results on his own observations
• Martin Rees expressed skepticism about redshift quantization in the 1970s.
• A recent redshift survey of quasars shows no Redshift quantization in quasars.
• Some astronomers have suggested that if redshift quantization is real, then it may have implications for cosmology
• Other astronomers have made comments on redshift quantization
• Some creationists have made comments on redshift quantization

Yes or No?--Nick Y. 22:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

All but "A recent redshift survey of quasars shows no Redshift quantization in quasars." Change "shows" to "reported", and I'll agree. --Iantresman 22:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey! I thought it was you who stated that these were agreed??

Let's try this again:

• Redshift quantization refers to observations that appear to show redshifts clustered around certain values
• Redshift quantization was first reported by Tifft in the 1970s.
• Tifft based his results on his own observations
• Martin Rees expressed skepticism about redshift quantization in the 1970s.
• A recent analysis of redshift surveys reported no redshift quantization.
• Some astronomers have suggested that if redshift quantization is real, then it may have implications for cosmology
• Other astronomers have made comments on redshift quantization
• Some creationists have made comments on redshift quantization

Do we all agree now?--Nick Y. 22:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I re-read them, but they now look good to me. --Iantresman 23:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with Ian's change to the fifth point. The redshift surveys didn't report a thing about redshift quantizations. The previous wording was better. --ScienceApologist 03:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I though you were referring to Tang . If you are referring to some work that does not mention "a thing about redshift quantizations", then my preferred wording would be: "A recent redshift survey of quasars reported no evidence against Redshift quantization in quasars." (we can say pretty much what we like on what they didn't report). --Iantresman 09:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you missed my point. I changed the wording to conform to reality. --ScienceApologist 13:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Reality! The unuiverse is held together with a hodge-podge of theories, assumption, hypotheses and guesses. Consensus is not reality. Our views of the universe is NOT reality.

• Up until last year, comets as dirty snowballs were "reality", and today they might be snowy dirtballs, or who knows what.
• The second law of thermodynamics was "reality" until it broke
• Most people think it a "reality" that Marconi invented the radio, but it might have been Tesla
• Most people think it was a "reality" that Yuri Gagarin was the first person in space, but there's a chance it might have been Vladimir Ilyushin

And this why the first line of one of the most important policies in Misplaced Pages is "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth" You and I DO NOT KNOW THE TRUTH, and never will, and we should never pretend to the reader that we do. --Iantresman 14:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Ian, the moderator began this section with the statement: "Please each restate the ten points in a good faith effort to reach consensus. NO more talk about anything but these 10!!!" How does your most recent post above address your ability or desire to maintain a good faith effort to reach consensus in a focused discussion about a specific set of topics? Flying Jazz 15:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• You're right; but I was influenced by ScienceApologist's most recent "edit" of the "Redshift quantization" article. Having spent some time adding (in good faith) some new information, supported by citations, only to have it all cut out.
• However, I do feel that the notion of "conforming to reality" is such a fundamental issue that is directly addressed by Misplaced Pages policy, that I thought it was worth mentioning.
• I apologise. --Iantresman 15:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Response to Ian's apology

I think you and SA both operate in good faith in the article space. I know from experience that it's difficult to see something you've spent time writing and researching be deleted. I would like more information from you about the influences and feelings involved so I can understand how and why the baiting and tangents on the talk page begin and grow. Some people respond to seeing their work deleted by swearing, by disrupting articles, by personal attacks, and other behavior that is unpleasant and annoying, but is nevertheless understandible on an emotional level because we're all human here. Are you saying that your response to seeing your work deleted or to seeing articles that look wrong is to bring up Misplaced Pages policies and lists of entirely different topics on the talk page? I don't mean to drive a message home or to score points after an apology has been offered, but I think this is an opportunity for understanding and I don't want to let it pass. Flying Jazz 17:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Good question. It's not a reaction to having work deleted that I find irritating, but the double standards in editing. Art will tell you that he's deleted contributions that I've made in other articles, and I don't think we've ever had an editing spat.
• I object's to what appears to be ScienceApologist's view that his "reality" is the truth, other views appear to be belittled, and a complete double standard applied to mainstream versus non-mainstream views.
• I try and based every statement I include in an article, on a verifiable citation, and to present it in a neutral fashion. I see very few verifiable citations from ScienceApologist, and instead I see examples like the following:

• Removal of "hypothesis" (peer-reviewed used of the word ) to "proposal" (belittling alternative )
• Association of quantized redshifts with creationists, and acceptance of non-peer reviewed sources , but no acceptance in the redshift article of peer reviewed citations on quantized redshift, and no acceptance of a link to creationists.
• I moved some unverified sources to talk, and was was criticed that the article was still under development, but I get my verified sources deleted with the criticism that it's "shoddy research" with no further explanation.

