Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:45, 16 May 2007

Physics Unassessed 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-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.

Please see the following for older discussions of this article:

• Beginning to September 2005
• September 2005 to November 2005
• November and December 2005
• January to March 9 2006
• March 9 to March 27 2006
• March 27 and May 31 2006
• May 31 and December 23 2006
• December 23 2006 and April 28 2007

Removed dispute tag

No active discussion was happening regarding any disputes, so the dispute tag was removed. --ScienceApologist 13:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, still totally disputed. A lack of discussion does make not disputes go away. Fixing the disputed text does. I'll make some comments a little later --Iantresman 15:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I appreciated your comments, but they didn't indicate that anything was "totally disputed". --ScienceApologist 17:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Plasma cosmology is a non-standard cosmology

I object to the use of "non-standard cosmology" for three reasons:

• (1) I can find no citations to Plasma cosmology being described as a non-standard cosmology. There is one reference to Peratt describing "In this nonstandard picture, swirling streams of electrons and ions form filaments that span vast regions of space"; this is not the same as describing Plasma Cosmology as such.
• (2) The term "non-standard cosmology" appears to be infrequently, and does not appear to have any standard definition, and is not the "opposite" of "Standard Cosmology", a proper noun.
• (3) Some definitions of "non-standard" are value-negative.

I would like to describe "Standard Cosmology" as an alternative cosmology for these reasons:

• (1) I can find several references of "Plasma Cosmology" being described as "alternative"
• (2) I can find no references to the word "alternative" being used in a value-negative manner.

I an happy for "alternative cosmology" to link to the poorly-named article "non-standard cosmology" --Iantresman 17:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Alternative cosmology is fine with me. --ScienceApologist 17:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The current situation is that "Standard Cosmology" is the overwhelming consensus view, with theories that differ significantly hardly being given a glance. "Standard/non-standard" reflects this state, while "alternative" can be read as "one of several suggestions on a more or less equal footing". But, hey, I don't want to stir up trouble when Ian and Joshua can agree on something. (And Ian's arguments are not without merit either.) --Art Carlson 20:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Originally proposed by Hannes Alfvén in the 1960s

While Alfvén is generally credited with Plasma Cosmology in the 1960s, (eg. Kraugh, 1999), Alfvén and Arrhenius credit Kristian Birkeland in 1908 (See 1976, sec.15.2), and this is endorsed by Peratt (1995). --Iantresman 19:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Cosmology as a subject didn't exist in 1908 because the Shapley-Curtis debate had not yet resolved the scale of the universe. --ScienceApologist 19:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

To be clearer, we are writing this article in 2007 when the subject matter of cosmology is linked to scales that are larger than the galaxy. Since it is clear that Kristian Birkeland did not discuss such scales, stating that plasma cosmology began with Birkeland is inappropriate. Birkeland may have provided antecedent ideas to plasma cosmology (just as, for example, Heinrich Olbers provided the same for standard cosmology), but he did not present an argument for explaining the dynamics at the largest scales. That would be left to Alfven and Klein. --ScienceApologist 20:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Cosmology as a term existed well before the Shapley-Curtis debate, and it is arguable whether the word Cosmology has identical meanings in Standard Cosmology and Plasma Cosmology. Birkeland wrote that:

"It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. We have assumed that each stellar system in evolutions throws off electric corpuscles into space. It does not seem unreasonable therefore to think that the greater part of the material masses in the universe is found, not in the solar systems or nebulae, but in "empty" space"

"This theory differs from all earlier theories in that it assumes the existence of a universal directing force of electromagnetic origin in addition to the force of gravitation, in order to explain the formation round the sun of planets -- which have almost circular orbits and are almost in the same plane -- of moons and rings about the planets, and of spiral and annular nebulae."

• To summarise, Birkeland writes that he considers (1) the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds (2) a universal electromagnetic forces (3) in addition to gravity, and, (4) its importance in the formation of spiral and annular nebulae.

• Silly question: since it's out of context, the quote: "This theory differs from all earlier theories in that it assumes the existence of a universal directing force of electromagnetic origin in addition to the force of gravitation ".
• Does it mean "universal" in terms of "at universal scale" (IE, large scale structure) or "universal" in terms of "to be considered in addition to gravity in all interactions, regardless of scale" (IE, simply a primary force in the realm of being more or less equal to gravity in the overall formative process of the universe)? Just wondering, since it lacked fuller context. Either way it seems to imply a heavy duty role in cosmological processes, yeah? Just some quick thoughts. As you were... Mgmirkin 02:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• ie. Birkeland's theory parallels that of Plasma Cosmology.
• But this is not the place to make the argument; Alfvén, Arrhenius and Peratt have already stated that they credit Birkeland with the seeds of the origin of Plasma Cosmology, regardless of whether you, me and them are correct or accurate. --Iantresman 21:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the term "cosmology" has been around for a long time and has come to mean many things. However, in the context of "plasma cosmology" it means exactly what this article says it means. Birkeland was not in the business of proposing alternative cosmological models. Crediting Birkeland for the seeds of the origin of plasma cosmology is akin to crediting Olbers with the seeds of the origin of standard cosmology. That doesn't mean that plasma cosmology began in 1908 any more than standard cosmology began in 1823. --ScienceApologist 05:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Peratt says otherwise: "The year 1996 marks the Centennial Celebration of the founding of Plasma Astrophysics and Cosmology; its origins may be traced to the seminal research first published by Kristian Birkeland in 1896." (Introduction to Plasma Astrophysics and Cosmology, Peratt, A. L., Astrophysics and Space Science, v. 227, p. 3-11.). *See also, Birkeland and the Electromagnetic Cosmology, Peratt, Anthony L., Sky and Telescope, volume 69, page 389
• Professor of the History of Science, Stephen G. Brush, also says otherwise in A History of Modern Planetary Physics, Stephen George Brush, Cambridge University, Press, ISBN 0521552141 (page 49)
• Alfvén and Arrhenius say otherwise.
• You and I do not have to agree with them, but they are all verifiable. --Iantresman 12:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, these sources do not address the fundamental issue. Peratt is talking about plasma astrophysics and cosmology, so we need a little crowbar to separate these points. Similarly, you didn't link to where Brush, Alfven, or Arrhenius distinguish between the foundational work of plasma astrophysics and the foundational work of plasma cosmology. While you yourself may not believe there is a distinction between the two subjects, we have been working at this article with a distinct separation between them. --ScienceApologist 12:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Plasma Cosmologists do necessarily separate cosmology and astrophysics since the same processes are involved. Recall that Plasma Cosmologists do not have a beginning of the Universe as do Big Bangers, so the same processes they see in, for example, the creation of galaxies, are the same processes that were seen billions of years ago, and are the same processes that will explain galaxy formation in billions of years time.
• Peratt attributes the work of Birkeland to the founding of Plasma Astrophysics and Cosmology (see quote above).
• I provided a link to Alfvén and Arrhenius's comments on Birkeland above, in Evolution of the Solar System (1976), see section 15.2.
• And Professor of the History of Science, Stephen G. Brush, wrote about Birkeland's contribution to Alfvén's work in in A History of Modern Planetary Physics (1999) on page 49:

"One other theory must be noted because, though generally ignored in the decade after it was proposed, it was later recognized as a precursor of Alvén's cosmogony. Kristian Birkeland (1867-1917), a Norwegian geophysicist, studied cathode ray discharges from magnetized globes in connection with the aurora and other solar-terrestrial electromagnetic phenomena. In 1912 he proposed that the Sun emits charged particles into space; some of them cluster into orbits determined by the solar magnetic field and eventually form planets"

• I understand there are differences between cosmology and cosmogony, and the quote above focuses on planet formation, but Birkeland himself says that he is also applying his "universal force" to "spiral and annular nebulae." in his "The Norwegian Aurora Polaris Expedition 1902-1903", Section 2. Chapter VI: On Possible Electric Phenomena in Solar Systems and Nebulae (1908)
• Alfvén, Arrhenius, Brush and Peratt all attribute the origins of Plasma Cosmology to Birkeland. --Iantresman 17:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Would it clutter up the intro too much to say "Plasma cosmology is an alternative cosmology that attempts to explain the development of the visible universe through the combined effects of gravity and electromagnetic forces inherent to astrophysical plasma. It was originally proposed by Hannes Alfvén in the 1960s, although some of the ideas can be traced back to the work of Kristian Birkeland around the turn of the century. Alfvén developed his cosmological ideas ..." --Art Carlson 20:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Sounds good to me, and I'll add some of the references I've provided earlier. --Iantresman 10:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's keep such a statement out of the lead as it is peripheral to the main points of the article regarding ambiplasma and the eventual falsification of the theory. Maybe putting it in the section which describes the history of the idea would be a good idea. -ScienceApologist 12:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That, of course, is the alternative. I think the antecedents of an idea are worth mentioning, but the intro is not usually the best place for them. If there is a history section (at least two or three sentences) later on, then Birkeland could wait till then. The third possibility is a footnote. --Art Carlson 15:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I put it in the Alfven/Klein cosmology section. --ScienceApologist 16:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Protoscience vs Fringe citations

• ScienceApologist, you removed the Protoscience category tag because you were not aware of any reference to it.
• You also added the Fringe Science tags, on the grounds that they are "generally considered fringe". Misplaced Pages requires verifcation, no hearsay. I am requesting a couple of citations, because I do not know anyone (who is verifiable) who considers the subject to be fringe. --Iantresman 20:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Sour grapes and possible violation of WP:POINT. It is fringe because it is nonstandard. --ScienceApologist 20:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Don't sour grapes me, and threaten me with violations.
• Fringe is not synonymous with non-standard, and I do not agree with your personal categorisation. I would still like a citation please. --Iantresman 23:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Fringe science is defined. Do you have any evidence to show that this endeavor is not fringe? --ScienceApologist 12:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Your edit requires your verification. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article".WP:V Burden of evidence --Iantresman 14:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

According to the arbcom decision, topics generally considered as fitting a certain category are fine to categorize as such. You are wrong and this discussion is over unless you can find another Wikipedian who agrees with you. You continue to violate WP:POINT in defiance of your probation. Keep it up and I will report you. --ScienceApologist 15:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• I have asked for verification of some information, one of Misplaced Pages's core content policies. If the subject is generally considered fringe, then you'll have no problem coming up with citations that generally support this.
• If the best that you can come up with is to (a) allege sour grapes, (b) threaten me with WP:POINT (c) threaten me with "defiance of your probation", then by all means report me.
• I'm here to edit, and make sure that the "threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability". --Iantresman 16:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

If this discussion is really about the category "fringe science" (and not about the category "protoscience", in a WP:POINTed way), then I don't understand your objection, Ian. Are you looking for a citation that refers to plasma cosmology explicitly as "fringe science"? I don't think that is required. From the first line of Fringe science,

Fringe science is a phrase used to describe

• scientific inquiry
• in an established field of study
• that departs significantly from mainstream or orthodox theories.

Do you think

• that plasma cosmology is nonscientific,
• that cosmology is not an established field, or
• that plasma cosmology does not depart significantly from standard cosmology?

--Art Carlson 16:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• I am not sure I agree with the description that fringe science "departs significantly from mainstream or orthodox theories" (my emphasis). I can find no sources supporting this description. And the fringe science article also says that the term may be pejorative.

If you think you can improve the fringe science article, you should discuss that there. After a new consensus on the definition has been reached, then we can apply it here. --Art Carlson 19:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• To substitute "Standard model" for "mainstream or orthodox theories" seems like bait-and switch to me. My understanding is that plasma cosmology stems specifically from STANDARD empirical observation of plasma behavior IN THE LAB, extrapolated to larger scales and to the cosmos, which is mostly composed of matter in the plasma state. Being directly extrapolated from well-founded plasma research seems to put it squarely into ORTHODOXY, in my view (insofar as it comes from ORTHODOX empirical research into plasmas). IE, plasma physics is a well-known, well-researched field (encompassing double-layers, various known stable plasma configurations, and instabilities under various exotic known conditions), and the ideas expressed in plasma cosmology come directly from well-known researchers in the field of plasma physics. In that regard, I don't believe that the "departs significantly from mainstream or orthodox" burden is met. But, maybe that's just me...? Mgmirkin 02:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• To say that "if it doesn't match the standard model it's unorthodox" seems like a bit of an over-reaching statement? Or rather to say that the "standard model" is the only approach that can possibly be considered "orthodox" again seems like a stretch. Standard model is currently the most-widely-accepted, perhaps... But to say it's the only possible conclusion to be drawn from orthodox empirical physical laboratory research and applied to the heavens? Dubious. Mgmirkin 02:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Relax. We are not trying to deduce the truth here or even to do epistomology. 99+% of professional cosmologists believe that something close to the Standard Model is true, and less than 0.1% believe plasma cosmology has anything to add to that. That is a statement of sociology, not physics, and it is the reason that PC is accurately and neutrally described as fringe science. --Art Carlson 08:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• It seems to me that the description of "Protoscience", could also be consistent with Plasma Cosmology, but as ScienceApologist pointed out, there is "no protoscience indicated in the sources." Personally, I might like to add the Protoscience tag; but "threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability".
• At the very least we should be consistent with our assessment of category tags. So if the "Protoscience" tag is not suitable because ScienceApologist notes that it lacks sources, then by the same criteria, the "Fringe science" tag, and the farcical "Fringe subjects without critical scientific evaluation", should be removed too. --Iantresman 17:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if you agree, but I already said I don't think it is necessary to find a source that uses the exact phrase of a category. Conforming to the definition is enough. I agree we should be consistent, and I contend that plasma cosmology clearly fits the definition of fringe science, and probably does not fits the definition of protoscience (which unfortunately is not quite so clear). --Art Carlson 19:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• We'll disagree on this issue, but I'll let it go. --Iantresman 21:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Drew and Thornhill/Talbott links

