| Revision as of 11:57, 3 May 2006 editජපස (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,451 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:05, 3 May 2006 edit undoIantresman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users21,376 edits →Don't be a dickNext edit → | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| Ian, the article is under development. ] and remove quotes when you can tag them with the uncited point. --] 11:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC) | Ian, the article is under development. ] and remove quotes when you can tag them with the uncited point. --] 11:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :They weren't quotes, they were statements, and until they are verified, they are your own personal point of view. --] 13:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 13:05, 3 May 2006
Citations required
- "In particular, many opponents of the Big Bang from Halton Arp to creationists to geocentrists have referred to such observations as reason to reject the standard account of the origin and evolution of the universe."
- This requires three citations, one each referring to (a) Halton Arp (b) Creationists (c) Geocentrists, each specifying that redshift quantization is their reason to reject the standard account, etc.
- "Tifft's proposals are relatively unknown even among professionals."
- "Of the small number of instances known where independent corroboration of the phenomenon has been attempted, there has been no evidence for quantization of redshifts."
- This appears to be contradicted by the two studies, now mentioned in background. --Iantresman 09:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- "Current observations and models of large-scale structure models trace filamentary superclusters and voids that cause most galaxies in a rough statistical sense to have correlated positions, but such groupings do not have the characteristics suggested by Tifft and his enthusiasts."
- Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence. Again, we need a verifiable statement that directly addresses Tifft's observations.
Don't be a dick
Ian, the article is under development. Don't be a dick and remove quotes when you can tag them with the uncited point. --ScienceApologist 11:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- They weren't quotes, they were statements, and until they are verified, they are your own personal point of view. --Iantresman 13:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)