Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:39, 13 April 2008

Physics Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Science and Academia Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Elerner (talk · contribs) / Lerner, Eric Lerner, Eric

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Misplaced Pages:Verifiability

Per Misplaced Pages:Verifiability

The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.

Editors who assert that a peer-reviewed journal

is a JOKE of a journal: publishing rubbish such as this. Just about the worst nonsense I've ever read. Every professional I know who assesses the journal agrees with me.

but personal faculty webpages and blogs are good reliable sources suitable for use as references are certainly welcome to their opinions. However, consistent with our verifiability policy, articles need to be edited in accordance with material that has been published in reliable sources, not the personal beliefs of our editors. John254 23:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• John, just a minor comment here - do you have any idea how patronising you sound? Not one of the people involved in this dispute appears to be a newbie. Guy (Help!) 00:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to describe the problematic editing of this article. As this editing has involved multiple fundamental policy violations, I have found it necessary to cite and quote the relevant policies in many of my comments to illustrate the application of the policy standards to the editing in question. That experienced, intelligent, articulate editors who are, or reasonably should be, familiar with our fundamental policies have been responsible for this editing is actually a far greater problem than any perceived ineloquence in my description. John254 01:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

John--- right, but also excluding self-published and less-than reliable sources is not always necessary, see the WP:BLP page. We have a special exception here for BLP. What we need to use is proper attribution, which is not happening in the current article (for sources like CSI for example). It does seem like people are ignoring the basic source rules here. COI only applies if the edits are not NPOV- accusations of COI not accompanied by agreement that the edits themselves are POV, and diffs to prove it, can be ignored. I don't know whether John has been NPOV or not. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The onus is upon editors wishing to use a reference to demonstrate it is reliable. SA can quite legitimately call a reference BS on the talk page, and since he has scientific experience that assessment should not be considered lightly. If he is mistaken then it should be a relatively easy matter to demonstrate that expert in cosmology respect the journal. Jefffire (talk) 12:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science is a peer reviewed journal, associated with the prestigious Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. This status provides a prima facie case that the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science is a reliable source. If ScienceApologist wishes to show that it isn't, he is going to have to do better than merely describing the journal by means of crude scatological terminology. John254 00:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

IEEE is a respected institution, and their stamp on the journal is the easily-demonstrated indication of respectability and notability that you are looking for. I'm curious to know what SA has done or published that would lead you to believe that he has any "scientific experience" enough to call the IEEE a joke. He's a grad student! Grad student vs. IEEE..., hmmm. I think the onus is on you to show that SA has any credibility or weight to use his opinion as anything more than original research or POV. So far, I've seen absolutely zero. I'll stick with the professionals. ABlake (talk) 21:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The name "IEEE" is an indication of respectability (but not notability). However, the Journal of Irreproducible Results is also published by a respected institution, and they clearly do not consider themselves respectable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for lightening up the mood Arthur. I'll try to lighten up my edits too. It's not worth getting all spun up. ABlake (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Claiming reliability by association is not how science works, but I understand how establishing scientific reliability may be daunting to editors without scientific backgrounds. In general "impact factors" are a rough and ready way to judge how well respected a journal is. I did some research and this journal appears to have had an impact factor of 1.82 in the period between 2000-2004 . Rather poor, but at least it has one. It's impact factor appears to have dropped substantially in recent years, and it appears to have dropped off the listings, which casts grave doubt on it's current reputation. Jefffire (talk) 09:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Remember, though, that we don't need to show that the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science is the most respected journal in cosmology -- we only need to prove that it's a more reliable source than this blog post, which ScienceApologist used as a source critical of Eric Lerner. John254 11:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi John, I'm afraid that that is completely incorrect (please see WP:RS). Blog posts are not RS, and neither are non-respected journals. It's not a contest, it's a standard of inclusion. Jefffire (talk) 11:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll point out that blog posts can be used to source the opinion of the person writing the blog. In this case, that person is the extremely respected cosmologist Sean Carroll who is offering his evaluative opinion as a cosmologist of Eric Lerner's ideas. This is how the source is used. In contrast, the non-respected journals were being used to soapbox for Eric Lerner's ideas beyond what is notable. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll point out that IEEE is a respected and reliable source, whether or not it wins a popularity contest. Stop making up rules that don't match policy! It is hypocrisy to dismiss the IEEE articles (which has the support of the scientific community, except your friends), and include a reference from a blog. If you include the "extremely respected" blog, you should also include the respected journal. Sorry, but I won't let you enforce a double standard that is completely against policy. ABlake (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

"Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources." . ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I assume we should be able to agree, at the minimum, that IEEE's TPS is not a self-published source. Just to be clear. Mgmirkin (talk) 02:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not regard either this blog post or this journal as being a reliable source, especially given that this is a BLP. Jefffire (talk) 13:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I assume that your exclusion of the journal as being a "reliable source" was based upon some personal "gut feeling" (inadmissible)? IEEE's TPS does appear to be both "notable," "peer reviewed," and to have been ranked favorably in "impact ratings" by an independent source with no stake in the Misplaced Pages dispute over Lerner. See comments below in response to Arthur above (sorry if they're in the wrong spot {?} all the indenting was getting crowded, and I was responding to Arthur, but wasn't sure where in the Hierarchy it should go). Anyway, hopefully they resolve the issue? Mgmirkin (talk) 02:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

(interpolated, as someone is not indenting properly)

• In response to Arthur above: "The name 'IEEE' is an indication of respectability (but not notability). However, the Journal of Irreproducible Results is also published by a respected institution, and they clearly do not consider themselves respectable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)" While an amusing anecdote, it does not make IEEE's TPS any less notable or any less peer-reviewed or any less impactful.
• IEEE's TPS does take itself seriously and consider itself a respectable journal.
• "Aims and Scope: Plasma science and engineering, including: magnetofluid dynamics and thermionics; plasma dynamics; gaseous electronics and arc technology; controlled thermonuclear fusion; electron, ion, and plasma sources; space plasmas; high-current relativistic electron beams; laser-plasma interactions; diagnostics; plasma chemistry and colloidal and solid-state plasmas."
• Ranked for "impact" by Sci-Bytes (subsequently sciencewatch.com), IEEE's TPS was ranked #10 in overall "impact" (total citations measured versus total articles released, according to their metric) over the 5 year 2000-2004 period. That appears to note a pretty good "impact" rating (top 10).
• They are apparently peer-reviewed.
• Hopefully the IEEE's TPS journal issue can be put to rest now? They're peer reviewed. They *do* take themselves seriously (unlike the lighthearted journal mentioned above). They have in the relatively recent past been ranked as relatively high impact (top 10 for the 2000-2004 period by Sci-Bytes , who have no stake in the Misplaced Pages issue and I'd assume can be relied upon as an independent neutral source relating to the "impact" of journals they review). Regardless whether some here feel that cosmology papers should be published exclusively in cosmology journals, IEEE's TPS lists among the topics it is intended to cover: "cosmic plasma." As such it is a perfectly acceptable place to publish papers on cosmic plasma to be peer reviewed by others who (one assumes) are familiar with plasma, space, and space plasma (since that appears to be one of the stated aims of the journal). Mgmirkin (talk) 02:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oops, that should have read "space plasma," in case anyone wants to get nit-picky. Mgmirkin (talk) 02:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
• One is also tempted to point out that articles currently available in the most recent issue I could find do not appear to be "junk science" as some have alleged of the journal. In fact one sees what would be expected of a journal on plasma science and EE:

High Voltage Charging of a Capacitor Bank

Analysis of the Liner Stability in Various Experiments

Megagauss Magnetic Fields for Magnetized Laser-Plasma Experiments

Overview of the Dynamic Hohlraum X-Ray Source at Sandia National Laboratories

Among others. All pretty typical peer-reviewed papers. I don't see why certain people are raising a stink about the "credibility" of the IEEE or the TPS journal. Just because from their POV, one or two articles should never have been entertained in the first place. Their POV on whether or not an article should have been accepted doesn't really carry much weight (the journal reviewed it and considered it to be of sufficient quality to publish and to debate scientifically). The fact is, the papers were peer reviewed. If the WP users have an issue with those particular papers, they should publish something scientific in those journals in rebuttal, rather than attempting to take it out on the journal in question by trying to smudge their reputation rhetorically on WP. Just my opinion, of course. Mgmirkin (talk) 02:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

See WP:RSN#Low impact journals used to POV-push. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, though not apparently definitive. I see a lot of you lobbying against IEEE's TPS on the basis that you disagree with a few of their articles and thus feel the whole thing should be tossed out. But I don't exactly see much "consensus" on the issue (unless you consider your own opinion to be consensus). No offense. There does seem to be some considerable difference of opinion in the discussion (highlights summarized below).

• ScienceApologist appears to be the main proponent of blackballing IEEE's TPS, for whatever reason (apparently his POV that a couple of articles shouldn't have been published, or weren't "worthy" of print; the editors of IEEE's TPS apparently disagreed, as is their prerogative as editors):

"I beleive that pandering to the fringe elements in the way that is being done for the last year in article space is a violation of WP:WEIGHT ... ScienceApologist (talk) 14:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)"

"In tightly-knit communities like astronomy and cosmology there are only a handful of journals that really get notice. MNRAS, ApJ, ARA&A, AJ. Then there are the journals that are the journals that are ignored. These are the journals the fringe-promoters want to see used, even though we have journal citations from the more credible journals ... ScienceApologist (talk) 15:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)"

• So, in your world-view, should only those 4 journals be allowed as sources of peer-reviewed academic work? Or are other notable peer reviewed journals allowed to host academic discussions of a scientific nature? Just wondering how far you're willing to push this line of thinking... Mgmirkin (talk) 00:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

"No, IEEE Trans. Plasma Science is definitely the most fringe of them all in terms of cosmology and astronomy ... they routinely publish papers by Velikovskians and other way-out-there fringers who believe in all sorts of nonsense with regards to astronomy ... they're conspiracy theorists in charge of IEEE's journal ... ScienceApologist (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)"

• Utter nonsense. You seem to be claiming based on a vast minority of papers you happen to disagree with (1? 3? 10? Out of how many hundred or thousand articles published in the journal over one or more years' time?) that the entire journal is junk and should be utterly disregarded (or did you mean disregarded only with respect to cosmology?). If one were to browse the journal, one would not find any significant majority of "papers published by Velikovskians" (heck, even a significant minority). In fact, flipping to any random issue, one can see that your comments are patently absurd. One can't take one or two articles where you have a personal beef against the author / subject and hold those up as representative of the journal as a whole. They obviously are not. Anyone with the slightest interest should be able to verify this for themselves. Mgmirkin (talk) 00:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• I find it ironic that ScienceApologist has apparently forwarded his own "conspiracy theory" about purported conspiracy theorists conspiring to subvert the system (I assume that's his rather obvious and absurd implication). As I've said before, interested parties should investigate for themselves whether the journal frequently publishes "Velikovskian" and other "way-out-there" material. I've flipped through no less than 10 random issues and see no evidence of ScienceApologist's claims. Mgmirkin (talk) 00:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

"It so happens that Plasma Transactions is peer-reviewed, but it is peer-reviewed only in the sense that alternative medicine journals are peer-reviewed: it is believers who share the agenda of the editors who are reviewers (and I get the impression that it is actually just the editors that do the review and no formal process of asking for independent or external reviewers even takes place: though they do not admit to this). ScienceApologist (talk) 13:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)"

• So, is your insinuation of malfeasance to take precedence, then, since they don't admit to it, and it comes down to your word against theirs, essentially? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof (at least above and beyond your own opinion and supposition; innocent until proven guilty, and all that). Mgmirkin (talk) 00:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Others are not apparently in consensus with ScienceApologist regarding IEEE's TPS, at this time:

"it is also important to remember that there may be systemic bias in the impact factor calculations ... Itsmejudith (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)"

"I certainly agree that high impact journals should be given substantially more weight but am hesitant to rule out low impact journals completely ... Ultimately, I think we have to decide such issues on a case by case basis. Blueboar (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)"

"I don't know about the rest, but IEEE Trans. Plasma Science is certainly no fringe-theory outlet and has a decent reputation within the field . Impact factors should be judged within the relevant field, and I can't think of a single journal published by reputable professional societies such as IEEE, APS, AMS, SIAM that would qualify as a fringe journal ... while I wouldn't vouch for the accuracy of every paper in any journal, we should be careful that we don't paint with too broad a brush. Abecedare (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)"

"I also think it is going to be highly problematic classifying any IEEE journals as crackpot ... Itsmejudith (talk) 14:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)"

"I think that it would be too much to brand an IEEE journal WP:FRINGE (at least, I have no qualms citing some of their other publications for solid state) ... Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 17:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)"

• Appreciate the referral to the discussion, but at present, it doesn't seem to be in any way definitive. Those other than ScienceApologist seem to agree that giving undue weight to fringe publications can be problematic, but on the other hand seem to disagree about calling IEEE's TPS "fringe," as the majority of articles don't appear to be "fringe science" at all. ScienceApologist's case for calling IEEE's TPS "fringe" is one or two articles published therein by people he disagrees with and has been antagonistic toward in the past. Unless he's only saying that it's "fringe" with respect to the field of cosmology, but not with respect to the field of plasma physics (that I could probably agree with, as cosmologists may not necessarily read IEEE journals, and vice versa; though it does sound a bit like "plasma physicists should mind their own business" with respect to cosmology). Lerner works in the field of plasma physics. So, it's not unreasonable to publish in a notable IEEE / plasma science journal. Though, in his case, he may also outline implications for cosmology in some article(s)... So, it's perhaps a bit of a toss-up as to which journal is "better" to publish in (ultimately, that decision rests with the author, I suppose)? Mgmirkin (talk) 00:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Mgmirkin, thanks for the analysis. Unfortunately, rational arguments will not influence ScienceApologist as you may hope. His POV will reign supreme whether we like it or not. However, best of luck. I've wasted enough time trying, and as I mentioned before, he has hijacked this article. I'm amazed and disgusted that he continually gets away with it. Maybe he'll do the right thing and voluntarily recuse himself, or else get banned for POV pushing and aggressive biased editing. Whatever happens, it's just Misplaced Pages, and life will go on. ABlake (talk) 01:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