Recently User:Soupdragon42 added links to Drew and Thornhill/Talbott. These web sites are full of errors, so that we cannot represent them as sources of further information. They may nonetheless be interesting and appropriate as descriptions of the sociological phenomenon of plasma cosmology advocates (outside of academic circles), but then we need to label them differently. In fact, if want to do that, we might need to add a short section to the text about these "religious" plasma cosmologists. Up to now we have represented only those advocates striving to be scientific. I'd like to hear from the other editors before taking action. --Art Carlson 10:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not aware of any sources that mention or describe "religious" plasma cosmologists, nor any sources that describe their Web sites as "full of errors".
• I'm not sure what you mean by "advocates striving to be scientific". Does Misplaced Pages "strive to be scientific"? --Iantresman 11:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Art, the Velikovskian advocates jump on Alfven's bandwagon, but are themselves promoting their own versions of the "electric universe". Thornhill, Scott, etc. are not reliable sources for this article. Likewise, personal websites such as thunderbolts.info do not belong linked here. --ScienceApologist 13:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, please provide a source, any source, that suggests that Scott is an advocate of Velikovsky. --Iantresman 13:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Are these websites "full of errors" or filled with contary facts and opinions to those accepted by consensus science as "generally acceptable"? As a newcomer, I don't mean to come across as argumentative or disrespectful, but the tone here strikes me as a bit arrogant and not quite so interested in neutrality and the citing of non-original research/further info sources so much as trying to protect readers of the encyclopedia from alternate viewpoints. Religious plasma cosmologists? Wow, that's a new (ad hominem?) one. The suggestion to re-classify the Thornhill/Talbot sources comes across as a tad condescending. Just my own (non-professional) opinion of how it's sounding. Ninedragons 06:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, there are many statements on these web sites that are not simply contrarian but are wrong. For present purposes, let's say there are many statements that would not meet Misplaced Pages's standards of being attributable to a reliable source and representing a significant minority viewpoint. I strongly support Misplaced Pages's policies, including Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view. After you have been around awhile, if you find that I am not being true to that goal, then please hit me upside the head.

I have made some observations that lead me to suspect that some advocates of plasma cosmology see their beliefs in a way that can be reasonably described as "religious". I do not mean that to be pejorative. It is, of course, important to distinguish between scientific arguments and faith-based arguments. My evidence does not currently rise above Misplaced Pages standards of Misplaced Pages:No original research. In fact, it is more speculation than research. I was looking for a way that we could expose the readers to these alternative viewpoints without breaking the ground rules. As you see, I wasn't able to find a convincing one.

--Art Carlson 08:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you. I appreciate your integrity. As a long, long term *user* (complete newbie to editing, tho') of Wiki I, too, appreciate the policies. Semantics can be troubling, I know. You see, where you may be sensing religious fervor, to me I just see passionate expression and the excitable thrill of discovery in new ideas that possibly just may herald profound insight into, and integration of, many if not all of our scientific disciplines. That's just *my* opinion. And maybe the devil is in the details in that many statements from the sites are wrong from specific and relative perspectives, but holy cow, could that not be said of just about any theory whether generally accepted and peer reviewed or not? In how many cases could it be said that today's acceptable truth was yesterday's disputed heresy?

• Frankly, I came to my old stand-by (Wiki) searching for an unbiased, balanced article on "Electric Universe Theory." I had already familiarized myself thoroughly with with the theory elsewhere (ala Thunderbolts, Holoscience, et al) but wanted Wiki's perspective and hoped to see a good, over all summary. Shoot, I can't even find what I guess you might call a "zealots'" article (joking). I did run across the arbitration fire fight. Jeeze, one would think the sacred cow of generally accepted science had been threatened by a barbecue. The current vacuum of information and viewpoint saddens me. Now maybe it was just the way the material was presented. Not having seen it I couldn't say. But I do hope someone comes up with a new one, or at least a substantial sub-topic to it here under Plasma Cosmology, whatever. I'd try my hand at it but, alas, am woefully unskilled with the technical verbiage required. Besides, some of the "authority" types I read from the arbitration around the subject are *way* too sensitive (i.e. taking themselves much too seriously, IMO) for my comfort level. But that's probably the idea. It's a shame because I think Wiki is diminished by the absence and unnecessary furor. Ninedragons 14:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Much of Alfven's work is controversial, radical, and outside the mainstream. Do you wish to banish this from Wiki? For example, the below is quoted from a BB conversation -

"...Alfven suffered no lack of condescension and ridicule in his lifetime, given that his ideas were then, and are still now, considered radical. He was forced to publish in lesser journals, mostly outside the US and UK, and frequently in Russia. His work first received wider recogntion with Cosmical Electrodynamics, published by Oxford University Press, in 1950, but he was not awarded the Nobel Prize until 1970. This seems surprising considering his many achievements.

At his acceptance speech for the Nobel Prize he again pointed out the fallacy of Frozen in Magnetic Fields, a nonsense that is still prevalent in the mainstream today. Although he originally proposed this idea, he quickly abandoned it, because it was wrong, a fact that the mainstream seem happy to ignore.

He was also a vociferous critic of the Big Bang, and the approach generally favoured by Big Bangers, that of starting-out from idealised mathematical principles.

Furthermore, in 1937 Alfven proposed that our galaxy contained a large-scale magnetic field and that charged particles moved in spiral orbits within it, owing to forces exerted by the field. Plasma carried the electrical currents which create the magnetic field. Is this idea acceptable to the mainstream?..." D V Drew

Soupdragon42 has been repeatedly reinserting these three references (verbatim):

• The emerging paradigm. An introduction and overview Plasma Cosmology .net
• A leading resource Thunderbolts.info
• D. E. Scott, The Electric Sky, (Mikamar, 2006) ISBN 0-9772851-1-1

The guideline for including or excluding external links is Misplaced Pages:External links. As far as I can judge, none of the reasons listed under WP:EL#What should be linked or under WP:EL#Links to be considered apply to these links. This is reason enough to not include them. In addition, I think that some of the problems listed under WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided apply. I am particularly concerned by these:

1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.

2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research".

...

11. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.

...

13. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked to an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep-linked.

Some additional problems I see are these:

• plasmacosmology.net does not have an impressum identifying who is responisible for the content.
• thunderbolts.info is described without attribution or justification as a "leading source".

I respectfully ask Soupdragon42 to reply to these reservations before reinserting the external links.