• ScienceApologist would have us believe that Redshift quantization is a disproven, largely ignored fringe viewpoint (no citations). The references I provided myself suggest that there have indeed been one paper criticising it (Rees), and one suggesting it may be due to selection effects (Tang), one criticising Tang (Bell) which ScienceApologist disparagingly calls "editorialising", and I provide more citations that there are in the whole of the redshift article noting such phenomena (or similar), without claiming it is fact, without claiming it is more important, significant, or relevent than anything else
• And I could produce lots more examples, on the Wolf effect (he doubts the authors that it is genuine), intrinsic redshifts (he requested the page be deleted), judges Arp's ideas as "pathological", etc etc etc.
• ScienceApologist may well be presenting his point of view in good faith. But his point of view, and my point of view, have no place in Misplaced Pages. As editors, we're supposed to describe what's in the literature fairly and without bias. He's perfectly neutral with mainstream subjects, but uses language and assertions in non-mainstream articles that I've read nowhere else.

--Iantresman 20:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

For the mediator

I may owe you an apology for butting into the "One Step Back" section instead of letting your mediation take its course and also for refering to you as "moderator" instead of "mediator." I think you have done a nearly superhuman job as a patient mediator between Iantresman and ScienceApologist, and I applaud nearly every statement you have made about maintaining an article-focus and a reader-focus during discussions. As the complaining party, I may be feeling a little neglected and impatient. Ultimately though, this is my problem and if I'm getting pushy, please let me know. Flying Jazz 17:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, as you recognize the course was taken a little off track but in this case I think it was insightful and perhaps therapeutic. I keep being tempted to take the shorter path and pass judgement and correct thier behavior with an edict; however, I'm not sure it would be met with anything but arguing. I've asked them to express these sort of things before but it results in arguing and personal attacks. In this case Ian's response may lead to some clarity. SA - don't respond to Ian, just understand.--Nick Y. 19:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Some conclusions

Perhaps we can agree on these conclusions of mine. And DON'T even consider starting an argument. Either agree or respectively disagree. Again you may correct word choice etc. but please try to agree as much as you can. I'm interested in your input too Flying Jazz.

• Ian feels that there is a double standard regarding the "verifiablity to inclusion ratio" between mainstream and minority views

agree --ScienceApologist 19:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• SA feels that Ian is using policy to push certain subjects in a way that may be misleading

agree --ScienceApologist 19:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Ian feels that SA is stoically controlling of articles and refuses to include certain material, that although minority should be represented somehow

agree --ScienceApologist 19:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• SA feels that he is defending the integrity of articles from disproportionate and misleading representation of minority or fringe viewpoints.

agree --ScienceApologist 19:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Ian is easily baited into an argument which is often tangential (not reader or article focused)

disagree --ScienceApologist 19:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• SA is sometimes baited in the same way but sometimes is not but can also propogate the argument with few words or even stoicism.

disagree --ScienceApologist 19:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I concur with ScienceApologist on each statement --Iantresman 21:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Nick, at least insofar as various talk pages are obviously full of tangential argument. Art LaPella 21:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying not to be too judgmental but get down to brass tacks. Please try to be honest and accepting of these observations. These statements could have paragraphs of qualifying statements but let's not do that. Please be forgiving of any misrepresentations, I do not mean to offend. So, is this a reasonable reprensentation of the problem. --Nick Y. 19:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this aimed at me too? --Iantresman 19:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes to everyone. You and SA first and foremost and FJ and Art if they choose to.--Nick Y. 20:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I definitely disagree with the last two points. If I might offer a reword as I see it:

• Ian is baited into arguments when it appears to him that the development of articles is proceeding along lines that either remove cited statements or add statements that do not have citation.