In all fairness, he has recently allowed some of Eric's basic ideas from the book to be included in the book section, so maybe there's hope. ABlake (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Can I ask, what brought John254 to this page in the first place? He sounds right now like another shill: lord knows we've seen our fair share of them here. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. Misplaced Pages is written from a neutral point of view, not ScienceApologist's point of view. Consequently, disagreement, yea, even significant disagreement, with ScienceApologist on this page does not imply that one is "another shill" of Eric Lerner. Especially not when the user disagreeing with ScienceApologist had over 30,000 edits, and 1 year and ten months of experience on Misplaced Pages, before making a single content edit relating to Eric Lerner or plasma cosmology. Indeed, my initial involvement in editing this article was for the sole purpose of removing inadequately sourced controversial information concerning a living person that, as JzG concedes, should not have been inserted into this article. As I found ScienceApologist's attempt to insert this allegation troubling, I investigated the situation further to determine whether any more subtle WP:BLP violations were present. John254 00:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that User:John254 has researched the subject of the article or the beliefs associated with that person carefully enough. He instead seems to be parroting old concerns of plasma cosmology POV-pushers and adopting them as his own despite having been clearly dealt with before User:John254 had a user account. WP:RTFA surely applies as does our admonition for people to actually research before making bald and unfounded pronouncements. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

How much research does it take to see that basic policies are being violated? The truth is that the debate died down because Eric Lerner and Ian Tresman were both banned over their heated disagreements with ScienceApologist, and I deployed for several months. That doesn't count as prior resolution. SA was warned about his own behavior at that time, but it still continues along the same thread. If John254 was to go back and read the entire history, he would find that the same inappropriate tactics and arguments are still being used today. Luckily I was around to catch it this time, which started this latest round of edit warring. Read my talk page for the condensed version. ABlake (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Lerner's political activities redux

I had a phone conversation with Eric Lerner earlier (as I mentioned somewhere on this page I've met him a couple of times, but ended up at this article by chance). I wanted to pass along a couple of things he said regarding the NCLC-LaRouche issue and offer a couple of suggestions. I have no interest in discussing the scientific debate - which I'm roughly a billion light years away from understanding - but rather just want to put this LaRouche business to bed. Sorry if the following is somewhat lengthy.

Eric was indeed in the National Caucus of Labor Committees and said he left in 1978. The group had different tendencies in the 1970s given that it was a product of SDS factionalism. Lerner says he was actually opposed to the LaRouche dominated elements of the NCLC and was hoping to move the group away from that direction and back toward its leftist roots. When that seemed impossible he quit the group. I don't think the desalination patent issue was necessarily what caused him to leave the group - it was the larger issue of political disagreement. It seems it would be completely inaccurate to call Lerner a follower of LaRouche, though I don't think anyone was pushing that point anymore.

Eric made a couple of comments about how to deal with his political activities and I will pass those along. I will add at the outset that I tend to agree with these suggestions but obviously they are open for discussion, and I'm certainly not acting as a proxy for Lerner, rather I'm merely communicating his viewpoint which I think is completely appropriate. Eric feels that it violates our policy on undue weight to give so any attention to the NCLC issue while giving relatively short shrift to his other political activities. He says the NCLC was a minor part of his political activism, and feels it is only worthy of inclusion if we went into more detail about his civil rights work, involvement in Columbia in 1968, current activities in NJ Civil Rights, etc. Basically if we can come up with a solid paragraph of sourced material on his political activities he would be fine with the NCLC aspect being mentioned - otherwise it is too trivial to bring in. (I would also add though that there is an additional problem in mentioning the NCLC stuff in that we only have one source which does not give the full picture - i.e. it does not explain that Lerner was overtly opposed to the LaRouche faction which seems a key detail, but one for which we have no source at this point except Lerner himself).

Lerner also pointed out that his notability obviously is based on his scientific writing, not his political activities. If we do expand the political section, he feels more needs to be said about his scientific work, writing, etc. - the issue here again being undue weight. Presumably this would require bringing in sources which have been hotly debated here, and again I certainly am not going to be a part of that debate.

So what to do? I suggest, and Eric is fine with this, simply returning the sentence on his political activities to the status quo ante (see the last sentence of the "Personal history" section in this version). There might be some issues with the sourcing (i.e. some of the sources are not ideal) but there are no controversial BLP claims there (which is to say the subject is fine with that version). Alternatively, we could strip it down even further and only mention his involvement with the NJ Civil Rights Coalition - a current activity and one which we can easily source. I do tend to agree with Lerner that if we want to put in the NCLC material we need to expand the politics section, and therefore expand the science discussion as well or there are problems with WP:UNDUE. Expansion seems to me the least desirable option in large part because I don't know that we have enough reliable sources to do that.

I'd like to hear how others feel about the above, but I'd also like to mention one other thing that has been bothering me more and more as I continue to think about it. I don't think it's appropriate that ScienceApologist continues to edit this article, and I would ask him to consider voluntarily absenting himself from it (after all it's a trifling affair in the grand scheme of the universe...whatever that is.). SA and Lerner were previously in a Wiki dispute that went to ArbCom and which got Lerner banned from this article. SA recently attempted to insert material which called Lerner "a former follower of Lyndon LaRouche" - a claim which has proven to be inaccurate. No matter how you parse it, that looks very, very bad given how seriously and carefully we are supposed to treat BLP's at Misplaced Pages. Lerner is upset that a former content opponent of his carelessly inserted (I think that is an accurate description) material which called him a former-follower of a very controversial figure whom he apparently does not like or agree with at all. I think he has every right to be angry at that, and would ask ScienceApologist to imagine how he would feel if the situation were reversed. Aside from weighing in on some current unresolved issues (if that), perhaps SA can consider avoiding this article in the future. At the very least, he might consider limiting himself to the talk page. I doubt he would be happy with that, but under the circumstances I think it is a reasonable request.

Aside from that I hope we can end the LaRouche/NCLC thing quickly.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely. The reference to the NCLC and Lyndon LaRouche in this article is misleading at best, and completely unnecessary. Also, as ScienceApologist is personally involved in a dispute with Eric Lerner described in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience and has edited this article in blatant violation of the biographies of living persons policy , he needs to recuse himself from further editing on this page. In light of the exigency of remedying serious WP:BLP problems, I will remove the reference to the NCLC and Lyndon LaRouche shortly. John254 02:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate Eric is upset that I edit the article while he is banned, but I have to say that part of assuming good faith at Misplaced Pages is assuming good faith. I won't be scared-off from writing an article because the guy it's about thinks I'm "libeling" him. Eric should understand that politics makes strange bedfellows and that Misplaced Pages works on a condition of verifiability, not truth. One of the major problems I have is that Eric is really into self-promotionalism in a very underhanded way. For example, User:ABlake's advocacy is nothing short of outlandish in this article considering he is a business partner with Eric. I was interested that one of the main sources of information on Eric Lerner was a book about Lyndon LaRouche. I tried to be as neutral as possible. I used wording suggested by User:Bigtimepeace for inclusion in the article. I'll point out that sometimes erstwhile associations with fame make for the most easily sourced material. In any case, don't look for me to stop editing this article. I am happy to have Eric's input, but I'll remind everyone that he is in not in any state to be making demands here given his past history of self-promotionalism at Misplaced Pages.

Let me also say that I think that Eric's political activities may be totally inappropriate to include here. This is a Misplaced Pages page that is supposed to be about why a particular person is notable. As of yet, he isn't "noted" for his political persuasions. I have stated before that I think we should remove all mention of politics if we are going to cherry-pick sources. Since this seems to be the route many people would like to take here, I'm happy to go with the nothing side of the all-or-nothing approach.

ScienceApologist (talk) 06:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The nothing approach would be acceptable I think, though as I said above I feel that a better option would be to include a brief mention of the NJ Civil Rights group and nothing else. That is a current, uncontroversial activity which has been covered in the media and which we can source. We would keep out all past activities including civil rights movement activism, Columbia, etc. If there is no objection to that I might try to add in something along those lines.

I'm not going to pursue my suggestion that ScienceApologist take leave of the article any further save for one additional comment here. If you keep working on the article, I would simply ask that you be a bit more cautious about adding in negative material. As you say Misplaced Pages trades in verifiability not truth - which is fine by me, I'm too much of a postmodernist to have much faith in "The Truth" - and I for one believe that subjects of articles ought not be able to dictate the content of their articles (there are a number of editors who partially or wholly disagree with that these days). But I also think we need to treat biographies of living persons with an enormous amount of care and respect. I feel that there was a failure here in that regard, one which could have had a rather unjust real-world impact for the article subject, and I hope SA is open to the possibility that he may have proceeded a bit less judiciously than he normally would because of his strong opinions on the scientific debate in which Lerner is involved. I'm speaking only for myself here, but personally I would never add negative personal information into the biography of a historian (my field of study) with whom I had a scholarly or professional disagreement. I think that crosses a conflict of interest line and opens the door for potential BLP problems. I'm not really trying to convince you, SA, of that view, rather just asking you to consider this perspective if and when you work on Lerner's article in the future.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Just because something is controversial doesn't mean it shouldn't be included at Misplaced Pages. After all, Misplaced Pages is not censored. I can understand, however, that the political activities of Eric might not be all that relevant to our encyclopedia. The New Jersey Civil Rights Defense Committee itself doesn't even have an article and I don't know that it ever will have one. Saying that this activity for which we have one reliable source is somehow more relevant to Eric Lerner than his NCLC break for which we have one reliable sources seems to me to be picking-and-choosing.

I'll also note that what constitutes "negative material" is wholly in the eye of the beholder in this case. For one, I do not consider Eric breaking with Lyndon LaRouche to be negative, and until you chatted with Eric you didn't either. He obviously does and I respect his opinion. That's neither here nor there, though. While it would be great if everybody agreed what was negative and what was positive, that's simply not possible. Our goal is to write a reliably sourced, verifiable encyclopedia. To the extent that we can do this, it is easy to see that Eric has been verifiably involved with NCLC and this is reliably sourced to a published book. If there are reliable sources for other political activities of Eric, we can include those too. So far, I've seen only one other reliable independent source: the San Diego newspaper article. My feeling is we may be scraping the bottom of the barrel as far as this is concerned.

By the way, your attempted characterizations of the disputes I may or may not have with Eric Lerner are quite distorted. My "strong opinions" on the so-called "scientific debate" are the ones that coincide with WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:V. Eric is the one who has been banned from editing this page over concerns that he was using Misplaced Pages as a soapbox, not I. I'll also point out that there is nothing "scholarly" about Eric's advocacy of plasma cosmology any more than pseudohistory advocacy is indicative of a "scholarly" dispute within the subject of history. Eric has an undergraduate degree in physics and, to the extent that he owns a self-promoting company that is trying to secure resources to further his own pipedreams and attack what he sees as a conspiratorial academic establishment, he is "professionally" involved with science. But the documented incompetence associated with fringe cosmologies means that any "dispute" that exists is in the realm of internet skirmishes and sensationalism. There is no academic debate any more than there is an academic debate between PZ Meyers and the Discovery Institute.

ScienceApologist (talk) 09:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, I take no side in whatever disputes you and Lerner might have. I was not trying to cast aspersions on your viewpoint (sorry if that was the impression given) by calling them opinions because ultimately that's what they are, even if the preponderance of the scientific evidence, and Misplaced Pages policy, is on your side. There clearly is a debate of some kind which is all that I was getting at - I don't know how to characterize it and the question of who is right or wrong in the debate and whether or not it is "scientific" was simply not my point. Finally, because I was not clear about this, what I was really referring to as problematic was not the sentence that was ultimately added (though as I said above I now think that was problematic as well because of undue weight) but rather your initial addition suggesting that Lerner was a follower of LaRouche (which I objected to from the very beginning). Had I not happened by here that might have been put back in the article once protection came off and/or you still might be arguing for its inclusion. That was the big mistake in my view and the reason I mentioned the COI and BLP issues.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I wish you would allow me to make a mistake and simply assume good faith. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I do assume good faith of you and I know you do a lot of good work on Misplaced Pages. I also think the mistake - though not malicious - was a rather large one, hence my suggestion that you distance yourself from the article (even good faith mistakes can have consequences, obviously). It is possible that you might not have exercised the best judgment because you are too close to the issue (which happens to all of us - I know it has happened to me). But I've said my piece and am more than willing to let this go. I just don't want you to think I view your actions here as malevolent or lacking in good faith because that is not the case. My apologies if my comments gave that impression.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Now hold on a minute. My mistake was in wording, not in judgment. The fact is that Lerner broke with NCLC over LaRouche-inspired tactics. How this is explained is a matter of editorial courtesy, but is not about "judgment". The point of a wiki is that mistakes can be made and corrected. What you are suggesting here is tantamount to telling me to distance myself form an article because I misspelled a word or put in an inappropriate punctuation mark. Anyway, I'll let this drop. Just don't go around suggesting people leave articles, please. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

stupid question

why are old discussions from 2006 of an irrelevant nature still on this talk page? when plenty of material from much more recently is in the talk archive? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The archive history shows threads were archived by a bot. The bot must have considered #Ian tries to railroad ScienceApologist and #Explanations/suggestions (which includes #Arrogant, dismissive, and emotion-ridden) to be active threads because Soupdragon42 recently added a brief comment to the end of each. Art LaPella (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

More neutral and factually based?