--Art Carlson 12:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• In response to your request below (15 May), I hadn't replied here (a) Because you seemed to direct specifically at Soupdragon42, (b) I wanted to concentrate on Scott's book, which I believe is a different kind of source to the two Web sites (c) There's only so many hours in the day!
• I won't comment further on the book, as I think my comments below are sufficient.
• Regarding the Web sites, I would note that there seems to be very few Web sites on Plasma Cosmology / Plasma Universe (unlike sites on Big Bang cosmology), and I think that is worth taking into account.
• plasmacosmology.net

• ... appears to be generally OK to me. I see obvious areas of contention, with section on the Electric Universe, Ancient Testimony, and Speculations. But these pages are separate and obvious, and do not seem to "pass off" the more speculative material as if it were pure Plasma Cosmology.
• ... the site certainly isn't peer reviewed, and it is unlikely to have been produced by an "authority"... the Contact page says "Independent Researcher"
• ... The site more closely resembles a "blog" since it appears to be produced by one person, but that is not grounds for automatic dismissal. We already include a page from the Web site of Ned Wright,, and while he is obviously an authority on Big Bang cosmology, I would argue that he is not an authority on Plasma Cosmology. Nevertheless, I am sure he points out some errors in Eric Lerner's work, and I am sure that Lerner has pointed out misunderstandings in Wright's. Either way, there seems to be value in Wright and Lerner's pages (irrespective of whether we agree with their points of view). Likewsise, I think there is value in plasmacosmology.net, even though there may be disagreements with parts of it.

By "value", I assume you are advocating that a link to this site be included in the article. Can you tell me under which of the criteria of WP:EL#What should be linked or WP:EL#Links to be considered you think it qualifies? --Art Carlson 19:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Option 4: Sites with other meaningful, relevant content...

That's "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews." What content on this site do you find meaningful and relevant, but nevertheless unsuitable for inclusion in the article directly? --Art Carlson 20:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• The perfect Catch 22. I find much the contents of the Web site to be suitable for the article; hence it is not suitable as an external link, and readers never know of its existence. But other editors consider the the material to be unsuitable for the article... and is excluded, and readers never know of its existence.

Whether or not any particular content is suitable for this article is not for you to decide alone. It must be hashed out here with the other editors. If in that process it is deemed unsuitable, why should readers be told about it anyway? I am willing to be somewhat looser in my standards for links than in my standards for the article itself, but I agree with policy that minimal standards must also be imposed on links. --Art Carlson 07:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Of course, it is a join decision. It is important to address the reasons other editors may find content unsuitable. I will discuss this with you, but please let me sort out Scott's book first, as I don't have enough time to address the issues.

• plasmacosmology.net has pages which provide a historical context; for example Birkeland is credited by both Alfvén, and Peratt (and others, all peer reviwed) with being responsible for some early ideas on the subject, and yet he was considered unsuitable for inclusion until just recently. --Iantresman 00:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't find the historical pages very enlightening, and I don't have a good feeling about the reliability. Are there particular verifiable historical facts that you would like to take up into the article? --Art Carlson 07:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Sure. Again, let me sort out Scott's book first, and then I'll come back to them.

• And in the subsequent section, "Links to be considered", Option 4: "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources" --Iantresman 20:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The clarification of this point is "For example a blog written by the subject of a biography article." I can understand that it is interesting to hear what someone says about himself, even if he is lying through his teeth. Why is it of similar interest to hear what an anonymous blogger has to say about the subject of plasma cosmology? And why would you describe this person as a "knowledgeable source"? --Art Carlson 20:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• For the same reason the Big Bang article has an external links to sites such as "Welcome to the History of the universe" (Penny Press Ltd). This also appears to be anonymous, and is clearly a "popular level" web site, that must have been seen by many editors during its progress to Featured Article status. The article is regularly policed by ScienceApologist, who tells us he is an "deletionist" and about the importance of "reliable sources", and there it remains. If I use ScienceApologist's criteria, "Welcome to the History of the universe" would have gone ages ago; but there seems to be different standards for mainstream, and non-mainstream sources. Personally I would have included a couple of peer reviewed articles that criticise the Big Bang, or links to external Web sites, but I digress. --Iantresman 00:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I have an opinion about the appropriateness of plasmacosmology.net and thundebolt.info to this article. I don't have an opinion about the appropriateness of historyoftheuniverse.com to the Big Bang article, and this is not the place to discuss the issue. I would like to correct you on one point though: Welcome to the History of the universe in not anonymous. --Art Carlson 07:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• The same Wiki standards apply to all articles equally, so I think it is fair to compare article content. Thanks for finding the author of the Welcome to the History of the universe, in that respect I stand correct. However, I am also satisfied with the site, even though I still think the site fails the authoritative criteria. But again, let me discuss the content of plasmacosmology.net a little later, once we've sorted out Scott's book. --Iantresman 09:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• thunderbolts.info

• I must declare a potential conflict of interest with the site, as I am shown as a contributor,, so I will refrain from commenting more, unless you specifically ask me to do so, now knowing the connection.
• For similar reasons, I have not added my own Web site, plasma-universe.com, as a possible resource, even though I believe it offers a unique resource. --Iantresman 17:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is POV'ed and non-factual

This article is POV'ed and non-factual. I will not edit it because of the wrath of various ardent POVs.

Sad that POV pushers have unbalanced this article. I guess that is why there is the Misplaced Pages:General disclaimer]. J. D. Redding 17:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, these comments are not especially helpful to other Wikipedians. If there are specific grievances, perhaps elucidate slightly?

Are you implying that Plasma Cosmology itself is non-factual? OR that it has been misrepresented by either the supporters, opponents or both?

Are you implying that the article itself is from a specific POV? If so, whose (outside looking in ; inside looking out ; some other 3rd party POV I haven't discussed)?

Or are you implying that there is a lot of POV pushing from both sides on the backend Talk page, that is hindering amenable development of the article?

Or is there some other issue I haven't mentioned where you believe a POV is involved?

As I see it, it seems to me there are two sides bickering. "Standard model" supporters on one side, attempting to classify anything they view as non-standard as "pseudo-" or "fringe-" science, and those more familiar with plasma cosmology attempting to reverse what they view as unfair denigration, or what they perceive to be misrepresentation. 64.122.15.114 03:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC) (Apologies for the unsigned comments, it seems wikipedia logged me out after a brief stint away from keyboard.) Mgmirkin 04:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

On the last note, I still tend toward the neutral point of view (despite not quite understanding POV-pushing in some of my earlier days). Having studied a bit of "folklore" in college, I might point out that in studying a "culture," it is necessary to divorce one's own preconceptions from the material being studied from the "neutral observer"s point of view. I'd admonish that Misplaced Pages is not in the business of "judging the validity" of a specific point of view (be it the virgin birth, or ambiplasma), so much as neutrally reporting the facts and circumstances around said point of view. Likewise, a "personal opinion" about "validity" generally constitutes "original research" unless there's valid notable resources to back up said opinion. 64.122.15.114 03:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC) (Apologies for the unsigned comments, it seems wikipedia logged me out after a brief stint away from keyboard.) Mgmirkin 04:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

So, toward the last bit, I guess I'd say that neutrality is key. Present information factually without opinion/bias one way or the other. The article shouldn't be about "promotion" or about "denigration" so much as simply saying "who said what" "here's the context" "here's what it all means to those who said it" (NOT what it means to the neutral observer who should NOT have an opinion one way or the other on the material, or let it color their interpretation; I know it's hard to keep it "neutral" on controversial topics, but that shouldn't keep us from trying). That said, if it's necessary to add a caveat like "this isn't generally accepted by proponents of the standard model," so be it. But keep it brief, sweet and to the point, and don't express it as POV-pushing. 64.122.15.114 03:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC) (Apologies for the unsigned comments, it seems wikipedia logged me out after a brief stint away from keyboard.) Mgmirkin 04:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Removing information claiming it is POV-pushing, is to impose and hence push the counter POV. Perhaps this is why the Wiki page on POV-pushing was removed. --Iantresman 23:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Comparison to mainstream cosmology

This section starts with the statement:

• From a theoretical point of view, there remain a number of problems with the plasma cosmology model.

