Talk:Eric Lerner/Archive 2

Presnetation

Why does the locations where Lerner presented his "theory" have any relevence at all? JBKramer 15:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Scientific consensus is ".. normally achieved through communication at conferences, the process of publication, and peer review." (my emphasis), and there is a big difference between presenting a conference at the American Physical Society to one at the Bible society. I think readers would want to which locations. --Iantresman 17:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

But communication is two-way. Unless you can speak to the reception Lerner received at these conferences, it is impossible for readers to verify whether his work represents something inside or outside the scientific consensus. Since it is patently obvious that Lerner is outside the scientific consensus, including his presentation at conferences without reporting the evaluation is misleading. Therefore, we should not include it. --ScienceApologist 17:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The fact that he presented is objective. The reception is subjective. The presentation is verifiable. The reception would be difficult to verify. ABlake 17:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

How is presenting relevent, aside from the fact that it allows Lerner's supports to make it appear he is supported by all kinds of respectable scientists? I do not see a list of presentations at the page for Robert H. Dicke. JBKramer 19:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Presentation does not infer support, and the text does not suggest it. And do mean respectable like these scientists? --Iantresman 19:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Science is not done by petition. Since we all agree that his presentation at those conferences does not mean support, what goal does including his presentations at those conferences serve? Scientists with substantially better reputations like Jim Peebles don't have lists of the thousands of presentations they've done - why do we list the handful that this "scientist" has? I have an idea - let's get rid of everything purported to make him relevent but his published peer reviewed papers, and a section specifically delinated for the prizes that the establishment has awarded him. JBKramer 19:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, there is no editorial reason for including whether he presented at conferences beyond implying (falsely) to the reader that Eric Lerner has support of the mainstream scientific community. --ScienceApologist 19:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Presentations document activity, much like publishing. The location of the presentation is as relevant as the journal or magazine in which someone is published. The location or sponsoring organization of the presentation puts into context any reception of the ideas that may be mentioned. In fact, the location of presentations demonstrates the nature of the audience, whether supporters or critics. If Robert Dicke lacks presentations on his page, it would match the lack of footnotes and documentation. In my humble POV, Mr. Lerner is being held to an incredibly high standard, more than anyone else I've seen in Wikipedia. Being a controversial figure with controversial ideas makes this appropriate. I also think that if the presentations are listed, the ideas presented should be described also, in order to provide a balance to the appearance that he is "supported by all kinds of respectable scientists". ABlake 19:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your humble POV - you believe the big bang is a fraud, correct, and that the establishment is conspiring to cover up the more accurate other explanation? JBKramer 19:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, regarding "anyone else I've seen in Wikipedia-" could you give us a list of the other usernames you have edited under? Thanks. JBKramer 19:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

JB, why so defensive, and accusatory? My humble POV is meaningless regarding the big bang since I'm not a physicist or cosmologist. Are you? I'm focusing on the content of the article and the quality of the information. Why bring my POV on the big bang into question, and why accuse me of editing under different names. However, I'll answer your questions. Regarding the big bang, I don't know. I take the evidence as it comes, and I think both big bang cosmology and plasma cosmology have valid points. I don't discount the valid ideas of either theory. Regarding posting under different names, this is it. Don't confuse my comments on the article with biases towards cosmology, or anything else. Judge my comments on their own merit.ABlake 20:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

"Lerner's ideas have largely been ignored by most astronomers, physicists and cosmologists. " , "The general response, however, of the scientific community to Lerner's dispute with standard cosmology has been negative." Both of these sentences have no citations to verifiable sources, so by the strict critieria applied here, should be removed as "unsourced negetive comments."

BKramer has removed references to the experimental work performed in the University of Illinois and Texas A &M collaborations, despite the fact that the contracts specifically describe the work being contracted as experimental and refer to the institutions involved. The original formulations should be restored. Also, the JPL reference he cites refers to the experimental work then being performed at University of Illinois.Elerner 05:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

In my humble POV, Mr. Lerner is being held to an incredibly high standard, more than anyone else I've seen in Wikipedia. Being a controversial figure with controversial ideas makes this appropriate. I also think that if the presentations are listed, the ideas presented should be described also, in order to provide a balance to the appearance that he is "supported by all kinds of respectable scientists". -- The standard Mr. Lerner is being held to is that almost no articles in Wikipedia list every conference the scientist has presented at. It is just an absurd thing to do. Wikipedia is not a place to post your resume or CV, it is a place to provide information. Eric Lerner wants to let people know that he is a "legitimate scientist" by having the article recount which conferences he has made presentations. You realize that if we did that for all scientists we would have sections that would be longer than this article in most scientist's article pages? The point is that unless it it notable, it doesn't belong in the article. I am simply pointing out that conference attendance is not notable in the grand-scheme. What may be notable is the reception received at a conference, but since we cannot verify this yet, it is not right to include this point in the article. --ScienceApologist 14:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• NPOV Undue weight (policy): "None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them. Wikipedia is not paper." (my emphasis)
• Wiki Notability (guideline): appears to apply to topics.
• The reader will decide if the information is relevant, which they can't do if it is not there. --Iantresman 14:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

This isn't about tiny-minority views receiving attention, it's about having a standardization of form. An article should not read like a CV, it should provide useful information. That's an editorial decision. We are allowed to edit articles, Ian. We don't just put out every point possible discovered about a subject and include it in an article. That defeats the whole purpose of having editors. --ScienceApologist 14:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• If it reads like a CV, then we do what any good editor does, change the style of the writing. The quantity of facts in an article does not determine whether an article is like a CV. --Iantresman 14:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

As I pointed out, very few other articles on scientists list the conferences they presented at. That's the issue. --ScienceApologist 15:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• While several editors have suggested that Lerner or his work is pseudoscience,[1] [2] [3] [4], it is notable that he has enaged in the scientific process, incuding presenting at conferences. --Iantresman 15:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• ScienceApologist, I notice that your removed information on the notability of Lerner's peer-reviewed papers,[5]. Can you explain how it was POV pushing, when the section fairly includes critical material?
• I note that the section had included the statement "Lerner's ideas have largely been ignored by most astronomers, physicists and cosmologists.". Can you provide a citation, or, any source which comments on the reception by the any part of the scientific community? --Iantresman 15:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It was POV pushing because it tried to mitigate verifiable criticism. The best citation for this is the open letter itself which states that his ideas have been ignored. --ScienceApologist 15:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• You're saying that verifiable peer-reviewed notability mitigates verifiable self-published criticism?
• Can you provide the quote from the Open Letter which states Lerner's ideas have been ignored? --Iantresman 15:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

the Open letter neither says that my ideas are ignored nor that the "scientific community" views them negetively. Those comments are both unsourced.But I am glad to know that SA thinks the open letter is a verifiable source, since it has some interesting things to say about the Big Bang theory.Elerner 15:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

"[T]heir development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives cannot even now be freely discussed and examined. An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences.... Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining..." This shows clearly that your ideas are ignored and viewed negatively. Maybe you should read the letters you sign more carefully. --ScienceApologist 15:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict). The Open letter is a verifiable source in regard what its author (Eric Lerner) thinks, and to the names of the signatories and what they think. It is not verifiable as to the "facts" stated. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

We have examples of professional cosmologists saying the same thing. So if both sides agree, then it is uncontested. It's just a bit more interesting when it comes from the horse's mouth, so to speak. --ScienceApologist 16:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, which professional cosmologists say that Lerner's work is ignored? --Iantresman 16:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

SA, is there a standard format suggested by Wikipedia for biographies, or is it just a matter of what is common practice? Could you show us an example of what you consider to be a very good biography here in Wikipedia. ABlake 18:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comments

From the Cosmological Statement "[T]heir development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives cannot even now be freely discussed and examined. An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences.... Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining..."

This statement infers:

• Lerner's ideas are viewed negatively. [6]
• "Lerner's ideas have largely been ignored by most astronomers, physicists and cosmologists."[7]

Comments? --Iantresman 16:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. It says "the dominance of the big bang within the field...". Doesn't that imply that any idea conflicting with the Big Bang would be viewed negatively? "An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences..." In other words, those ideas have largely been ignored, since no discussion place other than conferences is suggested, and since no one has distinguished Lerner's ideas from the statement. Art LaPella 17:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• For want of a better example, heterosexuality is the dominant sexuality, but it is not necessarily mean that it views homosexuality negatively, even of some people do. And if we pick an individual in the minority group, we have no idea how they are viewed.
• And I would expect a lack of exchange of ideas at a Democratic/Republican conference because each party is well aware of the each other's ideas, not because they are ignored. And again, if we pick an individual, we have no idea whether their views are ignored or studied. --Iantresman 18:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Basketball players don't view skiiers negatively, but "the dominance of the big bang within the field" by definition would be promoted by those who view any rejection of the big bang negatively. The Big Bang is an opinion, not an activity that doesn't have to include an opinion. "Lerner's ideas are viewed negatively" because those ideas reject the Big Bang - recognizing Lerner himself isn't necessary to answer that question.

The statement claims an open exchange of ideas is lacking as it is in Cuba: because dissent is persecuted, not because each side is well aware of each other's ideas. Only the persecutors would know. Art LaPella 17:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the question at hand will not be answered by this statement. The real question that everyone is discussing is whether the larger community is negative, indifferent, ignorant, or positive toward Lerner's theories. Just because Lerner may feel ignored and underfunded doesn't mean anything. The facts regarding funding by the major funders is a fact that can be interpreted any number of ways. Budgetary constraints at the federal level have effected many areas and companies, whether the arts, biological research, or plasma fusion research. The answer to the question would seem to have to come from a large sampling of the recognized top names in the field, and if there is no statements from them one way or the other, then any assumption of their feelings or intent would not be valid. If there are some voices, but not a consensus, speaking one way, then it should be noted, whether positive, negative, or indifferent. I think the line in question is fairly accurate, even if it isn't verified by a consensus. Lerner has been largely ignored by mainstream scientists, but that isn't negative. It's just the truth. However, it must also be recognized that he does have some support from professional scientists, if in fact he does.ABlake 18:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

And if the statement accurately indicates that alternative cosmologies, including Lerner's, are generally ignored, then it also indicates that over 30 scientists share his views (published in New Scientists), and over 200 more subsequently endorse that view. --Iantresman 18:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing in the Open Letter that refers to my work at all. There is certainly nothing in the open letter even vaguely relevant to my work in fusion, yet the unsourced negative statements refer to all my work.

There is nothing in the Open letter that refers to the views of the “scientific community” but only to cosmologists, a tiny fraction of the scientific community. There is nothing in the letter that states that dissent on the Big Bang is ignored. It clearly states that such dissent is being repressed by being denied funding and that this denial of funding makes researchers fearful of discussing problems with the big bang openly. “Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.”

I assume that all editors can understand the difference between views being ignored and being repressed.

What the statements says is being ignored is specific data that contradicts the Big Bang. That is a lot different from saying that dissent as a whole, or anyone’s work, is ignored.

I should add that the purpose of the open letter was to help to overcome this pervasive fear of discussing the problems of the big bang and alternatives to it, and that purpose has been in part achieved, in that discussion is now freer and more open, although the funding situation is not in nay way changed. Things do evolve, even in the field of cosmology.

To get away from the Open Letter, which in no way supports these two sentences, there is pl:enty of evidence to show that my work in cosmology and my work in fusion has not been ignored. For example, the fact that I was invited to give a seminar at ESO, to which Ned Wright specifically asked to attend remotely, is evidence that my views are not ignored. Another example is the cover article of New Scientist July 2-8, 2005, “The end of the Beginning”, which treats my views at length and in a respectful manner.

My fusion work has also not at all been ignored, as evidenced by this work being funded first by JPL and then by CCHEN and by my collaborations with various institutions on this work. As for negative reaction, I don’t think you can find any criticism of my fusion work in a peer-reviewed publication.

An accurate statement would be that “Lerner’s criticism of the Big Bang is not shared by most cosmologists.” But the statements as they now stand are merely the personal opinions of BKramer and SA and should be deleted.Elerner 19:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

How about "Lerner's views on the Big Bang are not shared by most cosmologists"? As I suggested earlier, this article should separate the book (and reactions) from his later studies (and reactions). Does that sound logical and appropriate to everyone else? ABlake 20:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

What do cosmologists say about Eric Lerner?

Nearly nothing, but those that have commented have very negative things to say:

Univ. of Hawaii Professor Emeritus of Physics and Astronomy, Victor J. Stenger, and author of "God: The Failed Hypothesis", criticised Lerner's book, The Big Bang Never Happened, in a 1992 edition of the popular magazine, Skeptical Inquirer. Stenger writes[8]:

"Lerner uses the kinds of arguments one often hears in public discourse on science, but rarely among professional scientists themselves. For example, he argues that plasma cosmology is in closer agreement with everyday observation than big-bang cosmology, and hence is the more sensible. A look through a telescope reveals spirals and other structures similar to those observed in the plasma laboratory (and, as cosmologist Rocky Kolb has remarked, in your bathroom toilet as well). Following Lerner's line of reasoning, we would conclude, as people once did, that the earth is flat, that the sun goes around the earth, and that species are immutable."

UCLA astrophysicist Edward L.(Ned) Wright maintains a web page titled "Errors in [Eric Lerner's book] the 'The Big Bang Never Happened'" in which he chronicles point by point, errors in Lerner's cosmological proposals..

Björn Feuerbacher physicist at the University of Heidelberg and Ryan Scranton, physicist at the University of Pittsburgh wrote of Eric Lerner's analysis:

"Lerner's arguments against the BBT fall well short of convincing.... At the same time, Lerner's claims about the ability of the plasma cosmology model to describe the observations correctly are simply wrong.... Lerner also has a bad habit of citing scientific articles in support of his case when, in fact, they actually run contrary to his claims."

British physicist and writer Alec MacAndrew wrote that:

"The Lerner book, at least, is quirky and badly flawed. Anyone who is really interested in understanding the science needs to read much more widely than that."

Sean Carroll, assistant professor in the Physics Department, Enrico Fermi Institute, and Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics at the University of Chicago writes about Lerner's understanding of general relativity (GR):

"But if your professional activity consists of combating a cosmological model that is based on GR, you shouldn't open your mouth without understanding at least the basics. So if I get to decide whether to allocate money or jobs to one of the bright graduate students working on some of the many fruitful issues raised by the Big Bang cosmology, or divert it to a crackpot who claims that the Big Bang has no empirical successes, it's an easy choice. Not censorship, just sensible allocation of resources in a finite world."

Arno A. Penzias, winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics, wrote to the New York Times:

"The sizes of the vast ribbons of galaxies that Eric J. Lerner refers to come straight out of the Big Bang model itself.... Contrary to Mr. Lerner's claim, therefore, the "simple mathematics" he cites rests upon, rather than contradicts the Big Bang model."

To say that we don't know whether the community views him positively or not is a joke. These quotes illustrate that they definitely do not view him positively when he comes into their field of vision.

--ScienceApologist 01:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• The article included "Lerner's ideas have largely been ignored by most astronomers, physicists and cosmologist".
• I had asked "which professional cosmologists say that Lerner's work is ignored?".
• Which one of these criticisms supports that? --Iantresman 04:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

One can easily show that Eric is ignored by doing a citation analysis of his papers. The extreme lack of cites to them indicates that cosmologists ignore them! --ScienceApologist 11:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• I am happy to include examples of his cited papers,[9], but you removed them. --Iantresman 12:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you also "happy" to actually read what citation analysis is before you change the subject? --ScienceApologist 12:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

If you find a peer reviewed citation analysis of Lerner's work, please feel free to include it. The citations I provided to Lerner's work are objective and veriable, other conclusions are subjective and up to the reader. --Iantresman 14:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Citation analysis isn't that hard with ADSABS. If you want, you can see how many papers cite a work by E.J. Lerner and compare it to some professional cosmologist. For example, David Spergel. --ScienceApologist 14:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not interested in other scientists, I'm interested in Eric Lerner, and I can provide sources indicating the citations to his work. That's objective and verifiable. --Iantresman 16:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

But in order to verify the fact I mention, you need to make comparisons. --ScienceApologist 12:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Isn't this your 2002 paper? It has one citation. Do we conclude that it has been "largely been ignored by most astronomers, physicists and cosmologist"? --Iantresman 13:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Absolutely! --ScienceApologist 13:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the point of contention is that the term "ignored" seems negative to some people, and it implies an active awareness but willful disregard for Lerner's work. That active disregard cannot be verified, but assumed based on a perceived lack of citation in others' work. The logical response to that would be, why quote someone whose work doesn't fit with your own? So there is a logical disconnect there, and it would be a bad assumption to state that he is actively disregarded. In that case, it would be more politically correct to say that Lerner's ideas have not been acknowledged or adopted by many other scientists. However, it would be incorrect to leave out the fact that he has been actively endorsed by some scientists and other professionals, as evidenced by his invitations to conferences, the statement, etc. Is this a valid compromise? ABlake 15:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. --Iantresman 15:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

As long as the emphasis is on the fact that Lerner's ideas are not acknoweldged or adopted by most cosmologists, we have no issue. Right now, I really only care that we say it. Going to a conference doesn't mean your idea is acknowledged or adopted (most conferences have so many invited sessions, panels, poster-presentations, and talks as to make them not relevant for verifying approbrium), neither does collecting signatures complaining about marginalization (only relevant towards how these people feel about the mainstream). So there is no evidence to the contrary so the disputing points can be dropped until new evidence is brought forward. --ScienceApologist 19:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Presenting at confernce means just that, nothing more. But it is a verifiable fact. Likewise the letter published in New Scientist. Verifiable facts speak for themselves. The interpretation is yours. --Iantresman 20:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I already made the change. I tried to accurately portray both camps. Feel free to tweak, as long as it remains NPOV. ABlake 20:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

So tweaked. Please let me know if you think it isn't NPOV. --ScienceApologist 07:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your tweaks. ABlake 10:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Quote context

Arbustoo, I agree 100% that selective quotes lack their context, and the postiive quote that you highlight fails this measure. But I wonder why you didn't select or criticise the negative quotes, which are equally selective? --Iantresman 09:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with the critical quotes. As they are done by people who have done graduate work in the field. Why what is a problem with the negative citations? Arbusto 00:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The van Allen quote was complete. It was not from a review. It was what Van Allen sent the publisher to use to help publisize the book.Elerner 13:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow. So how do we verify this? --ScienceApologist 14:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

You get a copy of the book, and read what it says. The review might have been longer and better, for all we know, but what it says on the cover is objective and verifiable. --Iantresman 16:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I picked up a copy of the book, but mine doesn't have the quote on the back. Only something by the Chicago Tribune. Has anyone else read the book? ABlake 20:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It is only on the hardcover jacket.Elerner 20:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

So we need to write that this was a comment submitted specifically to promote the book. --ScienceApologist 19:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any reason to doubt that the quote is on the hardcover edition, so how about we say On the other hand, James Van Allen, a space scientist who discovered the Earth's Van Allen belts, provided the following promotional statement on the back cover of Lerner's The Big Bang Never Happened: Is that acceptable? I think that the hardcover edition fact is overkill. ABlake 19:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. --ScienceApologist 07:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Another request for opinion... I think the quote by Stenger should be removed. Compared to the first quote by Nobel Prize-winning Penzias in the New York Times, Stenger is a retired professor who is quoted in Skeptical Inquirer. The third (supportive) quote is by another Nobel Prize winner. One of these opinions is not like the others, and I think it doesn't add any value. What do you think? ABlake 19:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer to have more quotes from scientists about Eric Lerner so that the reader understands how negatively he is viewed when scientists bother to comment. We have more options available above. I'd note that neither the Penzias quote nor the Van Allen quote are particularly illuminating about the subject. There are other quotes which illustrate far more articulately the problems with Eric Lerner's (lack of) understanding. --ScienceApologist 19:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

What purpose does it serve that readers know how negatively he is (was) viewed? Is that NPOV? Does it matter? I suppose it does to you, but I wonder why. It is interesting to me that the two Nobel Prize winners weren't nearly as bothered or impressed as other scientists (emeritus professors and behaviorologists) were. It seems like the mid-level people are far more incensed or supportive than the top-level professional scientists. If they aren't bothered, why should I be bothered? The Penzias quote may demonstrate the general mid-level uproar that Lerner caused, but why should we care? Why does it matter? Why is that important to you? ABlake 14:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

My mistake. Van Allen was not a Nobel Prize winner. However, the 2006 Nobel Prize winner, George Smoot, recommended Lerner's book as an additional reading in his book "Wrinkles in Time" (pg 318) under the category Alternative Cosmology Books. Don't mistake that as an endorsement, but it wasn't a slam either from a contemporary physicist who was aware of Lerner's work. Take it for what it's worth. It just goes along with my point that true professionals were aware of but not intimidated or seduced by Lerner's ideas. They took it calmly in stride. We should try to do the same. ABlake 21:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

As you rightly point out, putting a book in a list is neither an endorsement nor a slam, nor does it even indicate that Smoot actually read the book, just that he was aware it existed. The purpose of letting the reader know the nature of the scientific community's views on Lerner is to allow them to see that Lerner is viewed negatively. We want readers to get an accurate understanding of what kind of reception Lerner has received from people who are in the know. --ScienceApologist 21:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

My point was, that the real "people who are in the know" don't really care. It is the littler guys that have stronger viewpoints. Therefore, I tend to side with the "guys in the know" more strongly than the littler guys. My point was that focusing on the littler voices is illogical to me when the bigger voices indicate another bias. In other words, apathy should prevail over antipathy, and I don't know why you are focusing on the antipathy. ABlake 23:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

How are you evaluating who is "little" and who is a "guy in the know"? Simply by Nobel Prizes won? Do you know how arbitrary that distinction is? The fact is that there is verifiable apathy and antipathy and both need to be made clear to the reader. Moreover, the reader needs to be made aware that there are basically no mainstream scientists who have a positive reception towards Lerner's beliefs and those that actually comment do so in a negative fashion. --ScienceApologist 14:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I assume that Nobel Prize winners are "in the know". I am not as quick to assume that being "in the mainstream" means you are "in the know". If you feel that Stanger is "in the know", and if you feel that his opinion is needed to provide proper perspective on Lerner, so be it. I'll withdraw my request that it be removed. ABlake 17:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Half a dozen cosmologists have criticised Lerner's book, no dispute. The Open Letter and Alternative Cosmology Group suggests that several hundred scientists and engineers either share Lerner's views, or are agnostic. --Iantresman 22:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Except the half a dozen cosmologists who criticized Lerner's ideas criticized them specifically. The cosmology statement isn't about Lerner's book and neither is the alternative cosmology conference. Moreover, the list of "several hundred scientists and engineers" is poorly vetted. A lot of cranks, no-names, and non-scientists are included in that list. --ScienceApologist 22:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• The biography includes a section called "Reception of Lerner's ideas", and not "Reception of Lerner's book". Lerner's ideas are described in his book, his papers, on his Web sites, and in the Open Letter and at the Alternative Cosmology Group.
• Let's assume that only 60 scientists and engineers in the Open Letter are affiliated to Universities. That's still 10 times the number who share Lerner's views, than the half dozen critical cosmologists.
• Earlier I provide a list of about half a dozen scientists who had cited Lerner's work in peer reviewed articles.[10] Again, this matches the half dozen cosmologists.
• While I do not dispute that there are half a dozen critical cosmologists, your view that we should "have more quotes from scientists about Eric Lerner so that the reader understands how negatively he is viewed when scientists bother to comment." does not appear to accurately reflect the views out there --Iantresman 10:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Let's assume nothing about the motives and affilliations of those who signed the "cosmology statement". Since it isn't specifically about Lerner, they may all disagree with him.
• I encourage you to actually read the papers and tell us in what fashion Lerner was cited rather than providing us with search results that are meaningless.
• the views out there are, verifiably, that cosmologists don't think Lerner is legitimate. Disputing this is disputing that Lerner does fringe science.

--ScienceApologist 14:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• The contents of the Open Letter are views shared by all those who signed it, including Lerner. Of course there may be views of Lerner's that they disagree with too.
• I have never disputed the half a dozen cosmologists are critical of Lerner's work. Of course there may be other views of Lerner that the do not disagree with, but these are also unverifiable. --Iantresman 18:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

So we agree that signatories to the Open Letter are verifiably supporting the contents of the letter and not each other necessarily. --ScienceApologist 12:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The views represented in the letter are shared; all other views are unknown. The views of half a dozen cosmologists are all critical; the views from other cosmologists and scientists are unknown. --Iantresman 15:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's a thought to chew on... Fringe science is only relative to the mainstream view. Being a scientist (or researcher) on the fringe means little when exploring new frontiers. Fringe science has a way of becoming mainstream when the proper evidence is presented. If you feel that plasma cosmology is somehow a fringe science, I would ask you to explain something as simple as the solar wind, solar flares, or the northern lights by non-plasma-based means. Plasma physics has come a long way in the last 50 years, whether the mainstream accepts it or not. ABlake 17:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Plasma Cosmology (proper noun) is a combination of accepted astrophysical plasma science (such as the explanation of the Solar Wind), plus plasma science which is not generally accepted (see Plasma cosmology). Space plasma physics has certainly come along way over the last 50 years. --Iantresman 18:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Ian is right. Astrophysical plasmas are dealt with in a separate article. Plasma cosmology is what remains regarding the suggestions the large-scale plasma processes can overwhelm gravitational processes to the point where they can ignore gravity. --ScienceApologist 12:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not quite right. As a result of the hubbub here I bought a copy of Lerner's book; it is clear that gravity has a role to play in plasma cosmology. However, it would seem fair to say that gravity is given a much less significant role in plasma cosmology, the calculations of its effects being dwarfed by those of the effects of plasmas in many cases. TristanDC 23:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I mean, that is, the calculations according to some cosmological models. TristanDC 23:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The cosmological models currently considered viable follow ΛCDM. I don't think any of those admit such implications. --ScienceApologist 23:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Remember that one of the most damaging criticisms leveled against Eric by Sean Carroll is that he doesn't understand GR. --ScienceApologist 23:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• One cosmologist's thoughts on Lerner's understanding of GR has no bearing on Plasma cosmology, and nor have cosmologists' general thoughts on ΛCDM. --Iantresman 09:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I personally think the quote by Stenger come across as someone cheap, and not the quality of a scientist, but that probably isn't the best reason to leave it in. --Iantresman 20:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

restoring unjustified deletions

Three comments: My theoretical AND experimental work in collaboration with Texas A&M and University of Illinois, which was referenced to the public-record JPL contracts, and with the Chilean Nuclear Energy Commission, has not been restored. It should be.

My journalism work, which was deleted a long time ago, should also be restored, with my journalism awards.

The sentence about the response of the “scientific community” is unsourced and nonsensical since there is no verifiable evidence that “the scientific community” as a whole has a consensus opinion on my work, or for that matter on the work of almost any living physicist. The sentence would be correct if the term “most cosmologists” is substituted for “the scientific community”.Elerner 21:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

ABlake, your edits appear fair. The Weasel phrase “scientific community” I assume is based on the half a dozen criticisms in the section. I have no idea what the opinion of the remaining hundreds of thousands of the scientific community is, nor whether they have even heard of Lerner's work. I do know that hundreds of scientists appear to share Eric's views,[11], though I don't know if this extends to his theories. Eric's suggestion “most cosmologists” seem reasonable, unless you can suggest a better alternative? --Iantresman 22:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

"Scientific community" is an overgeneralization since it includes biologists, chemists, geologists, etc. "Most cosmologists" seems appropriate and accurate to me. The section in question is talking about the reception of his cosmological theories, not his thoughts as described in the open letter, which have no direct connection. It would also be appropriate to change the other "scientists" in the paragraph to "cosmologists" for the same reasons as above. ABlake 01:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen the deleted journalism work or journalism awards yet. As long as the awards are verifiable on other source web sites, etc., they ought to be included, if it isn't too long. They should be limited to notable awards as much as possible. If someone wins an Oscar or Emmy or Pulitzer Prize, that is notable. If they win the Harry P. Splat award for creative literature, that would not qualify. Likewise, any and all journalism may not qualify. Wikipedia shouldn't include a laundry list of articles written. However, if they are notable, they should be briefly mentioned in the scientific activities section. This is a biography page of a man and his activities, but not an endorsement page or full-length biography or resume. ABlake 10:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• ABlake, these are the awards from Aerospace America. Unfortunately, the Aviation / Space Writers Association does not appear to have a Web site.
• Eric are the awards announced in various issues of the magazine? Otherwise, I expect that the Association is the verifiable source.

Award

• Aviation Space Writers Association 1993 Award of Excellence in Journalism: Trade Magazines/Space for "GOES NEXT Goes Astray" Aerospace America, May 1992.
• Society for Technical Communication 1992 Award of Distinction: "Technology is Teaming", Bellcore Insight, Summer, 1991.
• Aviation Space Writers Association 1990 Award of Excellence in Journalism: Special Interest/Trade Magazine Category for "Lessons of Flight 665," Aerospace America, April, 1989.
• Aviation Space Writers Association 1990 Journalism Award, North East Region: Special Interest/Space Magazine Category for "Galileo's Tortuous Journey to Jupiter," Aerospace America, August, 1989.
• Aviation Space Writers Association 1988 National Journalism Award: Special Interest/Space Magazine Category for "FAA: An Agency Besieged", Aerospace America, February-April, 1987.
• Aviation Space Writers Association 1985 Journalism Award, North East Region: Special Interest/Space Magazine Category for "SDI Series", Aerospace America, August-November, 1985.
• Aviation Space Writers Association 1984 Journalism Award Northeast Region: Special Interest/Space Magazine Category for "Mushrooming Vulnerability to EMP", Aerospace America, August 1984.

--Iantresman 10:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, these awards, if sourced, deserve a line like "Lerner has received several journalism awards from the Aviation Space Writers Association from 1984 to 1993," with a footnote noting the information above. These awards are relatively minor and have no relevance to his cosmological or fusion work. We shouldn't spend more than one line on them. ABlake 14:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Reorganize and Condense Papers Section

After looking at other biographies and thinking about the value added by having a partial list of papers, I think it would be better (and closer to other good biographies on Wikipedia) to not have a partial list of papers section. Instead, use the applicable papers as footnote references to the ideas in the first and second paragraphs in the Scientific Activities section. This would shorten the overall article, provide documentation for the statements in those paragraphs, and bring the article into closer compliance with other good biographies. My example of a good biography is Stephen Hawking. Before I make the change myself, I want your opinions. Are there any pros or cons that I missed? ABlake 18:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• I think it depends on who you look at. Carl Sagan has a list of "Awards and medals", and "Related books and media". If the article was overly long, I think there would be a case, but we don't have a space problem. Additionally, I think because there is a perception from some quarters that Lerner or is work is pseudoscientific, the peer reviewed papers serve to dispell that myth.
• On the other hand, moving a list of articles down to footnotes would enable us to write a summary of Eric's theories, which would compliment the section on "Reception of Lerner's ideas", which doesn't really say what is being considered. --Iantresman 19:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Carl Segan has a long list of big-time awards from big-time organizations. Lerner has several small awards, all from the same unknown organization. That's not negative. It's just the truth. The comparison of awards favors Sagan and doesn't justify having a section for Lerner dedicated to awards. Again, a one-liner with a footnote would suffice.
• His work is viewed by some as pseudoscientific, but listing his articles in a laundry list is less effective at dispelling that idea than actually spelling out his ideas and referencing them in the footnotes. People are more likely to read through a description of his ideas in a paragraph than go and click on all of the links to his papers in the laundry list. Page space is not the issue. The attention span and comprension of the average reader is. ABlake 20:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have no problems with a section describing his theories, with footnotes. How would you suggest we go about summarising his theories in a couple of paragraphs? I wonder if Eric should put something together here in on the talk page for comment, before adding it to the biography. --Iantresman 21:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought the first two paragraphs under Scientific Activities was a summary. The ideas just need to be linked to the corresponding papers which would be placed in the footnotes section. Perhaps the ideas could be expanded slightly, but this shouldn't be an extension of his book with arguments, etc. If people want to learn more about the idea, they can click on the footnote. There should be just enough explanation that people understand what he is proposing. Are there more ideas or proposals than what is listed in the first two paragraphs? Also, while he was a visiting astronomer, what did he do? The fact that he went is nice, but it doesn't really say anything. ABlake 10:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Ian, here's a project for you. Could you link up the ideas from the first two paragraphs with the most recent and well-written examples of Lerner's papers, and put a link in the footnotes. I noticed that several of the papers were on the same subject, but published in different sources. Pick the best one (in your opinion) for each idea. I'll leave that to your discretion. One or two paper per idea. Leave the opinion pieces, and we can discuss what to do with them later. Then delete all but the opinion pieces from the laundry list. Are you up to it? ABlake 10:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

It might be better if we ask Eric to do this, as he is far more familiar with his papers. He could outline a draft in Talk, before it is posted to the article proper. --Iantresman 18:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I provided references to the ideas in Scientific Activities, and then pruned the Articles section. Any disagreement or thoughts? This article is looking pretty good now. I think Iantresman has ensured that important materials were inserted. ScienceApologist has done a great job keeping the article from overinflating Lerner's image. Hopefully my edits have been helpful. I'm happy with the article now, so you probably won't hear from me again, unless things go weird again as they were when I wandered here. Peace out. ABlake 19:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

SUNY behaviorolgy paper

The description of the SUNY behaviorolgy paper is stunningly innacurate. It put's Eric Lerner's words in Ledox's mouth. JBKramer 21:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

There's a link to the actual article. I agree that it includes a paraphrase from Lerner's book, but the last comment, "Some parallels with psychology and behaviorology, and their paradigm clash, are evident", I read as from Prof. Ledoux. I also felt that Lerner's paraphrase was similar to Ledoux's earlier description?

If you read it differently, do you have an alternative way of expressing it? --Iantresman 21:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

He did not comment once about the reception of Lerner's book. JBKramer 01:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I've tweaked the text, but would like to introduce the paragraph. Your input would be appreciated. --Iantresman 07:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it is "stunningly" inappropriate to to quote a behaviorologist on the question of which cosmology is more consistent with observations. --Art Carlson 08:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the quote,[12] but I didn't read it like that. I thought that Lerner was arguing that plasma cosmology and Big Bang cosmology, approached their views in different ways. Ledoux did not favour one view over the other, but noted a parallel with psychology and behaviorology, where there was an apparent clash of paradigms. Since Ledoux did not judge either cosmology, attributed Lerner's views, and highlight the clash in paradigms, I felt it was OK. --Iantresman 10:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Plasma physicist

"please show me where he is considered to be a plasma physicist -- he doesn't even have a graduate degree."[13]

• I have these sources describing Lerner as a "physicist", "independent physicist", or "plasma physicist", attributed to the Boston Globe, Providence Journal, Buffalo News, The Intelligencer and New York Times.[14]
• I have these sources that define a physicist,[15] none of which mention a doctorate.
• All you have to do, is provide a reliable source showing that to be called a physicist, requires a doctorate. --Iantresman 21:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

When did newspapers become reliable sources as to who is and isn't a physicist? --ScienceApologist 21:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• This is a biography, not a science article. A more reliable source would be better, but a newspaper source is better than no source. I have two sources supporting my description. Where's yours? --Iantresman 21:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Senior Visitor

I guess I should discuss the change I just made in the article. The reference provided shows that Eric Lerner was a "Senior Visitor". It does not mention "Visiting Astronomer". Therefore, I have changed "Visiting Astronomer" to "Senior Visitor". Of course, given a source that shows he was invited as a "Visiting Astronomer", I would be happy to change it back. Cardamon 03:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• This Goddard Space Flight Center page says that Lerner "... was recently a visiting astronomer at the European Southern Observatory in Santiago, Chile"[16], as does "The Space Show" page [17]. The ESO descibes Lerner as a "Visiting Scientist" [18] --Iantresman 11:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources. As evidence, I would think that the "The Space Show" page carries little weight, the Goddard page carries some weight, and the ESO page carries quite a bit of weight, since they presumably know for sure how they classified Eric Lerner. For now, I am changing Eric's title again, to "Visiting Scientist". Cardamon 12:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm no scientist. I read Eric Lerner's book and found it to be enjoyable and thought provoking. He may or may not present the complete evidence pro or con -- I'm certainly not equiped to say so -- however, I liked the book precisely because he threw out a challange to those of us who blindly accept a given "theory" such as the big bang or string theory (now there's a concept based on solid scientific evidence --NOT!). To my mind, and this is no basis for what is true scientifically, Lerner's theory is more pleasing than the finite basis of the big bang. Bing Bang

Film

• The Film at the bottom of the page says that "This film documents Eric Lerner's view". This is ambiguous. Does it include anyone else's views?
• It clearly includes the views of the contributing astronomers, who are not reading from a script.
• And we don't know whether as writer, Lerner is expressing his views, or he is writing about the views of others.
• To exclude the other contributors, many of whom of notable (by their inclusion in Wikipedia), and to suggest that the film is only the view of Lerner, is misleading. --Iantresman 09:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

My original phrasing was "This link is included to document the views of Eric Lerner". I pruned the sentence brutally, the way I attack apple trees, but the long version might be clearer. You might also be right in suggesting that the co-authorship of Lerner is not important in this context. This is the article about Eric Lerner. The views of others expressed in the film might be relevant if this film were linked in the article on the Big Bang or on plasma cosmology, but they are not relevant here. For the same reason, while a short disclaimer might be needed, I don't think we should go into the content of the film in this article. --Art Carlson 09:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• (Moved to the bottom of the page). The text said "This film documents Eric Lerner's views", which gives the impression that it documents only his views. So I've mentioned that it includes his contributions and others. I think that implies that they represent their own views. --Iantresman 16:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Since it isn't exclusively the purview of Lerner's views, I removed the film completely. It had reliability issues anyway and was functioning a little like linkspam. --ScienceApologist 15:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds familiar. Can someone explain "reliability issues" in particular? We didn't assert that the film portrays the Truth, so isn't it enough to say it's reliable that Lerner is in the film? How is this consistent with Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves? Art LaPella 21:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Eric Lerner didn't make the film so I fail to see what kind of argument you are making. The film is a self-published jaunt through the film-maker's amateur (that is, unreliable) opinions on cosmology. That Eric Lerner appears in the film does not make the film a relevant resource for this page. --ScienceApologist 21:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Please don't remove text until it has been discussed.
• The film is not self-published, as is clear from the IMDB details on the production.
• The film includes no amateur contributions, as is clear from the list of contributors at IMDB.
• Please don't make unsubstantiated claims. --Iantresman 00:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, so it was published by Randall Myers, and I don't see a discussion of his credentials. Does that mean only the part of the film co-written by Lerner is "reliable" for the purpose of explaining who Lerner is? Art LaPella 01:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Writing credits on films are not attributable in normal academic circles. I don't know whether WP:ATT covers this or not. It should. --ScienceApologist 03:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Do normal academic circles even have a procedure for how to document an article on someone notable in both science and popular culture? I thought they were busy deciding things like whether the speed of light is off by a fraction of 10^-10, which wouldn't depend on evidence from a film. I would think a better analogy would be how Wikipedia describes mainstream scientists in popular culture. The Carl Sagan article cites "We Are Here: The Pale Blue Dot – A short film narrated by Carl Sagan." Stephen Hawking cites "Stephen Hawking - discussion of two views of the universe Video". WP:ATT covers "self-published" works (but doesn't mention "co-written"), which can be used only to verify information about the author, as in this article. I've never tried to rule on what is a reliable source before, but does anyone else here except SA agree "That Eric Lerner appears in the film does not make the film a relevant resource for this page" about Eric Lerner? Art LaPella 04:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that this film is only of pop-culture relevance? If so, then I'd say it definitely should be removed as there is no evidence that anyone in the popular culture has reviewed or noted the film in a review. See WP:N. --ScienceApologist 05:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I followed some links to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Examples, which says "film credits on IMDb, which are provided by the Writer's Guild of America, can be considered to be adequately reliable." Not that I've thought all this stuff through in advance. What I really keep coming back to is, are the heretics so benighted that no snow job is unjustified when resisting them, or is all this just beyond my understanding? Art LaPella 05:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't questioning who received film credits: I'm questioning whether a writing credit for a film constitutes a decent rationale for including the film in a Wikipedia article. I do think there is a hidden agenda here for including a link to this film to basically spam promote ideas other than Eric Lerner's. It's basic POV-pushing as far as I'm concerned. I don't see where the snow job accusation is coming from. I just see that this film isn't really about Eric Lerner as much as it is about nonstandard cosmologies where the film in question was removed as an unreliable source. --ScienceApologist 05:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Lerner is verifiably credited with co-writing the film (confirmed in the IMDB, the film itself), which makes this more than justification for including in a biographical article.
• Whether you agree or disagree with the aims of the film are irrelevant, it's still to Lerner's credit. --Iantresman 10:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Lerner wrote some 600 articles by his count. Do they all get an individual reference in this article too? Clearly, what we should include are resources which aid in the biographical understanding of Lerner. I submit that this film with its broader focus does not do that. That he received a writing credit is irrelevant. Every writing credit does not demand a link to a film on a biography page. There is no precedent for such posturing. --ScienceApologist 13:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• A film is a different kind of media, not just the 601st article. Not only does it demonstrate his writing ability in film, but it includes contributions from him. In no other place can the reader SEE, and HEAR Lerner and his views. --Iantresman 13:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If we were talking about a biographical film about Eric Lerner, I'd agree with you. But we aren't: this is a film about bucking modern cosmology. Lerner is integrated into the film, but the film isn't about him. And there is no requirement at Wikipedia that we give readers the chance to SEE and HEAR the subjects of the article. In this case, there are more reasons not to include this as a reference than benefits to the reader. I'm still not convinced that this film isn't acting as anything more than spamcruft and it certainly isn't a notable piece of cinema. --ScienceApologist 13:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• It includes Lerner's views; that's biographical. It is co-written by him; that's biographical. Seeing and hearing Lerner adds to his characterization; that's biographical.
• Sure, it's not a notable piece of cinema, so I'll make sure it doesn't make it onto the History of Cinema page. --Iantresman 14:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to say, I do think there needs to be better justification than that for mentioning the film. Things that include X's views are not likely to be relevant as sources for a biography on X. Things written by X may qualify, but is this one of Lerner's most famous works? With a large amount of work, we can't present it all. Why this? Because it was in a film format? Seeing and hearing Lerner is not appropriate here, I'm sorry - this is not a platform for the dissemination of Lerner's views, and it's not our mission to connect readers with a firsthand experience of the opinions of every biography subject. Is Lerner transitioning to a film writer? That would be sufficient reason. Is this one of his few best-known works? That would be a good reason. There are possible good reasons, but good reasons are needed. Mangojuice^talk 15:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• For a man who is most well known for his controversial views on astronomy, which are conveyed first hand in a film, that he also co-wrote, this is not relevant? !!
• Why do we mention anything at all about an individual? Is it relevant that holds a patent, or is a member of the NJ Civil Rights Defense Committee?
• And the one thing we choose to remove is a film credit... because editors disagree with its contents?
• In no other biography would this be an issue. Our job is to inform the reader of a person's achievements, not to judge them. --Iantresman 16:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The rationale has never been to remove the film because editors disagree with its contents. That is a persecution complex of your own construction. --ScienceApologist 18:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Ian, think of it this way. As SA said, Lerner has written hundreds of things. Why give this one special mention? I would not think it's appropriate to list all of his work, so we should stick to the most significant ones. And yes, I don't give a damn what views are in the film, I'm sure they're the same views as in his book, his other writings, et cetera. Mangojuice^talk 18:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Film is considered another media, and writing for it is considered a different talent to writing a book. It is significant that film makers considered Lerner a worthwhile contributor, and his writing skills to be of sufficient calibre. There are far more books authors than film writers. --Iantresman 18:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I dispute every statement you made above except the claim that "Film is considered another media[sic]". --ScienceApologist 19:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• The Writers Guild of America considers writing books and the big screen to be different talents, which is why they credit them differently, and why I guess filmmakers infrequently hire book authors to write their own film adaptations.
• And do you really think that Lerner's filmmakers asked him to contribute because he wasn't worthwhile? --Iantresman 20:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Your citation does not back up your claim that the Writer's Guild considers the two to be different "talents". Your citation only shows how credits are listed. You then commit a logical fallacy. "If X then Y" being a false statement does not automatically imply that "If -X then Y" is a true statement. Just because the filmmakers did not verifiably choose Lerner because his contributions were worthwhile doesn't mean they must have therefore chosen Lerner because his contributions were not worthwhile. They could have chosen Lerner independent of the supposed "worth" of his contributions. You have no evidence to back up your positive assertion and I need not prove my negative assertion, I only need ask you for evidence of yours which you have spectacularly failed to provide. --ScienceApologist 20:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Lerner verifiably co-authored and contributed to the film. Whether the film is a masterpiece or heap of junk is irrelevant, it is still to his credit, and conveys his point of view. That is biographical, and verifiable. --Iantresman 23:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You have not demonstrated that the film is relevant to his biography. You may wish it to be, but your opinion seems to be in the minority. --ScienceApologist 04:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• It is one of his achievements/credits. Period. Even if the film is a complete work of fiction, it is still to his credit.
• Let's take Stephen King. The article lists every single book and film he's ever done. How many of them are biographical sources? None.
• Or take Carl Sagan. List of books. Biographical sources: a separate section. It also has a complete list of his honours and awards, which you also cut out from Lerner's biography.
• All I see are double standards. --Iantresman 10:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to stay out of this one, and I am undecided on whether a link to the film should be included, but I must say I find it humorous to complain that Eric Lerner is treated differently than Stephen King or Carl Sagan. Lerner's article is now something like a third as long as the other two. Since he is easily a hundred times less important, there is a strong case to be made that his article is way too long already. A balanced reference work should not include every fact about the subject of an article, any more than it should include an article on every person. --Art Carlson 12:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• We're not including irrelevant facts. As someone known for his writing and controversial views on Cosmology, a film on cosmology that Lernered co-authored is to his credit, and relevant. --Iantresman 16:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Then argue it that way. What I reject is the argument that we should include every film from Lerner because we do that for Sagan. (And why do you bullet your comments, even when there is only one? It unnecessarily consumes indentation space.) --Art Carlson 17:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Some better analogies to Eric Lerner (32,400 Google hits) than Carl Sagan (1,460,000 hits): Robert H. Dicke, 20,000 hits after accounting for alternate names; Jack Swigert, 48,000 (ditto); Gerard O'Neill, 30,200. Art LaPella 21:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I would say we found some better reasons to remove the film than we started with. Art LaPella 19:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• And I have no doubt that if Robert H. Dicke co-authored and contributed to a film, and it was mentioned in his article, we wouldn't be trying to find reasons to exclude it. --Iantresman 21:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Robert Dicke making a film about Eric Lerner. Just imagining such a thing made me laugh out loud. Thanks, Ian. --ScienceApologist 21:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• I said co-authored and contributed to A film, not a film about Lerner. --Iantresman 23:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Google

I added a link to Mr. Lerner's Google presentation and patent application. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.53.219.20 (talk) 18:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm adding this comment because somebody has removed the link without mentioning it here. An investment pitch, though more detailed and interesting than usual due to being targetted at google, is not of particular interest. I'm sure Eric Lerner has made many of these pitches off camera. This link, though, would definitely be interesting to readers of a page talking particularly about research into the extent to which the DPF might achieve breakeven. TristanDC 18:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 09:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Requesting cleanup on Talk Page

This thing is an unbelievable mess. As much as I want to chide Eric for the vulgarity of editing one's own Wikipedia page, I can understand his need to keep actually libelous things from sitting there and the fact that his Focus Fusion needs all the publicity he can give it. (Assuming it has a snowball's chance in hell of working).

Still these oodles and oodles of repetitive bickering over the cosmological respectability of Alfvein/Lerner's Plasma Cosmology really does nothing at this point but provide an archive of the debate. Could a distillation of the basic points impacting the article's present structure be put together and the detailed deliberations be moved off to a "Meta-Talk" page?

There are at least some people who don't give an obese rodent's glutes about the Big Bang vs. Plasma Cosmology debate and want to know about Lerner solely because of the Focus Fusion proposals, and the present setup of this Talk page doesn't really encourage them to make questions on that score. I'm one of those people.

--Duke Leto (talk) 20:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Photo permission

I give my permission to use a still from my Google video in this article--Eric Lerner Elerner (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I added it. ABlake (talk) 17:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Summary style?

Aw come on, we all know this isn't about WP:Summary style. That policy might apply if there were subarticles about each detail of Lerner's article, and the subarticle contained the reference - but even that would be pushing it. The relevant policy is of course Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. And the unstated issue is whether guys like Lerner are so awful that the end justifies the means. And there's no way to debate that if we have to pretend this is about things like summary style. Art LaPella (talk) 22:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's think about this: no cosmologist who has reviewed his work from Arno Penzias to Paul Davies to Sean Carroll to Rocky Kolb to Ned Wright gave it a favorable review and plasma cosmology is indeed derided by these people and has no profile in the mainstream journals. I think it is a perfectly fair characterization and don't see why people would be complaining. We have the citations to prove it. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Then use them; it's a Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons violation otherwise (well, the references are in the same article, but there should be a big one right by a zinger like "derided".) And it isn't "summary style". Art LaPella (talk) 22:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

How exactly is it a BLP violation if it is the truth and is verified? ScienceApologist (talk) 23:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I read it again and it isn't exactly a BLP violation; it's his "non-standard cosmology" that's derided, not him - so maybe it is OK that the rest of the article supports it. "Summary style" started me typing too fast! Art LaPella (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I see the issue. Yeah, I'd agree that a defamation statement to the tune of "The rest of the cosmological community thinks Eric Lerner is an evil, evil man" would be a BLP violation. I think that we do offer a proper characterization of his ideas, however. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

What's with the hack job and snide remarks? I thought the article was finally looking orderly, presentable, NPOV and thorough. Then this happens... What gives? And no explanation in the Talk section first? Poor form. ABlake (talk) 00:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I can agree with putting in the Riccardo Scarpa information. It's verifiable and relevant. ABlake (talk) 00:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I looked back and incorporated some of SA's changes, but kept some of the info that was schwacked. If there are concerns about specific points of the current version, discuss them here and seek consensus prior to making huge changes. ABlake (talk) 05:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Issues:patents, details, and lead

Right now there are three issues:

1. No patents should be mentioned. Anyone can get a patent. That is not noteworthy for inclusion in any article.
2. The details of Lerner's ideas are not verifiable to secondary sources. Therefore, not having received independent review, they do not belong in the article. Likewise, the list of papers he has published is problematic because they have not received sufficient citation to warrant Wikipedia linking to them.
3. The lead needs to be more clear that his Big Bang ideas are totally rejected by the community.

Since none of these concerns were addressed in ABlake's reversion, I'm reverting back.

ScienceApologist (talk) 13:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources for plasma cosmology being "derided" by the cosmological community, and for the reviews of TBBNH from professional cosmologists being generally "icy", you need to cite them. --Art Carlson (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

According to NOR, "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." The use of the loaded words "derided" and "icy" constitutes an original interpretation unless you can source them directly. The correct words to use in an encyclopedia are neutral terms such as "unfavorably" and "critically". Otherwise it is injecting the POV of the editor. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a blog. ABlake (talk) 01:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

If you would like to propose alternative wordings, please do so. I think derided and icy are nice words to describe the situation. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought I just did. "Unfavorably" and "critically" may not be as sexy as "derided" and "icy", but they are appropriate for an encyclopedia. In case those are too boring, another neutral but accurate term is "negatively". ABlake (talk) 21:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I can live with criticism and unfavorable. I changed it. Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me try again. "Connected to this, Lerner wrote a popular science book, The Big Bang Never Happened (1991) which criticized the research and theories regarding the Big Bang, but generally received unfavorable reviews from professional cosmologists." How's that? I really am trying to work with you on this. ABlake (talk) 03:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Every professional cosmologist who reviewd the book panned it completely. Try my version on for size. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

On point 1, I had already removed the patent info in my revision merely on your advice, although I can't find a policy on mentioning patents. My opinion is that the desalination patent is not really helpful to the article, but the application is because it details Lerner's proposals on fusion and the DPF. On point 2, I looked over NOR and found no requirement for secondary sources as you suggest. According to the policy, reliable and verifiable primary sources are allowed, and the ideas were sourced adequately. Which details were you referring to specifically? Which papers or articles were not reviewed before publishing? You've got to back up your arguments and opinions with facts. Sufficient citation? Where is that requirement described? Who determines how much is sufficient anyway? I understood the standard to be NPOV, V, and NOR. Correct me if I'm wrong. On point 3, we can add a few words that mention the opinion of the scientific community. From my POV, my revision of your revision was fine as it was. I'm inclined to revert back, but will refrain for the time being. Is there anything else? ABlake (talk) 00:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Eric's papers are of interest only if they have high citation rates. Eric doesn't have high citation rates. We should not be functioning as a CV mechanism for Eric to advertise his expertise to the world. No articles that Eric published are worth referencing unless they are directly about content. More than that, Eric's peculiar ideas about the universe are not notable enough to include in this encyclopedia unless they have received outside notice. See WP:FRINGE. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I looked at WP:FRINGE as requested. You seem to have mistaken the subject of this article. This article is about Eric Lerner, a person, and not about plasma cosmology or any other science topic, therefore there is no requirement for number of citations of his work. Please re-read WP:FRINGE. Lerner's papers are not appropriate for inclusion on the Big Bang article because of the low citation rates, but this is not a science article, so your arguments are not applicable. Try again. ABlake (talk) 21:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

If (as I believe to be the case) his notability depends on his WP:FRINGE theories, then WP:FRINGE applies to this article, as well. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Arthur. From what I can tell, Lerner's notability came initially from the publishing of his book, but has grown beyond that in his recent fusion work as well as continued cosmology work. In fact, his Google presentation on his fusion work was viewed over 20,000 times (yes, I was one of those) and was discussed at Slashdot and other forums, so your notability concern should be resolved. Having looked over the WP:FRINGE policy once again, I am unable to find any evidence to support your conclusion, even if Lerner's entire notability was based on a fringe theory. I probably just overlooked it, three times. The way I see it, Eric Lerner is not a fringe theory, so applying the WP:FRINGE policy to a biographical article is not warranted. But again, I'll ask you to show me the error of my ways. As I understand it, my version held up to the standards of BLP, NPOV, V, and NOR, and answered most of ScienceApologist's concerns. What am I missing here? ABlake (talk) 01:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Eric's book is an explanation of a fringe theory. Therefore WP:FRINGE definitely applies here. Fringe theory guidelines applies whenever a fringe theory is mentioned no matter if it is in a devoted article to the fringe theory, a mainstream article, or a biographical article. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's a relevant quote from WP:FRINGE that I believe answers your notability concern, "In order to be notable, a fringe theory should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. Even debunking or disparaging references are adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents." So, even if you are right in your assumption, in this context, the section on the reception of Lerner's book establishes his notability. Since ScienceApologist was the contributor of much of that information, you can thank him for it. ABlake (talk) 01:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The notability of Eric is not in question. The way we report on Eric is governed, however, by what outside sources say about him. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

On point 1, "No patents should be mentioned. Anyone can get a patent. That is not noteworthy for inclusion in any article," I'm still unclear of the source of this assertion. Anyone can get a PhD too, or a Nobel Prize (according to ScienceApologist), so why would we mention those things in a Wikipedia article? In Lerner's case, his desalination patent is verifiable and is a part of his professional activities. The patent application is also verifiable and relevant and does a good job illustrating his fusion ideas. So that's why I'm inclined to include it too, although I can see a point that it isn't issued yet, and anyone can file for a patent and ultimately not receive it. Is there a policy on inclusion of patent information? If not, there is no reason to exclude it. If there is, then Thomas Edison's page will need some serious work. ABlake (talk) 02:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Nobel awards are a form of peer review and are world-class. PhD vary from ivy-league to honary awards to mail-order from unaccredited places. Patents on the other hand are different. They are more or less self-published primary sources in that given enough money a patent will be published irrespective of the quality, technical or commercial viability. There isn't so much a peer review performed but a mechanical search for existing art. We should record patents as we do any other self-published material in that if it is subsequently used commercially or cited by a 3rd party (of which Edisons have) then it is notable enough.

Has that happened for this patent ?. If it has then it should stay. If it hasn't then it's dross.Ttiotsw (talk) 09:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ttiotsw. That actually made sense. In this case, there has not been subsequent citation of the patent or the application. Your explanation should be written out in a policy somewhere to clear up misunderstandings like this more easily. According to your explanation, I assume that Lerner's other papers which were published in reviewed publications (such as IEEE)are essentially not self-published and can be included, even if they are not cited in other publications. Is that right? ABlake (talk) 13:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

We don't just include papers just because they were published. There has to be a reason. Since Eric's papers are not very popular and add nothing to the content of the article that can be reliably sourced to secondary sources, they don't belong listed. We can list papers that explain Eric's point-of-view from Eric's point-of-view if that point-of-view is relevant to the encyclopedia. Most of what Eric believes, though, is so fringe as to warrant exclusion due to lack of prominence within the field. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not for laundry-listing publications just because they were written. As you say, we can list papers that explain his point of view if it is relevant to the encyclopedia. Let me be specific in order to save pointless reverts, because I think we may be arguing about different things. The middle section of my version, entitled Professional Activities, which was broken down into three parts, contained useful information on his activities that would be good for someone who was looking for info on Eric Lerner to know. It was properly referenced with notable stuff. Perhaps you are arguing against having the section below that, entitled Partial List of Papers and Articles. If so, then I can see how that is like a laundry list of articles that is there merely because he wrote them. If that is the case, then I can see a reason to delete that section. However, I think you should add back the section on Professional Activities as I had it. As it is, you've thrown out the baby with the bath water. ABlake (talk) 18:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the proposition you make that someone research Eric Lerner should know about each of his idiosyncratic beliefs regarding his professional activities. A broad paint-brush is more worthwhile than an overly-detailed exposition. After all, if there is no counterpoint, no secondary oversight, on these ideas, they really haven't received the outside notice required for us to describe them so completely in Wikipedia. I am arguing against both the list of papers and articles and the detailed information contained in the professsional activies section. Eric has some very specific ideas, but until those ideas are noticed by others, Wikipedia should not be reporting about them. What has been noticed by others is Eric's company, his Big Bang denialism, his political activities, and his education. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Filaments

At Eric Lerner#Cosmology, "filaments" is piped to the disambiguation page filament (astronomy). Should that be [[Birkeland current|filaments]]? Art LaPella (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the filaments in question were borrowed by Eric from the steady staters and he and other plasma dreamers associate them with Birkeland currents for reasons that only they truly understand. The entire bit stinks of original research, which is why I'm advocating for its removal. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Other problematic bits

The section on "scientific work" as written before was problematic because it is arguable that Eric is a legitimate scientist. Let's leave the judgement out of it and just call it professional work. Also, the description of Eric's ideas went far too much in detail and used his writings too much as a source. Since few of the details of Eric's proposals receive any outside notice, allowing him to use Wikipedia as a soapbox is unacceptable. Along the same lines, I think it is highly inappropriate to list papers that are not recognized by the mainstream community as having any worth and have not received comment, citation, or consideration but instead have been outrightly ignored. Eric can use his own webpage to promote himself, we don't have to do it for him. Wikipedia, as I said above, is not supposed to publish CVs. It's supposed to offer an encyclopedic report on a notable subject. The current version of the article does this. Please explain any problems with the current version now. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is about describing a subject, not promoting it. Describing Eric's beliefs and activities is different than promoting them, and the language used for the different purposes is different. Promotion uses charged words, whereas describing used neutral (boring) words. Describing Eric's point of view is appropriate for this setting. Saying it is the best or worst view is promotional. I agree with your statement that we should leave the judgement out of this. Exactly. That's what NPOV is all about. Eric is the proponent of a fringe theory. Got it. So explain what his fringe theory is, provide refs, and move on. I'm not saying he's right or wrong. I don't care. But it doesn't make sense to me to have an article on someone that doesn't describe who they are, what they've done, or why they are notable. Leaving out the middle section on his Scientific Activities (cosmology, fusion stuff, and other) is a disservice to anyone who comes to this page. Describe, yes. Promote, no. ABlake (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Describing Eric's beliefs that haven't been reviewed by others is essentially promoting them since we cannot offer counters to them that are not original research. Only notable views of Eric are worthy of inclusion in this encyclopedia. Most of the ideas he has are not verified by outside parties and so an article that describes those would essentially act as a coatrack for displaying his ideas. I am satisified with the way the article describes his fringe theory and moves on. I'll also note that you continue to refer to his activities as "scientific" which is itself quasi-promotional. It is clear that Eric is ostracized, his ideas marginalized, and his plans poorly considered by the mainstream. That means that Wikipedia must be careful only to include ideas that have been directly commented on by others since we are not a soapbox. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

So we'll call it Professional Activities. That's pretty neutral and accurate. I think your interpretation of the coatrack idea is misapplied in this case. Describing his ideas briefly, with proper referencing, is not taking away from or overshadowing anything. You keep saying "essentially", like "essentially promoting" and "essentially act(ing) as a coatrack", but that is only your perception, and it is in reality your POV. As a concrete example, I can't see how this would be a promotional statement:

"Lerner has proposed non-mainstream alternative mechanisms to explain quasars, structure formation,[12] the microwave background,[13] and the origin of light elements[14], all based on his plasma cosmology approach."

A promotional version of that same line would look something like this:

"Lerner's revolutionary explanations of quasars, structure formation, the microwave background, and the origin of light elements are so overwhelmingly accurate that no professional cosmologist has dared to refute him."

Describing neutrally is not promoting, and I fail to grasp how you can fail to grasp that. And it blows me away how you can seriously propose using the words "icy" and "derided", and not see those as loaded words, and then turn around and say that the word "scientific" is quasi-promotional. I'm completely amazed by the utter incongruity of reasoning. I am even more amazed that you can do so well editing other articles, and yet be so completely biased on this one. You treat Lerner with all the contempt of a scorned lover. You claim he is ostracized, but that is not the case. The material that you are trying to leave out demonstrates that. Your claims that you say come from the scientific community are really the projections of your own POV, and you don't see it! I'm not claiming that he is the MVP of the scientific world, but he is also not as "derided" as you seem to believe. The majority of scientists think he is wrong, or more realistically don't even care, but that is the reality of the situation, and to insinuate more than that is POV pushing.

Additionally, you once again claim that "Wikipedia must be careful only to include ideas that have been directly commented on by others since we are not a soapbox," but this is a biography page, not a WP:FRINGE science page. We are not advocating his ideas, only (briefly) describing them, as illustrated above. The papers in the example were published in the peer-reviewed IEEE Transac­tions on Plasma Science, which is a reliable, non-self-published source. So, if the example meets all of the requirements of Wiki policy, only your personal fears and POV are impeding its inclusion. You have "essentially" hijacked the article, and I don't think that is right. ABlake (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Lyndon LaRouche

I think that (1) the source, although propaganda, is reliable enough to indicate the association (2) having been associated with LaRouche is no contentious; and (3) the change from "negative information" to "contentious" in WP:BLP was made without consensus. However, I'm willing to wait to restore it until a better source can be found. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources, extremist sources are considered to be unreliable sources in any context other than a discussion of the sources themselves, or the authors thereof. Thus, an extreme political propaganda site is not considered to be a reliable source for the purpose of making a claim that a person not involved in the operation of the site is associated with a highly controversial political figure. The use of the term "contentious material" in Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material is necessary to avoid the use of Wikipedia as a forum to harm living people by making many unsourced or inadequately sourced claims that, while not intrinsically negative, might nonetheless be reasonably regarded as injurious to the reputations of the subjects of our biographies. For instance, while Wikipedia does not assert that homosexuality is negative, unsourced assertions of homosexuality can and will be forced out of articles per Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material. John254 21:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The inclusion of the Lyndon LaRouche information is a perfect example of the lengths and depths to which ScienceApologist will go to dig up and include any and all potentially negative information on the subject of this article, while at the same time enforcing a strict limitation to any and all potentially positive information. The duplicity of his standards is appalling. He has continually berated and belittled the subject, assumed to speak for the scientific community at large, and just now warned me on my personal talk page not to edit this article any more, which I view as an aggressive ad hominem attack in order to shut down my legitimate participation. He has been warned about this type of aggressive editing behavior before, but he is now clearly at it again. I hereby formally offer a complaint. ABlake (talk) 22:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, after looking closely at the reference and the quote, I have to withdraw points (1) and (2) above. Unless the case number for the actual lawsuit can be produced, in which case an unreliable secondary source is permitted to support a reliable primary source, there's not sufficient material to support the contention. Even then, there may not be adequate source for the relevance of the contention to the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Even if a primary source existed, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Well_known_public_figures expressly prohibits the use contemplated:

Exert great care in using material from primary sources. Do not use, for example, public records that include personal details — such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses — or trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has already cited them.

John254 16:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

That particular clause doesn't apply, as Eric isn't well-known. In fact, a quick Google search found two other "Lerner"'s reliably associated with LaRouche, making an appropriate Google search difficult. And we don't know that the court record would include "personal details", which is what is forbidden by that section. On the other hand, the next section, WP:BLP#People who are relatively unknown suggests we would need a reliable source for the relevance of Lerner's association with LaRouche to Lerner. If the unreliable source is correct, there are thousands of people in a similar situation, suggesting it may not be notable with respect to Lerner. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

If Eric Lerner isn't well known, then Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#People_who_are_relatively_unknown expressly prohibits the use of any third-party primary sources which are not themselves published in reliable secondary sources:

Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source.

John254 17:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ian tries to railroad ScienceApologist

ScienceApologist, I have reported you for what amounts to personal attacks on Eric Lerner, by attempting to discredit him in contravention of Wikipedia's official policy on No personal attacks. --Iantresman 15:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

An administrator's comments to ScienceApologist can be found here --Iantresman 11:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It is unforunate that Ian has continued in his old habits of supporting vexatious litigation against me. Fortunately, the evidence is all there that Ian's advocacy is based in his own personal vendetta and has no basis in fact. --ScienceApologist 12:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Administrator Shell, has continued the discussion on her personal Talk page, where she has given ScienceApologist a 24-hour ban. --Iantresman 17:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I've unblocked SA, and am cautioning Iantresman on misusing WP processes to gain advantage in simple content disputes. Inflated claims, questionable evidence, all amount to bad faith wikilawyering. The community has very little tolrance for vexatious litigation, especially coming from someone with a history of disruption. Iantresman's gloating posts in this section trying to discredit a fellow editor are not in the spirit of dispute resolution, and a far greater infraction that anything found in his opponent's recent edit history. FeloniousMonk 18:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

ScienceApologist is clearly conducting something of a Jihad against Plasma Cosmology, which he seems to perceive has threatening his cherished ideas

--Soupdragon42 17:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Explanations/suggestions

1) The two paragraphs Lerner would like to see included are not appropriate from either a verifiable or biographical standpoint. The popular science magazines a person has been published in and the conferences one has attended are not relevant to a thoughtful biography and are subject issues regarding notability in my estimation. I see much of this as an appeal to self-aggrandizement rather than a neutral description of a person's credentials.

2) The debate at Princeton was reported in the Princeton Weekly Bulliten and was covered by the campus press. Unfortunately, I do not have access to the archives of this at this time. I would be curious to know whether Eric learned what error bars meant in the meantime (he tends to leave them out of his papers). That is, however, peripheral to the article at hand.

3) Van Allen's book jacket quote might be better included in the section than mentions Eric wrote the book since it is not a criticism. Unfortunately, since Van Allen is dead, we cannot get his opinion on what he thinks of the book now that COBE, WMAP, etc. have come out.

