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

Where is the issue taking place?

Talk:Redshift

Who's involved?

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

What's going on?

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

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

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

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

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

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

What would you like to change about that?

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

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

I prefer openness.

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

Yes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SA? Yes on talk page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jimbo Wales himself said that "Usually, mainstream and minority views are treated in the main article, with the mainstream view typically getting a bit more ink, but the minority view presented in such a fashion that both sides could agree to it."[1].( Ian fails to include the next part of the quote becuase it contradicts the very next thing he writes. After this "Jimbo Wales himself" wrote: "Singular views can be moved to a separate page and identified (disclaimed) as such, or in some cases omitted altogether."--ScienceApologist 05:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)) But in some cases, we have NO view, and in other cases minority views are represented inaccurately, or reduced to a link. --Iantresman 23:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree that the astronomical use of redshift is the most common and most accepted; but I would suggest that this does not make it "technically correct", but a "more strict" use of the term. Otherwise it implies that other uses of the term are incorrect, when that is how they use the term. I think this is important because Wiki policy examples notes that no "one group 'owns' a word and has sole authority to define it" [2]. And it does seem that the less strict use of the term is quite commmon [3] (recall that Wikipedia has not "adopted a 'scientific point of view'[4]). Here's how I see it:

--Iantresman 17:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because the disambiguation page (and the "Non-standard cosmologies" page) are not "the article". In other words, the information is omitted from the article. As Jimbo Wales himself wrote: "Usually, mainstream and minority views are treated in the main article, with the mainstream view typically getting a bit more ink, but the minority view presented in such a fashion that both sides could agree to it. Singular views can be moved to a separate page and identified (disclaimed) as such, or in some cases omitted altogether" [8] And we're not talk about "singular views" as I can provide citations to multiple authors. --Iantresman 19:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC) (Sorry, shouldn't have replied)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When James and Wolf write: "We see that just in the case when the shift is due to the Doppler effect, the relative frequency shift z induced by this mechanism is independent of frequency and can take on any value in the range -1<z<[infinity], even though the source, the medium, and the observor are at rest with respect to one another." [9]. Again, does this use of redshift correspond to one of the three main astronomical redshifts? --Iantresman 22:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

So frequency independence is not part of the formal definition, it just one way to characterise redshift? And so redshift due to Brillouin scattering, as mentioned in the title of these two papers [10] is also consistent? --Iantresman 22:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is quite clear what ScienceApologist thinks of phrases like "Intrinsic redshift" [11], and non-mainstream ideas [12]; and while he may consider "significant minority views" to be "fringe" or "pathological skepticism" [13], he can not impose those views on Wiki readers.

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

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

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

I feel that this all boils down to ScienceApologist's view that the article is only about "astronomical redshift", and his use of "Undue weight" to utterly CRUSH all mention of non-mainstream ideas (even minority views) [14].

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

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

As a comparison, the Redshift article mentions that well known phenomenon of the "transverse redshift" [15], total number of citations, thirty-six, yet we mention it, describe it, and put it in context. Do I have any problems with that? None. Total lineage, one line. Are "transverse redshift" and "intrinsic redshift" getting "fair" coverage, bearing in mind that one has 5 times the numher of citations? No, "intrinsic redshift" is mentioned zero times throughout the entire article, and even the addition of a "See also" link was crushed [16].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't think I've tried to claim that mere mention of a term is support for a theory. Where I claimed 500 references for non-standard redshifts, I did states that they were provided to show "use of the term" [17], and not support. Doesn't there mere use of a term demonstrate a familiarity with it, regardless of whether the theory is right or wrong.

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

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

• Arp, H., Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 183, pp. 411-440 (1973) [18] "the higher redshift of some of its members is due to an intrinsic redshift " (p.434)
• Bell, M. B., The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 566, Issue 2, pp. 705-711 (2002) [19] "Further Evidence for Large Intrinsic Redshifts" (Title)
• Burbidge, G., Astrophysical Journal, vol. 154, p.L41 (1968) [20] "it is concluded that large intrinsic-redshift components may often be present." (Abstract)
• Russell, David G., Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 298, Issue 4, pp.577-602 (2005) [21] "Evidence for Intrinsic Redshifts in Normal Spiral Galaxies" (Title)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Although there are lots of scientists who consider an Intrinsic redshift, I think it is refreshingly honest to say that there are lots of theories, though none are conclusive.
• Periodic/quantized redshifts describes a characteristic of redshifts as measured by Tift [32] and considered by others; IF there is a periodicity, then something is happening to redshifts.
• I selected just two scattering redshifts, because I wasn't sure whether Compton and CREIL produce frequency-dependent redshifts, or just reddening.
• And I am pleased that the Wikipedia has been informative in describing the Wolf's redshift, though you wouldn't think so from reading the last paragraph.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I guess it's because:

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

And also:

• The article implies that there are just three redshift mechanisms [33], even though the radiative form of the Wolf effect will also produce a Doppler-like frequency independent redshift, albeit small, that has also been demonstrated in the laboratory.
• The article notes that the Wolf effect is a radiative effect [34], but not that it has analogues in scattering too.
• The article notes that "light-matter interactions that result in energy shifts in the radiation field are generally referred to as 'reddening' rather than 'redshifting' ", though the light-matter Wolf effect interaction does not produce a reddening, but an actual redshift.

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

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

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

And also:

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

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

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

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

• "The Wolf effect and the redshift of quasars[35]
• "Noncosmological redshifts of spectral lines" [36]
• "Non-Doppler Redshifts in Dynamic Multiple Scattering and Implications for Interpretation of Quasar Redshifts" [37]
• "Shift of spectral lines due to dynamic multiple scattering and screening effect: implications for discordant redshifts" [38]
• "Correlation-induced spectral changes" [39]

• Here's a University book on redshift [40], that not only mentions "astronomical redshift" mechanisms, but also includes an entire chapter on "unconventional redshifts", including "tired light", the "Wolf effect" and "quantized redshifts".
• Prof. Dan James replied to you directly as a contributing editor in the redshift discussion pages, where he wrote "My paper with Emil Wolf in Physics Letters A vol.188, pp. 239-244 (23 May 1994) [41] dealt with this issue in detail and at length. I stand by the conclusion stated there: "the frequency shift will be the same for every line present in the spectrum of the incident light". The term "light" should be interpreted in a very broad sense of anything that obeys the E/M wave equation, not just that with wavelengths between 400 and 700 nanometers. The expression for the frequency shift depends solely on geometrical factors which are the same for all wavelengths. The Wolf effect is a universal phenomena for all types of wave: indeed one of the earliest tests was for sound waves at a kHz frequencies"[42]
• Prof. Dan James also told us that "The term "redshift" is not used just by astronomers. it refers to any process which increases the wavelength of light, or more broadly, any wave. Thus to include only effects which cosmologists think important would leave an article that is incomplete and misleading, to say the least."[43]

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

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

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

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

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

ScienceApologist's summary

I can summarize Ian's position on redshift. He wrote it on the Halton Arp forum here: [44]. POV-pushing, pure and simple with an eye to attacking the mainstream and hiding behind Wikipedia policy. His advocacy on this and other articles make it very difficult for me to assume good faith, I'm afraid to say. I try to work superficially, but when people claim that he has "points" it makes me laugh. Yes, Ian has points. He wants his version of Velikovsky catastrophism to be legitimized on Wikipedia and he thinks mainstream science is in the way. --ScienceApologist 01:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I'm going to respond to ScienceApologist's summary of my viewpoint (or is it my summary of my viewpoint?), first. I plead guilty to pushing the non-mainstream view of redshift/cosmology, a view shared by at least hundreds of scientists and engineers [45]. I note the following, directly quoted from Wikipedia:

• "POV pushing refers to the act (or attempt or intent) to evade, circumvent and undermine Wikipedia's neutrality policy (Wikipedia:NPOV) by creating and editing articles so that they show only one point of view."[46]
• "At Wikipedia, points of view (POV) are often essential to articles which treat controversial subjects."[47]
• "NPOV requires views to be represented without bias." [48]
• ".. editors may unwittingly or deliberately present a subject in an unfair way [by ..] omitting significant citable information in support of a minority view" [49]
• "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme." [50]
• "Displaying a reactionary, hostile and intolerant stance regarding new ideas." [51]

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

Ian's Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reject both of your bullet points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First assignment:

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

Second assignment:

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

The best qualities of Ian Tresman are:

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

The most annoying qualities of Ian Tresman are:

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

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

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

• If you recall, I asked whether you were a scientist or science writer [52]
• You replied that you were a professor of physics [53]
• I then found a press item [54] and I was curious whether it was you, and noted that two years from senior to professor was quite impressive [55]
• You were modest in your response, and mentioned that you were currently at a Chicago college [56]
• Curiousity got the better of me, and I emailed an administrator at the college, to ask if you were a professor there. They replied that you were a "teaching admninstrator", from which I deduced that you must be a professor elsewhere.

--Iantresman 15:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ian's contribution

5 redeeming qualities of ScienceApologist

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

5 annoying qualities of ScienceApologist

• Will not give minority views fair coverage (I've never sought equal coverage), admitting he "wants to keep the redshift page free from non-mainstream POV creep". [57]. While any minority view can be respresented fairly in a NPOV style, excluding such views is consistent with the definition of POV pushing, and against policy.

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

• Disrespectful to career scientists, labelling "(the late Prof. Paul) Marmet and Carezani are well-known woo-woos" [58], Halton Arp's work as "pathological skepticism" [59], Big Bang critics as "a list full of 'critics' who range from geologists to the out-and-out insane (such as Van Flandern)." [60], and even removing the credentials from articles on some scientists [61]

• He decides on the merits of an article, labelling the Hannes Alfvén's theory of plasma cosmology as "junk" [62] and labelling it as pseudoscience [63], claiming "intrinsic redshift" as ".. Original Research and a POV-fork and will go." [64] (which is slightly at odds with suggesting that I am encouraged to write and expand such articles, [65]), and marginalising the work of Emil Wolf. It is notable that Halton Arp, Hannes Alfvén and Emil Wolf are included in the list of the Top 1000 scientists of all time (and Alfvén has a Nobel Prize too).
• ScienceApologist is judge and jury, which means we can't satisfy the NPOV policy that "Readers are left to form their own opinions"[66]. In other words, "Undue weight" does not mean "no weight".

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

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

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

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

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

• From: Alternative hypotheses (for example, tired light and other suggestions from nonstandard cosmologies) are not generally considered plausible. (In "Observations in astronomy")
• To: Many other redshift mechanisms have been proposed over the years [67], such as various tired light theories, intrinsic redshift theories, and quantized redshifts, but are considered by only a small minority of scientists. (Move to end of "Redshift mechanisms")

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Therefore I offer as my proposal the article as is.

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

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

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

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

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

• Homeopathy is mentioned in over 150 articles on Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

This statement (or text very close to it), has been in this article since it was written in Sept 2001 [68] (ie. over 5 years), and the consensus seems to have had no problems with including a controversial phenomenon in all that time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

• the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority [107].

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

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

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

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

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

Ian's response

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes valid arguments (which policy says we describe, not engage in). And yes, I over-generalised with ScienceApologist's stance on representing minority views. But there are a number of phrases that he won't accept. (a) "Transverse redshift" appears to be mentioned in about 30+ articles [108], and is included (b) "Intrinsic redshift" is mentioned in seven times as many references (210+) [109], and not included (c) Periodic redshift [110] / "Quantised redshifts" [111] get 200+ reference, and gets no mention.

Another exmaple, I see that ScienceApologist has continued his inquisition and unilaterally removed the scientific heresy of the "quantised redshift" paragraph [112] from the Large-scale structure of the cosmos; no discusion or explanation, even though the paragraph was the subject of this mediation. It's just like his edits to the Redshift article itself, while mediation is in progress [113].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've tweaked the introductory paragraph. Other notes:

• Although "complex spectra" are mentioned in many places (Google=75,000 | Google books=1950 | ADS Abstracts=700 times), if you know of a more appropriate phrase, please use it.
• References suggest that scattering may produce spectral shift multiplets, that are often described as redshifted and blueshifted [115], sometimes as redshifts and blueshifts [116]. An example is the so-called "Brillouin shift".
• The selection of scattering mechanisms provides specific examples where spectral shifts occurs.
• I didn't call the Wolf effect a "radiative effect", but an effect in radiation physics, which is as described by Prof. Daniel James. I gave it a seperate section (a) Because it produces a small Doppler-like frequency-independent redshift (unlike scattering) (b) Does not produce reddening (unlike scattering)
• That you consider the Wolf effect to be "not true" is clear from your assertion that you've never considered it a redshift [117], despite numerous references to the contrary, confirmation from one of the paper's authors, and your eagreness to remove peer-reviewed, verifiable citation. This is precisely why Wikipedia policy indicates that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." [118]
• Although the first paper on redshift and quasars was produced "many years ago" [119], more recent peer-reviewed articles have appeared in 2000 [120] and 2004 [121] in Astronomy and Astrophysics.
• Reference to "many other redshift theories" does indeed already appear in the article, though I assumed you'd be removing from the main article so as not to confuse all those astronomy students. I think my wording is also NPOV.
• That "intrinsic redshift" makes no sense to you is irrelevent; it's context makes it clear what it is, and link is provided for more information.
• That "Quantized redshifts" may already have been falsified is down to one peer-reviewed paper and your assessment. This seems a singular view to me, and we shouldn't give it undue weight. Either way, Wiki is based on verification, not your "truth".

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

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

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

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

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

Ian focuses

• Prof. Daniel James writes: "Other important optical effects which produce spectral shifts are the closely related scattering phenomena known as Brillouin scattering [21] and Raman scattering [22, 23]. Both of these effects produce changes in the wavelength of light due to interactions with excitations of internal degrees of freedom of a scattering medium, such as rotational excitations of molecules or vibrations of a crystal. However, these effects do not produce simple spectral shifts: the spectrum of scattered monochromatic radiation contains various discrete frequencies (a triplet in the case of Brillouin scattering, multiplets in the case of Raman scattering)." (my emphasis) (PDF| ABS)

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

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

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

• Prof. Daniel James wrote: "... since the spectral shift depends entirely on geometrical factors, it holds for *any* wavelength. A variety of applications of this effect have been studied, including synthetic aperture imaging, cryptography, optical frequency standards and a possible role in interpreting the spectral shifts in cosmology." [122] (my emphasis)

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

• Twenty papers mentioning "anomalies" and "quasars" [123], perhaps many more.

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

• I choose to clarify "intrinsic redshift".

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

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

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

• Wikipedia does not judge verifiable ideas as "cranky" or "truth"; though I notice that Pseudoskeptic "Assume unverified or incorrect facts to justify a predetermined skeptical conclusion" [124] --Iantresman 19:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

• Geometrical factors may often be wavelength dependent in physical optics, I do not dispute that. But I also have Daniel F. V. James a professor in Theoretical Optical Physics and Quantum Information at the University of Toronto [125], confirming that Wolf effect "holds for *any* wavelength"; since he has written several papers on the subject, I am inclinded to give him the benefit of the doubt. More importantly, references clearly say that the Wolf effect may be frequency-independent, and verifiable citations take precedence over your opinion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. You are stating your opinion concerning whether the phenomenon exists in some form. I have no idea whether there really is an "intrinsic redshift", and not only do you not know for sure, we can questions "cosmological redshift" in exactly the same way. And that's why Wikipedia policy states: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" [126]. NO-ONE knows whether these theories are the truth, and Wikipedia policies recognises that.
2. Mentioning an "esoteric" or "obscure" or "minority" theory does NOT cause confusion. Bad English causes confusion. Policy on Undue weight tells us how to handle issues like this: "f a view is the majority view of a broad consensus of scientists, then we say so. If a view is a minority view of some scientists, scientists who are respected by the mainstream that differs with them on this particular matter, then we say so. And if a view is held only by a few people without any traditional training or credentials, and if that view is dismissed by virtually all mainstream scientists, then we can say that, too."[127] (my emphasis)

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

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

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

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

Here is an example: [128]. --ScienceApologist 13:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Undue weight merely states "proportion to the prominence of each" [129]; there is no Wiki policy which states, of even hints that, supposedly non-controversial get bonus points. Once prominence has been established, Wiki policy then explains how to present them in an NPOV style. It is clear from the table above, that the "Transverse redshift" is an order of magnitude less prominent than "anomalous redshifts"; I have no idea whether there are anomalous redshifts (and our personal opinion on the subject is irrelevent), but I do know that many papers suggest that there are such redshifts; Wiki policy suggests that consquently, "anomalous redshifts" should be fairly described, including mentioning that it is controvesial. --Iantresman 14:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

So I asked in other places whether people thought that NPOV applied to just controversial articles. The replies so far suggest that it applies to ALL articles. [130] [131]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's such a shame that:

• You have to remove the word "hypothesis", presumably because it's too close to dignifying it as "theory". And I double checked it with an indpendent paper which also calls it a hypothesis [132]
• That you define "quantization" as a "quantiziation"
• The use of "weasel words" such as "Those who claim..."
• The addition of the phrase "creationists to geocentrists have referred to such observations"; do you think that if I can find some references to "science fiction writers" and redshift, you'd let it into the redshift article?
• --Iantresman 20:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• It is a courtesty to provide citations where requested. If they are not unverifiable, then verify them, and then restore them.
• Your removal of the word "hypothesis" is used by Rudnicki [133], Croasdale [134] and Napier [135], all career scientists, and its use is verifiable.
• Sorry, I thought you said "independent" first time around, not "truly independent", shall I withdraw them all? I hear that some of the scientists are on very good speaking terms, is that "truly independent" or only "independent"?

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

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

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

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

Many opponents of the Big Bang<ref>e.g. The [http://www.cosmology.info/ Alternative Cosmology group]</ref> from Halton Arp<ref>See "[http://redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/SeeingRedBlurb.htm Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science]", ISBN 0-9683689-0-5</ref> to creationists<ref>See "[http://www.ldolphin.org/setterfield/redshift.html The Vacuum, Light Speed, and Redshift]" by Barry Setterfield (1999)</ref> <ref>See "[http://www.creationists.org/robertgentry/abstract2.html A New Redshift Interpretation]" by Dr. Robert Gentry</ref>, have questioned the notion that redshift necessarily infers a Big Bang and expanding universe.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NickY, editing and NPOV is all about fairness. Although you've suggested that we shouldn't be debating policy, it's policy that tells us how to write articles and behave. NPOV tells us that we should be "representing views fairly and without bias"[136]

ScienceApologist is applying double standards.

• He says that "NPOV applies for controversial subjects, not to uncontroversial ones" [137]. Opinion says otherwise [138] [139]
• He says that undue weight does not apply to non-controversial issues [140] when policy makes no distinction.
• Justifies the inclusion of ''ad hominem''s [141] despite it being described as a logical fallacy.
• Removes verifiable use of language (ie. "hypothesis"), but insists on including his own unverified statements
• Adds contentious statements about creationists to one article [142], but removes a similar statement from another [143]
• Resorting to ad hominems again, with my "sore lack of education" [144], and not to be "a dick" [145] [146]

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

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

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

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

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

Many opponents of the Big Bang<ref>e.g. The [http://www.cosmology.info/ Alternative Cosmology group]</ref> from Halton Arp<ref>See "[http://redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/SeeingRedBlurb.htm Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science]", ISBN 0-9683689-0-5</ref> to creationists<ref>See "[http://www.ldolphin.org/setterfield/redshift.html The Vacuum, Light Speed, and Redshift]" by Barry Setterfield (1999)</ref> <ref>See "[http://www.creationists.org/robertgentry/abstract2.html A New Redshift Interpretation]" by Dr. Robert Gentry</ref>, have questioned the notion that redshift necessarily infers a Big Bang and expanding universe.

Cosmological redshift IS controversial among some scientists [147] and certainly creationists, and more so that the more obscure redshft quantisation. --Iantresman 22:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is my selection of statements:

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

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

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

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

A number of other astronomers have also reported redshift quantizations?

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

How about "Redshift quantizations have also been reported by a handful of astronomers, including Bell and Fort (1973)[148], Cocke (1985)[149], Croasdale (1989), Guthrie and William Napier (1992), Holba (1992) and Holmlid (2004) [150]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'd like to imply that there is more than just two astronomers reporting quantized redshift. How about: "Redshift quantizations have also been reported by a handful of astronomers, including Bell and Fort (1973)[151], Cocke (1985)[152], Croasdale (1989), Guthrie and William Napier (1992), Holba (1992) and Holmlid (2004)"

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

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

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

Is it just one paper?

Depends on what we mean be inconclusive.

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

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

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

Ian's three additional statements:

• Su Min Tang found no periodicity in the 2dF QSO redshift survey.
• Su Min Tang found that "a periodicity around Δz=0.67 is detected in the full sample of SDSS QSO" (page 8) [153]

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

• M. B. Bell and D. McDiarmid in their examination of "the redshift distribution of all 46,400 quasars in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) Quasar Catalog III, Third Data Release" to "to see if there is evidence for a redshift periodicity" and reported that "that the peaks found are not only in good agreement with the fundamental periodicity, but also with the sub-components predicted by eqn 1."[154]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Redshift quantization Statements

In agreement

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

To be decided

• In 1989 Martin Croasdale reported quantization of redshifts using a different sample of galaxies. In 1992 Guthrie and Napier reported observing periodicity in 89 galaxies. In 1992, Agnes Holba, et al reanalyzed the redshift data from a fairly large sample of galaxies and concluded that there was an unexplainable periodicity of redshifts.
• Papers by [insert name(s) hrer] investigating redshift quantization have reported inconclusive result
• In 2005, Su Min Tang found no periodicity in the 2dF QSO redshift survey, but a periodicity in the full sample of SDSS QSO; They suggested that this result due to selection effects and indicated no periodicity in quasars. [155]
• M. B. Bell and D. McDiarmid examination the redshift distribution of all 46,400 quasars in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS, Quasar Catalog III, Third Data Release) for evidence for a redshift periodicity, and reported good agreement. [156]
• Related phenomena to redshift quantizations have been described in other ways, including:

• "Redshift discretization", Thomas (1965)[157] Karlsson (1971)[158], Vardanyan (1994)[159], Godłowski (2006)[160]
• "Redshift-magnitude bands", Tifft (1973)[161], Nanni et al (1981) [162]
• "Redshift periodicities", Deeming (1970)[163], Corso & Barnothy (1975)[164], Green (1975)[165], Will (1977)[166], Kjaergaard (1978)[167]
• "Redshift quantization", Cocke & Tifft (1983)[168], Nieto (1986)[169], Arp (1987)[170], Buitrago (1988)[171]
• "Redshift distribution gaps", Basu (1972)[172], (1977)[173], , (1983)[174]
• "Cosmic density waves", Liu and Cao (1982)[175]
• "QSO or, Quasar clustering", Drinkwater (1988)[176], , Smith et al (1990)[177], Shanks (1994)[178], Loaring (2004)[179]

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

So we all agree with the following satements?

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

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

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

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

Let's try this again:

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

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

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

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

Sorry, I though you were referring to Tang [180]. If you are referring to some work that does not mention "a thing about redshift quantizations", then my preferred wording would be: "A recent redshift survey of quasars reported no evidence against Redshift quantization in quasars." (we can say pretty much what we like on what they didn't report). --Iantresman 09:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Up until last year, comets as dirty snowballs were "reality", and today they might be snowy dirtballs, or who knows what.
• The second law of thermodynamics was "reality" until it broke[181]
• Most people think it a "reality" that Marconi invented the radio, but it might have been Tesla[182]
• Most people think it was a "reality" that Yuri Gagarin was the first person in space, but there's a chance it might have been Vladimir Ilyushin [183]

And this why the first line of one of the most important policies in Wikipedia is "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth"[184] You and I DO NOT KNOW THE TRUTH, and never will, and we should never pretend to the reader that we do. --Iantresman 14:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Good question. It's not a reaction to having work deleted that I find irritating, but the double standards in editing. Art will tell you that he's deleted contributions that I've made in other articles, and I don't think we've ever had an editing spat.
• I object's to what appears to be ScienceApologist's view that his "reality" is the truth[185], other views appear to be belittled[186], and a complete double standard applied to mainstream versus non-mainstream views[187].
• I try and based every statement I include in an article, on a verifiable citation, and to present it in a neutral fashion. I see very few verifiable citations from ScienceApologist, and instead I see examples like the following:

• Removal of "hypothesis" (peer-reviewed used of the word [188]) to "proposal" (belittling alternative [189])
• Association of quantized redshifts with creationists[190], and acceptance of non-peer reviewed sources [191], but no acceptance in the redshift article of peer reviewed citations on quantized redshift, and no acceptance of a link to creationists.
• I moved some unverified sources to talk, and was was criticed that the article was still under development[192], but I get my verified sources deleted [193] with the criticism that it's "shoddy research" with no further explanation.

