Talk:Axis of evil (cosmology)

Proposed move to Axis of Evil (Cosmology)
It was suggested during the course of the delete discussion that this would be better moved to Axis of Evil. The sources cited as discovering the apparent alignment referred to it as that, as does most of the literature, so I think we'd do our readers a favour by adopting that nomenclature here. Does anyone have a different view? Chrislintott (talk) 11:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Support Per nom, see nothing to add. Paradoctor (talk) 20:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Axis of evil for all observers (of different planets)
Write that theoretical section please.

Edmund Schluessel Explanation
Does the article on Cosmologist Edmund Schluessel's possible explanation specify that it's discussing the problem of why the Axis of Evil appears a particular way from Earth? It may be my own reading but it seems like it's simply discussing why generally speaking distribution of structures in the universe is not uniform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.229.243.20 (talk) 04:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Astronomers have known about this for well over a decade. They have been hoping it would go away every time new data is generated. Unfortunately the ‘problem’ for them gets worse with each successive data point. Watching them account for this ‘geocentric anomaly’ has been quite interesting. Max Tegmark has been by far the most open minded, while the majority of the theorists either wish it would go away or squirm about when asked about this unlikely data anomaly 74.90.56.246 (talk) 03:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Undue attempts to reduce weight of latest results
The latest data needs to be given adequate weight. As of right now, the latest study is from 2020, Shamir. There have been no disputes on this result, nor is it fringe. Attempts have been made to reduce the weight of this result by deleting the paragraph citing the study and the researcher. Such edits are WP:UNDUE as they shift weight back to older results. I have reverted this change and brought back the deleted paragraph.

We are all waiting for more data. When newer data arrives, it will be given its due weight as well. Until that happens, this is the latest result we have. Deal with it. Ghost1736 (talk) 02:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

The "new results" are not measuring the same thing. Shamir does not claim to confirm the specific axis from the CMB. In fact for different datasets the paper doesn't even recover the same axis with the same methodology. Shamir's papers are fringe, they are not well cited. Previously another group of astronomers downloaded his catalogs and attempted to replicate another paper of his, they found that the catalog was full of duplicate objects and once this error was removed the anisotropy disappeared completely.

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...886..133I/abstract --LazyAstronomer (talk) 17:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

The paper you just linked is from 2019. Shamir's paper is from 2020, and one of the citations included in the paragraph you deleted connects his paper to the same Axis, contrary to your claim. Please provide sources to support your point that Shamir's paper is fringe and/or it is irrelevant. Don't ask us to take your word for it. A cited view contradicting your POV is present and you can't just delete it using older sources and your own authority. Ghost1736 (talk) 18:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Given that it's only been cited 3 times since 2020, per ADS, it doesn't appear to be notable enough to include here. That point alone is enough to remove it. - Parejkoj (talk) 19:09, 7 May 2023 (UTC)


 * It was cited 17 times (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10509-020-03850-1). By the way, there are multiple citations on this page from pop-sci articles and websites which you don't seem to mind, and yet, you are willing to delete a cited peer-reviewed paper. Please stick to WP:NPOV. I'm restoring the paragraph. Ghost1736 (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not personally privy to what you're talking about, but in general pop-sci articles and websites are fine if they pass WP:RS. None of the cited sources, sciencealert, nor a university press release, nor a preprint, generally pass WP:RS. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 02:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC)


 * It should be deleted because the article isn't about the CMB axis of evil, it doesn't even mention it. He is measuring something else entirely and they gets a different asymmetry direction. It's not relevant. Note that of the citations to this paper, the majority of them are self-citations. The news site that is cited as evidence of a connection is not citing Sharmir or anyone when they make that claim. If the original source does not make the claim, then it cannot be purely depend upon a random news website. A random news site cannot be the primary source. Also note that the news article was written before the paper was published in a journal, at which time the pre-print was only on the arXiv. Press releases about then unpublished and unreviewed papers are not scientific, a pre-print can make any claim. The real scientific media wait until a paper is accepted. Finally the 2020 version linked isn't even the published version, the reference is arXiv.
 * The correct Iye et al. paper is the 2021 one . Note they didn't just point out the flaws in his previous work, they searched for evidence of asymmetry with his corrected data and found none. Iye et al. 2021 also point out that Shamir's two papers in 2020 don't even agree with each other on the dipole direction, much less anyone else. Results which cannot be replicated do not belong on wikipedia, and certainly we cannot just give attention to positive claims. Their non-result is just as relevant as Shamir's current claims. Neither belong here because they're not about the axis of evil. I have removed the section. LazyAstronomer (talk) 13:29, 19 June 2023 (UTC)