• I'm not aware of any peer reviewed literature that supports this statement, can we have a citation please.--Iantresman 09:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Basic cosmology publications support this summar statement as listed below. Pandering to Velikovskians is not the job of this encyclopedia. --ScienceApologist 13:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Umm, that seemed a bit harsh and pejorative. Perhaps we cold ratchet down the rhetoric just a bit and keep it civil? And, I thought Plasma Cosmology was more Alfven-ian and Birkeland-ian than Velikovskian. Was Velikovskian simply thrown in as an insult? Plasma Cosmology, as I understand it is generally based on the works of notable plasma physicists extrapolating lab results to cosmical plasmas, not on the works of mytho-historians. In this regard it is rather different than say the Electric Universe (concept) which was ungraciously AfD'd (I believe erroneously). Anyway, my point is that PC is based on concepts demonstrated in known physics labs and rigorously tested. Granted it's difficult to rigorously test the application to large scale structures since we don't have access to those large scale structures from our small scale Earth... Mgmirkin 04:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Who the hell do you think you are removing the disputed tag, and requests for citations. And how dare you accuse me of POV pushing, adding tags is no such thing.
• And what do you mean by "Pandering to Velikovskians"? Who do you have in mind?
• This continually association of plasma cosmology with pseudoscience, fringe science, and Velikovsky is farcical, and your judgmental editing technique does you no credit.
• Note Wikipedian etiquette on editing BEFORE reverting everything you don't like. --Iantresman 14:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Peratt speaks to your Velikovskian group in the UK, I see. The association is becoming more and more unmistakable. As for your own POV-pushing and continual insertion of Don Scott's nonsense, I stand by my actions. You know the steps of dispute resolution. Try them out. --ScienceApologist 14:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• What?!! Are you calling Peratt a Velikovskian based on a talk? And if this is a criticism, why did you leave all of Peratt's references in the article? In which case, who are the Velikovskians I am supposed to be pandering to? --Iantresman 14:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Indeed. Perratt and Scott are not catastrophists! Perratt has praised Scott's new book, and so it would seem petty to leave out Scott's details when Perratt clearly deems them to be consistent with 'acceptable' palsma cosmology. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Soupdragon42 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

• I'm free to make commentary on the talkpage, Ian. Yes, I think Peratt is edging ever closer towards Velikovskian pseudoscience, for better or worse. No, I'm not going to include this in the article. Including Don Scott's WP:BOLLOCKS as a resource here is pandering to his thunderbolts.info Velikovskian-inspired pseudoscience. That's why it is rightly removed. --ScienceApologist 14:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• I still don't get what Peratt has to do with your removal of my disputed tag, two requests for citations, and Scott's book on Plasma Cosmology? --Iantresman 14:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Don Scott is not a reliable source. The citation requests are tendentious and the totally disputed tag does not belong here since there has been no declaration of how the dispute proceeds on this page. --ScienceApologist 15:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• What has PERATT got to do with your removal of my disputed tag, two requests for citations, and Scott's book on Plasma Cosmology? --Iantresman 15:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The association between this subject and Velikovskian pseudoscience is becoming more and more apparent. --ScienceApologist 15:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry? What does your perceived association of plasma cosmology and Velikovsian pseudoscience (which no one else on the planet shares), have to do with your removal of my disputed tag, two requests for citations, and a reference to Scott's book on the subject? --Iantresman 15:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• I was responding to another question you asked. --ScienceApologist 17:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Being non-specific is not very helpful, and if it is your intent to be vague, and draw things out, then so be it. Well start again and do it one item at a time so there is no ambiguity.

Scott's book

• You removed the reference to Scott's book on plasma cosmology because of "POV pushing". Twice. This article is about Plasma cosmology, and so is Scott's book. How can this be POV pushing? --Iantresman 17:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to follow some of this stuff, and here's what I found on the Internet: Scott is a "supporter of Saturnian Theory" , which teaches that "4186 BC...is the moment of 'Creation.'" , a site that goes on to explain that Velikovsky believed something similar. This is a more extreme position than the plasma cosmology described in the article. Is this about right? Art LaPella 19:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• And I found a dozen web sites that say that George Bush is an alien reptile, or worse. But it's quite easy to verifiably find what he actually stands for.
• I'm not aware of any information indicating Scott's views on the Saturn Theory, nor with Velikovsky.
• Presumably by the same analogy, Einstein's support of Charles Hapgood's Earth shifting crust theory, would discredit Einstein's theories?
• Either way, this attempt to discredit by association, without even verifiable evidence, is a poor substitute for dealing with verifiable sources on plasma cosmology. --Iantresman 21:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's a website that purports to quote Ian Tresman as follows: "Critics of the "Saturn Theory" suggest that there is no mechanism that could circularize the planets' orbits. Annis says that Donald Scott points out the plasma physics could help here, electrical attraction and repulsion could be the answer, which become effective when their plasma sheaths overlap." Did you say that? Regardless of whether we can trust what Ian said about what Annis said about what Donald said, it would seem that Ian is indeed aware of information about Scott's views on the Saturn Theory, aware enough to discuss how Scott defends it against a specific criticism.

As for discrediting by association, I thought my point was that Scott advocates something a lot weirder than the Plasma cosmology article, so citing him here is perhaps like citing creationists at Big Bang - we refer to creationists as an alternative to the Big Bang, not as support for it. Art LaPella 22:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, the text is indeed mine; Scott gives his opinion on the application of plasma physics to the Saturn theory. It says nothing about Scott's view of the Saturn theory. No doubt you could give a scientific opinion on the nature of UFOs; is that going to make you a UFO supporter, or a sympathizer?
• This association is incredibly desperate. Peratt's going to talk at a society sympathetic to Velikovsky! Scott spoke to people who talk about the Saturn theory!
• This is purely an attempt to discredit via wishful association: pseudoskeptical McCarthyism. Let's deal with verifiable sources. --Iantresman 23:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Don Scott is not a reliable source in these matters. He has no peer reviewed papers on cosmology or plasma cosmology, unlike the other people listed as references. --ScienceApologist 15:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• You said that I was POV pushing. Twice. Are you saying that you meant to criticize Scott as a reliable source, and that POV-pushing is not an issue? --Iantresman 16:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