• ScienceApologist is baited into arguments when it appears to him that the editorial integrity of the article is compromised by improper emphasis on disputed commentary (cited or uncited).

--ScienceApologist 21:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

How about this:

• Ian and SA are baited into arguments which tend to be unproductive, at least somewhat tangential and mostly succeed at annoying thier fellow editors in the process.

Just joking, I mean not that it is not true, joking. Just having fun and lightening the mood. Actually I think SA may not be too far off. What do you think Ian.--Nick Y. 02:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• I don't feel either one of us are baited as such, but I recognise that the arguments are apparently unproductive and annoying to other editors. But saying that policy is being used to push points of view is like saying that the free speech is being used to push certain views. Policy and free speech tells us that we have a right to minority views, and it's the editors' job to express them in a neutral manner. It's a bit like criticising a lawyer for spouting the law!

• I believe that ScienceApologist has a right to select his own views, use policy to find the best way possible to express them, and for other people to have an opportunity to read them. But I'm darned if I'll let an anonymous and accountable editor, override expert peers in their field, who have already assessed the quality, worthiness and integrity of an article, which may have been written by Nobel Prize winning-, and career scientists. NPOV and good editing ensures no misleading representation or views.

• Integrity: "The state of being unimpaired The quality or condition of being whole or undivided; completeness.. POV pushing: Editing articles so that they show only one point of view.. Information suppression: "Entirely omitting significant citable information in support of a minority view

--Iantresman 10:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I was addressing SA's feelings. Not anything else. However the analogy "But saying that policy is being used to push points of view is like saying that the free speech is being used to push certain views" is something I must disagree with. We are not lawyers. This is not a adversarial system like the US courts where we must defend our clients with every loophole in the book. Lawyers are advocates for their client's POV. We, as editors, are not advocates. The last thing an editor should be is an advocate. This is the reason for the NPOV policy. Most editors work alone and produce very good NPOV articles. Each and every one of us needs to be NPOV even when working together. Maybe you should read the section about writing for others. Policy is there to help you become a good editor not as a tool for advocacy. I'm sorry but I fundamentally and vehemenantly disagree with what you have said and I think that this may be the source of the problem. This is not a debate forum. It is not a competition. It is not a courtroom. It is NOT a free speech forum. This is an encyclopedia. Editors are here to work together collaboratively towards collectively summarizing knowledge in a clear, coherent and unbiased manner. From your statements I can only conclude that you are very deeply mistaken about the nature of wikipedia. Forgive my bluntness but I think this is a point you need to think really deeply about. You have the potential to be an excellent editor if you realize this point.

(P.S. I am not saying it's all your fault, SA carries some too, just deeply reconsider your view of editing wikipedia)

--Nick Y. 17:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• I'm sure that is the opposite of what I was trying to say. It was felt that I was using policy to push a point of view. Mentioning a minority views is NOT advocating it. It is not pushing it. Supressing a minority point of view is POV-pushing by definition.
• Of course editing is a collaborative process, but editors can NOT override policy by consensus: "It is assumed that editors working toward consensus are pursuing a consensus that is consistent with Misplaced Pages's basic policies and principles - especially NPOV" (my emphasis)
• So when an editor claims that "NPOV applies to controversial subjects, not to uncontroversial ones", and undue weight does not apply to non-controversial issues , it is demonstrably incorrect.
• When I put together the first draft of the "Redshift quantisation" article, I included verifiable statements from BOTH SIDES of the arguments. When I started to put together an article on Doppler redshift, I included no minority views. When I wrote the article on Critical ionization velocity, I included verifiable criticisms too. Hardly the actions of someone pushing a point of view.
• Do we have any examples of ScienceApologist voluntarily adding statements to a mainstream articles describing controversial minority views? Do we have any examples of ANY criticisms in the redshift article? (I know, several HUNDRED scientists is insignificant and any mention would constitute undue weight).