4) I don't think Eric should edit the article itself anymore and I'm not convinced that if protection is removed he won't just go ahead and begin his old process of reverting without discussion. There's too many implications of a conflict of interest.

--ScienceApologist 11:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that the information is appropriate from a biographical point of view for a couple of reasons:

• It has already been suggested by yourself that (a) criticisms from "a public debate" (at Princeton) (b) from someone's blog, are suitable for the biography. In which case, the attendance of a recognised scientific meeting would seem to be at least as notable.
• Since Lerner's credibility has been questioned on more than one occassion, both in these discussion pages, and in the article, then the attendance, invitation and presenteation at scientific meetings becomes relevant.
• I also note that others have suggested than Lerner is a pseudoscientist (or worse)[19], and you yourself have suggested that his field of work may be considered pseudoscientific. And since one of the criticisms of pseudoscientists is that they do not present their work to the scientific community, again, this becomes relevent, and demonstrates that Lerner is at least attempting to engage with the scientific community.

As for verification, that is a secondary issue which I'm sure we can meet.

--Iantresman 12:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

What about the Scarpa business? It does seem technically inaccurate to say that the invitation came "from" Scarpa or whatever form of words is used. On the other hand, it doesn't seem controversial that Scarpa was involved in some way - perhaps even tee'd it up - and I don't currently understand why anyone would try to hide this. I assume that Mr Lerner considers Scarpa to be a reputable colleague. While the page is protected, and you're working through larger issues, is there a more accurate form of words on that point which both "sides" would be happy with? We may as well clear up anything like that that we can.

By the way, just to be clear if I was ambiguous earlier, one reason why I am not willing to unprotect the page at this point is that I don't think the subject of the page should be editing it himself in the circumstances except to correct clear errors. I've normally got nothing against notable wikipedians doing a bit of uncontroversial expansion of their bios, but obviously that is not what is at stake here. I think the proper way is for Mr Lerner to use the talk page to make suggestions. With Iantresman here, there's at least someone who will tend to be sympathetic ... so it's not a huge disadvantage in the debate. But there's no agreement at the moment for it to happen that way. Metamagician3000 14:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Sources say that he was a "visting astronomer"[20] [21]. Sources also say he was invited by Riccardo Scarpa [22], but it is unlikely that this would have been unilaterially, and as Lerner himself indicates, it would have gone through a selection board who I guess would have approved the recommendation.
• As for the relevance of Scarpa's interest in MOdified Newtonian Dynamics,[23] and being a critic of the Big Bang, I can see why ScienceApologist wants to include it, but (a) it is not relevant to Lerner (b) it is suggesting that it MIGHT be relevant. I have no doubt that colleagues invite one another to do talks because there is a professional association, because one's work supports another, or for whatever reason. But I don't know of any other scientist biography where motives are suggested or implied.
• Personally, I think all mention of Scarpa should be relegated to footnote as I don't think it is significant enough to include an introductory paragraphy about someone else.
• I would he happy for Metamagician3000 to decide what is important, and then we can word it accordingly.

--Iantresman 15:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

1) I’m fine with other people than me doing the editing. But I strongly object to SA’s continuous attacks on me. I still think he should be blocked from editing my page given his obvious hostility to me.

2) The only point that has enough importance to include in a bio is that I WAS a Visiting Astronomer at ESO in February 2006. Who made the proposal to the selection committee is a level of detail that it wholly inappropriate. SA’s only motivation for mentioning Scarpa, as is clear from the discussion page, is to say that this was a case of somebody inviting me on a personal visit. We’ve already clarified that this is not what happened. So Scarpa is far too much of a detail to include. The current formulation is totally inadequate, since it puts the emphasis on who is inviting, as if that were the important point in the lead paragraph, not that I was a Visiting Astronomer. In addition, the whole thing is not important enough to go in the lead paragraph.

3) SA is totally inconsistent in saying that where I lectured is too detailed, but who suggested my name to a selection committee is relevant. Since I hold “heretical” views and am not affiliated with a university, the short paragraphs on where I have presented my work and where it has been reported give the reader some idea of the extent to which my ideas are discussed, and why, indeed there should be a wiki entry on me in the first place.

4) I agree with the point about the Chicago Tribune. I will look up who wrote the review and it should be cited to him.Elerner 15:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I'll await SA's response. Some of those points (e.g. re the Chicago Tribune) sound reasonable on their face but let's see what SA says. Presumably everyone agrees that Mr Lerner is, in fact, not supported by mainstream science and that the article needs to continue to make that completely clear. I don't think any changes which blur that point would be acceptable.

I think we do that in the very first sentence, the Lerner is "the most prominent advocates of the non-mainstream plasma cosmology". --Iantresman 22:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Now, folks, I'm not prepared to make any changes while the page is protected unless they are readily and clearly agreed. I should also make clear that I don't have the time or patience to play the role of mediator much longer, insofar as that is what I'm doing, but my suggestion is still that you all try mediation. There are some good mediators around, and the material being produced here at the moment would be useful for that process. That would also be better than running straight to ArbCom, at least in my opinion. As far as personal attacks go, it would be good if all parties could avoid any insults or sarcastic comments. I have no idea what has been said in the past, though I've noticed a sarcastic comment or two here on the talk page. I'm not eager to hand out blocks except for the most egregious behaviour, so I'm not here as a policeman or something, especially without knowing all the past rights and wrongs. Just everyone try to be polite and respectful, okay? It'll look better if you end up in ArbCom soon. Metamagician3000 22:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

This battle is part of one of the oldest wars on Wikipedia. ScienceApologist, Elerner and Iantresman are all veterans of every form of dispute resolution Wikipedia offers. I'm not criticizing mediation, just offering Metamagician3000 a seemingly missing point of information. Art LaPella 00:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You'e right that I have no real knowledge of the history, only that there is one. OTOH, ArbCom should be a last resort and is supposed to deal only with conduct, not content. SA says he is amenable to mediation. I still think it's worth a try, at least for this article. Metamagician3000 05:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I am amendable to mediation.

Arrogant, dismissive, and emotion-ridden

It is clear to me that what Eric is trying to do on this page is "legitimize" himself inasmuch as he is marginalized in the scientific community and his ideas are considered poorly considered/fringe/out-and-out bad science. So Eric (and Ian) advocate for this page to conform to a perspective that heaps accolades in the form of "Eric lectured here, Eric talked at this conference" to lend him a level of legitimacy that is meant to confuse readers into thinking he isn't as poorly considered/fringe/out-and-out bad scientist as the general consensus in the community seems to paint him.

In terms of the "Scarpa" controversy: It was Eric who included the "honorific" that he was a "visiting astronomer". I think that this need not be mentioned in the article as it is merely an attempt by Eric to gain more legitimacy. "Oh look, I was invited to be a visiting astronomer at ESO." It is true that Eric was invited to be a visiting astronomer at ESO, but so are dozens of other astronomers. If we started reported where each astronomer was invited on their pages, we would end up with laundry lists everywhere. This kind of advocacy is called appeal to authority and it casts a pall on Eric's attempts to gain legitimacy through self-aggradizing Wikipedia articles. This is why it is interesting that Eric and Ian don't want to see the connection to Scarpa listed on the page. It's okay to say that Eric was invited to ESO but it's not okay to say that he was invited at the request of a fellow Big Bang critic. This is because it again marginalizes Eric in the community, but Eric is verifiably marginalized in the community so their desire not to see this in the article stems from their desire to legitimize Eric.

Interestingly, none of the other visitors to ESO at the same time as Eric was there have written Wikipedia articles about themselves. Of course, they may not be as notable as Eric Lerner, but we have to ask ourselves: "Why is Eric notable?" He is notable because he positions himself in the unique position as being against the scientific consensus on the Big Bang. That means that his notability is derived from his marginalization. Trying to position him otherwise is definitely a violation of Wikipedia's neutrality policy. This is why autobiography issues come into play and it is also why we need to be very careful what we include in the article. Much of what Eric wants to see here are ways for him to legitimize himself and perhaps drum-up support for his plasma physics endeavors. This is what I think is problematic about the edits.

It would be good if we found who wrote the review for the Chicago tribune if we could list whether said reviewer is in the scientific community, does astrophysical research, or has anything more than a passing familiarity with the subject of Eric's book. Please let us know when you find out who wrote the review.

--ScienceApologist 23:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• ScienceApologist, if the article was about anyone else other than Eric Lerner, it's contents probably wouldn't get a second look. But because Eric's work is not mainstream, you (and others) automatically assume that EVERYTHING he researches, MUST be bordering on pseudoscience, and rather than consider he is trying to follow the scientific method, you PRESUME he is trying to "legitimize" himself and "appeal to authority" for all the wrong reasons. This is PURE unsubstantiated speculation.
• One day ScienceApologist, I hope you are able to present your work to scientific conferences, and you get invited to observatories too... presumably to legitimize your work, and appeal to the acceptance of authority (your peers) too. Of course you'll claim it's entirely based on merit, whereas Eric wins writing awards (which you removed) for his work because... ?
• This is double standards. On the one hand criticising certain people for not following the scientific method, and when someone does because they just might have a theory worthy of consideration... you knock them for having the audacity of "associating with 'proper' scientists".
• I feel this bias against non-mainstream people subjects, affects your editing judgement. This is demonstrated by your consideration of Eric's work as pseudoscience, labelling Plasma cosmology as pseudoscience, and Arp's work as "Pathological", incredibly with no evidence, and no sources.
• It's unfortunately that HUNDREDS of other scientists and engineers appear to disagree with you,[24], but you'd never know this from your account. --Iantresman 00:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Ian, I did not spend much time here until I was asked to come and check up on the article. What I found was Eric filling the article with positive accolades and statements that praised his work while the criticisms amounted to little more than off-handed comments. This is neither a neutral nor a verifiable description of his position vis-a-vis the scientific community. It was Eric who wanted to include his position as a "visiting astronomer". It was Eric who wrote prose that listed all the different lectures he gave and conferences he attended. It was Eric who wrote down the sum of positive reviews received for his book listed by the publisher. This was all done in attempt to paint him as something he isn't: an accepted, legitimate, and respected researcher in the field of cosmology. I am merely trying to make sure that Eric's verified marginalization in the community is given the appropriate treatment so that readers are not confused into thinking that he has more legitimacy than he actually has. All of my contributions have been verifiable and straightforward. I have been trying to remove the bias Eric and you keep inserting which is to insinuate that he is more accepted than he actually is.

You are absolutely right that the scientific community has a double standard. The scientific community is a closed-shop, arrogant, dismissive, and emotion-ridden group of mostly white men who marginalize, criticize, deride, and spitefully ignore those who don't live up to very arbitrary standards for inclusion. But that's not for Wikipedia to fix. Wikipedia just reports what exists, it is not out to change the scientific community or anything else except, possibly, where people go to get information on the internet.

--ScienceApologist 00:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Some things never change. I see ScienceApologist (Antagonist more like) continues to wage his holy war agaisnt all alternative theories. He seems to be somewhat terrified of the emerging plasma paradigm in particular, and his attacks still have the whiff of a witchcraft trial about them!

--Soupdragon42 17:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Further WP:BLP problems with this article

This article seems to give undue weight to criticism of Eric Lerner, in violation of Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Criticism, which provides that

The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics; rather, it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone.

The assertion that this article may contain only a description of the criticism of Eric Lerner's theories, with little description of the theories themselves, is based on several blatantly incorrect claims:

(1) That peer-reviewed journals, such as the "IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science" do not constitute reliable secondary sources sufficient to support the inclusion of content favorable to Eric Lerner in this article [25]. As asserted by editors who have attempted to support the inclusion of controversial content sourced only to the "Lyndon LaRouche Watch" in this article [26] [27] [28] [29], this claim is self-contradictory and wholly untenable.

(2) That the significance of well-sourced content favorable to Eric Lerner must be established before it is included in this article. This assertion is quite inconsistent with Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_guidelines_do_not_directly_limit_article_content, which expressly provides that

Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles (with the exception of lists of people ). The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines; instead, article content is governed by other policies and guidelines, such as the policy requiring Verifiability and the guidelines covering the use of reliable sources

Moreover, as a passing mention in the "Lyndon LaRouche Watch" hardly establishes significance of any sort, editors who have attempted to support the inclusion of controversial content sourced only to the "Lyndon LaRouche Watch" in this article [30] [31] [32] [33] may not contradictorily require exceptional evidence of significance for the inclusion of favorable content published in peer-reviewed journals.

As the biographies of living persons policy requires that

Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone.

this article should, in addition to describing the criticism of Eric Lerner's theories, describe the theories themselves. Aggressively biased editing to remove well-sourced information favorable to Eric Lerner [34], while simultaneously resorting to a political propaganda website for guilt-by-association criticism [35] [36] [37] [38] is highly disruptive, and will be stopped. John254 23:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I quite disagree. The article gives undue weight in favor of his theories. The fact that we cannot find reliable sources as to the content of his theories, other than his own works, suggests we need to carefully apply WP:FRINGE to balance any statements of the theories with appropriate criticism. IEEE Transactions in Plasma Physics appears not to be a peer-reviewed journal, although the IEEE name lends some weight to it. I can't speak to the contents of the other "well-sourced" claims removed above, as I'm editing on a laptop at the moment, and don't have access to what journals I have. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Arthur, this [39] and this [40] indicate that IEEE Transactions in Plasma Science (not Physics) is peer reviewed. I'm not sure where you were reading that it wasn't. ABlake (talk) 01:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, this article doesn't "carefully apply WP:FRINGE to balance any statements of the theories with appropriate criticism" -- it simply eviscerates the description of the theories altogether. We can't have it both ways -- if theories are sufficient notable for the inclusion of criticism, they are sufficient notable for the treatment of the theories themselves. WP:FRINGE does not support the bizarre proposition that we should only describe the criticism of certain theories, without any description of the very theories that are the subject of the criticism. Finally, editors willing to make edits such as these should not lecture anyone else on the finer points of Wikipedia's sourcing requirements. John254 01:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Be very careful, John. The subject of this article and others have abused Wikipedia to promote his theories. People are extremely wary of giving undue weight to these ideas, and rightly so. It took a long time to get this situation under control, and it's best if we proceed with great caution rather than rushing headlong towards binary everything / nothing solutions. Guy (Help!) 09:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy requires that our biographies be written in a fair and balanced manner -- even if many editors dislike the subject of the article, and even if the subject himself has been topic banned for self-promotion. Wikipedia is not a soapbox -- activist editing which seeks to use our articles a forum for revenge against their subjects for past on-wiki disruption is just as bad, if not worse, than activist editing for self-promotion. In no way is it justified to use this article as a means by which to throw as much mud at Eric Lerner as possible, even if a political attack website must be used as a source [41] [42] [43] [44], while simultaneously removing well-sourced favorable information on the basis of a counterfactual assertion that a peer-reviewed journal isn't really peer reviewed. While editors associated with Eric Lerner need to be recused from editing this article, editors so angry at Eric Lerner that they cannot edit this article in a manner consistent with our biographies of living persons policy should also recuse themselves. John254 10:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Really? You know, I had no idea. Oh, wait, no, I just remembered: I know that policy and spend a lot of my time on Wikipedia enforcing it. Amazing how one of us could have forgotten that well-known fact. Now how about you stop teaching grandmother to suck eggs? Guy (Help!) 15:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• "Now how about you stop teaching grandmother to suck eggs? Guy"
• Really? WP:CIVILITY, if you please. Dial the tone back a notch or two, eh? Thx, Mgmirkin (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Seriously, perhaps people with an axe to grind on both sides of the issue should recuse themselves from editing, and let those willing to adopt a neutral tone give editing a try. A WP:Biography shouldn't be a place to promote or to bash a person. It should neutrally present all the relevant data about the person, their life, times, theories, criticisms, etc. Without undue weight one way or the other. Mgmirkin (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Falls under the heading of "don't template the regulars". When someone is, as I am, an active OTRS volunteer and has as much involvement as I do on BLPs, spelling out BLP in the way John did is plain rude. He also templated long-time regular user:ScienceApologist, which is considered uncivil. What I did do was to tell SA to use better sources, and he might take it from me whereas he probably won't take it from John. Guy (Help!) 17:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolution

I am under the impression that the article as it currently stands is fine on the science/beliefs front.

On the political activities front, we have two options:

1. Include the sourced material about Lerner's break with LaRouche sourced to the book published by Doubleday.
2. Remove all political activities as being non-notable.

I do not have a preference for either. Please indicate your preferences below along with a coherent argument as to why you chose the way you did.

ScienceApologist (talk) 14:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not think we have only two options. I would be okay with option one if we had a better sense of the nature of Lerner's involvement with LaRouche. If the only source we have is the book (which, as I have argued above, is not detailed enough for us to claim that Lerner was directly involved with LaRouche rather than merely a member of a LaRouche connected group), then we should not include direct reference to Lerner's association with LaRouche. That does not, however, mean we must remove all reference to political activities. Inability to adequately source a controversial claim about Lerner's political past does not mean we delete discussion of his political activities which are adequately sourced, and thus we are not at all forced to choose between one and two. A third option is to leave the article in its current form until we can clarify the LaRouche situation.