In my book, you are a confirmed POV-pusher who hopes to insert Don Scott into this encyclopedia in spite of his ignorant, unreliable, and skewed positions on the subject in question. --ScienceApologist 16:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Scott's book is about plasma cosmology. This article is about plasma cosmology. How is that POV-pushing? --Iantresman 18:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Having already professed your devotion to this particular guru, you now try to insert him into this article. That's POV-pushing. --ScienceApologist 18:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Sigh, this is so childish. Where have I "professed my devotion to him"? --Iantresman 19:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• On your user page. --ScienceApologist 19:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, I can find no such description either now, or previously. Which phrase in particular do you interpret as "devotion to this particular guru,"? --Iantresman 20:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It can only mean "the interest in...in particular the work of...Don Scott", so Ian can't honestly be mystified - although "professed my devotion" is exaggerated, at least after the phrase was challenged. You each believe the best way to make your case is to exaggerate it. Art LaPella 02:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Art,WP:NPA tells us "Comment on content, not on the contributor"
• And yet ScienceApologist has continued to comment on me, in a quite disrespectful manner, describing my views in a wholly distorted manner. And he continues to deprecate living people, calling Scott "ignorant", in spite of his ArbCom ruling
• There is no justification for judging content based on the perceived personalities and beliefs of editors and other individuals. Content is judged on content alone.
• So how have I exaggerated the case to include Scott's book? --Iantresman 09:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Many of Alfven's ideas are still considered radical and outisde the mainstream by stubborn elements within science. I trust no one would seriously suggest removing the Alfven links, or those of Perratt who was a student of Alfven? Moreover, Peratt has paid tribute to Scott's work. Scott has a PhD although he was modest enough to omit this from the cover of his book. --Soupdragon42

His Nobel Prize is the only reason to include those ideas of Alfven that have been rejected by mainstream science. Misplaced Pages is required to report what the mainstream and significant minorities believe, not to judge anybody's stubbornness. That Perratt was a student of Alfven is not sufficient reason to include any of his work that does not stand on its own merits. And where does that leave Scott, whose claim to fame is that the student of a Nobel Prize winner once said something nice about him? --Art Carlson 21:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• The Plasmacosmology.net site is a summation of the work of Birkeland, Langmuir, Alfven, Perratt, and Scott et al. Langmuir and Alfven won Nobel prizes for their work, and Birkeland probably would have done had he not died shortly after he was nominated!. Just because some in the mainstream are ignorant of the cosmological implications of the work of these great men is no good reason to ignore and suppress this angle! --Soupdragon42

Langmuir never had anything to say about cosmology. Please leave him out of this. --Art Carlson 21:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

That website is not reliable. --ScienceApologist 16:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, I can find nothing on my Userpage suggesting I "professed my devotion to him", unless you are referring to the statement identified by Art, that I have an "interest in... in particular the work of...Don Scott". Please clarify. --Iantresman 16:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The previous form of Ian's complaint is better, and thus no longer an example of exaggerating his case. A more direct debate could be conducted by those with a copy of the actual book in question (perhaps there is a copy in Seattle). As it is, I'm working with limited information. For instance, the suggested Plasmacosmology.net link says Electric Universe "ideas tend to go a step further than the generally more conservative approach of Plasma Cosmology. While both viewpoints permit many ideas previously excluded by Big Bang Cosmology, Electric Universe supporters promote more radical ideas about the role of electricity in the universe, and also support a number of ideas based on Veliskovkian style catastrophism." So if it isn't the same as plasma cosmology, then maybe it doesn't belong in the plasma cosmology article. Some of each party's charges against the other have the ring of truth, and I would second them more energetically if the opposite charges didn't tend to mitigate each other to some extent. I'm not going to defend ScienceApologist in the paragraph about the arbitration, although I would get more excited about such things if Ian had criticized obviously unhelpful participants like Tommy and Asmodeus, for instance. Art LaPella 17:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• We can check whether each side has a "ring of truth" by a simple process of verifiability.
• First we need to check whether ScienceApologist explanation of POV-pushing rings true. ScienceApologist, I can find nothing on my Userpage suggesting I "professed my devotion to him", unless you are referring to the statement identified by Art, that I have an "interest in... in particular the work of...Don Scott". Please clarify. --Iantresman 19:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

While we're at it, is it POV-pushing to cite a book that "promote more radical ideas about the role of electricity in the universe" than the article the cited book supposedly supports, "and also support a number of ideas based on Veliskovkian style catastrophism"? If plasmacosmology.net is right, then Ian should retract "Scott's book is about plasma cosmology. This article is about plasma cosmology. How is that POV-pushing?" If it's wrong, then Ian should ask Soupdragon42 not to use websites with misinformation comparable to "a dozen web sites that say that George Bush is an alien reptile, or worse". Art LaPella 22:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• First we need to check whether ScienceApologist explanation of POV-pushing rings true. ScienceApologist, I can find nothing on my Userpage suggesting I "professed my devotion to him", unless you are referring to the statement identified by Art, that I have an "interest in... in particular the work of...Don Scott". Please clarify. --Iantresman 19:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Both EU and PC theories permit many ideas excluded by the mainstream, and they have more in common than they do in conflict. EU ideas are strong enough to survive independently of any catastrophic hypotheses! However, while many mainstream theories based on gradualism preclude, for example, Veliskovkian ideas, both EU and PC ideas permit the possibility. Mainstream science also precluded the possibility of 'Heavier than Air Flight' for some time. ArtLaPella, may I also suggest that you check out the Philosophy section of the PlasmaCosmology.net web site. --Soupdragon42

• Art, The book is not "cited" to support any statement, it is included as a suggestion for Further Information.
• Hannes Alfvén and his theories are already considered "maverick" or "radical". Alfvén has already promoted the importance of electricity in astromomy, . Peratt has also hightlighted the importance of electricity in astronomy, .
• plasmacosmology.net states an opinion on the difference between Plasma Cosmology and the Electric Universe. But is seems to me that the Web site is predominantly about Plasma Cosmology, and makes it clear which areas deal with the Electric Universe.
• Without intending to sound rude, I am currently dealing with ScienceApologist's exclusion of Scott's book. ScienceApologist has made several unsubstantiated claims against Scott, and it shouldn't be difficult to provide verification.
• ScienceApologist, I can find nothing on my Userpage suggesting I "professed my devotion to him", unless you are referring to the statement identified by Art, that I have an "interest in... in particular the work of...Don Scott". Please clarify. --Iantresman 00:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• You have found it, Ian. Congratulations. --ScienceApologist 12:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• ScienceApologist, you described "the Velikovskian advocates .. Thornhill, Scott, etc. are not reliable sources for this article". Please provide some evidence that Scott is a "Velikovskian advocate" --Iantresman 13:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• EDIT WAR! I have added details of Scott's book to the Plasma Cosmology section a number of times now, but someone (ScienceApologist?) appears to be in an edit war, and continually removes the data before any consensus has been reached here! Additonally, I would like to know who has made the ad hominen attack on me, alleging that I am a sock puppet? Soupdragon42 00:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It takes two sides to make an edit war. Art Carlson has made a better attempt than anyone else at reaching a consensus on this issue, by explaining his reasoning in more detail. Please answer his criticism. As for the sock puppet allegation, I couldn't find it, but a sufficiently justified allegation that someone has violated a policy such as Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry isn't automatically bad. Misplaced Pages has that policy for a reason. Art LaPella 00:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Soupdragon42, you have now violated the Misplaced Pages:Three revert rule. That is a blockable offense. If you do it again and ScienceApologist doesn't report you, I will. Art LaPella 01:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• It seems to me that others have also reverted the information the other way, at least three times while discussion is going on. It may not have been within a 24-hour period, and it may not have been the same individual, but it escalates the edit war.