Please explain how your revert is "more neutral and factually based." Explain the rationale for each item. Thank you. ABlake (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No items were listed by you. Please list the items. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Please give your reasons for the revert. Saying "This is a more neutral and factually based version" is too vague. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Van allen quote

I went to look for the full context, to see if the quote was cherry-picked, and it turns out it came from the book jacket. Quotes on book jackets are routinely subject to "quote mining", often selecting snippets that render an uncritical approval that is absent in the original source. I'd want to see the full Van Allen review before accepting that this single short para is representative of what he thought of the book. Guy (Help!) 21:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is a good idea. However, reverting to ScienceApologist's version was against the general agreement of most editors here. You should have discussed it first. If someone reverts to a more within-policy version, especially one which does not cite a blog, then the quote Guy mentions should be take out. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

How do you propose getting the original full Van Allen review? Contact the publisher? ABlake (talk) 22:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I reverted because the edits inflated Lerner's extremely fringe views and removed a verifiable criticism from a qualified source. Feel free to try a change that does not cause these issues. Yes, the fact that Lerner's views are so thorughly ignored that they are hard to source independently does present problems, but ignoring the problems is not a good way to proceed. Guy (Help!) 23:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Guy, which source do you mean?

ABlake, WP:OWNership isn't irrelevant, it's policy. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Treatment of Article Segments

Here are some thoughts and a proposal. It seems like the arguing over this article comes down to classification. If it is a BLP, we have to treat it one way, and if it is an article about a fringe theory, it must be treated differently. Further, if it is a treatment of the book, it has still different requirements. Disputes have arisen over whether to apply certain policies that realistically only apply to certain parts of the article. So here is the proposal. What if we consider the first part of the article as a BLP, then touch on his fringe theories/ideas as such, and finish with the book section. Hopefully that would clarify the distinct nature of each section, which would determine which policies were relevant, and eliminate the bickering over misapplied policies and inclusion/exclusion of certain content. If that is agreeable, we could put a note at the top of the talk page to let future editors know of the compartmentalized nature of the article, and instruct them how to properly edit each one. Sound fair? ABlake (talk) 14:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• It's not clear ot me exactly what you're proposing. But I would support moving this article to The Big Bang Never Happened since I don't see any credible evidence of notability independent of that, and what information we do have about Lerner's professional career does not look to me to have much purpose other than to try to add credibility to the book. Had he not written the book, I doubt we'd have an article. Guy (Help!) 15:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I would think moving the article to the book is a good idea. Allows for extensive discussion of the ideas, and also extensive criticism, which may be sourced from things like that blog. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 17:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Guy, what would you envision the new article looking like? I'm concerned that this may be a veiled attempt to eliminate all references to Lerner's other notable professional activities beyond the book. Forgive the lack of good faith, but it has been a common occurance here. I'll withhold judgment until I hear your proposal in more detail. Please explain. You might be on to something good. ABlake (talk) 22:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If the current article is any indication, those are very few. They would be included just in introducing the author, I think. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he has many notable professional activities. If it were not for the book, I do not think we'd have an article. Guy (Help!) 10:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Martin is right. The current article has been gutted of any indications of notable activities other than the book. That is the continuing problem here. ScienceApologist keeps eliminating large sections of information that passes all of the policy tests, and the article as it stands is a completely biased shell of what it should be. When challenged to provide an explanation for his unsupportable hacking and reverts, he evades and drags his feet, as he did again above. When reverts are made, ScienceApologist or other editors revert to the limit, again without valid explanation. This has happened time and time and time again. Did I not mention the rudeness that accompanied all of this? The facts of Lerner's notability in other areas, in cosmology beyond the book and in nuclear fusion research, should be included on this page. The argument has been made that this information inflates or promotes him somehow, but describing activities generally is the very purpose of an encyclopedia! Promotion and inflation must surely be avoided, I agree, but not at the cost of elimination of the facts! ABlake (talk) 11:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

So you are making the claim that he's notable outside of his book. Could you provide some details to substantiate that, rather than just bitching about SA? Jefffire (talk) 12:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Eric Lerner is also notable as the president of Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, his efforts to use the dense plasma focus to produce aneutronic fusion via a hydrogen-boron reaction, his technical writing, and the awards he has received from the Aviation Space Writers Association, as described even in the current version of the article. Furthermore, even ScienceApologist admits that "The notability of Eric is not in question." John254 13:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Lawrenceville Plasma Physics scores 142 unique Ghits and all mentions on Google Scholar seem to be papers co-authored by Lerner or citations of Lerner - in other words, Lawrenceville Plasma Physics appears to be Lerner, for all intents and purposes. Guy (Help!) 14:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately, as described above, Lerner's notability apart from the book does not rely solely upon Lawrenceville Plasma Physics. It's interesting, of course, that Lerner has papers published and is being cited in papers appearing in the peer-reviewed journals indexed by Google Scholar -- perhaps he isn't so fringe after all. John254 14:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Van Allen review