John254 has also suggested another (fourth) possible alternative which I would be fine with. Rather than mention LaRouche specifically, use the book to say "He was a former member of the National Caucus of Labor Committees who left the organization after being pressured to funnel money from a desalination company he started into the US Labor Party." This seems undeniably true, and does not get us into problematic territory by claiming Lerner was a "follower of LaRouche" when that may or may not be the case. ScienceApologist, would you be open to this option?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The claim is as well, if not better, sourced than the other claims surrounding Eric's political activities. In fact, the other claims about Eric's political activities are taken from his website and so are his own presentation of self. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not satisfied with the science/beliefs section that was gutted. I don't care about the inclusion of the LaRouche section since it is part of his history. However, there needs to be a consistent standard applied. It is inappropriate to excise the credible bulk of his professional activities (which is the source of his notability) while including a very small part of his political activities which is hardly (if at all) notable. Double standards should not be applied. ABlake (talk) 21:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

To SA, what you say regarding the sources is simply not true. The footnotes in question are numbers 12-17. Footnote 12 comes from crmvet.org which does not seem to be run by Lerner (there is a longer interview with him regarding Selma here which we should probably add). Footnote 13 regarding Columbia in 68 is to a primary source document that is part of an interactive history of Columbia hosted by Barnard College here and which does seem to verify Lerner's involvement (however that is a primary source, so under the BLP policy we should probably find a secondary source which discussed Lerner's involvement). Footnote 14 is to Lerner's NJ civil rights group, but number 15 is to a story in a San Diego newspaper which identifies Lerner as a member of this group (the link in number 16 does not work and should probably be removed). Footnote 17 is to a Rutgers student paper. The only problem with that is that the story is from 2000 and also the group seems rather non-notable (from its web site one can't even tell if it's still active). It might make sense to take that out.

Regardless, the sources do clearly support the claims made in that section and only one is from the web site of Lerner's NJ group. In general I think the LaRouche book is okay as a source as I have said. The problem is that we are dealing with a controversial claim, and from the source we have I don't think we can make that claim (Lerner was a LaRouchian) with complete confidence.

Again though, would the sentence about him being a former member of the NCLC work for you? I think it's a fair compromise. People who follow the links to the NCLC and US Labor Party will see they were connected to LaRouche, but we avoid making a direct claim about Lerner and LaRouche on the basis of somewhat fuzzy evidence.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Crmvet.org does not do any fact checking. Anyone can get themselves listed as a civil rights veteran at that website. We had this discussion in the archives, and I encourage you to read it. The only truly independent source is the San Diego newspaper story and it seems to be at least as good as a book published by Doubleday. I think that the parity of the sources we have identifying Lerner as a former associate of LaRouche's group is just as good as the sources which say he is a civil rights veteran. I don't understand the hesitation of identifying him explicitly as an associate of LaRouche. Your "compromise" looks to me like weasling for reasons I don't quite understand. Can you explain why one might want to identify the fact that Lerner was involved with organizations that were run by LaRouche activists but not use LaRouche's name? ScienceApologist (talk) 12:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If crmvet.org is not up to snuff from your perspective, which is perfectly legitimate, then we can keep that out. It's neither the best nor the worst source found in Wiki articles, but if we want to have rigorous standards here it's fine to remove it and thus the Selma claim. Likewise the Columbia '68 claim can be removed since that is only sourced by a primary doc, unless of course we find a description in a secondary source. I had previously said I would be fine just mentioning current political activities, i.e. the NJ Civil Rights Commission, which is obviously adequately sourced via the San Diego newspaper story.

Again, I'm okay with the book on LaRouche as a source, the problem I have is with the claims made as I've tried to explain, but I'll try to make it more clear. I'll start by mentioning that you have a great deal of knowledge about science in general (which I certainly do not), but I do have a bit of knowledge about U.S. history since the Second World War. There were obviously a ton (relatively speaking) of radical American youth groups in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Within these groups there were generally multiple factions, and the agenda, philosophy, leadership, etc. of the groups changed frequently. As I've said the National Caucus of Labor Committees seems to be a segment/splinter group of SDS (as was the Weather Underground). I am not at all fully clear as to what point that group became a full-fledged LaRouchian group (the Wiki article on it claims LaRouche controlled it from the beginning, but those claims are sourced to LaRouche, so a level of skepticism is warranted). I am also not clear when/for how long Lerner was a member, if he was a member because he identified with LaRouche, or if he joined while an SDS activist and actually disliked LaRouche's control over the group (the latter is at least plausible since he later essentially testified against LaRouche). It's important to get this right because we are talking about a biography of a living person and that person's possible association with an extremely controversial figure. We need to clarify the nature of that association, because calling Lerner a "follower of LaRouche" - or even associating him with that name - could have real-world consequences for the article subject. If that characterization is even 50% inaccurate we would very much be in the wrong.

I have not looked into this in greater detail (and am certainly not an expert on the history of LaRouchian organizations), but if you want to mention LaRouche in the article I think you need to figure out the extent to which Lerner was really a LaRouche supporter. I'm agnostic on the question because I simply think we don't have enough information and we need to err on the side of caution. You can certainly convince me that he was a full-fledged LaRouchian, but from my perspective the evidence at this point is not sufficient. If we do not find more evidence, I think the "compromise" proposal works in the meantime, and I think the failure to mention LaRouche (which is obviously a trivial part of his biography no matter the exact nature of his involvement) is not weasling so much as being cautious about controversial, inadequately sourced claims about living people.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Lerner obtained his patent for desalination in May 1993. The break with NCLC seemed to occur at about that time. At that point, LaRouche was clearly in control of the organization. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I know we've been going back and forth so it's hard to remember certain details, however you're getting a bit sloppy with dates. According to Chapter 32 of Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Facsism - originally published in 1989, four years before the patent was apparently obtained - Lerner was a "former LaRouchian" by the time he was involved in a 1979 lawsuit. He was apparently promoting the desalination invention back then but did not have a patent (or it was some other desalination invention). So we know Lerner left the NCLC before 1979 but we don't know when, we don't know the nature of his involvement with the group, and we don't know the nature of the group itself - i.e. to what extent the group was controlled by LaRouche or reflected other leftist strains in the early to mid-1970s. We need answers to those questions, and in their absence we should just explain that Lerner was once involved in the NCLC and describe the circumstances in which he apparently broke off relations with that group.

I would add in terms of what we need to clarify that the timeline of LaRouche's political career is also important. Folks who were somewhat allied with him in his Trotskyite phase, however long that lasted, were probably aghast at his move to the right and I imagine Lerner would have been one of those. If Lerner supported a LaRouche group when it was leftist and abandoned it when it moved to the right it would be very wrong of us to simply call him a follower of LaRouche (just as it would be ridiculous to say that someone "agreed with Ronald Reagan" without explaining that that applied only to the era when Reagan was a New Deal supporter).

The anti-Semitism issue is also quite relevant. I'm not sure when LaRouche started pushing that bile (his Wiki article suggests the early 1970s), but it's important to consider the timeline here as well given that it is quite possible that Lerner himself is Jewish (I don't know for sure either way) since we know he was born in a heavily Jewish community in Massachusetts and was a Columbia student leader in 1968 and apparently an SDS member as well (see this Mark Rudd piece on the key role Jewish students played in SDS and other radical student movements). I really don't want to be associating Lerner with LaRouche - who is arguably most notorious for the numerous accusations of anti-Semitism against him - without proper context when it is entirely possible that Lerner himself was disgusted by LaRouche's statements about Jews and that that may have played a role in why he left the NCLC. Again, this is a complex issue which affects a living person. The book source we have provides a tiny fraction of the overall picture. We need more information or we need to err on the side of caution in temrs of what we say. I'm getting a sense that Lerner was connected to a LaRouche faction in SDS and split with the group when it moved rightward, perhaps moved into anti-Semitic territory, and perhaps interfered with his business and sense of political ethics. This is just a guess, but I do think we need to characterize the overall situation accurately using reliable soures.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I think I can see what you are going for now, Bigtimepeace. I think you have a pretty good handle on the situation. Can we agree that we should make some mention of the break with NCLC in the article and maybe contextualize it with a comparative time-line. It's clear that Lerner broke with NCLC over Lyndon LaRouche. It's not clear that he ever agreed with Lyndon LaRouche. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, mentioning the NCLC connection and the reason he left it is fine with me. I think the following sentence, tweaked from John254's original suggestion, would work: "Lerner had been a member of the National Caucus of Labor Committees, though he ultimately broke with the organization and later claimed he had been pressured to funnel money from a desalination company he started into the US Labor Party, which would have been a violation of election law." I don't know exactly what you have in mind as far as a "comparative time-line" but am open to suggestions in that regard. I think the above formulation states what we know and no more. We don't know exactly why Lerner broke with the NCLC (it could have been a combination of things), so the above sentence basically just tells the reader that he did break with them and then discusses the one thing we know made Lerner angry at the NCLC, without claiming that was what made him leave. Does that work, or any alternative suggestions?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Is the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science a reliable source?

Much of the discussion here with respect to the question of whether Eric Lerner's cosmological theories may be described in this article relates to the determination of whether the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science is a reliable source. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers.

Thus, our verifiability policy articulates two factors by which to assess the reliability of a source:

(1) The presence or absence of peer review

(2) The credibility of the publisher

The IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science is a peer reviewed journal published by the respected Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. Thus, both of the previously described factors weigh in favor of a finding that the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science is a reliable source. Against this background, some users nonetheless argue that this journal is not a reliable source, citing claims concerning its impact factor. This argument is unpersuasive for two reasons:

(1) Though Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources treats the question of the reliability of academic sources, this policy provides no support for the claim that a journal's impact factor can be used in the assessment of source reliability.

(2) While a journal's impact factor is sometimes employed employed off-wiki to determine its quality, there is considerable disagreement with this practice in the academic world. See, for example,

(a) "Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research", BMJ. 1997 Feb 15;314(7079):498-502 [45]

(b) "Impact factor as a misleading tool in evaluation of medical journals", Lancet. 1995 Sep 30;346(8979):906 [46]

(c) "The impact factor: a misleading and flawed measure of research quality", J Sports Sci. 2005 Jan;23(1):1-3 [47]

Consequently, the editing of this article may proceed under the assumption that the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science is a reliable source, unless compelling evidence to the contrary is presented. As arguments against the description of Eric Lerner's cosmology theories were predicated largely upon the assertion that this journal was not a reliable source, Eric Lerner's theories may now be described in the article. John254 00:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's a reliable source, exactly as you've explained. The whole question stems from SA's Red herring argument[48]. It's a shame we've had to waste so much time on it. ABlake (talk) 01:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I have presented evidence to the contrary. They publish nonsense papers. That's good enough evidence to exclude all the papers that do not have notice by mainstream sources. See WP:FRINGE. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You have yet to prove that the paper you cited is nonsense. John254 23:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Whilst you are all welcome to your view that the journal's rock bottom impact factor is not a cause to exclude it as a reliable source, I would remind you that it our best way of evaluating disputed journals. Without a decent impact factor we have no way to tell if it is reliable, personal insistence does not carry weight. Jefffire (talk) 13:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's not my personal view -- as described above, it's the view supported by the text of Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources and the papers I cited above. Indeed, your assertion that impact factor can be employed as a metric for source reliability on Wikipedia is mere "personal insistence", since you have provided no supporting evidence. The claim that "Without a decent impact factor we have no way to tell if it is reliable" is without merit, since peer review and publisher credibility can be employed as metrics for journal reliability. Now, even if we assumed that an extremely low impact factor could be used to impugn the reliability of a peer-reviewed journal that would otherwise be credible on account of being published by the IEEE, the papers in the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science cited in prior revisions of this article were published in 1986, 1989, and 1992. Thus, we would need to examine the historical impact factor of the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science to determine whether it was so low as to impugn its reliability at the time the papers were published. Additionally, we would need objective evidence to scale a journal's impact factor for the years cited in this field of study -- per Impact_factor#Misuse_of_impact_factor, "The absolute value of an impact factor is meaningless." John254 23:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• This appears to be a remarkably ill-tempered argument that has largely missed the point. SA is right that the impact factor of this journal is negligible, and it has no real relevance to cosmology; it's like the journal of material coating science that was the only place to publish some of the fringe views on cold fusion. We should not quote journals outside their field of expertise when to do so would exaggerate the importance of a fringe view. What's needed is more focus on what reliable independent sources in Lerner's chosen field say about his work. His views on cosmology are clearly extreme fringe views (as the arbitration case showed beyond doubt), so surely all we need to do is state that factually without engaging in debate within the article as to whether we believe him or not? We also have reliable sources for his eing a LaRouche follower, at least at some point, so that dispute may be considered resolved and the article unprotected. Guy (Help!) 00:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist's claim that the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science has an extremely low impact factor and is unrelated to cosmology is unsupported by objective evidence -- merely swearing at the journal won't lower its status. Indeed, as described in Plasma_cosmology#Further_developments, the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science has published a significant amount of material relating to plasma cosmology. Furthermore, the claim that a journal's impact factor outweighs the considerations of peer review and publisher credibility expressly enumerated in Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources for the purpose of determining source reliability under our policies is unsupported except by bare assertion. Recall, though, that we're not discussing whether Eric Lerner's theories have mainstream acceptance -- they clearly do not -- but rather whether they have at least been published in a sufficiently reliable source to describe them at all. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience included no specific finding regarding the allegedly fringe nature of Eric Lerner's views -- indeed, the only findings relating to Eric Lerner are the following: Pseudoscience#Eric_Lerner and Pseudoscience#Self_promotion_by_Elerner. The reference to cold fusion is ironic -- even though cold fusion is a completely discredited theory, our article still cites the original paper on the topic, and describes the theory of cold fusion itself -- see Cold_fusion#Early_work and Cold_fusion#Pre-announcement_and_announcement. Irrespective of the credibility of the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science as a peer-reviewed scientific journal, there's no doubt that the articles by Eric Lerner in this publication accurately describe his cosmology theories. To the extent that these theories are the subject of significant criticism in Eric_Lerner#Reception_of_The_Big_Bang_Never_Happened, its only reasonable to describe the theories that are the subject of the criticism. Nowhere else would we claim that theories are sufficiently notable for the inclusion of criticism, but not of the very theories being criticized. With regard to Eric Lerner's alleged association with Lyndon LaRouche, editors are strongly encouraged to thoroughly consider the WP:BLP concerns raised by Bigtimepeace in Talk:Eric_Lerner#Resolution before adding this information to the article. John254 03:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

This matter has already been explained clearly. I will not further repeat myself. Jefffire (talk) 09:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You haven't established the impact factor of the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science at the time it published Eric Lerner's work, the use of the impact factor to override the standards of source reliability described in Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources, or the correctness of treating criticism of Eric Lerner's theories without describing the theories that are the subject of criticism. If you won't participate further in this discussion, then please do not remove characterizations of Eric Lerner's views sourced to the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science on source reliability or fringe view grounds. John254 14:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/RecentIssue.jsp?punumber=27 - the subject matter is "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"; as implied by the publishing body and title, this is about the use of plasmas in electrical and electronic engineering. It is not a cosmological journal, and there's no evidence that its peer-review panel is equipped to evaluate cosmological theories. Guy (Help!) 14:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

"space plasmas" are unrelated to cosmology only to the extent that we assume that the theory of plasma cosmology is completely without merit -- but to declare that the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science is an unreliable source for cosmology on this basis presumes the issue that it describes. In any event, this objection to the journal doesn't explain why, given that the articles in the journal do accurate represent Eric Lerner's theories, we shouldn't describe these theories to the extent that they are the subject of criticism in the article, or even simply because we are writing a biography of Eric Lerner. Not only do we describe completely discredited theories like cold fusion, we even treat entirely self-published ideas that really haven't been subject to critical analysis at all, in the course of providing biographical information concerning their creators -- see, for example, Views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche#LaRouche-Riemann_Method. The only views too fringe to describe on Wikipedia are views that are also too fringe to criticize. John254 14:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Lerner's ideas are described in sufficient detail in the aricle. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The current version of the article has a one-sentence description of Eric Lerner's theories: "Lerner is a critic of the Big Bang theory and advocates an infinitely old Universe." This is hardly balanced with the extended quotation of criticism from three sources in Eric_Lerner#Reception_of_The_Big_Bang_Never_Happened. John254 14:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Balance is not WP:NPOV. See WP:WEIGHT. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a massive misapplication of Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight. To quote the policy in relevant part:

Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views.

Thus, a discussion of plasma cosmology in physical cosmology would be problematic from an undue weight perspective. What you are claiming, however, is that to describe Eric Lerner's theories with more than a single sentence in an article about Eric Lerner would constitute undue weight. Nowhere else would we apply this bizarre standard: for instance, Views of Lyndon LaRouche contains an extensive discussion of Lyndon LaRouche's theories in the context of providing biographical material concerning Lyndon LaRouche, even though it appears that most of LaRouche's theories are self-published, and have never appeared in peer-reviewed journals. There's no support for the contention that Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight requires us to minimize the discussion of unpopular views in articles about those views or their proponents. John254 18:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

This is an article about a person, not a view. See CTMU and Christopher Michael Langan for a similar treatment. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

That's an inaccurate description of that article. Christopher_Michael_Langan#Ideas.2C_affiliations.2C_and_publications describes Christopher Michael Langan's theories, fringe though they may be, far more than this article's single-sentence treatement. John254 18:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

John, you are giving the appearance here of dispute for dispute's sake. The big bang / expanding universe model enjoys sufficiently close to universal acceptance among cosmologists that simply disputing it immediately places you on the fringe. We don't need to provide a thousand sources to say this. We have a long-standing problem on articles on fringe subjects, be they paranormal theories, unaccredited universities or scientists with fringe theories, that supporters of the subject produce laundry lists of way-out or irrelevant sources in order to obscure a complete lack of acceptance in the mainstream. It's better to simply state the facts and move on, rather than engage in special pleading. But actually the problem is best resolved by reference to secondary sources which describe the reception of his theories. I mean, we can argue all day about citation levels, I can point out that the number of references to a mainstream figure like Hawking is tent imes higher and Hawking's most-cited publication on cosmology has about 100 times as many cites as Lerner's, and some of those citing Lerner are disputing his conclusions, but all that is just original research. So: what articles and other scholarly debates are there about Lerner's theory? And if there are no discussions of it in the journals relating to cosmology, then we're done here: it's fringe. Discussion does not mean publication of a paper, it means discussion of an idea by others. We really can't count papers and write our own conclusions. Guy (Help!) 18:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not claiming that we should represent Eric Lerner's views as mainstream. I'm claiming that we should represent them at all, in an article about Eric Lerner. Cold fusion is about as fringe as physics theories come, yet we still describe the theory itself, in the article about the theory -- we don't claim that, because cold fusion is fringe, we can't describe cold fusion with more than a single sentence in our article on cold fusion. John254 18:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The article "about" the theory is plasma cosmology. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

As Eric Lerner has specific theories about plasma cosmology, its reasonable to represent his particular theories, in our article about him -- see Christopher_Michael_Langan#Ideas.2C_affiliations.2C_and_publications as an example of a similar treatment. 18:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

And what are those "special theories"? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

They're described in the paragraph you removed from the article here. As you characterized the theories as "the details of Eric's peculiar beliefs", there should be no question of their uniqueness. John254 19:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

They aren't "described". They're laundry-listed. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The distinction is sufficiently subjective that there may be no discernable difference. Descriptions of ideas don't become "laundry lists" simply because you, or even most cosmologists, disagree with them. John254 19:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Do some research wherein you read Eric's book and get back to us. This discussion will go nowhere until you are more informed. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Unsupported personal attacks [49] aren't persuasive arguments. John254 19:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Calm down everybody

First of all, there are two separate issues here:

1. Should the now renegged association with Lyndon LaRouche be mentioned on the page?
2. How should we cover Eric's fringe ideas?

Let's take each in turn:

Lyndon LaRouche association

It is undeniable that Eric was once associated with Lyndon LaRouche. He is quoted in secondary sources describing the break he made with LaRouche's movement and it is also clear that this is the same Eric Lerner since he is the one who has the desalination patent. The question is, should this association be noted? Is it notable? Eric's commentary on LaRouche's movement was included in perhaps the single most notable authoritative secondary source disputing the activities of LaRouche. It does not seem to disparage Eric, nor does it seem to be particularly biased against him. The source may be biased against LaRouche, but this isn't an issue for this page. The reason I thought it appropriate to include this source and wording is because it allows for some further characterizations of Eric's political history -- something which is included on this page. It may be that his politics are irrelevant to the notability of the subject and therefore should be excised. I'm willing to accept that. So then we should probably excise all the stuff on Eric's political activities. What is inappropriate to do is to excise some of Eric's political activities history and not others. Either all of it is relevant or none of it is relevant. I'll let others comment below.

ScienceApologist (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Entirely plausible, now please cite reliable independent secondary sources for that. You find them, I'll add them. Guy (Help!) 18:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's the most obvious source: Affidavit of Eric Lerner, May 29, 1979, Gilbertson v. Lerner, New York State Supreme Court, New York County, Civ. Docket No. 09564-79. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's another one: "King, Dennis. Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism. New York: Doubleday, 1989. p. 310." ScienceApologist (talk) 18:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)King, Dennis, "Lyndon Larouche and the New American Fascism", Doubleday, 1989, ISBN 0385238800, avail online at http://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/newamericanfascism.htm , chapter at http://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/fascism32.htm .

Excellent. So, no need to cite the anti-LaRouche website. Let's have a form of words for an {{editprotected}} shall we? Guy (Help!) 21:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Both of the cited sources are unacceptable to make a controversial claim concerning a living person. The use of the court document would, as a primary source, blatantly violate Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#People_who_are_relatively_unknown, which expressly provides that

Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source.

Furthermore, it is fairly obvious that "Lyndon Larouche and the New American Fascism" is not a peer reviewed publication, but rather a political attack book, written by Dennis King, who also maintains the political attack site "Lyndon LaRouche Watch" -- indeed, as ScienceApologist notes above, the book is actually featured on "Lyndon LaRouche Watch". As an extremist source, this political attack publication is in no way a reliable source for any purpose other than describing the writing of Dennis King. Note that other portions of Eric Lerner's political history, being less controversial in nature, can (and, to maintain balance, should) be included in the article consistent with our biographies of living persons policy. John254 23:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I was surprised to see this on AN and just wanted to add a thought. I've met Lerner a few times (actually been in his home and talked to him fairly extensively about politics) and am surprised to learn he was involved with Larouche (oddly enough, I also met ScienceApologist once at a Wiki Meetup, though I doubt that user would even remember. I am thus pleased to announce that my Lerner-ScienceApologist number is 2. Beat that!).

I'm a little concerned with the addition of the LaRouche material without knowing more about the full story. Based on some of the posts here (not a reliable source, but provides background), I wonder to what extent Lerner was truly a "follower" and to what extent LaRouche was just helping him to do scientific research. That distinction could actually be very important.

I'm also a bit concerned about undue weight. Lerner struck me as a straight-up anti-capitalist of the "Old Left" and I know for a fact (from an e-mail list serv, sorry none of this comment here is reliably sourced!) that his main work recently has been with the NJ Civil Rights Defense Committee already cited in the article. It's possible that to even mention the LaRouche stuff - which really sticks out in an article like this - given the short nature of the whole discussion seriously distorts his political history. Like I said we don't even know the full scope of his involvement with the organization, at least from what I've seen. I would probably support SA's thought that it might be better to mention none of his political history, because in telling only part of the story (and possibly just plain getting it wrong) we could be doing Lerner a real disservice. I would maybe just mention his association with the NJ civil rights group as a current political activity which we can reliably source.

Just for the record while I've met Lerner I'm not a friend of his (though he was a nice enough guy) so I'm not biased here. I would feel bad for him though if he was only tangentially associated with LaRouche and we made too big a thing of that. We might just need more information in order to figure out how to proceed. I don't know if Lerner has ever edited here, but another possibility is to simply e-mail him about this if we're concerned about the BLP issue. I know he knows he has a Wiki article.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I see Eric has edited here as User:Elerner which I did not realize. I guess he's under an ArbCom restriction as well and apparently can't edit this article, though it might still be useful to contact him somehow. Given that SA was apparently wrapped up in an ArbCom case that involved Lerner as well (I have not looked at the specifics and don't plan to, but it seems obvious they were antagonists), it might be a bit ill-advised on SA's part to be pushing this LaRouche issue. Just a thought in the interest of avoiding unnecessary trouble, since ultimately the LaRouche thing is hardly critical to this article.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

@John: No, those are acceptable sources for a nice, bland statement that Lerner is, or has been a LaRouche supporter. Both are secondary sources apparently relying on Lerner's own words. We have no need to obscure this fact, it's an interesting if minor fact and does not appear to be contested. Guy (Help!) 08:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, court documents are primary sources -- per Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources

Examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews

Indeeed, "court records" are specifically described as primary sources in Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Well_known_public_figures, and forbidden for the use proposed in this article:

Exert great care in using material from primary sources. Do not use, for example, public records that include personal details — such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses — or trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has already cited them.

Moreover, political attack publications obviously aren't reliable sources. Alleged association with Lyndon LaRouche, a highly controversial political figure, must necessarily qualify as controversial information concerning a living person which may only be included if supported by a reliable source per Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material -- please see Lyndon_LaRouche#Criticism. John254 10:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The types of arguments being made by John are utterly specious and hardly worth rehashing. Aside from being, on the whole, personal attacks on others they also completely miss the point. There are reliable secondary sources for this connection between Eric and LaRouche. If the political history of Eric is not relevant, then excise the entire thing. If it is, then include it. That is all. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The book seems okay to use, with caution - see below - but per WP:NPF I don't know that it would be appropriate to use the court case, which qualifies as a primary source. Per that section of the not-so-famous-person BLP policy, "Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source." Like I said though the book is okay, but I still don't know what exactly it is telling us or if we should use it given how little we know about this. Here's the full passage from the book re: Lerner:

"Businesses run by NCLC members are expected to put the NCLC's needs first. Former LaRouchian Eric Lerner found this out when he and several comrades formed a company to promote a water desalinization invention. After leaving the NCLC, he stated in a 1979 lawsuit that NCLC leaders had pressured him to funnel the firm's profits to the U.S. Labor Party, the electoral arm of the NCLC, in violation of election laws. Lerner charged that this was standard policy with other NCLC-controlled businesses."

The NCLC referred to here is apparently the National Caucus of Labor Committees. According to that org's Wikipedia article, the NCLC grew out of a faction in Students for a Democratic Society. In its early years it was "a New Left organization influenced by Trotskyist ideas" but "by the mid-1970s, the NCLC had abandoned Marxism altogether, in favor of what its members described as an American System approach. Some press accounts alleged that there was a shift to the right, and that the NCLC established ties to the Ku Klux Klan and the Liberty Lobby." I don't think we really know when Lerner stopped being involved, or how "LaRouchian" the organization was prior to its abandonment of Marxism. Lerner was apparently involved in the '68 student strike at Columbia (along with SDS leader Mark Rudd), so if he went from that to SDS to an SDS splinter group that was ultimately controlled by LaRouche then his actual involvement with LaRouche or status as a "LaRouchian" is a bit more questionable. I don't think I'm completely willing to trust the secondary source's characterization of him as a full blown LaRouchian though it is entirely possible that he was. It's also possible he was in a Marxist organization that grew out of the student movement of '68 and left that organization when it shifted direction and/or become more LaRouche dominated. Again, I don't know, but I don't think we have enough evidence to confidently make the controversial claim that Lerner was a "follower of Lyndon LaRouche." Left politics in the late 60s and early 1970s was nothing if not complex, and folks were involved with all sorts of groups with varying degrees of intensity.

I'm not trying to whitewash anything here, and if there is more detailed information that shows Lerner was truly a "LaRouchian" then I'm fine with putting it in. We have to proceed carefully though, particularly since the editor trying to add this information has disputed with Lerner here on Wikipedia. I'd like to hear thoughts from Guy and SA about these issues.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If "Lyndon Larouche and the New American Fascism" is a reliable source [50], then I shutter to think what an unreliable source would look like. Anyway, here's my trump card: Will Beback has expressed concerns that the Eric Lerner described by Dennis King is actually a different Eric Lerner altogether:

Are we certain that the Eric Lerner associated with LaRouche is the as the subject of this article? "The American Ideology: or Why LCers Fear Theory" by Eric Lerner and Carol Menzel.[51] ("LCers" may refer to members of the National Caucus of Labor Committees and the International Caucus of Labor Committees, former LaRouche parties. -Will Beback 19:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[52]

Now, that just might be a problem. John254 00:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that the webpage to which Will Beback refers in his comment above is archived here. John254 00:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It's the same Eric Lerner as proven with the reference to the patent for desalination on his own web page. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You mean United States Patent 5,207,928, which you removed from the article, on the basis of the claim that "Patents are not in and of themselves worthy of inclusion in biographical articles. Any yahoo can get a patent." Yes, that patent? Then this couldn't possibly be the same Eric Lerner as the one who "formed a company to promote a water desalinization invention"[53], since if the Eric Lerner described here actually did form such a company, the patent would relate to events that you wish to include in the article. John254 23:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't follow the logic of John's last comment. It clearly seems to be the same Eric Lerner. The fact that ScienceApologist did not want to include the bit about the patent in the article has no bearing on the issue of whether the Eric Lerner in this article was the same one tied to LaRouche. You brought up a legitimate question about the possibility of two different Lerners and SA provided a convincing answer, so I think we can drop this.

I'm still interested in seeing a response to concerns I raised above. At this point I do not support including the LaRouche stuff unless we can clarify the exact nature of Lerner's involvement with that dude. I think SA and anyone else who wants to include that material needs to explain how we can be certain that Lerner was truly a follower of LaRouche and not merely affiliated with a LaRouche connected group. This is not a cut-and-dried issue, nor is it trivial since we are talking about information that many would take to be defamatory being inserted into a BLP.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

In removing the patent from the article, ScienceApologist asserted its insignificance -- anyone can get a patent, right? ScienceApologist's claim that the patent relates to "a desalination company... [Eric Lerner] started", information which he is attempting to include in the article, is inconsistent with his assertion of the patent's insignificance. So, either

(1) the patent doesn't actually relate to the desalination company, in which case it doesn't show that we're talking about the same Eric Lerner or

(2) if information about the "desalination company" is included in the article, the patent should be included as well, since the patent would have been used for commercial purposes in the "desalination company", and certainly wouldn't merely have the status of a document that anyone could obtain.

However, as Bigtimepeace observes, Eric Lerner's membership in the National Caucus of Labor Committees would not imply his support for Lyndon LaRouche, and Dennis King's passing characterization of Eric Lerner as "LaRouchian" in the course of writing the political attack book "Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism" is not dispositive. So, even if we were to regard "Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism" as a sufficiently reliable source for the inclusion of any information in this article at all, we should state only that "He was a former member of the National Caucus of Labor Committees who left the organization after being pressured to funnel money from a desalination company he started into the US Labor Party." leaving Lyndon LaRouche's name out of it. In this case, we should also mention that Eric Lerner later obtained United States Patent 5,207,928 for the method of desalination employed by the company he started, since the patent would then be relevant to the subject matter of the article. John254 02:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Just a note, Eric is disputing the inclusion of the sentence based on the fact that his political leanings and affiliations aren't notable and since we're only mentioning a few of the sum total of his political activities, we're giving undue weight to the subject. I tend to agree -- perhaps all the political activities should be removed and the article should concentrate on his work? Shell ^babelfish 20:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Fine with me, but see #Resolution below. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I just sent Lerner an e-mail about this per his suggestion on his talk page. I suggested to him earlier that we could either delete all of the political stuff or else try to provide more information about his overall activities so the NCLC stuff was not given undue weight. I also proposed a revised version of the NCLC sentence (it was sort of ambiguous before, which is largely my fault) so we'll see what his thoughts are.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Eric's fringe science ideas

Eric promotes two fringe science ideas: plasma fusion and plasma cosmology. Both of the subjects are worthy of inclusion to the extent that Eric has received outside attention for his promotion of these ideas. One thing we need to make sure of, though, is that Wikipedia doesn't serve as a soapbox or a coatrack for these ideas. We must be certain to include information about Eric's ideas as it pertains to outside commentary on the issue and nothing more. In other words, his fantasies regarding filamentary absorption of the CMB, surface brigthness tests, and efficiency ratings for aneutronic fusion are not worthy of inclusion here since no outside independent sources have taken notice of them. As soon as Eric gets noticed for these ideas, that's when we include them: not before. The laundry list of papers Eric has written and the inordinate detail that the article used to go into describing his peculiar ideas was unreasonable. Eric slides by barely with notability through his semi-popular science book and a few bits of mainstream media notice for his focus fusion company. That's the extent to which we can describe his ideas. Since he is marginalized in the scientific community, we are right to marginalize Eric's ideas that he claims are written at that level until he can get a qualified reviewer to take notice. Even a debunking will do.

There is plenty of precedent for this. For example, on the Christopher Michael Langan page, this particular person's "Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe" was basically excised as being, on the whole, non-notable. We mention it because it is mentioned by secondary sources, but we do not go to great lengths to describe it because, frankly, no one has taken notice of this description at the detailed level required for a detailed description. Likewise here, since Eric's ideas are patently ignored by those in the know, Wikipedia is right to exclude detail description and self-analysis of Eric's ideas: doing so would be an extreme violation of WP:REDFLAG.

ScienceApologist (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

There is rather a significant difference between the Christopher Michael Langan article and this one, insofar as the former excludes detailed criticism of the "Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe". This article, however, contains extensive quotations of critiques of Eric Lerner's book, which describes his theories. To the extent that Eric Lerner's book, and, by extension, his views on Cosmology, are the subject of criticism in this article, it is appropriate to provide some treatment of these views themselves, as published in peer-reviewed sources such as the "IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science". I strongly disagree with ScienceApologist's hairsplitting distinction between Eric Lerner's views on cosmology, and Eric Lerner's book on cosmology. John254 23:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact is that CTMU is notable for the CML article because it is mentioned in various interviews with the subject (e.g. the Erroll Morris interview). Eric's book is notable because it has received outside reviews that generally pan it. Eric's ideas that are published in obscure journals that have not received outside notice are not appropriate for inclusion in this article. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

No, any published views of Lerner's which are not likely to be a mis-representation of his views may be appropriate to his bio. If we were talking about Lerner's inclusion somewhere else, they would not be notable, but we are looking at notability relative to the subject of the bio, not notability of the subject's ideas to the mainstream world. Once the general notability of the subject is established, we look for sources which round out a biography, not merely sources which deal with the notability of the subject to the mainstream. For example, if Lerner spent 10 years doing something which no one paid attention to, we would look for any sources to fill in that 10 years. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, as Eric Lerner's book discusses substantially the same theories as his journal articles, the articles discuss a notable theory, and are thus suitable for inclusion. Moreover, the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science is a respected peer reviewed source, not an "obscure journal". ScienceApologist has taken an unsupportable, entirely untenable position:

(1) Material concerning Eric Lerner's theories published in peer-reviewed journals is not suitable for inclusion [54] BUT

(2) Critiques of Eric Lerner's theories on self-published faculty webpages and blog entries constitute good, reliable sources, which really need to be included in this article (see [55], which uses [56] and [57] as references) AND

(3) When a self-published political attack website mentions Eric Lerner in passing, we really needed to include that information in the article [58] [59] [60] BUT

(4) Since ScienceApologist has been informed that he can't use a political attack website as a source to support a controversial claim concerning a living person, it's still acceptable to use a political attack book written by the author of the same political attack page as a source [61]

ScienceApologist's arguments are completely without merit. John254 02:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

John254's arguments are boneheaded. (1) IEEE Plasma Transactions have an impact factor in the fucking toilet. It's lower than almost every other plasma physics journal published. In terms of cosmology, it has an impact factor of essentially zero. That has to be taken into consideration. (2) The attack site is not attacking Eric Lerner, so objections to it are irrelevant here. Done and dumb. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, play nicely or go away. Your edits are becoming trollish. When I pointed out the errors of your edits, you warn me on my talk page to stop editing[[62]]. When John254 pointed out the errors of your edits, you call him a bonehead[[63]]. When we showed you notable citations in IEEE, you attacked the journal itself in an incivil manner. Oh wait, you have a personal problem with civility[[64]]. By the way, "incivility" is derived from the Latin incivilis, meaning "not of a citizen". I would suggest that you apply that to your Wikipedia status until you can learn to play nicely with the other Wikipedia citizens. Be a team player, or get off the field. ABlake (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a big difference between calling someone a bonehead and calling someone's arguments boneheaded. IEEE Plasma Transactions 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. Good luck. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Your POV regarding IEEE Plasma Transactions is completely irrelevant as far as editing is concerned. The opinions of your "professional" colleagues (whoever they are) are equally irrelevant. Again, you assume to speak for the scientific community as a whole. If you continue to let your POV dictate the contents of this article, you will be excused from further editing here. The article about Eric Lerner is not the POV playground of ScienceApologist, or anyone else. ABlake (talk) 20:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Listen, IEEE Plasma Transactions is a low-impact factor journal. It's not surprising that it would publish junk. That doesn't mean that junk should be included here. This is done simply because Eric's fringe fantasies are only notable inasmuch as they are noticed by those who do not share his bizarre outlook. Other than that, they deserve exclusion from our encyclopedia. The end. And why did Eric ask you to be his meatpuppet again? Is he paying you to do this? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Now you're resorting to innuendo? Well, if you have nothing better to argue with, go for it. I wish I got paid for all the wasted time I've spent trying to reason with you. I'd be a rich man! :) And I'd have great job security too! Again, your opinion of IEEE Plasma Transactions is irrelevant. Bottom line: It's a notable peer-reviewed journal, therefore, it is acceptable to cite under Wikipedia policy. ABlake (talk) 20:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Not convinced. You arrived on this page almost as soon as Eric left. It wasn't until a few days ago that someone alerted me to the fact that you are Eric's partner. Immediately, I began to understand your contributions in a whole new light. Sorry, we all choose with whom we associate. You are a close associate of Eric who is banned from editing the article. This casts a pall on your contributions and I have no qualms about pointing this out. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

So, my contributions were fine and good until you realized that I am an associate of Eric? That's actually refreshing to hear. It means my edits stood on their own. I'll take that as a compliment. I really do exercise a great deal of circumspection when I make any changes, as required by WP:COI, and it's nice to have that validated. Thanks! I hope you also remember to assume good faith until I've shown a biased edit. So far you haven't shown me one, and I can't remember making one. I'm sure you'd have brought it up if I had, and I would have corrected whatever it was if I had. On the other hand, I've brought up your aggressively biased edits and negative behavior several times, but that hasn't seemed to have changed anything. I guess that's the difference between you and I. I'm sure your grandfather would be proud of you, as I'm sure mine would be of me. It comes down to how we were raised, and our role models. That's my social worker background coming through. Sorry, I digress... ABlake (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

No, your contributions were confusing, as though you were gaming the system. Remember when you "alerted" the now-departed Ian Tresman to my edits at scientific community? I asked you about it then and you were, as far as I can tell, being duplicitous. I'm disgusted with your behavior at Wikipeida as a single-purpose account, frankly, and I do not care to be silent about it. You are welcome to continue to make suggestions here at the talk page, but I'm very upset that you did not divulge your personal connection with Eric Lerner at the outset. You were/are being duplicitous all along and you know it. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes. You were adding biased info[[65]] to the Scientific community page so you could turn around and use it as a source against including information in this very article, which illuminates (again) your own duplicity. I'm surprised you even brought it up. I make no apologies for pointing out your sneakiness. Would you please stop with the personal attacks and stick with the points of the article. People don't want to read all this crap, and besides, it just makes you look bad when the truth comes out. ABlake (talk) 01:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, here's a question for you since you're an astronomy guy. Are journals like the Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy or the Astrophysical Journal respected in the astronomy field? If so, what makes them different or better than IEEE Plasma Transactions in the plasma physics or astronomy fields? Do they have higher standards of review and publication? What is it that would make one field's journal more respectable than another? ABlake (talk) 02:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Journals are considered reliable sources if they have the respect and support of most experts in the field. This can generally be deduced by how often it is cited from other journals which are indisputably reliable. Jefffire (talk) 12:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

And note the very significant notability difference between this and this. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

And would you mind archiving this page? I'd do it but it takes nearly 4 min to load. Thanks (; ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I set it to be archived by Miszabot, but that does not seem to have happened yet. Guy (Help!) 08:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought the bot must have been non-functional or something. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Other Publications

FYI, Eric's theories have been explained in other publications. The cover story of New Scientist, titled The End of the Beginning, by Marcus Chown, on July 2, 2005, page 30, detailed his and others' ideas. It's not a journal, but it wasn't self-published. The latest one was The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 668, Issue 1, Page 74–80, Oct 2007. Eric was one of three authors. That article was quoted (in press, accessible through arXiv:0709.3304) in HST morphologies of local Lyman break galaxy analogs I: Evidence for starbursts triggered by merging, by a group of authors. So, if anyone wants to chew on that for awhile, I'm throwing it out there. It is silly to argue that he is completely ignored and ostracized. Again, if you review the information that was removed[66], you'd see that. I don't think we should laundry-list his papers, but the Professional Activities section should be put back, with these references added as further evidence. ABlake (talk) 03:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, basically the problem here is that ScienceApologist is claiming [67] [68] that Eric Lerner's theories are "ignored or derided by the cosmological community" on the basis of his own original research and WP:BLP violations. ScienceApologist's first reference is [69] -- but what the reference actually states is that "today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies". Consequently, the most we can conclude from this "admission", absent an original research extrapolation, is that "plasma cosmology is a nonstandard cosmology for which funding and experimental resources are scarce." The assertion that a shortage of resources for a theory implies ignorance or derision of it is simply ScienceApologist's own conjectural interpretation of the source. The next two references are [70] and [71], a personal faculty webpage, and a blog post, respectively. As both of these sources are essentially self-published in nature, they are unacceptable for the purpose of making the claim that Eric Lerner's theories are "ignored or derided by the cosmological community" per Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources, which provides that

Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article

Note that using original research in an article to criticize a living person is a WP:BLP violation. Furthermore, ScienceApologist's persistent attempts to paint Eric Lerner as a former supporter of Lyndon LaRouche are described as a WP:BLP violation by Bigtimepeace in Talk:Eric_Lerner#Resolution. These violations of our biographies of living persons policy really need to stop. Well, technically, per Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material, sourcing requirements for controversial information concerning living persons actually "apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages" (commentary concerning editors' on-wiki actions is implicitly excepted) -- but the WP:BLP enforcement occurring in this article is so abysmal that not only is such material permitted on the talk page, but editors such as myself have found it necessary to repeat the poorly sourced allegations for the greater good of trying to keep them out of the article itself. WP:IAR I guess. John254 04:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Self published sources would be useful for establishing his views and beliefs as long as they were presented as such. Jefffire (talk) 09:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but that's not what [72] and [73] are doing -- they're being employed as third-party sources of criticism of a living person, which, as described above, is an unacceptable use of self-published sources per Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources. John254 13:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, I was referring exclusively to Eric Lerner's self-published work. Jefffire (talk) 13:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

If Eric Lerner's self-published work is acceptable to establish his views on cosmology, then his publications in any peer-reviewed journals certainly are -- even in journals that ScienceApologist swears at. John254 14:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Where there is a lack of independent sources discussing a fringe theory (as is clearly the case here) there is no especial problem with citing a notable individual who has evident expertise in the field, provided it's made clear that we are attributing the view to the individual, per WP:ATT. Sure, a better source would be preferred. But this is an attributed statement, as is the statement attributed to Prof. Wright. But the major problem is the same as the rest of the article: lack of properly independent reliable sources. Guy (Help!) 18:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

That was the intent. The establishment of someone's views is appropriate on a BLP. However, it would be inappropriate to go into a large amount of detail about each one (soapbox), such as quoting paragraphs from his papers for each idea, or just listing them (coatrack). The previous version did a good job at saying what his views were without going into detail or promoting those ideas, and they were properly referenced. ABlake (talk) 13:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The current version does an even better job at saying what Eric's views are without going into detali or promoting those ideas. If you can list some ideas of Lerner's that aren't covered by the current version and have receieved outside notice, we should look at including them. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

In the course of quoting criticism of Eric Lerner's ideas in Eric_Lerner#Reception_of_The_Big_Bang_Never_Happened, the article itself provides sources that clearly indicate "some ideas of Lerner's that aren't covered by the current version and have receieved outside notice" For example, consider the following review:

The sizes of the vast ribbons of galaxies that Eric J. Lerner refers to come straight out of the Big Bang model itself.... Contrary to Mr. Lerner's claim, therefore, the 'simple mathematics' he cites rests upon, rather than contradicts the Big Bang model.Letter to the Editor June 18, 1991

However, the article does not describe Eric Lerner's proposed mathematical model for galaxies. Similarly, the article quotes a reviewer who states that

It seems to me that the theory proposed by Mr. Lerner has serious problems in relation to thermodynamics. This is merely my professional opinion, for what it is worth. Others can judge for themselves.... I accept that Mr. Lerner's book reports work that is largely due to Hannes Alfven, but this does not render it immune from criticism. New York Times (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Sep 1, 1991. p. A.4

However, the article does not describe Eric Lerner's theories in sufficient detail to indicate the thermodynamic issues to which the reviewer refers. The article's one sentence on Eric Lerner's theories, "Lerner is a critic of the Big Bang theory and advocates an infinitely old Universe.", would hardly permit anyone to conclude that his theories violate the laws of thermodynamics. Finally, consider this review:

Lerner uses the kinds of arguments one often hears in public discourse on science, but rarely among professional scientists themselves. For example, he argues that plasma cosmology is in closer agreement with everyday observation than Big Bang cosmology, and hence is the more sensible. A look through a telescope reveals spirals and other structures similar to those observed in the plasma laboratory, and as cosmologist Rocky Kolb has remarked, in your bathroom toilet as well. Following Lerner's line of reasoning, we would conclude, as people once did, that the earth is flat, that the sun goes around the earth, and that species are immutable.Stenger, Victor J. (Summer 1992). "Is the Big Bang a Bust?". Skeptical Inquirer. 16 (412).

However, the article doesn't actually describe Eric Lerner's claims regarding the consistency of plasma cosmology with empirical data. John254 15:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Eric does not provide a mathematical model for galaxies. The models that Eric refer to are not explicitly mentioned in his popular-level book but are explicated in full at plasma cosmology, where such discussion belongs. An infinitely old universe in fact would violate the second law of thermodynamics since entropy always increases. This is the full extent of the argument. Lerner's claims regarding "structure" are clearly explained in the Stenger quote in as much detail as is required for this article. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

In almost any other article, we would never find it acceptable to to describe a person's theories only by reference to the interpretations of their critics -- please see Christopher_Michael_Langan#Ideas.2C_affiliations.2C_and_publications as an example of a biography in which we describe a person's theories, fringe though they may be, with more than a single sentence. John254 18:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there a quote from Eric's book you'd like to see included in the article? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

There may be, once I have the opportunity to review the book more throughly. For now, I believe that we should describe Eric Lerner's theories by restoring the paragraph removed here -- his publications in peer-reviewed journals are certainly accurate representations of his views. John254 19:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

No. Either provide some material that is sourced to Eric's book or please stop badgering us. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not your article. You have no authority to command users to either supply a description of Eric Lerner's ideas in the one form that you unilaterally deem to be acceptable, or "shut up".[74] John254 19:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, ScienceApologist states that "An infinitely old universe in fact would violate the second law of thermodynamics since entropy always increases."[75] As long as we're conducting original research on this talk page, here's mine: we can have an infinitely old universe with continuously increasing entropy, consistent with the second law of thermodynamics, by means of a continuously increasing entropy function f(x) which asymptotically approaches 0 as x approaches negative infinity -- ie, lim f(x) as x → -∞ = 0 but for all x in the set of real numbers we have f(x) > 0, and for all x,y in the set of real numbers satisfying y > x, we have f(y) > f(x). This is why we can't use ScienceApologist's original research in this article -- it has not been peer reviewed, and it may not be correct. John254 19:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time taking you seriously. Are you telling a joke? Are you gaming the system? What are you doing? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm just trying to illustrate why we shouldn't use original research in this article. I will be removing some of your original research shortly, along with some sources incompatible with Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources. John254 20:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

← John, that is not a good idea. SA has shown that he understands the topic better than you do, and has read more widely in the sources, so you'd be wise to work wiht him rather than against. I ahve just fixed up some of the references per WP:ATT, which needs doing and is better than removing sources based solely on the medium of their publication. Notable people who say things can be quoted, however they choose to publish their criticism. We just make it clear who they are and by what authority they speak. And above all we look for more independent sources, since just about everything supportive of Lerner is not actually from a reliable independent source, as far as I can tell. We've had a lengthy arbitration case on this, and it was not in serious dispute at any point that Lerner's fringe minority views which lack mainstream support. Guy (Help!) 20:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Experts_are_subject_to_the_no_original_research_rule, ScienceApologist's allegedly expert status does not give him blank-check permission to engage in original research to criticize a living person justified only by personal attacks on the editor attempting to remove the problematic material.[76]. You are, of course, welcome to bring this matter to the Arbitration Committee again, but I highly doubt that they would endorse this sort of WP:BLP violation, or that they would find edits such as [77] [78] [79] to be legitimate. I will post a comment on WP:BLP/N concerning this issue. John254 21:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I think including some summary quotes from Eric's book might be a good idea. I have to run right now though, but I'll try to provide some later tonight or tomorrow. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

That won't be necessary -- I've added some quotations to the article. John254 03:37, 30 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience and has edited this article in blatant violation of the biographies of living persons policy [80] [81] [82], 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia.

Let me also say that I think that Eric's political activities may be totally inappropriate to include here. This is a Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. After all, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 [83] 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^phi ☎ 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^phi ☎ 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^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability

Per Wikipedia:Verifiability

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia 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.[84]

but personal faculty webpages and blogs are good reliable sources suitable for use as references [85] 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^phi ☎ 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 [86]. 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." [87]. ——Martin^phi ☎ 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 Wikipedia 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. [88]
• "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. [89] [90]
• 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 [now ScienceWatch.com], who have no stake in the Wikipedia 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 [91] 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 [92]. 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 Wikipedia, 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)

Scratch that. He has gone back to original course and is now pushing full speed ahead for article deletion. Not only has he hijacked the article, but he is now crashing it into the nearest mountainside. Amazing, absolutely amazing, in a sick sort of way. ABlake (talk) 19:12, 13 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 [93] [94] [95] [96] 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)