• Discussion is also a farce, with editors not having the courtesy to answer basic questions, making the claims they will not, or can not verify, or resorting to ad hominem arguments.

• The fault lies equally with Misplaced Pages itself, which has a set of policies which are pretty much optional, enforcement is at the whim of administrators who hand it out unequally, if at all.

• ScienceApologist, you described "the Velikovskian advocates .. Thornhill, Scott, etc. are not reliable sources for this article". Please provide some evidence that Scott is a "Velikovskian advocate" --Iantresman 13:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, others approached the limits of edit warring rules, but the fact that it wasn't the same individual is not a technicality - it's in the rules to see that one side has more than one advocate. Art LaPella 16:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what SA had in mind when he made that remark. I can find no proof of its truth, but it does seem plausible. For example, his bio on the thunderbolts team page says "he has been emcee of several conferences on cosmic catastrophe". It is possible to emcee conferences on topics you don't believe in (even several times), and there may be non-Velikovskian ideas on cosmic catastrophe (though those names are certainly closely associated). (If you want to argue at that level, you should note that SA actually wrote in full "I agree with Art, the Velikovskian advocates jump on Alfven's bandwagon, but are themselves promoting their own versions of the "electric universe". Thornhill, Scott, etc. are not reliable sources for this article." The identification of Scott as a Velikovskian is technically the result of Ian's ellipses.)

So what's your point, Ian? Do you just want to force SA to admit he said something plausible without hard evidence? Are you suggesting it is OK to include a link to anybody's book in the PC article, as long as the author is not a Velikovskian? Is there any chance you could ignore the baiting and/or colloquial formulations by SA and concentrate on proposed changes to the article? We'd appreciate it.

I would also like to take this opportunity to ask SA to try to find language that doesn't pull Ian's chain any more than necessary. A remark now and then on the lines of "OK. I see a lot of associations between Scott and Velikovskians, but of course I don't really know what he thinks on the subject" would also help pour oil on the waters. It would be nice to increase the productivity to bickering ratio here, even if it means ignoring opportunities to win rhetorical points.

--Art Carlson 12:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• A source should not be assessed on the plausibility of whether the author is a Velikovskian), has spoken to a Velikovskian, or has even heard of a Velikovskian. It's plausible that editors here are incompetent, have their own agenda, or vote Republican. All utterly irrelevant.
• A source should not be assessed on whether a contributing author has "an interest" in a subject, and to interpret this as "professing a devotion to a guru" is juvenile, and does not address content.
• Scott's book was also criticized for "POV-pushing", which I now note is not included as an "objection", presumably since articles are full of points of view.
• ScienceApologist's criticisms make no attempt to provide verification (after four days of discussion), and nor do they address the source (ie. content) itself. What are the chances we'll get a forth objection?
• We should address the merit of Scott's book directly, and not using ad hominems against the author or contributing editors. --Iantresman 15:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Then isn't it about time you address my objections, which are based on content? --Art Carlson 16:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Please see my comments above, in the section "Talbott_links Drew and Thornhill/Talbott links" --Iantresman 17:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Regarding PlasmaCosmology.net
• FAO ArtCarlson. You have made the claim that Langmuir had nothing do with cosmology. Please check this link on A. Perratt's site: http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/people/history.html It says "...Langmuir was the first to coin the term plasma (in 1923), borrowing the term from medical science, to describe the lifelike state he observed in the laboratory. He also the first to discover 'double sheathes,' now called double layers, as the plasma electrons and ions separated in his glass tubes..."
• Please note that Double Layers are very important to Plasma Cosomology. Plasma behaviours can be scaled from laboratory to cosmic scales. Alfven and Perratt have developed his work.

I agree that Langmuir was one of the all time great plasma physicists. (There may be some personal prejudice in there.) The mainstream is not ignorant of his work. The "cosmological implications" of his work are at issue here, and I think it is important to remember that these "implications" were drawn by people like Lerner and Peratt, not by Langmuir himself. You might as well claim Maxwell and Newton as fathers of plasma cosmology because PC uses their results. I stand by my statement: Langmuir said a hell-of-a-lot about plasmas, but nothing at all directly about cosmology. --Art Carlson 20:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• FAO ScienceApologist. You have made the allegation that PlasmaCosmology.net is not reliable. Please substantiate this claim. Soupdragon42 18:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you might take some time to read reliable source guidelines on Misplaced Pages. It clearly is not a reliable source as far as the authorship and venue. --ScienceApologist 21:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• ScienceApologist, for the third(?) time, you described "the Velikovskian advocates .. Thornhill, Scott, etc. are not reliable sources for this article". Please provide some evidence or clarification that Scott is a "Velikovskian advocate" --Iantresman 23:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Why should I? It's not a piece of information I'm asking to include in the article. The problems with Scott's beliefs have been well-documented by the Arts. Your request is a plain waste of time. --ScienceApologist 23:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• To support the integrity of the criticisms you make. Out of courtesy to your fellow editors, who spent time answering questions and provided verification you demand of them.
• And you continue to insult authors (yet another "ignorant" comment above), you belittle your fellow editors with childish quips of "professing a devotion to a guru", you remove information from articles and seem to think that you are above having to justify your edits, you remove "dispute" tags from the article, despite this probably being one of the most disputed articles on Misplaced Pages, and you have to removed information from the article that you addded, because it is totally unfounded,.
• YOU characterized Scott as a "Velikovskian advocate", and now you will not, or can not substantiate your comment. --Iantresman 01:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again. Please correct the apparent typo "you have to removed your information..." so I know what to make of it. Art LaPella 03:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Ian, could you please step outside if you want to fight with SA? This page is for discussing proposed changes to the article. Discussions of the impoliteness and/or childishness of SA can be carried out on his Talk page or by email. Or get an arbitrator, or file a complaint, but leave us out of it. --Art Carlson 07:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Fight? I have been following Wiki's Etiquette as a guide:

• Argue facts, not personalities.
• Don't ignore questions
• If another disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think it's appropriate.
• Concede a point when you have no response to it, or admit when you disagree based on intuition or taste

• All I want to do is clarify the reasons ScienceApologist has for removing Scott's book, and address them. I currently have one simply request, for ScienceApologist to justify his "reason" for describing Scott as a Velikovskian advocate. This is not an unreasonable request. --Iantresman 08:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Summary of arguments

I have just looked through the lengthy discussions on Scott's book, hoping to summarize the arguments based on content for and against including a link. It's depressing. ScienceApologist pointed out that Scott "has no peer reviewed papers on cosmology or plasma cosmology". Art LaPella reminded us that Electric Universe ideas, while related, cannot be equated to Plasma Cosmology. Ian did not respond specifically to my objections, which were intended to refer to the book as well as the links. I am still of the opinion that policy prohibits including a link to Scott's book. Could I ask Ian or Soupdragon42 to state under which points they think it should be allowed? Please say why the reliable information should not be simply added to the article (which would give the editors to a chance to examine its reliability in detail), or why it is approriate to link to information even though it is unreliable. --Art Carlson 09:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Scott's book is not an "external link", it is provided as an example of further reading, and in addition to Lerner's Big Bang Never Happened, is the only other popular book on the subject.