According to a conversation I had with the publisher, this statement was the entirety of the review solicited by the published to James Van Allen. I believe Van Allen was paid for the use of his name and was perhaps prompted on how to word his single statement. He has made no further mention of Eric Lerner's work anywhere else that I've been able to find. ScienceApologist (talk) 11:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Sounds like we don't need it. A rent-a-quote job. Guy (Help!) 13:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist's belief that "Van Allen was paid for the use of his name and was perhaps prompted on how to word his single statement." is mere conjecture. If we're going to start excluding reviews on the basis of speculative interpretations of the motives of their authors or the circumstances under which they were made, then we would need to exclude every review by supporters of the Big Bang who have excellent reasons to criticize a book which challenges their theory. However, if we're not going to employ conjectural rationales to exclude reviews, and if a blog post is a sufficiently reliable source for criticism of the book, then surely the quotation can be included, noting, if deemed necessary, that it appeared on the book cover. The reader can certainly determine that the quotation was a paid endorsement based on the forum in which the quotation appeared, but we aren't going to draw that conclusion for them. Now, let's consider some remaining problems with this article: it quotes Lerner as stating that "enormous ribbons of matter... refute a basic premise of the Big Bang", a quotation which is meaningless when abstracted from the context in which it appears, and incorrectly claims that this was Lerner's "major problem with the Big Bang", when, in fact, it is only one of his objections to the theory. The description of Lerner's theories that I wrote provides a far more coherent account of his claims, and is necessary to provide balance per Misplaced Pages:BLP#Criticism, and context for quotations of criticism -- for instance, it's silly to include a quotation which asserts "It seems to me that the theory proposed by Mr. Lerner has serious problems in relation to thermodynamics." without providing at least a brief description of the very theory of thermodynamics that's the subject of criticism. John254 14:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not mere conjecture: it was confirmed by the publisher. In any case, I don't care one way or another but defer to JzG's judgement on the matter. As for what you wrote here, it's trash. Awful. I don't think you're good at this. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Description of Eric Lerner's research

Nearly one month ago ScienceApologist removed the description of Eric Lerner's research concerning plasma cosmology from the article on the basis of the claim that " the details of Eric's peculiar beliefs are not able to be independently sourced" , then later clarified that he disputed the reliability of the journals in which the research appeared. ScienceApologist particularly claimed that although the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science is a peer-reviewed journal published by prestigious Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, it nonetheless deserves to be described by means of crude scatological language: . Which journals does ScienceApologist deem to be reliable sources for cosmology? Consider the following comment:

In tightly-knit communities like astronomy and cosmology there are only a handful of journals that really get notice. MNRAS, ApJ, ARAA, AJ. Then there are the journals that are the journals that are ignored. These are the journals the fringe-promoters want to see used, even though we have journal citations from the more credible journals. It's not like this article is hurting for sources. It looks to me like someone is shilling for discredited crackpots like Paul Marmet. I have made this argument, but it falls on deaf ears. No one wants to hear that their favorite crackpot is really a crackpot and so shouldn't be included at Misplaced Pages. So here we are. How do I convince people that these sources are no good? ScienceApologist (talk) 15:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it turns out that "ApJ" is an abbreviation for The Astrophysical Journal. Would you believe that the description of research ScienceApologist removed cites a paper appearing in The Astrophysical Journal:

He claims that the ] is a strong absorber of the ] with the absorption occurring in a fog of narrow ].<ref>"Radio Absorption by the Intergalactic Medium," The Astro­physical Journal, Vol. 361, Sept. 20, 1990, pp. 63‑68.</ref>

Thus, it appears that at least some of Eric Lerner's research concerning plasma cosmology has appeared in a journal whose reliability ScienceApologist acknowledges. This finding casts serious doubt upon ScienceApologist's contention that Lerner's research is so fringe and so widely ignored that we can't even describe it in the article. Instead, it appears that while Lerner's theories lack majority acceptance, they nonetheless qualify as "Alternative theoretical formulations", as described in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience:

Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

As such, Lerner's research is suitable for inclusion in our article about him. John254 15:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Start-Class physics articles
• Unknown-importance physics articles
• Start-Class physics articles of Unknown-importance
• Start-Class biography articles
• Start-Class biography (science and academia) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (science and academia) articles
• Science and academia work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Articles with connected contributors