• ScienceApologist would have us believe that Redshift quantization is a disproven, largely ignored fringe viewpoint (no citations). The references I provided myself suggest that there have indeed been one paper criticising it (Rees), and one suggesting it may be due to selection effects (Tang), one criticising Tang (Bell) which ScienceApologist disparagingly calls "editorialising"[194], and I provide more citations that there are in the whole of the redshift article noting such phenomena (or similar), without claiming it is fact, without claiming it is more important, significant, or relevent than anything else
• And I could produce lots more examples, on the Wolf effect (he doubts the authors that it is genuine), intrinsic redshifts (he requested the page be deleted), judges Arp's ideas as "pathological", etc etc etc.
• ScienceApologist may well be presenting his point of view in good faith. But his point of view, and my point of view, have no place in Wikipedia. As editors, we're supposed to describe what's in the literature fairly and without bias. He's perfectly neutral with mainstream subjects, but uses language and assertions in non-mainstream articles that I've read nowhere else.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How about this:

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

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

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

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

• Integrity: "The state of being unimpaired [..] The quality or condition of being whole or undivided; completeness.[195]. POV pushing: Editing articles so that they show only one point of view.[196]. Information suppression: "Entirely omitting significant citable information in support of a minority view [197]

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

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

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

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

• I'm sure that is the opposite of what I was trying to say. It was felt that I was using policy to push a point of view. Mentioning a minority views is NOT advocating it. It is not pushing it. Supressing a minority point of view is POV-pushing by definition[198].
• Of course editing is a collaborative process, but editors can NOT override policy by consensus: "It is assumed that editors working toward consensus are pursuing a consensus that is consistent with Wikipedia's basic policies and principles - especially NPOV"[199] (my emphasis)
• So when an editor claims that "NPOV applies to controversial subjects, not to uncontroversial ones"[200], and undue weight does not apply to non-controversial issues [201], it is demonstrably incorrect.
• When I put together the first draft of the "Redshift quantisation" article, I included verifiable statements from BOTH SIDES of the arguments. When I started to put together an article on Doppler redshift, I included no minority views. When I wrote the article on Critical ionization velocity, I included verifiable criticisms too. Hardly the actions of someone pushing a point of view.
• Do we have any examples of ScienceApologist voluntarily adding statements to a mainstream articles describing controversial minority views? Do we have any examples of ANY criticisms in the redshift article? (I know, several HUNDRED scientists[202] is insignificant and any mention would constitute undue weight).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I'm not saying that editors don't make judgements. I'm saying that we are not qualified to make scientific judgements on the articles (we're anonymous, unaccountable and unverifiable editors). Peers have already judged peer reviewed articles; I doubt there is anyone who would put our opinions before those of the peers who are expert in their fields.

These aren't scientific judgements: they're stylistic judgements. --ScienceApologist 18:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I can provide a verifiable citation to Wikipedia policy for each of my statements. "My ideas" are irrelevant, I don't think I've mentioned them in the discussions.

You cannot verifiably cite Wikipedia policy as it is subject to change. You can only cite current Wikipedia policy, and such citations are irrelevant. You do have a penchant for inventing your own policy. For example, " Since our opinions are not verifiable, I'm saying that we defer to those peers who have already peer-reviewed such theories and considered them notable enough to published in mainstream journals. Our job as editors is to at least mention them as they are not "extreme minority views" (I can cite prominant adherents)." This is a novel approach -- an invention of a policy you would like to see (but doesn't already exist). It is cleverly amalgmated to look like certain points, but you have made it up nonetheless. --ScienceApologist 18:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• "Close-minded" is defined as "Intolerant of the beliefs and opinions of others; stubbornly unreceptive to new ideas."[203]

Is there a picture of you next to that? --ScienceApologist 18:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• One educates people by giving them easy access information so that they can decide for themsleves, not removing information, nor links to it. --Iantresman 18:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no one way to educate people, but I think that we "educate" people by giving them understandable and reliable summaries of information. Culling unuseful prose is a part of this process. --ScienceApologist 18:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the mediator's statements. I appreciate them and feel a little less neglected and impatient about the mediation process. Of course, the mediation doesn't seem to be improving the actions that I complained about, but identifying problems and trying to understand why they happen might help to solve them eventually.

What happened to this section is illustrative. The title of this section was "Some conclusions," and it was begun by the mediator with the statement: "DON'T even consider starting an argument. Either agree or respectively disagree. Again you may correct word choice etc."

After once again watching this section spiral downwards, like others sections elsewhere, into the textual abyss that is the Ian-and-SA show, I'd like to point out my opinion of the single precise moment when the spiralling began. When? It was with this post by Ian that took a small set of conclusions for discussion and diverted them into a separate tangential stereotypical Iantresman-listing-event including a bold-face dictionary definition of Integrity. SA certainly used the word "integrity." He used it with the preface "appears to him," he used it in the context of being baited into arguments, and he used it after the mediator used the word. It was an attempt by SA at an explanation for why the Ian-and-SA show occurs in the first place. Taken at face value, it is a huge improvement over the entire month when his userpage said this.

Ian, when people suggest that you feel like you are being baited into making inappropriate, tangential arguments, we are assuming the best about you. You are engaged in multiple, continuing disputes with a man who posts things like that on his userpage for a month, doesn't apologize about it (to the best of my knowledge), and then has the nerve to cite meta:Don't be a dick to you.

Why else, other than feeling baited, would either of you engage in this behavior when we are supposed to be trying to build an encyclopedia?

Ian, after you offered your apology for starting to ruin the "One step Back" section with your tangents about Gagarin, Marconi, and the second law of thermodynamics I thought I understood this. You wrote that your behavior then was "influenced" by SA's deletions in the article space. So I wrote "Are you saying that your response to seeing your work deleted or to seeing articles that look wrong is to bring up Wikipedia policies and lists of entirely different topics on the talk page?" and you replied "It's not a reaction to having work deleted that I find irritating, but the double standards in editing."

From this, I thought I understood that you were at least aware that this process was going on: 1) You see a double standard (your words). 2) You get irritated (your words). 3) You feel influenced (again your words) into beginning a tangential (my word) argument.

To me, this is pretty close to the definition of feeling like you are being baited. You were influenced by someone else into writing something that you later felt the need to apologize about.

So I was pretty surprised to read from you in this section "I don't feel either one of us are baited as such, but I recognise that the arguments are apparently unproductive and annoying to other editors."

A couple times in the past I've sent or replied to emails when I was pissed off. If the other person is pissed off too and in a similar mood, then both our mail boxes can fill up pretty quickly. The two of you treat Wikipedia talk-space too often as if it were a forum for those kinds of emails. That isn't what the talk-space is about, and it always takes two people to engage each other this way. Sometimes a few months after those pissed off passionate email exchanges, I would browse through them and feel a little embarrassed about them before deleting them. Have either of you tried doing that with the redshift talkpage archives? Flying Jazz 02:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After addressing Ian directly while maligning me in the third person in your diatribe, you have the nerve to ask if "either of you" have done something? Perhaps you should read don't be a dick. --ScienceApologist 05:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There were portions of my diatribe where I addressed Ian, and portions where I addressed both of you. I did malign your past behavior while addressing Ian, but it was done in the context of my impression that your past behavior had improved and I hope his does also. In the future I'll attempt to do a better job at separating what is addressed to you from what is addressed to him. I hope you read the portions of my diatribe while assuming good faith on my part, and reply to specific portions of what I said. Please do not say that I should read the policy that you cited and that I have already read.

Even though I wasn't aware of it at the time, that policy is why I asked for mediation. Noone likes listening to either of you when the talk space becomes the SA-and-Ian show, your posts seem to run into each other. I think it's important that you both realize how this looks to other editors. To me, it looks like I'm reading a bunch of quickly sent emails that shouldn't have been sent. Fewer people will bother to address the issues with articles in this environment. I asked for this mediation to try to correct that problem.

Sometimes I read conversations in Wikipedia that I engaged in months ago and I ask myself, "Did this serve the article space? Did it improve the community? Was I just having fun? Was I expressing the fact that I was really pissed off?" Sometimes I've been a dick and apologized for it. Perhaps if you read past talk-page dialogue with a critical eye towards your own words, it will prevent future talk-page dialogue from looking like past talk-page dialogue. That was the intent of my suggestion, and you (SA) are right that it took some nerve. Still, I hope for a reply (from both of you) about whether this is something you do or would consider doing.

You, SA, who I am directly addresssing now, do not have to respond to so many points that Ian makes in the talk-space that are tangential to the article under discussion, but I sure understand the desire to do so, as I explain below to Ian. My main issue with your behavior currently is that you continue the dialogue about tangential matters in the talk space. The best thing to do with nonsense in the article space is to correct to with a comment in the history. The best thing to do with nonsense in the talk space is to just ignore it. Flying Jazz 11:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you realize, Flying Jazz, that sometimes you come across very dictatorial and rude (to the point of once rather rudely directing me to "Go away."). It was in that sense that I was a bit miffed. That said, I generally appreciate your contributions. I have tried ignoring nonsense in talkspace in the past only to find that it spills over into article space. As someone who knows firsthand how heavily students use Wikipedia, I'd rather err on the side of caution and hold off nonsense in the talkspace rather than ignoring it and seeing it spill over and then having to go to the talkspace anyway. --ScienceApologist 14:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do try to directly state my thoughts and feelings here in addition to directly stating what I want to happen. I don't want to sound dictatorial or rude but sometimes I slip up. I don't think I would tell you to "go away" from Wikipedia as a whole because you make valuable contributions here. My memory is that I meant this only in the context of your featured article nomination for Redshift while you had that old user page up, and, in that featured-article context, I said, "Go away. Come back in 6 months. Maybe a year. The article will still be here." I also later crossed out the "Go away" and regret having said it. I understand it if you were a bit miffed about my reasons for objecting to featured article status in that disusssion. None of the other editors there explicitly agreed or disagreed with either of us, so I'm still not sure it was the right thing for me to do policy-wise, but it felt right and I'd probably object for a similar reason (with less rudeness) if I saw a similar situation again. Flying Jazz 13:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the clarifications. I do wonder at the fact that you objected to the FAC because of a user page that I had posted. That seems a bit narrow-minded of you, and you never commented on it while I had it up, nor does it seem as though you were interested in learning about the history of what brought me to that point. I would appreciate it if, in the future, you addressed me directly if you have a problem with something I'm doing here rather than taking it out on my proposals. --ScienceApologist 13:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also wonder about the same thing that you wonder about. I received no information or opinions about this from anyone else, so in my mind, it remains an open question. I'm sad that you still see what I wrote back then as punitive. I see my objection to the FAC as consideration of the community putting its best foot forward, and I see that as broad-minded, not narrow-minded, so we'll have to agree to disagree about that. I didn't address you directly about your userpage because I didn't object to your userpage. I objected to your FAC nomination for Redshift while you had that userpage. It was the FAC nomination that I objected to, so (in my mind, at least) I used the appropriate forum for that objection. I would not make that objection today, and I'm only discussing it now to contextualize the "Go away" statement. I'm not interested in the history that brought you there. The past is gone and the future is an opportunity. Flying Jazz 13:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for that Flying Jazz. My post you identified as the point at which an earlier discussion spiralled out of control [204] came immediately after NickY asked for my thoughts[205], which I took as a cue for more fuller answers.
• The use of the embolded comment on "Intgrity" was in direct response to ScienceApologist's use of the word [206]. I don't think that explaining the definition of a word, is baiting someone. If I had questioned ScienceApologist's integrity, that would be an ad hominem that contravenes Wiki's policy on no personal attacks; or if I just added the sentence out of blue, then I think that would be considered unwarranted baiting. I think I did the same thing with the phrase "Close-minded" below, where it was suggested that I was being closed minded[207], whereas the definition I provided suggested otherwise.
• What do I consider baiting, and against Wiki Policy? Being told "don't be a dick"[208]; I am "promoting your close-minded ignorance"[209]; [Close minded].. Is there a picture of me next to that[210]; plus other examples in the past... I am "very incompetent in this regard"[211], I am a "nonscientist layman"[212]. I think I respond quite well.
• Flying Jazz, I think it would help if you, Art, and other editors jumped in more often, not just in the editing process, but to point out where the dialogue between myself and ScienceApologist is misguided (specifically in regard to policy). There are times that I feel that policy clearly tells us how to proceed; it would be useful to get other opinions as to whether our interpretations are right, wrong or other. For example, an earlier suggestion that "Neutral Point of View applies to only controversial articles" I think is very important to clarify. An earlier suggestion that one of us is "POV-psuhing" I think is clear-cut. By clarifying these points enables us to stop repeating the same issues time and again.

--Iantresman 09:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, in the spirit of jumping in, I'd like to agree with you that there is a double standard at play in ScienceApologist's edits to what you post in the article space. However, his double standard is deserved. You deserve to be treated with a double standard because you have proven over and over to several editors that when you claim that an external resource or a Wikipedian says something, it very often does not say what you claim and often says the exact opposite of what you claim. Nick Y's posts in the beginning of this section are an example. After a very confined discussion about a very specific topic, NickY said "What are your thoughts, Ian," and you apparantly took this as if Nick Y meant, "What are your thoughts, Ian, about anything you'd like to discuss in spite of the fact that I previously said 'DON'T even consider starting an argument. Either agree or respectively disagree.'"

After doing this over and over, you deserve to be treated with a double standard that is different from other editors because you are not like other editors. You are not trustworthy. When other editors post something that is verifiable, it usually means that its verifiably agrees with their statement. When you post something that is verifiable, it could mean that your statement is verifiably correct or that it is verifiably incorrect. Most often, it means that your statement is a verifiable instance of your misinterpretation, and you give yourself permission to misinterpret that you do not grant to others. This is not a matter of policy, so stop citing policy. It is a matter of how a person behaves in a social space, and the consequences of that behavior. I can't speak for Wikipedia, but I can say that, in my mind, you are not trusted at this encyclopedia because if something is misinterpretable, you will misinterpret it to favor what you want to say, and even if something is not misinterpretable, you will find a new way to misinterpret it. You treat yourself with a double standard. Treating you with a double standard is a perfectly rational response to that lack of trust. Flying Jazz 11:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the criticism. I've had quite a few examples of being told that my citations don't uphold the statement I include. I've had fewer responses where it's been pointed out that my citations don't uphold my statements because of a specific reason. Since I often include direct quotes from my citations, it should be quite easy to show why a quote does not support a statement. Likewise if there is a misinterpretation, I am happy for someone to tell me that they interpret something differently... and WHY.

I feel that the mediation brought by yourself has not directly addressesed the points you made originally. I would be happy to discuss them with you, perhaps on a separate page, or here. I would like perhaps 3 or 4 examples where we can see exactly where I have messed-up, and why.

With the example you gave regarding Nick Y's request for thoughts, I didn't read his comment as "Do I agree or disagree", but "give your thoughts"... "explain yourself". I did, and I accept that you found it way too much. --Iantresman 12:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Careful not to get baited into side arguments. But overall you guys are doing an okay job. I see you coming to your irreconsilable differences and I see the unproductive battle coming?? Please try to find where you agree. I'm going on a trip for a few days and you will be on your own. There seems to be some failure to communicate important agreements between the two of you. Where you agree is the basis for consensus (obviously). I think everyone agrees that Ian's articles should be in wikipedia but not in (not the whole thing, links maybe) redshift itself. The only question is how to link the two. Again I would suggest some short informative qualifying statement with the major link to nonstandard cosmologies and minor aside links ("such as...") to the redshift theories therein. The qualifying statement would inform the reader about the acceptance of these theories and caution them to read nonstandard cosmologies first. The reader who is impatient can skip ahead but have the recollection of the qualifying statement lingering. I think this is something which may be a reasonable compromise in the end. SA-perhaps you could cringe and give it a shot at writing it (even if you may reverse course later and reject it, give it your best to be acceptable to you) and Ian you could be forgiving and accepting of the qualifying statement, letting it be harsher than you would like. AT least it will be a good excersize in consensus building even if it fails. Don't be too defensive or agressive. As I indicated to SA do not feel that any concession you make will be held against you. Changing your mind is perfectly okay. Good luck. Make me proud of you guys when I get back next Tuesday. I would really like to see a draft of this that is as close to a compromise consensus as possible, work hard on it and don't get distracted. It may be unacceptable to both of you but it should be as close as you can get to acceptable. --Nick Y. 18:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I offer the current wording of the redshift article as the "short informative qualifying statement with the major link to nonstandard cosmologies and minor aside links ("such as...") to the redshift theories therein."

Alternative hypotheses (for example, tired light and intrinsic redshift suggestions from nonstandard cosmologies) are not generally considered plausible.^[1]

--ScienceApologist 18:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the grounds that I am not included extreme minority views, but views that are mentioned in at least a dozen peer reviewed papers (in some cases 100s), I offer four different solutions:

--Iantresman 20:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ian can you explain what is demonstrably different from your minimal version and the version I provide above? Why do you think your version is of better service to the readers? What is the definition of an alternative redshift theory? --ScienceApologist 14:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I was a reader discovering that there might be alternative redshift theories, I don't want to read through an article on non-standard cosmologies trying to find where they may or may not be mentioned.

I also think it is misleading to suggest that an alternative redshift theory necessarily impies an alternative cosmological theory. --Iantresman 15:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So Ian, you haven't asnwered my final question and that's your biggest problem. You are claiming that there are these "alternative redshift theories" which exist in polar opposition to "mainstream redshift theories" that deal with only the phenomenon of frequency shifts in light and nothing else. That's hooey and it's why subjects such as bathochromic shifts, scattering, etc. are all discussed in the redshift article. No one is claiming that these aren't actual mechanisms to produce "redshifts", so these do not represent "alternatives". Your hope to cast your net widely functions as a chimerical strawman. The only offered criteria for distinguish as to what an "alternative redshift theory" entails are specific applications of the ideas of certain proponents of alternative cosmologies -- namely, those nonstandard advocates who have novel proposals that allow them to acheive a Hubble Law observation in their non-expanding universe. That is the one and only sense I have ever referred to "alternative redshift theories" (redshift in this sense refers only to cosmological redshifts). Of the "hundreds" or "thousands" of cites you have posted, not one has claimed "alternative" status that hasn't been an oppositional proposal to either standard cosmological models or (in parallel)standard quasar models. That's it. That's what "alternative" means in the context of this article. --ScienceApologist 17:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my response to Flying Jazz above[213], I said that I thought it would be contructive to clarify by discussion some areas of policy. If we all understand policy in the same way, I think it would help our collective approach to editing. I propose making a statement of policy, and seeing if we agree, disagree, or have qualifications. So that we don't have too many discussions going at the same time, I propose doing this one statement at a time until there is a agreement, or we agree to disagree.

*Agree. I'm suggesting that we don't need to defer to policy if we all agree on a statement. But a statement may need to be rewritten to conform to policy, if just one person demonstrates that it does not confirm to policy. --Iantresman 10:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the approach of discussing policy. My complaints that began this mediation case did not cite a single policy and I see no reason to begin now. I simply hope to post some specific things to talk about and then to talk about them. Flying Jazz 12:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that too, as I mentioned above in response to yours, I feel that your orginal complaints have not been discussed and answered. --Iantresman 12:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, since the policy discussion is a non-starter, I'd like to discuss some issue with ScienceApologist (open to all at any time). And then Flying Jazz, feel free to begin a section with your questions at any time. --Iantresman 14:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceApologist, you've just mentioned to Flying Jazz your concern that nonsense "spills over into article space". [214]

• I assume that this is refering to theories such as "intrinsic redshift" and "redshift quantisation"?
• How do we impartially assess whether such theories are nonsenese?

--Iantresman 14:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you have just written above is typical of the "nonsense" I mentioned. Intrinsic redshifts might be described as a "theory" but redshift quantization most certainly isn't a theory. Your confusion about what is a theory (alternative or otherwise) is the nonsense I'm hoping to keep from article space. The subjects themselves are not nonsense and indeed have articles written about them. --ScienceApologist 15:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the encouragement. So the nonsense refers only to my inaccurate descriptions? --Iantresman 16:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Sometimes you feel as though certain subjects are being excluded when they actually are not. For example, you're of the opinion that we are excluding "alternative redshift theories", but we don't. Maybe you dislike the wording we have in the article, but you haven't explained what you find so problematic. --ScienceApologist 17:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So all we have to do is change the wording, and the redshift article can mention "redshift quantization"? --Iantresman 19:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My problem with including "redshift quantization" is its lack of context. The reason I support the existence of a "redshift quantization" article in and of itself is because there are a lot of popular references to the subject. However, the redshift article itself is phenomenological and not pathological (note: I don't mean "pathological" in the derrogatory sense, but rather in the humanistic sense. In other words, the redshift article describes phenomena rather than pathos). There are so many obscure phenomena regarding irregularities in cosmological redshifts that don't make it into the article because we are trying to adhere to Wikipedia:Summary style. To wit, here is an article regarding redshift distortions that is a full 91 pages long and doesn't mention "redshift quantization" even though that's clearly what periodicity or quantization would have to be. Take a look at how many other phenomena are listed in that article in non-linear and linear redshift distortions. Dozens if not hundreds. To properly contextualize redshift quantization I think it would be appropriate to summarize the present state of cosmological redshift observations and statistical theory -- something we definitely shouldn't do in this article as its entirely too tangential. In the future with the creation of, for example, an individual article on cosmological redshift such a contextualization may be possible but as we haven't even begun to delve into the particular issues surrounding the grander subject -- it isn't even mentioned in the article because of its technical obscurity -- there is no way to present a proper treatment of your pet subject. For example, is it appropriate to mention redshift quantization without reporting on the controversy over whether "Zeldovich pancakes" are actually redshift distortions or physical objects? Do we describe the mathematics of the redshift correlation function and redshift space power spectrum so that we can properly illustrate the linear and nonlinear aspects of "distortions" as they related to the cosmological principle?

I suppose if such summaries are completed then it would be obvious where to place redshift quantization. Are we prepared to throw at this article the reams of information that contextualize any discussion of "redshift quantization" in regards to cosmology? I think that this would be overkill and would not benefit the reader. It is premature at best and silly at worst to include the subject of redshift distortions in an article that is about redshift in general. I would love to get your help summarizing the current state of research regarding cosmological redshifts, but I'm fairly certain your interests lie elsewhere. If you would like to start summarizing Hamilton's review and the subsequent work by others in the field, I'm all for it. However, until such a contextualization can occur, it is a disservice to the reader to make it seem as though redshift quantization deserves mention in our article basically context free. --ScienceApologist 20:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, an excellent direct, explanatory response. I have some homework to do before commenting further. --Iantresman 20:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, the subject, like any other, is potentially very complex. And there is a good argument for suggesting that if a minority subject can not be put into sufficient context, then it should not be mentioned in the article.
• However, I can still see no good argument for suggesting that minority subjects can not be included in "Alternative Summary lists" or "See also" lists, as there is in the article on "Gravity". In these examples it is very clear from the section header as to the nature of the views, and additionally provides a launchpad for the reader where they can find out detailed information.
• The articles on Gravity and General relativity demonstrate not only a precedence, but also shows that it works.
• My proposal therefore, is to inclde a "See also" section that may include links to any subject that is related to redshifts, including:

See also

--Iantresman 12:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a fan of this suggestion because 1) many of the articles listed are already linked in the article itself (if there's one thing I hate it's a redundant see also section) and 2) the proposal removes any semblance of explanation at all: sidestepping context in favor of no context is no compromise in my book. --ScienceApologist 13:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, I also feel that duplication in articles is unnecessary, but I think this applies more to what appears in the guts of the article itself. But a "See also" also serves other functions, such as providing a quick way for readers to navigate to releated articles. Of course we can always remove those entries that are already mentioned elsewhere in the article.

As I understand it, See Also sections are best seen as places to keep links to relevant articles when the article hasn't been expanded enough. This was the impression I got when editting the Big Bang article. We rid ourselves of the See Also section as we moved that article to featured status. --ScienceApologist 15:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• That brings us to "sidestepping context". However, either (a) "See also" sections don't provide context (it is implicit that the context will be provided by the destination article itself) (b) A single line of context may be provided, as seen in the Gravity article section on Alternative theories. --Iantresman 14:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes a single line of context cannot do what you want it to do. See the above commentary on redshift quantization, for example. --ScienceApologist 15:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed, so leaving it blank leaves no room for mis-context. Although I'm sure that you could produce a few words that sufficiently descibe an item.
• Bear in mind that I would like sufficient space to provide the ncessary context for such minority views; and you would like either no space, or links elsewhere. I think that a "See also" link provides a compromise in your favour... and will give us both more time to edit articles, rather than bicker over a couple of words. --Iantresman 16:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you reread the instructions for what we were to do with the wording, you'll notice that your suggestion does not comply. --ScienceApologist 19:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, I'm back and a couple of days late too. I assume you have made good progress on compromise language? So what have you guys agreeed is the closest to compromise you can reach? Remember it was not something you would both agree on but as close as you could come with no commitment on either side to budge? Just a compromise statement that the two of you might think is half way between your absolute limits.--Nick Y. 19:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we have one. I am of the opinion that the current wording suffices. Ian wants a new See Also section. --ScienceApologist 19:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we're quite there yet. I'm actually happy with the wording, but I'm not happy at the complete exclusion of links to related articles, such as Intrinsic redshift and Redshift quantization; and if they can't find a place in the article, then an "Alternative theories" or "See also" list would be OK, like there is in the Gravity article --Iantresman 20:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intrinsic redshifts are included in the article currently. By LaPella's criteria we exclude redshift quantization which also makes sense because proper contextualization requires (in my opinion) an appropriate discussion of redshift distortions -- something you have yet to respond to. --ScienceApologist 20:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redshift quantization doesn't have to go in the article. "See also" links don't require context because readers are savvy enough to understand how such sections and their links work. We don't have a "See also" section at present, and for the sake of perhaps a dozen links at most, it will serve the reader well in directing them to an article where they can read as much context as they want --Iantresman 20:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also links are some of the most laziest forms of writing we have at Wikipedia. I find them to be useful only for the most skeletal articles. As I pointed out above, we removed the See Also section from the Big Bang article because of this point. Putting one in this article seems highly artificial and distracting -- it looks to me like a ploy. --ScienceApologist 20:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A ploy? An agenda? If you like, and the same argument can me made for including or excluding a "See also" section. --Iantresman 20:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Including a see also section because you cannot write accurate, contextualized prose about your pet subjects does strike me as a ploy. --ScienceApologist 20:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've offered you the opportunity to include Redshift quantization in the article using any neutral wording you like. I can do it, as I am sure can you, because editors can write about ANYTHING in a neutral point of view style. --Iantresman 20:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I've offered you the reason why I don't think it's appropriate to contextualize it in this article. Did you get a chance to read the paper I cited yet? --ScienceApologist 20:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So we'll agree to disagree. I had a look at the paper, but most of it went above my head, besides highlighting the complexity of the subject. But a paper worth citing. --Iantresman 21:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the major problem I have. Quantization is a statement about the trace of the correlation matrix in redshift space. Since we don't even venture to describe this technical detail, mentioning redshift quantization seems arbitrary. --ScienceApologist 21:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it may seem arbitrary. And it may even turn out to be arbitrary. But that is not for you and I to judge. Pointing people to an article on the subject describing the reasons why peer-reviewed scientists have their view, will enable readers to decide for themselves. --Iantresman 21:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But that is not for you and I to judge. --> This is a silly statement. I've already posted my reasons. It's arbitrary because it is not easily contextualized in a way that conforms to Wikipedia:Summary style. --ScienceApologist 21:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Summary style notes that we should "make Wikipedia maximally useful to a diverse readership," and "Interwiki links, along with external links, further reading, references, see also and similar sections should not be counted toward an article's total size" (my emphasis). Seems wholly consistent to me. --Iantresman 21:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are we reading the same thing? It seems to me that the Wikipedia page is advising against relying on See Also sections. --ScienceApologist 21:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide an extract that suggests otherwise? If I follow a link from Wikipedia:Summary style to Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles, it mentions "Two styles, closely related, tend to be used for Wikipedia articles", and describes "Summary style" giving as an example "Cricket" and the "Peerage" both of which use "See also" links. --Iantresman 23:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been very clear with my objection. If you have a specific question about it rather than asking for more quotes (which never leads us anywhere illuminating, you may have noticed), let me know. --ScienceApologist 04:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that Wikipedia policy either does or does not favor a "See Also" section is an utterly goofy thing to talk about. The question isn't about policy. It's about the article. The question is, if there IS such a list of links, will it serve the reader? In my opinion, the answer is yes if the particular set of links is chosen from among the universe of possibilities for reader-centered reasons (as they are in Cricket and Peerage), and the answer is no if the particular set of links is chosen because one or more editors like certain particular topics and they think readers should know about those topics (as is the case with Ian's set of links). Ian's suggestion of "a "See also" section that may include links to any subject that is related to redshifts" is not reader-centered editing. It's a laundry list with no discrimination about what serves the reader. That is not editing at all. That style is for bulletin boards, not encyclopedias. I don't think Ian understands what this place is all about no matter how often people try to explain it to him.

If Ian had a reader-centered reason for including the links he wants to include, he would have mentioned it many months ago during his Request for Comments. Instead it's just arguments about policies and number-of-peer-reviewed-articles. This argument...almost this precise conversation repeated again and again...is recorded in the talk page archives so often that it makes reasonable people not want to contribute to improving the Redshift article. It's my complaint #4 above. It's obsessional. This argument should stop. Should there be a "See Also" section with links? Maybe...if it's done right. Doing it right means including a particular set of links and justifying that set of links as non-arbitrary because that particular set serves the reader. Flying Jazz 04:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry Flying Jazz, I am disappointed at the suggestion that you feel that I don't have the reader in mind. Early on, ScienceApologist has argued that the redshift article is aimed at students [215] whereas I have disagreed and suggested that it has a wider reaching audience [216]. I have given reasons that directly refer to the reader [217]
• I take umbrage at the notion that my selected list of "See also" links is a laundry lists. Good reasons for selecting such links include that (a) they are related to redshift (b) that they are credible (peer reviewed) (b) That they are not extreme views. This is NOT indescriminate, and compared to other articles, is quite sufficient.
• Yes, discussing the merits of "See also" lists is quite inane. But I can't see how you can criticise my mention of policy. "Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through polite discussion and negotiation, in an attempt to develop a consensus regarding proper application of policies and guidelines such as Neutral point of view."[218]. In other words, you can't put an article's content BEFORE policy.
• If we consider the "transverse redshift" and "Quantized redshifts", there is no justification for including/excluding one and not the other. Yet currently the lesser-cited "transverse redshift" get pride of place in the body of the article, and the 8-times greater cited "Quantized redshifts" gets completed excluded.

--Iantresman 09:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is truly ludicrous. "Pride of place"? "8-times greater cited"? This isn't a contest -- we're trying to write a good article. --ScienceApologist 10:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's ludicrous. Who would have thought there would be so much fuss over including a link from an article on redshift, to an article on redshift. --Iantresman 11:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A "See Also" list that includes links to "ANY subject that is related to redshifts" (your words, your goal) does not have the reader in mind because it is not editing. Editing involves removing some things, adding some things, changing some things. That's editing. The fact that you must be informed of this operative definition of editing is inane. I'm disappointed that you take umbrage about it. Hamilton's article that ScienceApologist mentioned and the article (Reboul's paper) that you have mentioned both indicate that there could be hundreds of "See Also"s for this article by your criteria of relatedness, literature credibility, and not-extreme. These three criteria do not help an editor who is reader-centered because they do not aid us in selecting a subset of effects for inclusion. What does help an editor who is interested in serving the reader by picking and choosing? You're right that literature should play a role, but not by mere mention. Inclusion in textbooks for older material means that someone else thought they were worthy. Assignment of a category name or section heading in a comprehensive review article is a good argument for inclusion of newer material in a list like that. You still refuse to defend your particular list over the larger set of possibilities from Reboul's or Hamilton's paper. All your arguments involve justification of a list. Not your list. Can you defend your particular list or not? I've been trying to get an answer from you about that since December, Ian. Flying Jazz 12:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps I should have been more specific. ANY subject related to redshift is obviously too diverse a criteria. But the examples I gave are "directly" releated to redshift, and I note that "directly related" is also subjective.
• How specifically does my list differ from all the different redshifts mentioned in Reboul's paper? (a) we don't have Wiki articles on the vast majority of Reboul's listed entries. (b) most of them are not notable enough since they represent near-singular views (ie views held by only a few people with only a few peer-reviewed papers) (c) most of them have no recent mention in the literature (though I haven't checked them).
• "Quantized redshift" on the other hand, appears to have been investigated by significantly more researchers (Tifft, Croasdale, Guthrie, Napier, Holba, Tang, etc), and discussed by dozens more[219], including papers published this year.
• I'm sure this is the same criteria that I've always mentioned: the number of peer-reviewed papers. I'm sure we all agree that most of Reboul's references are "tiny-minority views", but I disagree that they ALL are. Wiki founder Jimbo Wales himself said on NPOV: "Usually, mainstream and minority views are treated in the main article, with the mainstream view typically getting a bit more ink, but the minority view presented in such a fashion that both sides could agree to it. Singular views can be moved to a separate page and identified (disclaimed) as such, or in some cases omitted altogether."[220] --Iantresman 13:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I have demonstrated that "Redshift quantization/periodicity" is significantly greater than a singlular or tiny minority view. Jimbo Wales tells us that is doesn't get as much ink compared to the majority view. And we're arguing over whether to includes a derisory single link in a "See also" section.

--Iantresman 13:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you try that over again and try to deal with Flying Jazz's points, Ian? You have claimed that the "lists" of Reboul (and presumably Hamilton, though you didn't mention it) represent "near-singular views", but have made no effort to compare redshift quantization to them. This in striking defiance of my attempt to do just that. --ScienceApologist 14:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about being a bit more constructive in your response, instead of rubbishing my entire reply. While I have no problem in you not appreciating the comparisons I did include, I can't read your mind in working out what it is you specifically want. --Iantresman 15:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Jazz wrote:

• "You're right that literature should play a role, but not by mere mention."
• "Assignment of a category name or section heading in a comprehensive review article is a good argument for inclusion".
• I agree totally with both statements. So let's see what the literature shows:

• The title of 18 papers that indicates that they are specifically about "Redshift Periodicity" and another 11 on "Redshift quantization"[221]
• Guthrie & Napier write about "Testing for Redshift Periodicity" and "The hypothesis"[222]
• Tifft writes of "the concept of redshift quantization..."[223] in the first sentence of his paper.
• Rudnicki's book is about "Testing the Hypothesis of Redshift Quantization..."[224]
• Tifft has a paper "Redshift Quantization - A Review"[225]

I content that these are not mere mentions, but papers DEVOTED to the subject of Redshift quantization. --Iantresman 15:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And what of the papers devoted to redshift distortions? After all, they provide the context, don't they? --ScienceApologist 21:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of those books or papers are comprehensive review articles on redshift (the total concept) that assign an entire section or category to redshift quantization. If you agree with my statement then you have not provided a good argument for inclusion. Flying Jazz 03:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this discussion is really helping things that much. I am very busy for a while here but I would ask once again for the two of you to come up with some sort of compromise language that is what neither of you really want but is half way between and then (once we have succeded ) we will all say nope we aren't doing that and withdraw it. That was just for fun of course I am not going to allow that sort of language. SA - Please try to budge from your "the article is fine" position and collaboratively write something with Ian. Make it as true to your position as you can while also making it true to Ian's position. Make it a truthful representation that has direct links and full disclamation. This does not mean that you accept the language, just that it is perhaps the halfway point, not a compromise per se.--Nick Y. 22:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that I would be happy with any language. I'm just unhappy with exclusion. --Iantresman 22:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Nick Y. I can't do what you ask. I don't see how including redshift quantization can be done in a few sentences. --ScienceApologist 23:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ian's solution:

See also

• Redshift quantization

--Iantresman 23:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Jazz's solution...If redshift quantization is to be included then, of course, it would be here: "Alternative hypotheses (for example, tired light, intrinsic redshift, and redshift quantization suggestions from nonstandard cosmologies) are not generally considered plausible." I personally do not support this solution. I was against mentioning tired light, and I saw its mention in the article as a slippery slope towards mentioning a laundry list of other arguably notable theories that are not widely held. I was surprised when SA disagreed with me and advocated for the inclusion of tired light. Now I'll sit back and watch the exact same argument unfold about the next item on Ian's list. Or perhaps ScienceApologist will just agree to let Ian list a set number of examples after that "for example." Shall we limit him to 3 or 4? Maybe 7? Flying Jazz 04:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's the reasoning againsts such a "laundry list"? Indeed "tired light" and "Redshift quantization" are arguably notable, and yes they are not widely held. This is the description of a significant minority view, and the reason I get obsessional is because policy tells us that we must "represent views fairly and without bias"[226]. I would guess there would be about dozen such views mentioned at most. Many many other articles on Wikipedia include such views in the body' of the article; other articles have a separate section dealing with minority views at the end; refusing a "See also" section can also be considered obsessional, certainly unfair, and biased. --Iantresman 08:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning for not wanting a laundry list is contained in previous posts in the archives that I don't want to revisit. Flying Jazz 14:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A laundry list is in the current version. It's just a laundry list with two items at the moment: tired light and intrinsic redshift. I wanted zero items a few months ago and I was overruled. Oh well.

Ian, I'm asking you for what you haven't been able to supply to date: one list that you like, that you'll stick with, that you won't want to add to tomorrow. Please take the list you mentioned that currently numbers about a dozen, write out all 12 here in this page, and then do the following:

1) Remove items that are mentioned in the article now (e.g., Wolf). There was a consensus to just mention these effects in the main context of the article in terms of what light can do.

2) Remove items that are a subtopic of topics mentioned elsewhere in the article (e.g, Brillion and CREIL are scattering). There was a consensus to keep items out of the list that are "covered" elsewhere in the article in the main context of what light can do.

3) Remove itmes that are a simple assignment of an adjective to describe what the effect is not (e.g., "anomalous" redshift or "non-Cosmological" redshift). There was a consensus that a list with these items is entirely about semantics.

Removing these items from your list does NOT indicate that you don't want them in. It indicates that you are understanding the mindset of other editors, and you are able to place yourself in the position of an editor that removes items because they think it improves an article.

SA and Ian, please don't argue about the notability of the items in Ian's list or what consititutes a significant minority view or about policy. Of course, this is Wikipedia and you can write what you want, but if you want to argue about policy, notability of specific items, or minority views, please begin a new section here with a new section title. If you write about those things in this "Attempt at compromise language" section, I'll add a new section title above your text for you. This section isn't about arguing. It's about getting a list that you can argue about later. Flying Jazz 14:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following items would fulful my wishlist, and your requirements:

I can't guarantee that it won't change slightly in the future. If someone writes an article on "redshift conferences", "High Redshift Luminous Quasars", or "Non-cosmological redshifts", then they would become candidates since they are articles about redshift, and it seems reasonable to link from an article about redshift, to other articles about redshift. --Iantresman 16:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, I appreciate you arranging the table in this way and demonstrating that you understand where other editors are coming from when it comes to narrowing down choices. However, this table and this discussion are also indicative of why I sought mediation with you, and what I am hoping will change about your behavior on talk pages. Your final list on the right contains an equation that seems to be used often, a book about alternative not-widely-accepted redshifts, and an example of an alternative not-widely-accepted redshift. The previous discussion by other editors has only been about a list of alternative not-widely-accepted redshifts. Would other editors object to a well-written NPOV sentence about the relation in the appropriate part of the article? Probably not. You are missing the most important thing about the social spaces here at Wikipedia. We all have things that we want in articles, but when we talk about them, we have the social consideration and courtesy of objective categorization. We categorize them in an objective way, so the talk spaces become people discussing a topic. That way, we can accomplish things together. What you always seem to want is "People discussing Ian's list of topics" where the only connection between them is that you want them to be discussed. We cannot accomplish things together that way, and when we try to accomplish things that way, by making it about Ian's list instead of a specific topic, it's incredibly frustrating because when we get through your list and begin to discuss an actual narrow, objective topic, your response is to give us another list. Please, explain why you do this to us. Don't just apologize and then do it again later. Why does this keep happening? Flying Jazz 14:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I have not been as involved recently. I am preparing for a speech at a conference and traveling a lot. I think that there has been some really good discussions going on here. I am very supportive of Flying Jazz's questions and comments. I have found that it is very difficult to get SA and Ian to agree on anything. When positions change they tend to change to prevent concensus rather than build it. I know that there was some disagreement about Flying Jazz being your mediator as a not impartial party. I am still the mediator but as mediator I would ask you to listen to FJ and be responsive to his questions. Since this is a non binding mediation I do not have any real authority however I hope that I have been impartial, uninterested and knowledgable enough that you can respect my judgement. In this case, again I ask you to be responsive to FJ's issues and work constructively with him. There is no doubt in my mind that FJ has some very legitimate issue with SA and Ian. There is no question there. There is some doubt as to who is more responsible for those problems but I think that it is SA and Ian's responsiblity, no matter how much they may disagree with each other and be incapable of reaching concensus, to be repectful of their fellow editors and not dominate the conversation with perpetual argument. There are a couple of paths to this. They can learn how to reach concensus or they can learn how to disagree without disrupting others.--Nick Y. 18:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Flying Jazz, I think that's a little unfair. We're discussing Ian's list of items because you asked for a list. There are two more items in the list because since we first started discussions, I've found two more article that appear relevant. If I include them now, then I'm up to date, and laid all my "cards" on the table; if I add them later, then I'd be accused of not sticking to my list.
• I agree with you about categorizing in an objective way. But I feel that ScienceApologist is not being objective, dismissing items for subjective reasons, that are judged "junk", affecting the "integrity" of the article, "undue weight", etc. I quote policy so frequenty, because it's not my opinion, it's policy, and that's objective. --Iantresman 20:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to discuss "Ian's list of alternative redshift mechanisms" so we could all discuss "alternative redshift mechanisms". That is a topic category that interests other editors. You wanted to discuss "Ian's list of items" where "items" can mean equations, books, or alternative redshift mechanisms. That is a topic category that only interests one person on the planet: you. Flying Jazz 12:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subjectivity is unavoidable. The point is that we have guidelines for subjectivity defined by NPOV. Art LaPella has given us a nice way of determining how to quantify "undue weight" and from that criteria Ian's two controversial links do not deserve mention in the article. Ian's other link could be mentioned, but it's probably too tangential to deserve it. --ScienceApologist 21:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad we're agreed that NPOV defines certain criteria. I couldn't find Art's comments on "undue weight", so would appreciate a pointer. --Iantresman 21:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SA means this referring to this. See also the end of Talk:Big Bang#Opposing views. I'm not sure which links SA refers to in his most recent post here. Art LaPella 23:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so we're suggesting that Google Scholar provides a rule of thumb for determining "undue weight"? --Iantresman 12:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "Google Scholar" is the only means to determination, but Art's suggestion about looking at topical proportions is what I support. --ScienceApologist 17:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So here are my results from Google Scholar. I've assumed that general references to "redshift" are proportioned in a similar way to all the subsequent specific redshifts (this may not be accurate).

The Redshift article current has 3200 words, so the figure next to the percentage indicates the approximate number of words.

I think it is interesting that "anomalous/discordant redshifts" has a relative high position, but we say nothing about them in general.

It is also interesting that "Doppler redshifts" appear so low down the list, and I suspect that the use of the term "redshift" implies Doppler/Cosmological/gravitational, depending on the context.

The table also shows that "transverse redshift" gets twice the coverage in the article (24 words) compared to its Google scholar coverage, whereas "intrinsic redshift" gets a fraction, and "Redshift quantization" does not deserve to be absent.

Please note that I am not trying to fight over the number of words of coverage of a specific redshift, only show the approximate comparative usage in Google scholar. --Iantresman 20:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't understand what you were normalizing. Your paragraph about transverse redshift implies that the 13 at the end of the table is how many words transverse redshift should get in the article. But using your own statistics and methods (which differ from mine in some relatively insignificant ways) transverse redshift theoretically deserves (28 transverse redshift hits/291,600 redshift hits)x3200 words in the redshift article=0.307, not 13. This only reinforces your conclusion, but have I misunderstood your normalization? Art LaPella 20:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have I messed up? I effectively calculated 28 transverse hits / 3,408 gravitational hits, because "redshift" by itself is too general. Otherwise, if we compare for example, 3,408 gravitational hits / 291,600 redshift hits = 1.2% (of 3200 words) = 38 words. In practice, cosmological redshift gets at least a third of the entire article, so it seems fair to compare the "specific redshifts" with each other, and not with "redshift"?

So I normalised by making the Redshift total of 291,600 equivalent to 1-million. Then I noted that "redshift" has 83 times as much coverage than all the "gravitational redshifts", which would imply that all the "specific" redshifts are neglible (less than 1.2%, which didn't make sense). It occured to me that an article talking about redshift, would actually be talking about one of the specific redshifts. For example, an article on Cosmological redshift would subsequently refer to it as just redshift, and likewise an article on anomalous redshifts would do the same.

So ignoring the general "redshift" figure of 1-million, I found the ratio of all the specific redshifts as compared to each other. In other words, I added 12,171 + 7,225 + .. + 100 (total = 25,080). The 12,171 / 25,080 = 48% etc

And I note that the last column should be labelled percentages (now corrected). Then because "Redshift". --Iantresman 21:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The column labelled "% All / word" is the percentage of all references, including "redshift" which seems to imply that no specific redshift should have more than about 35 words.

The last column labelled %/Words (Excluding redshift), excludes the redshift figure, basically comparing just the specific redshifts.

To me, the last column seems more respresentative of the article? --Iantresman 21:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now I think I understand it. The last line "0.001%/0.03" should be "0.01%/0.3". I can almost duplicate the "12,171 + 7,225 + .. + 100 (total = 25,080)" by calculating 28 transverse redshift hits (for example) times 1,000,000 divided by 298,623 total hits or 291,600 redshift hits - neither answer is quite 100 but both are in the nineties. We're miscommunicating some error factor of a few percent, but if I ignore it I can see what you did.

If that's what it means, then you're concluding that the word "redshift" means cosmological redshift only 36% of the time. If that were true, you would be arguing for majority rights, not minority. So no, I don't think that's "more representative of the article" in any sense I can think of. The calculation presumably goes wrong at this assumption: "an article on Cosmological redshift would subsequently refer to it as just redshift, and likewise an article on anomalous redshifts would do the same." If that were true then gravitational redshift would be a hotter topic than cosmological redshift. A harder question is whether that situation occurs often enough to matter. Can you show us any articles on the Wolf effect, for instance, that mention "redshift" but never say "Wolf effect"? Art LaPella 22:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I doubt very much that there are any articles that mention "redshift" but not "Wolf effect".
• I think there will be general articles on "redshift" (eg. on observation) that do not mean, and do not mention, any of the specific redshifts mentioned.
• I think there will be articles on, for example, "cosmological redshifts" that mention "cosmological redshift" once, and then all subsequent occurence of "redshift" infer "cosmological redshifts".
• The big question is, how many articles that mention "redshift" mean "cosmological redshift", and mention "redshift" but not "cosmological redshift"?
• Or should we just ignore "redshift" and only compare the specific redshifts?

Either way, it seems odd to me that "Doppler redshift" is mentioned in about the same proportion as the "Wolf effect" and "Redshift quantization". --Iantresman 00:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now I may understand what it's like to be part of an endless SA-Ian debate. The second bullet point above is a good point. Most of the summaries that come up when asking Google Scholar for "redshift" are things like high-redshift galaxies, without specifying why the redshift is high. That's a good reason to multiply my word limits several times. The third point is at least thought provoking, although you couldn't meaningfully substitute the words "Wolf effect" for each occurrence of the word "redshift" in the Wolf effect article. But I also think it's relevant to an investigation of editing behavior that "it seems odd to me that "Doppler redshift" is mentioned in about the same proportion as the "Wolf effect" and "Redshift quantization"." Wouldn't it be more meaningful to agree that a method that ranks the popularity of Doppler redshift on a par with the Wolf effect is a method that obviously doesn't work? Art LaPella 02:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I think we can make arguments for changing the position of any of the entries. For example, "Correlation induced Spectral Changes" (Wolf-type effect) is mentioned about 25% of the time with "redshifts", and 75% of the time without. And "redshift survey(s)" is mentioned about 10,000 times, a major entry, as is reflected by the current article.
• But as a "rule of thumb", I think we can divide the table into three sections based loosily on the magnitude of the number of hits:

• Tiny Minority views (0-100): "Transverse redshift" is a tiny minority subject, I would guess this is on a par with Reboul's "Untrivial redshifts" (4 hits!) perhaps correctly reflecting Flying Jazz's view that "untrivial" is indeed an arbitrary prefix.
• Significant views (100-1000): Many of the specific redshifts
• Majority views (1000+): Gravitational and cosmological redshifts.

• While the frequency of Doppler redshifts does appear to be a blip, perhaps gravitational and cosmological redshifts are mentioned 10 times more than Doppler redshifts? Even if Doppler redshifts have 3-times more hits as suggested, that still leaves it as a significant, perhaps lesser-majority view.
• And consquently, the table does seem to suggest that "Redshift quantization", "Wolf effect", "Anomalous redshifts", etc, are all significant; they certain exceed the mention of "Transverse redshift" and "Untrivial redshifts" by an order of magnitude. --Iantresman 09:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't support analysis comparing obscurity of non-controversial subjects to controversial subjects. It's a comparison of apples and oranges. --ScienceApologist 12:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, "... Art's suggestion about looking at topical proportions is what I support"[227]... except if it involves controversial subjects. That's a non-neutral point of view. As policy says, "At Wikipedia, points of view (POV) are often essential to articles which treat controversial subjects."[228]. --Iantresman 14:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I support Art's suggestions for parametrizing undue weight which by definition only applies to controversial subjects. This is the only sense in which this makes sense: when there's controversy. --ScienceApologist 15:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(I tried to post this while SA was posting) My impression is that "Transverse redshift" defines a focused, well-understood, well-defined phenomenon that describes what can happen to light. Resources like "Google Scholar" are potentially useful for looking at the poorly focused, poorly defined phenomena and unaccepted hypotheses and determining which of those are the ones that people talk about. Using it to compare well-defined phenomena to poorly-defined ones is just Ian discussing something with himself. Flying Jazz 12:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly focused and defined phenomena? There are books on "Discordant redshifts"[229], lab demonstrations of the Wolf effect[230], and hundreds of peer-reviewed paper on intrinsic, non-cosmological and quantised redshifts.

The object of science is to research the poorly defined. The object of an encyclopedia is to describe the poorly defined. --Iantresman 14:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Jazz, do you really think that Halton Arp would have been able to publisher over a 100 peer-reviewd papers questioning redshift[231], if the subject and observations were so poorly defined? --Iantresman 14:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course. The intrinsic redshift article describes it as something that isn't caused by the three well-defined mechanisms without saying what it is. Interesting things, controversial things, debatable things, unaccepted things are usually the things that are poorly defined, poorly understood, and might not even exist. Of course they are discussed often in the scientific literature and the popular literature. So what? Comparing those types of topics using Google Scholar to topics that have been taught in textbooks for decades and are understood and defined with mathematical precision is an Ian-exercise that is interesting only to Ian. I gave an impression about transverse redshift, a potential use for "Google Scholar" that I like, and presented your use as something that nobody here except you agrees with or understands. I am not going to engage in a debate about the object of science and the object of an encyclopedia or what constitutes "poorly defined" or policy about whether the "poorly defined" should be in an encyclopedia. It's not worth the time. Flying Jazz 15:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC) (By the way, the Wolf Effect is well defined and I argued with SA long and hard for it's inclusion. I don't know why you're talking about it now. Just being Ian, I guess.)[reply]

Halton Arp doesn't "question redshift", Ian. Why don't you try being more careful in your characterizations for a change. Your lack of specificity and the poor quality of your research really shines through when you spout-off like this. --ScienceApologist 15:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arp has been questioning whether redshifts are intrinsic since the 1970s --Iantresman 15:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SA...actually your uncivil comments about Ian trying to be more careful and about Ian spouting off also lack specificity. They don't seem intended to gain information about why the problem is occuring or how to stop it. Some of what I've written may have been uncivil too, but I'm being as specific as I can about what's happening, why, and what I'd like to change. The main problem isn't with research quality. It's with engaging in the type of discourse that invites other editors to participate. The impression I've had for some time is that any time Ian is being criticized, you, SA, type posts with a jump-on-the-badwagon quality that deemphasize the potential for change and emphasize a desire that you seem to have to damage his self-esteem or inflict punishment of some sort. Please stop that. It makes you appear childish, SA, in a spooky, almost sociopathic way. I'm sure you're not like that in the real world. Regardless of your history together, there is no need to type things in a public space that make you appear like a 2nd grade kid who says "Nyah! Nyah! Billy got in trouble!". Flying Jazz 16:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm merely pointing out the fact that Ian puts on pretenses while underhandedly trying to push an uneducated viewpoint -- something which is not beneficial to the reader. His insistence in this regard mark many of his contributions and writing as garbage in a way that's tolerated at Wikipedia because of a democratic sentiment. However, civility in democracy need not be extended to proper characterization of a person's actions. I'm not claiming Ian is evil or jejune, I'm simply pointing out that his wild characterizations do not conform to reality (something which Ian thinks is not a standard for inclusion in Wikipedia, by the way). I also don't care one bit what you have to say to Ian, and though my response was consecutive to yours, it was not in response to your preaching. --ScienceApologist 17:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to push the viewpoint of Nobel prize winning scientists (Hannes Alfvén), Top 1000 scientists (Halton Arp and Emil Wolf)[232], and peer-reviewed scientists (too many to mention). My viewpoint is irrelevant, as is yours. --Iantresman 19:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alfvén is dead, so his POV is not relevant to articles on current science, Arp is a loonball pathological skeptic when it comes to cosmology after having his ideas about quasars be discounted decades ago, and I have yet to see any writing of Emil Wolf's with which I disagree. --ScienceApologist 19:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ian: Sometimes in the talk pages, you're able to discuss what other editors are discussing, but a good portion of the time you go off to a different place where you argue about policy or present lists that include some of what other editors are discussing but have other elements thrown in for reasons that are only known to you. I think your misrepresentations of people on and off Wikipedia occur when you see that people agree with your position on one issue or in one context, and then you present their views as if they completely agreed with you about other things. It's reasonable for editors to expect topic-centered discussions, those discussions serve the encyclopedia, and your posts disrupt it. Please, stop. If you can't stop, please explain why you can't stop.

SA: Please don't engage in back-and-forth discussions with Ian on the talk pages. Make your point, maybe make one reply to him, and when Ian replies with a counterpoint, ask "what do the other editors think?" and let some time pass.

My goals at seeking mediation from the cabal have been achieved because a neutral party expressed an opinion about the talk-page behavior that I found unacceptable. There is nothing more that Nick can say or do that would be useful, and I'm grateful to be heard. I don't regard the case as "solved" or "resolved" because the behavior I was trying to change is continuing and examples of it are here in the case itself. But I regard the case as closed and I hope talk about the articles moves back to the article discussion pages. If the disruptive behavior continues there then I'll seek to stop it in a different forum. Flying Jazz 15:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Jazz: when I ignore Ian he has a history of heading towards pushing his POV in the article space instead of confining his tendentious editting to talkpages. --ScienceApologist 15:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking you to ignore Ian in the talk page. I'm asking you to avoid page after page of back-and-forth discussions about policy, the nature of science, and so on. The way to avoid it is for one person to disengage instead of talking about garbage. If you want to justify an edit, do it in the edit summary. As for the redshift article space, in my own personal experience over the last 6 months, you've been more of a POV-pusher than Ian's been. Flying Jazz 15:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you've been more of a POV-pusher than Ian's been --> What a lark! Would you care to point out a place where I did this? --ScienceApologist 17:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In case Flying Jazz has lost the will to live, he would not be surprised that I am delighted to substantiate the observations:

• POV-pushing, as defined by Wikipedia, as "editing articles so that they show only one point of view". That is not the same as pushing a point of view, which Wikipedia welcomes, as long as it is done in an neutral point of view style (NPOV: "representing views fairly and without bias."[233])
• Your point of view, is the mainstream point of view.

Please show me where that is evident. --ScienceApologist 20:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The redshift article (finally!) has a couple of paragraphs on "optical" redshifts. But it has no serious treatment, beyond a throw-away line, on alternative points of view.

What makes the line "throw-away"? What is an "optical" redshift? Where do you make up these ideas? --ScienceApologist 20:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The Wolf effect you deleted consistently

Do you mean the actual effect or your poor attempts at describing it on the redshift page? --ScienceApologist 20:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Intrinsic redshift wanted removed consistently

Do you mean from the redshift page? Do you think it might be because your various attempts to include it violated undue weight? --ScienceApologist 20:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redshift quantization you have continually removed

Undue weight? Is there an echo? --ScienceApologist 20:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redshift quantization you removed after 5 years presence in the article on Large-scale structure of the cosmos

I don't see you helping to clean up that article. --ScienceApologist 20:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Peratt's Galaxy formation theory addressing the Galaxy rotation problem you have removed

Perrat's non-theory which basically amounts to pretty pictures that contain no quantitative analysis performed a decade or more ago? Oh right, yeah, that was removed. Your point? --ScienceApologist 20:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The "Intrinsic redshift" article, you put up for an "Article for deletion"[234]

I didn't realize that putting an article up for deletion was a sign of POV-pushing. --ScienceApologist 20:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Hannes Alfvén's explanation of his successful prediction of synchrotron radiation you removed[235]

Context, Ian? Or perhaps you have decided that context cannot be determined because you're too busy being a stick-in-the-mud? --ScienceApologist 20:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey look at that. Looks like some words where a couple of people were talking about stuff in some kind of threaded-listing half-unsigned conversation event of some sort. Obviously, neither of them wanted anyone else to read it or they wouldn't have mentioned so many things that noone else is talking about. So I'll give them their own little subsection. There. That's better. Flying Jazz 05:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article history in combination with the talk page indicates some extreme POV-pushing activity by you, SA, from March 10 to March 15. By this, I don't mean that your POV was extreme. I mean you used extreme measures to defend a conservative particle-physics POV that is inappropriate for a general purpose encyclopedia. On March 10, Art Carlson mentioned the Wolf Effect in the article. This was reverted by you to eliminate it. On March 11, Harald88 mentioned the Wolf Effect in the article. This was reverted by you to eliminate it. On March 12, I mentioned the Wolf Effect in the article. This was reverted by you again and then there was a brief edit war with Harald88 where you used 3 reverts. It would have been a simple matter for Harald, Art, Ian, or I to force the issue at that time by preventing you from violating the 3-revert rule. Out of consideration for building consensus by trying to convince you to abandon your POV, we took the time in the talk pages to hash it out with you.

The talk pages during this time are illustrative of how this occured and the amount of time and effort required from multiple editors for you to abandon your POV. Art said "I argue to include a brief reference to the radiative Wolf effect for completeness" and I agreed. Your point was that the Wolf Effect was really a scattering effect because the light sources required scattering to initiate the effect. I wrote "physicists in optics without an axe to grind in cosmological debates still describe the effect as taking place in a vacuum between two "light beams with certain traits."" Your closed-mindedness and particle-physics stick-in-the-mud POV prevented you from fully grasping this possibility. You seemed to think that the Wolf Effect was the scattering effect and the mathematics of the optics was merely "how the Wolf Effect's resonance is manifested" until, in Ian's email from Professor Wolf himself, the effect named after him was identified as the phenomenon of spectral changes, and the scattering event was labelled as a "cause." Of course, this cause-and-effect labelling when it comes to spooky scattering actions-at-a-distance is a matter of semantics, perspective, subdisciplines, and point of view, but you didn't see it that way at first. You seemed so blinded by your particle physics POV that you mistook it for neutral and wrote that this well-established optical effect was "just a conspiratorial version of traditional radiative effects." That was some pretty amazing stuff to read.

Eventually, claiming that you were "writing for enemy," you cited the Wolf Effect yourself, and that is to your credit. But should it have taken 5 days and dozens of lengthy posts from multiple editors who had previously agreed with you on other issues to convince you of this? No, it shouldn't have. When so many reasonable editors disagreed with you, you should not have engaged in so many knee-jerk reverts and you should have trusted the community more than you did. I've personally experienced nothing like that from Ian in the article space. Maybe he's done similar things in the past, but not with anything I've contributed. When you complain about Ian's plasma cosmology pushing POV, consider your own particle physics POV. When it came to the Wolf Effect debate, was your POV neutral and how hard did you push it? Flying Jazz 04:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have completely missed the reasons behind my removals of the Wolf Effect in March. I'm not sure where you're coming from with this idea of me promoting a "strict particle physics" POV, but I think you have seriously mischaracterized what precisely my objections were in the Wolf Effect discussion. My issue was not with the Wolf Effect as an observed phenomena. My issue was and always has been with context. You'll note that the attempted inclusion of the Wolf Effect was contextualized in all the cases where it was listed (except when it was given absolutely no context) by a discussion of scattering in conjuction with intervening astronomical contexts (as opposed to physical optics contexts). This is a red-flag that anti-banger POV-pushing is going on. What you and Art may not have realized at the time is that anti-bangers like to use the Wolf Effect as a "change the subject" whenever somebody points out that the Hubble Law directly implies an expanding universe. Their great white hope is to show that redshifts can occur without expansion of the universe. (The typical exchange is something like "The Hubble Law is only explainable in a universe that follows the cosmological principle as a metric expansion," saith the astronomy text. "The Wolf Effect causes redshifts without expansion," saith the anti-Banger.) That's what confused me so much by your insistence that I was POV-pushing a strict astronomy perspective (at the time) and now a "particle physics" perspective. I look at the context of the discussion and I see that the Wolf Effect is not being discussed as a coherent source physical optics phenomena, but rather as an astrophysical context (in particular the context of nonstandard interpretations of cosmological redshifts -- an interpretation that is found in absolutely no peer-reviewed papers). By contextualizing the Wolf Effect directly with alternative cosmologies and discussion of how redshifts can be due to things other than the three frame-dependent effects in context of astronomy, we were effectively promoting this original-research perspective. It's a subtle issue, but it's important. The current article discusses the Wolf Effect in its proper context (as a frequency shift that is not frame-dependent) and the brief forray that was made to explain "discordant" quasar redshifts isn't mentioned since the entire subject is about as tangentially related and about as unduly weighted as we can get in a redshift article. I never had a problem including the Wolf Effect, I had a problem with its context. --ScienceApologist 11:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I look at the context of the discussion and I see that the Wolf Effect is not being discussed as a coherent source physical optics phenomena, but rather as an astrophysical context. If you look at the context of the discussions you've had with Ian and other advocates of the Wolf Effect as "a fourth redshift" in astrophysics then you're right. If you look at the context of the discussions you've had with Art Carlson and me then you're wrong. I can't speak for Art, but I certainly realized at the time that I inserted the Wolf Effect into the article that anti-Big-Bang folks use the Wolf Effect in their arguments and I suspect he knew the same thing. We aint stupid. If you look at the wording of the way Art and I mentioned redshift in the article, you will only find Ian's POV if you have an overactive imagination. I think that when you focus so much on combating Ian, you make the same mistakes he does by enterring a "me-vs-all-of-them" mentality that inevitably leads to POV-pushing. You're not giving enough credit to editors who share your mission of presenting things in their proper context. I also don't have the faintest idea why you're bringing up some forray into discordant redshifts right now. It's got nothing to do with anything I've ever said. Flying Jazz 12:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• My original description of the Wolf effect made no reference to non-standard cosmologies, and you removed it because "the 'wolf effect' is not generally recognized as a source for redshift"[236]. Except that it is recognised in the optic community[237], and demonstrated in the laboratory[238].
• The association the Wolf effect with astrophysics and non-Cosmological redshift has appeared in peer-reviewed papers including:

• Wolf, Emil (1987). "Noncosmological redshifts of spectral lines". Nature 326: 363—365.
• James, Daniel (1998). "The Wolf effect and the redshift of quasars". Pure Appl. Opt. 7: 959-970.

--Iantresman 12:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the wording of the way Art and I mentioned redshift in the article, you will only find Ian's POV if you have an overactive imagination. --> I respectfully diagree. The wording both you and Art inserted indicated by context that the Wolf Effect was of nebulous applicability with respect to astrophysical scenarios. The current wording is much more careful and makes sense in terms of context. --ScienceApologist 13:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the current wording of the article is much better. The current emphasis on reference-frames is also much better than what was there before. In the end, the article was greatly improved by the debate. However, at the time of the debate, this reason for your rapid reversions was given: The main reason for reverting is because there are plenty of resources available on redshift that make no mention whatsoever regarding the Wolf Effect when summarizing redshift. I think there is ample evidence in the talk page that you are presenting a revised history of your prior argument when you now say "I never had a problem including the Wolf Effect, I had a problem with its context." But this isn't worth arguing about. My main point is that, regardless of its "truth-value," other editors here (Ian is one. I am another.) feel that you have a history of pushing a POV. That makes your defense that you contribute to harming the talk page in order to prevent Ian's POV from entering the article a bit of a "lark." Flying Jazz 14:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't have the faintest idea why you're bringing up some forray into discordant redshifts right now. It's got nothing to do with anything I've ever said. --> As you may notice from Ian's ramblings, I was anticipating his objections. He thinks that discordant redshifts=intrinsic interpretation of the Hubble Law. Notice his attempt to cite quasar redshifts. I brought it up because it is irrelevant and a favorite tactic of Ian's to conflate the two. The only reason this obscure effect was discussed at all is because of this tactic by the anti-bangers. --ScienceApologist 13:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great post, SA. Very succint. "I brought it up because it is irrelevant and a favorite tactic of Ian's..." There's a one-sentence summary of my complaint against you. Flying Jazz 13:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hehe. I googled the sentence: "I brought it up because it irrelevant" and came up with nothing. It's been over a half-hour and I still can't stop giggling! Flying Jazz 14:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now maybe you understand the absurdity with which I view Ian's position. I can anticipate his irrelevant comments. --ScienceApologist 15:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that I understand absurdity when I see it, and a well-timed absurd comment can supply considerable amusement, but I'm not thinking about Ian. I'm thinking about that sentence: "I brought it up because it is irrelevant." Did you just think of it now? Have you heard or used it before? It would almost be a one-sentence work of art if a character spoke it in the beginning of a short story or novel because of its ability to immediately and unambiguously portray an unreliable narrator. It rolls off the tongue a bit easier with a contraction though: "I brought it up because it's irrelevant" and an "only" would add emphasis: "I brought it up only because it's irrelevant" or "I only brought it up because it's irrelevant." Of course, I'm poking fun, but I'm also a little bit in awe of that sentence. Flying Jazz 16:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still mulling about the logical and paradoxical implications. If a discussion is about irrelevant matters then bringing up an irrelevant topic wouldn't portray an unreliable narrator, or would it? I think it still would because if a discussion is about irrelevant matters than those matters would be relevant. No, there's no way to get around it. Anyone who says "I brought it up because it is irrelevant" is acting like an unreliable narrator. In the words of that article:

"an unreliable narrator is a literary device in which the credibility of the narrator, either first-person or third-person, is seriously compromised. This unreliability can be due to psychological instability or other disability, a powerful bias, a lack of knowledge, or even a deliberate attempt to deceive the reader/audience."

I suppose the best case for you would be a psychological disability triggered by interacting with Ian. Most of me hopes that you recover, but it keeps inspiring pithy writing like that sentence, maybe it wouldn't be so bad if it continues. Flying Jazz 16:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I love your analysis, Flying Jazz. Trying to be pre-emptory is a full time job in many cases. Even as we discuss the implications of this declaration of irrelevance Ian continues to clambor for its recognition! --18:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, did you really mean to delete my last comments on my "irrelevance"[239]? I repeat them below:

• ScienceApologists, you wrote: "... the Wolf Effect is not being discussed as a coherent source physical optics phenomena, but rather as an astrophysical context (in particular the context of nonstandard interpretations of cosmological redshifts -- an interpretation that is found in absolutely no peer-reviewed papers)"
• I mentioned Wolf's paper Noncosmological redshifts of spectral lines". Is this paper (a) Peer reviewed (b) About redshift (c) about Noncosmological interpretations of redshift (d) Hence relevent to your comment on the Wolf effect in the context of nonstandard interpretations?
• I also mentioend James' paper, "The Wolf effect and the redshift of quasars". Is this paper (a) Peer reviewed (b) about redshifts (c) about an astrophysical context (d) relevent to your comment on the Wolf effect and its astrophysical context? (e) In the paper, James' writes: "we discuss briefly various types of spectral shift phenomena and their importance to cosmology.", and hence the paper is also relevent to a "nonstandard interpretations of cosmological redshifts"?
• Am I wrong on all counts? --Iantresman 18:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only way to follow that. Apologies and probably relief to the other editors too. --Iantresman 20:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read through some of the recent discussion. From my understanding Flying Jazz is satisfied regarding this mediation to have many of his observations validated by an impartial and level-headed third party. I assume that many of my past observations have achieved this. I think that everyone should take my observations seriously for what they are worth. Probably my most important observation is that FJ and all of the other editors have good reason to be annoyed with both of you. SA and Ian should try their best to refrain from extensive direct arguments with eachother. Respectfully disagreeing should be enough and then let it go and let others have a turn in bringing up subjects. Each of you should try to write at a similar (volume) level as everyone else. Imagine being at a resturant with a group of freinds and the two of you dominate the whole dinner conversation. That would not be cool to the point of losing your freinds and perhaps even being kicked out of the resturant. Give others a turn to speak. Repsond to them in a way which is constructive and along the same direction or topic that they are leading the conversation. Don't always change the topic to what you want to talk about. I know that each of you feel less to blame for the problem than the other but that does not absolve you from the reponsibility to disengage from unhealthy interchanges. In any sort of disfunctional relationship there is always participation in some way by the more innocent party and there is usually something they can do to break the unhealthy cycle. Also please remember that we are editors and we make collective editing decisions and that these decisions should be in the best interest of the reader beyond anything else. Rules and policies are there to help us in this venture. I wish you all the best of luck. I will leave this open for a few days to hear any final insights. Perhaps It would be nice to hear what you have learned and what you are going to try to do differently from before to make the communal space more enjoyable and productive. In fact I think it would be very productive for you to expressly agree with my feedback and pledge to try to be better citizens. --Nick Y. 22:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I expressly agree with this feedback. --ScienceApologist 11:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that in the future, I may choose to refactor the talk page when Ian and SA engage in that kind of thing together, and I'll encourage other editors to refactor in a similar way. An example of me doing this is given above. I don't want to have to do it, but maybe it will make the talk page more fun for everyone else if their little sideshow is isolated in its own subsection when it occurs. Of course, refactoring in this way could be seen as punitive, I might mess it up, and there's the danger that the whole page could become a refactoring free-for-all. Hopefully, I won't have to do that sort of thing. Thanks again, Nick. Flying Jazz 05:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Jazz, I give you full permission to throw around my contributions on the talkpage to wherever you want. --ScienceApologist 11:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks to Nick Y for persevering with the case. I recognise that many of the dialogues were unnecessarily protracted, but plead mitigating circumstances; I don't have such lengthy dialogues where other editors are involved.

• Flying Jazz, I feel that you've been short-changed, in that while your criticisms have been acknowledged, they haven't really been addressed and resolved. For what it's worth, I can try and expain why my discussions are sometimes longwinded, and it is because I want to try and justify my views. By themselves, my views are just opinions, so I try and justify them with references to verifiable material, and by use of analogy.

• I note your recent references to policy/guidelines regarding POV-pushing. I feel that since policy guides our responses, that an understanding by all editors is relevant. I think that the response to your comments on POV-pushing illustrates a misunderstanding between editors. I wonder whether clarifying POV-pushing much earlier (and other policy statements), may have altered the outcome of discussions earlier? --Iantresman 11:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, everyone is entitled to try to justify their opinions. But when you try to justify many of your opinions at once in the talk page, it becomes a list of things that are only related because they are your opinions, and that's just not fair to other editors. When you are able to pick one opinion for discussion and focus on that one topic while other editors state their views, you'll be on your way to being a considerate member of the editorial community here. Citing one good reference is a way of maintaining focus on one topic. Citing a list of 500 references will lead to a side-argument about the method of choosing references. Using analogies can be OK but much of the time it leads to a side-argument about the appropriateness of the analogy. Citing policy leads to a side-argument about policy. Saying that some person on or off Wikipedia agrees with you leads to a side-argument about whether that is really true. If you genuinely care about justifying an opinion then you'll focus the discussion on that one opinion instead of talking about references, policies, analogies, other people's opinions, and burying that one opinion in a list of your other opinions. If you can maintain focus like that, then I haven't been short-changed. If you can't maintain focus then hopefully SA won't engage you. If he does then I'll consider refactoring the talk page.

I don't think policy should guide our responses. Social consideration should guide them. I think policy is mostly for junior high school kids who are still learning to be considerate of others in the real world. I brought up POV-pushing policy with SA because he used your POV-pushing in articles as an excuse for long engagements in the talk page. I thought that was no excuse and I thought from my own personal experience that SA was POV-pushing in the article during the 5 days of Wolf Effect discussion in March. Ian's idea that Nick Y. or me or any other human being can "clarify" policy statements for you two intelligent adults so someone will "understand" them is utter lunacy. You two have been using policy statements like weapons to stab each other for many months and Ian wants to spend time "clarifying" them for "understanding"? No way. Sharpen your own pointed stick. Please read Nick Y.'s most recent post. He came here to help all of us and that post deserves attention. "Imagine being in a restaurant with a group of friends..." I don't imagine a restaurant. I imagine being a character in the great encylopedia-writing movie from the 40s called Ball of Fire. Where's Barbara Stanwyck when you need her? Flying Jazz 13:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your considered response, I will try and take them on board. --Iantresman 13:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So I go off to write a new article on the Plasma Universe, only to have it massacred by ScienceApologist[240], by adding several paragraphs of unsubstantiated and unrelated material, suggestions to merge it with one of TWO other articles, because he "can't for the life of me tell the difference between it". I can also recommend reading the Talk pages. --Iantresman 17:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the wrong forum for that complaint. This case is called "Talk at Redshift" Flying Jazz 02:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeeed. --Iantresman 11:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article on Redshift should include a "See also" section containing a navigation list with explanatory text, as suggested by the Wikipedia guidelines article Wikipedia:Guide to layout. The following notes may help us:

• The "See also" section notes that "..topics related to an article should be included within the text of the article as free links. The "See also" section provides an additional list of internal links as a navigational aid .. Related topics should be grouped by subject area for ease of navigation."

• The linked page on Wikipedia:Lists mentions that one of the "..style(s) is appropriate for long lists, or lists of entries which consist of both a link and explanatory text."

I would guess that this style guideline is provided with the reader in mind, in order to help them find other articles in Wikipedia directly related to Redshifts. --Iantresman 11:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On May 19 in this page you wrote "Yes, discussing the merits of "See also" lists is quite inane." Flying Jazz 18:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have begun a discussion of NPOV issues related to this mediation here. --ScienceApologist 14:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]