As near as I can tell, wiki policy applies the same criteria to books for further reading as it does to external links. See WP:CITE#Further reading/External links. And do you not count the books by Thornhill and Talbott? --Art Carlson 12:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Scott has a doctorate, taught at the University of Massachusetts, and has a peer reviewed paper appearing in the August 2007 issue of the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (About the Author). He is not unqualified to write a book on science.

Still, he is not a cosmologist, not a (professional) astronomer, and not a physicist, either by training or by publication list (to date). Maybe he is "not unqualified to write a book on science", but he is not well qualified to write a book on cosmology. --Art Carlson 12:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• More important are comments from other astronomers and scientists directly about Scott's book, including Plasma Universe expert Dr Anthony Peratt, and others, Endorsements Personally, I feel that four Ph.D scientists lend more weight than any of us editors. --Iantresman 11:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not impressed by his endorsements. --Art Carlson 12:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• And there is not enough room in the article to added 248-pages worth of information from Scott's book. Even if 10% of the book is worth adding to the article, there would still not be enough room. --Iantresman 11:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be the crux of your argument: The information is reliable but too extensive. (Cf. Point 3 of WP:EL#What should be linked.) In that case, we need to ask what the major arguments for and against the reliability are. And what we should do if "10%" is reliable but 90% is not. --Art Carlson 12:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Lerner's book was published by Vintage, at least it's a respectable publishing outfit. Scott's book was published by Mikamar Publishing which basically is a mouthpiece for Velikovskian pseudoscience. WP:REDFLAG certainly applies here, exclusion is completely reasonable. --ScienceApologist 11:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

(Note: I wrote this before the latest round under "Summary". I am no longer so sure that the "inclusionists" are willing to concede the unreliability of the source. Are you? Please remember that "unreliable" does not mean "false".)

I suspect the interests here may be more orthogonal than opposed.

The "inclusionists" (I believe) are concerned that information be provided to readers without worrying too much about the quality of that information. They recognize (I hope) that we might not be able to establish the reliability of the information in the sense of Misplaced Pages policy, and they may be willing (key point!) to point that out to the reader. Some readers will want to read it anyway, and the inclusionists believe we should make their life easy.

The "exclusionists" are concerned that unwarranted authority or attention might be lent to unreliable sources. They don't want to mislead the reader and don't want to tarnish Misplaced Pages's reputation for reliability. They are not interested (key point!) in censoring any web sites and don't care who reads them, as long as they have been warned that they are leaving the realm of reliable information. The form of any reference to such material must be clear (Warning! Unreliable!) and concise (to avoid giving it undue weight).

On the basis of this analysis, I propose a footnote, possibly attached to the end of the first sentence or the end of the introduction, along the lines of this:

The phrase "plasma cosmology" has been used in different ways. This article will concentrate on ideas that have been presented and evaluated in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. There are also sources outside professional science, such as web sites and popular books, that present ideas they describe as plasma cosmology. These sources are not "reliable" in the sense of Misplaced Pages policy. Some examples or such sources are ...

--Art Carlson 12:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that referencing Misplaced Pages policy on an article page is acceptable. Indeed, I have never seen another page that has text which states this directly. Besides, if the sources are not reliable why should Misplaced Pages, which is striving at least in part for reliability, even mention them? --ScienceApologist 13:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason would be this: While the site is not reliable on the facts, it is a reliable source about what self-professed plasma cosmology supporters say about themselves. The trouble with this argument (and not the only one) is that we have no way to judge how representative these particular supporters are, or even if they represent a significant POV. Well, I thought I would give it a try, but it isn't a proposal I'm willing to fight for. We'll see what Ian thinks, but my current impression is that he won't like it much either. --Art Carlson 14:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The policy statement is not appropriate, but I would have thought that just labelling the references as "Popular-level book" or "Popular website" would qualify the matter. But seem my comments below on using Creationist Web sites. --Iantresman 15:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Leaving Misplaced Pages

• OK, I am leaving Misplaced Pages, but not in response to your suggestion Art, which I appreciate
• But after yet another personal attack from ScienceApologist, who obviously can't find anything to suggest that Scott is a "Velikovskian advocate", has now moved to his publisher, and wants us to believe that the contents of someone's books are dependent on the contents of the publisher's other books; (The logic is incredulous). This from someone who is quite happy to use Creationist Web sites when it suits him,, and to remove peer reviewed references, when they don't.. ScienceApologist's approach is inconsistent with WP:NPA which tells us that "some types of comments are never acceptable Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme"
• Art (and Art), I have a good deal of respect for you both, and can at least engage in conversation with both of you. I disagree that the "exclusionists" do not want to mislead, having

• Added pseudoscience category tags to the article TWICE, without even an unreliable source, let alone peer reviewed source.
• Adding gems such as "his theories have been for the most part dismissed as philosophical beliefs with no sound basis in science", again with no inkling of a source
• And tells us that he has "an agenda to decrease the visibility of plasma cosmology in relation to its marginalization in the outside world"
• Removes disputed tags from the article, despite the article being still disputed by myself, J. D. Redding, and I assume, SoupDragon42.
• And currently we have the highly misleading "Comparison to mainstream cosmology" section, which boldly states there are problems with plasma cosmology (no references), and provides citations - ...

• Peebles mentions the word "plasma" but a dozen times, never in relation to Plasma Cosmology,,
• Hoyle and M. S. Vogeley's "Voids in the 2dF galaxy redshift survey", doesn't even mention the word plasma!
• Bartelmann, and Schneider's "Weak Gravitational Lensing" mention the word plasma but five times (in 225 pages), and never in the context of Plasma Cosmology!, and so it goes on.
• Do ANY of the sources mention Plasma Cosmology, let alone note that there are problems with it?

• Can you imagine what would happen if I added the sentence "there are problems with Big Bang cosmology", and posted a citation to articles on the Plasma Universe... that didn't even mention aspects of Standard cosmology!

• All this from the self-proclaimed "mainstream expert", (Ph.D? Peer reviewed articles on Cosmology?), and Professor.
• What's your definition of "misleading"?
• And I suspect that the funny part of all this, is that I'll be the one who gets criticised. --Iantresman 15:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Unassessed physics articles
• Low-importance physics articles
• Unassessed physics articles of Low-importance
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics