Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:36, 1 March 2022

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Plasma cosmology article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Physics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Astronomy Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Misplaced Pages.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative views Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11

List of archives with date ranges Archive 1 (July 2003–Sept 2005) Archive 2 (Sept–November 2005) Archive 3 (Nov–December 2005) Archive 4 (January–March 2006) Archive 5 (March 2006) Archive 6 (March–June 2006) Archive 7 (June–December 2006) Archive 8 (Dec 2006–March 2007) Archive 9 (April 2007–July 2009) Archive 10 (August 2009–April 2012) Archive 11 (May 2012–Current)

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

Uniformity

I have changed "scientists who have examined..." to "the vast majority of scientists..." because it is more accurate. It is also significant information, as it distinguishes fringe models which originate within the scientific community from fringe models which are invented by nonspecialists- i.e. Velikovsian catastrophism. Since it's hardly a wordy change and is slightly more precise, there is no reason to reject it. I don't have an ulterior motive. I am not a defender of plasma cosmology as science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.17.137.227 (talk) 17:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Please read WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. On Misplaced Pages, we write about the mainstream viewpoint in a field as the default, accepted position. We only write about majority/minority disagreements when reliable sources treat the minority views as significant, and then we need to include reliably-sourced context about that majority/minority relationship. See our articles on, say, climate change and germ theory of disease and gravity. None of those are supported by all scientists, but we write about them as if they are because they are the mainstream views as supported by reliable sources. Woodroar (talk) 18:23, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

Articles relating to Young Earth creationism have "pseudoscience" clearly in their lede.

Articles relating to Flat Earth have "pseudoscience" clearly in their lede.

Is there any reason why this article doesn't also have "pseudoscience" in its lede?

Feline Hymnic (talk) 18:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Do relevant reliable sources describe it as pseudoscience? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

One problem is that it's so silly, there really isn't much mainstream commentary on it. The best you'd be able to find are probably blog posts or discussions on science bulletin boards, neither of which are RS for wikipedia. It absolutely is pseudoscience, but finding a cite for that might be hard because nobody except the cranks pays any attention to it. - Parejkoj (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd have to suggest that it is better that Misplaced Pages contributors don't decide for themselves whether to call something 'pseudoscience', if they can't find a source for it, but think it applies anyway. That seems to be the way policy works. What policy doesn't prevent, of course, is making it blindingly obvious to readers that this particular 'cosmology' doesn't accord with actual science. I'd say that was more of a priority than worrying about labels. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Because plasma cosmology (as variously developed by Alfvén, Peratt, Lerner, et al.) whilst incomplete, non-mainstream and possibly even qualifies as a bit fringe is certainly not pseudoscience, in the same way as unscientific nonsense like flat earth or creationism certainly is. At no point does plasma cosmology ask you to believe in God, it is an attempt to use standard physics to describe the universe but starting from different assumptions based on the behaviours of plasma, rather than what gravity might do with a bunch of inert gas. Perhaps you are thinking of the Electric Universe folks? Now there's a popcorn show... Jon (talk) 02:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@Jonathanischoice: Thanks. But "Electric Universe (physics)" is a wikilink redirect to here. Therefore the casual user (I am such in this context) may reasonably assume that P.C. and E.U. are very closely related and intertwined. So could I request that those who know more about these topics and their seemingly close inter-relationship give some thought to the redirect leading people here to find out about E.U.? Thanks. (By the way, the simple "Electric Universe" is an article about music band, so that might complicate disambiguation things a little!) Feline Hymnic (talk)

If the Electric Universe thing is something unrelated, there shouldn't be a redirect here. And if they are related, per reliable sources, the article needs to explain what the Electric Universe is, and why it is relevant to plasma cosmology, citing those same sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: Probably. The history (quite short) of the redirect page itself includes a pointer to discussion way back in 2015 about a potential separate EU article that seems never to have happened: Misplaced Pages:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_November_4#Electric_Universe_(physics). Might it be time for another RfD? Feline Hymnic (talk) 14:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

As I've noted above, there is almost no mainstream coverage of these topics. Most of what you'll find online is the cranks and creationists, who alternately combine various aspects of EU/PC, or who claim that PC is the "real" scientific idea while EU is the nonsense one, because Alfven won a Nobel prize so he's really smart. The Misplaced Pages page on the Electric Universe (which was a total mess) was deleted in 2007, after a few different deletion discussions, due it being an entirely fringe topic with no reliable sources available. Most of the previous proponents of EU/PC on Misplaced Pages have either left, or been banned or topic banned (see the very long talk archives here from the last decade+). Plasma cosmology is of very slight historical interest, but otherwise completely WP:FRINGE: good luck finding reliable sources! - Parejkoj (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

"Electric Universe (physics)" redirects here

"Electric Universe (physics)" is a redirect to here.

If this is correct, then this article should include a "Template:Redirect" at the top and/or a bolded E.U. mention within the lede.

But if this redirect is incorrect, then attention of some sort is needed at that redirect itself so it doesn't point here. (That might be deleting the redirect (and perhaps salting it? although that may be extreme); it might be providing a stub EU article. But this parenthetical "what to do" is relatively secondary to the primary point "something needs doing".)

Could those who know about the topics (I know nothing at all about either) suggest which way to go?

Feline Hymnic (talk) 11:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Per policy, there really isn't a lot of choice involved. Either find sources that directly state how "Electric Universe' relates to 'Plasma cosmology', and include an explanation based on such content in the article, or delete the redirect. Unexplained 'redirects' that merely insinuate some sort of connection aren't remotely appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. So you're suggesting RfD of the "EU (physics)" redirect? Fine with me. But I've never done one of those, and there seem to be several options (speedy; discussion; etc.). Could you, with your greater experience and understanding of the "per policy" issues, actively initiate the appropriate RfD mechanism? Thanks. Feline Hymnic (talk) 12:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Probably best to leave it for a few days, in case anyone can come up with a relevant source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Relevant? Sure, right from the horse's mouth: "The Electric Universe is a variant of Plasma Cosmology". But nothing on that page is even close to passing as a reliable source. Here's a single line from Forbes: "and so plasma cosmology — rebranded a few decades ago as the electric Universe..." Given how fringe all of this is, that should be sufficient to keep the redirect, no? - Parejkoj (talk) 19:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Hoo boy. This would take a while to dig up. The short version is that this started out as the "electric universe" concept but quickly got renamed to "plasma cosmology" when scientists rightly pointed out that the universe doesn't work the way its proponents claimed. I remember seeing some of its proponents fervently arguing for it way back in the early 00s... but that's not a reliable source. It might be difficult to actually track down an RS regarding the tie between the two. — The Hand That Feeds You: 19:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class physics articles
• Low-importance physics articles
• B-Class physics articles of Low-importance
• B-Class Astronomy articles
• Low-importance Astronomy articles
• B-Class Astronomy articles of Low-importance
• B-Class Alternative views articles
• Mid-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics