| Revision as of 15:39, 2 January 2006 editජපස (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,455 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:09, 2 January 2006 edit undoIantresman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users21,376 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| This article represents the ] and a ] of the ] article by ]. There are a very small number of layman and an even smaller number of ] who use the term "intrinsic redshift" as a general term to mean "a redshift mechanism not yet modeled" in order for them to object to standard models in cosmology. This article claims a slew of mechanisms that are advocated by these small band of ] proponents and Ian has included them here as a clearinghouse for this partcular POV-fork. You cannot find an amalgamation such as this anywhere else -- it is a totally original research approach. The statements made on the page simply represent POV-pushing of an advocate who was upset by the outcome of the editting of the ] article. --] 15:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC) | This article represents the ] and a ] of the ] article by ]. There are a very small number of layman and an even smaller number of ] who use the term "intrinsic redshift" as a general term to mean "a redshift mechanism not yet modeled" in order for them to object to standard models in cosmology. This article claims a slew of mechanisms that are advocated by these small band of ] proponents and Ian has included them here as a clearinghouse for this partcular POV-fork. You cannot find an amalgamation such as this anywhere else -- it is a totally original research approach. The statements made on the page simply represent POV-pushing of an advocate who was upset by the outcome of the editting of the ] article. --] 15:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :The article is less than 24 hours old. I've already requested a number of other editors look at it, and discussion is '']''. | |||
| :*Claiming the article is based on '''one''' reference is false (that completely ignores the other 30+ references). | |||
| :*Claiming the article is based on "an obscure clearinghouse paper" is false. The article referred to appears in "Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series" | |||
| :*Claiming that the article is ] is false; Misplaced Pages says "the only way to show that you are not doing original research is to cite sources who discuss material that is directly related to the article", and this is done. | |||
| :*Claiming that this article is a ], is false; Misplaced Pages says this is "creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated". The article on ] does not include the majority of material in this article. The main redshift article is about Cosmological, Doppler and Gravitation redshifts; this article is about theories which have been published in peer reviewed journals that propose '''non-'''Cosmological, '''non-'''Doppler and '''non-'''Gravitation redshifts. | |||
| :*Claiming that "You cannot find an amalgamation such as this anywhere else" is also false; see for example, the Wiki article on ]. | |||
| :*Claiming that "The statements made on the page simply represent POV-pushing..." suggest that the articles does not adhere to Misplaced Pages's ] policy which "represents all views fairly and without bias". Not one example was provided showing failure of this policy. | |||
| :--] 17:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:09, 2 January 2006
Intrinsic redshift
This article represents the original research and a POV fork of the redshift article by User:Iantresman. There are a very small number of layman and an even smaller number of fringe scientists who use the term "intrinsic redshift" as a general term to mean "a redshift mechanism not yet modeled" in order for them to object to standard models in cosmology. This article claims a slew of mechanisms that are advocated by these small band of non-standard cosmology proponents and Ian has included them here as a clearinghouse for this partcular POV-fork. You cannot find an amalgamation such as this anywhere else -- it is a totally original research approach. The statements made on the page simply represent POV-pushing of an advocate who was upset by the outcome of the editting of the redshift article. --ScienceApologist 15:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- The article is less than 24 hours old. I've already requested a number of other editors look at it, and discussion is in progress.
- Claiming the article is based on one reference is false (that completely ignores the other 30+ references).
- Claiming the article is based on "an obscure clearinghouse paper" is false. The article referred to appears in "Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series"
- Claiming that the article is original research is false; Misplaced Pages says "the only way to show that you are not doing original research is to cite sources who discuss material that is directly related to the article", and this is done.
- Claiming that this article is a point-of-view fork, is false; Misplaced Pages says this is "creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated". The article on redshift does not include the majority of material in this article. The main redshift article is about Cosmological, Doppler and Gravitation redshifts; this article is about theories which have been published in peer reviewed journals that propose non-Cosmological, non-Doppler and non-Gravitation redshifts.
- Claiming that "You cannot find an amalgamation such as this anywhere else" is also false; see for example, the Wiki article on Non-standard cosmology.
- Claiming that "The statements made on the page simply represent POV-pushing..." suggest that the articles does not adhere to Misplaced Pages's Neutral Point of View policy which "represents all views fairly and without bias". Not one example was provided showing failure of this policy.
- --Iantresman 17:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)