--Iantresman 19:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad you understood that already. We all agree that exclusion of views can be used to push POV's as well and SA may at times err on the side of making this mistake. He needs to think about this. I think you should also realize that presenting multiple POV's is not necessarily NPOV either. Multiple POV and NPOV are not synonamous. What SA was trying to say (I think since I don't speak for him) was that there are appropriate places where presenting multiple POV is useful to the reader and the best way to present an unbiased NPOV article and other places where it is not. With non-contraversial articles it tends to be best to primarily present the mainstream consensus. If there are minority opinions it may be best to present them elsewhere. I don't see anything wrong with that. I also don't see anything wrong with linking to the minority views even on non-contraversial issues or even completely disproven theories but it needs to be clearly distinguished as such.--Nick Y. 20:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes clearly distinguishing views can be done simply by linking to another article which does the distinguishing -- especially when the issue is tangential. E.g. nonstandard cosmologies does a decent job of providing the context of oppositional minority views in the subjects of interest to our discussion. Ian doesn't want to accept this because I suspect he would rather do the distinguishing for people in the redshift article itself. --ScienceApologist 21:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Ian you have expressed this directly before with the justification of saving the reader time. Please briefly explain why (a few sentences only please, without refering to SA, etc.). This is in addition to addressing the more philosophical quaestion as to if NPOV and multiple POV are synonamous and if not what distinguishes them and how best to utilize them towards our shared goal of clear, useful, unbiased summary of knowledge. SA - Perhaps you could philosophize on this yourself, thinking deeply, without referring to this article or Ian.--Nick Y. 22:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

In this particular instance, cosmology is a secondary, though an important aspect of redshift. It seems to me that links to associated minority theories on redshift is best linked to from redshift on the grounds of (a) relevancy (b) efficient navigation. As a reader, I'm not necessarily interested in alternative cosmologies. And I don't know whether some of the minority redshift theories implicitly implies alternative cosmologies. And where else would you differentiate different redshift theories, but in an article on redshift? I would differentiate different cosmologies in an article on cosmology? --Iantresman 23:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

On multiple points of view: If we present different points of view in NPOV style, then by definition, this is NPOV. If there are half a dozen significant minority views, an article does not suddenly become biased because we've described 4 out 6 minority views; Extreme or tiny minority views I might agree with. --Iantresman 23:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I just had a quick look at the article on Gravity. There's a whole section on Alternative theories. Likewise the article on General relativity where there is a huge section on Alternative theories. Neither article is diminished by these sections, and the integrity of these article is not lessened. Navigation is improved, and the reader is aware that the main theory is not the only theory. Fantastic! --Iantresman 23:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Note that they are lists essentially linking to other articles. I however tend to agree with you that the organization of having a clearly labeld alternative theories section and links to other pages is a good idea.--Nick Y. 23:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

As the article currently stands we engage the reader from the perspective that there are many ways to explain frequency shifts observed in nature. We adequately address what the different physical mechanisms might be associated with these and direct the reader to said mechanisms while expounding on some of those mechanisms which were developed because of redshift diagnostics. There are ideas that are (rather loudly) trumpeted by nonstandard cosmology proponents as alternative mechanisms to get around Hubble Law. It is important that we let the readers know that these suggestions get made, but it is not important to let the reader know on the page regarding redshifts what these suggestions are because they are only made in the context of nonstandard cosmologies. The context for arguments regarding CREIL and other scattering redshifts, intrinsic redshifts, etc. are all with respect to nonstandard cosmology. It's tangential on a tangential section and is rightly relegated to articles which deal with the subject itself. --ScienceApologist 23:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Ian, I'm not so sure that "If we present different points of view in NPOV style, then by definition, this is NPOV." is true. It seems to me that for example covering 4 out of 6 views in "NPOV style" but with one of the excluded being the consensus view would be completely biased. My greater point however was that NPOV involves making unbiased editorial decisions where pure multiple POV does not make decisions at all. An encyclopedia editor makes unbiased decisions, a debate moderator makes none. We are not debate moderators. We do not have to include every POV nor do we have to give them equal weight. Generally our job is not to represent the argument on each side (although sometimes it is an important part of our job such as with contraversies) and let the reader decide but to parse the information for the reader and summarize in an unbiased educated manner. --Nick Y. 23:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I might provide an analogy to help explain my position. We have an article at Misplaced Pages on Genetic drift. Now creationists are fond of criticizing the mainstream interpretation of genetic drift as a mechanism that supports evolutionary biology and instead claim that the global flood of Noah's Ark fame caused a population bottleneck that can explain biological diversity. There are plenty of alleged alternative suggestions to explain genetic drift including baraminology and created kinds which creationists propose as alternatives. What we don't see is reference to those articles at genetic drift. Here we have nonstandard cosmology proponents criticizing the mainstream interpretation of redshift as a mechanism that supports physical cosmology. The parallels are obvious, however we actually direct people to places where they can learn about nonstandard alternatives, even though it isn't clear that this is required or necessary. It's because these issues are tangentially related to subjects that themselves are already tangentially related to the article's subject that exclusion becomes necessary. Every article that has something to do with creationism does not automatically give a nod in the direction to Misplaced Pages's treatment of creationism. Why should every article that has something to do with nonstandard cosmologies give a nod in the direction to Misplaced Pages's treatment of nonstandard cosmologies? We could argue that this isn't necessary. Nevertheless, we do it anyway! Am I being forward to claim that I'm actually being extremely generous in my support of the article as currently written which actually does direct the reader to these alternatives? --ScienceApologist 23:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• If hardcore mainstream article on Gravity and General relativity can included sections on alternative theories, with no adverse reaction, there is no reason why it would not work for other articles. The mainstream article on the Large-scale structure of the cosmos had mentioned redshift quantisation for the last five years, in the main body of the article, without ANY criticism for ANYBODY... accept ScienceApologist who took the unilateral (non-collaborative) decision to excise it.

• The gravity and GR articles mention alternatives that are native to the subject material itself. The alternative redshifts are native to nonstandard cosmologies, not to redshift itself. No one has complained except for Ian about my edits to large-scale structure. Ian enjoys complaining about my edits, though. --ScienceApologist 13:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• The analogy with creationism is bogus as it is not peer reviewed in mainstream journals, unlike ALL the minority theories I have ever mentioned. Just as I should never portray a minority theory as the truth, or more than a minority, ScienceApologist should not portray such theories as unworthy, non-integral, pseudoscientific, etc (especially with no verifiable citations)

• Ian is clearly biased against creationism, which is fine but not germane to our discussion. Peer-review is definitely worth considering, but when we are dealing with the full range of reader-directed understanding we have to consider other points as well. Creationists object to peer-review itself so to judge them by such a standard might be thought as limiting. We discuss creationism appropriately here at Misplaced Pages, and still it is claimed by creationists that we have an anti-creationist bias! (See CreationWiki) --ScienceApologist 13:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• ScienceApologist and myself are not able to judge the noteworthiness of peer-reviewed articles on alternative theories as we are (a) not qualified (b) not verifiable (c) not impartial. However, such alternative theories have gone through the peer review process, hundreds of times in some cases, telling us that there are better people than ourselves who have deemed such alternative theories noteworthy enough to publish in mainstream journals. I wouldn't be arrogant for me to suggest they are right or wrong, and deny the reader an easy way to find out more information for themselves. --Iantresman 09:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• If we aren't the judges of what should or shouldn't go into articles then there is no point in having human editors. I can write a computer program that would spit out cited prose from peer-reviewed articles. Misplaced Pages is not a quotemine, it's an encyclopedia and the editorial concerns of the editors are absolutely what drives the quality. --ScienceApologist 13:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Judging the noteworthiness of an article is not the same as judging what goes into an article. What I'm saying is that we are not qualified to judge, for example, whether alternative theories are native to the gravity or general relativity articles, and even if we were, our opinions are not verifiable.

Poppycock. As editors we make judgements. That's what being an editor means. The point of policy is to aid the reader not to castrate editors. --ScienceApologist 18:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• You say the theories aren't relevant, I say they are. Since our opinions are not verifiable, I'm saying that we defer to those peers who have already peer-reviewed such theories and considered them notable enough to published in mainstream journals. Our job as editors is to at least mention them as they are not "extreme minority views" (I can cite prominant adherents). The articles on gravity and general relativity shows it can be done in a neutral style, and that does not contravene policy in any way. --Iantresman 15:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. You have resorted to your favorite non-tactic of making up policy and have completely ignored the interests of the reader in the above comment. It's clear what's going on: You want to proselytize your ideas, and I contend that promoting your close-minded ignorance is detrimental to the goal of educating readers. --ScienceApologist 18:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)