Talk:Eric Lerner

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eric Lerner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060925150243/http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/bang.txt to http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/bang.txt

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (April 2024)
I have recently added a new external link detailing peer-reviewed research that was conducted last year in March 2023. This research was also published in the media as well. Here is the link: https://www.ibtimes.com/goodbye-fossil-fuels-hello-fusion-energy-3718669. If you have any questions please direct them to LPP Fusion using their email or business website. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Templean1994 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I also deleted the external link detailing that LPP Fusion was not close to a working commercial reactor due to the link showing no evidence that this claim is based on. The link references a commercial website on plasma technology that has no mention of LPP Fusion at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Templean1994 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

LPPFusion
Hi from the notorious subject of this page, not banned from talking. If anyone still edits this, I would like them to update the outdated links. The correct link for Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, DBA LPPFusion, is https://lppfusion.com/ Elerner (talk) 03:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Done by Jonathanischoice, thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 17:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

mention pseudoscience/fringe in opening
Should the opening graph/lead not mention the lack of credentials and fringe/woo hobby horses? It doesn't get into that until much later in the article.

I don't think "independent plasma researcher" sufficiently conveys the facts. 76.156.115.193 (talk) 01:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Rollback
@Posa51 Your version was messed up, so I had to rollback to a previous one. Please have a look at Help:Footnotes and Help:Section. Jaqen (talk) 12:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I reverted the page back to an earlier version from September 2023. You added a lot of unsourced or primary sourced material, written with a promotional tone. If you want to further contribute to this article, please provide material that is written from a neutral point of view (see Neutral point of view) and uses reliable secondary sources (sources from the subject himself or his company are not relevant), see Reliable sources. I would be happy to discuss with you proposed additions in this talk page. Broc (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)


 * 1) I was in the process of adding footnotes when you stepped in and inserted a reverted text. Can you at least give me a chance to put the footnotes in? Furthermore there was existing text that I had added to the article that was heavily referenced, principally from the scientific literature. What's your excuse for deleting that text?
 * 2) Have you reviewed the reverted text? Several of the links don't exist or never existed. Why don't you scrutinize the reverted text?
 * 3) Many of the claims in the reverted text are patently false we're almost 20 years out of date. For example: Eric Lerner is a bona fide scientist with 27 articles published in the scientific literature many of them peer reviewed. The nuclear fusion device he developed has been commented upon very favorably by some of the leading lights infusion Energy research. To claim he is merely a "science writer" as the reverted text does is false and accurate and misleading.
 * 4) It doesn't seem as if you're management of this article has been fair and impartial
 * 5) May I please have the opportunity to post an accurate and up-to-date text and add the footnotes in a timely fashion? Is that asking so much?
 * Peter Catalano Posa51 (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that the previous version is not perfect, and that several improvements are needed. The article describes Lerner as "an independent plasma researcher" which I think is the appropriate definition, given he has no affiliation to research institutions.
 * If you want to add a mention about his publications in peer reviewed journals, please go ahead. If there are false claims in the article, you can also remove them.
 * Just make sure to avoid promotion, puffery, and to stick to facts that have been reported in reliable secondary sources. This means you should not use articles published by the subject himself to describe his achievements! And given some of his ideas are controversial, all point of views should be represented in the article, no matter what your own one is. Broc (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey Broc:
 * You wrote, "Just make sure to avoid promotion, puffery, and to stick to facts that have been reported in reliable secondary sources. This means you should not use articles published by the subject himself to describe his achievements!"
 * Help me unpack that to save us all a lot of time. Lerner has achieved a lot. In science, people establish their cred by publishing findings and explanations. Then other scientists may challenge the data and interpretation. I start by just reporting his findings. That's not puffery. Or self-promotion.
 * Example: The guy invented a fusion energy device that set milestones for things like reaction temperature (> 2 B degrees K). He published results in a big-time, peer reviewed science journal. NO ONE has claimed that his experimental device didn't work or hit that milestone.
 * You want me to invent skepticism where it doesn't exist? Lerner uses a unique design, very different from the (failed) mainstream configurations.
 * You want me to ignore that? Several key figures have commented positively about what he's achieved so far. MIT plasma physicists.
 * Are you saying I can't publish that result just because I can't find someone who says "Lerner's a charlatan"?
 * Cosmology- When a scientist reports findings of an experiment in his lab or an observation through a telescope, he publishes a paper-- often peer reviewed-- then presents at a scientific conference. That's a primary source in science. Quoting the research premise and findings is not self-promoting hype. It's science. That's how science works.
 * You seem to think it's better that a blogger who may or may not understand the experiment and may have his/her own axe to grind, tries to explain the science instead of the scientist himself in an academic paper?
 * Before a critic is introduced, the findings have to be stated first and explained to a lay audience. Then you quote the critics. If there are any. And who they are. And whether they're throwing mud or engaging research data.
 * I stated Lerner was polarizing. You didn't even let me fill in the sections on the reception among his peers. There's a whole faction that's formed in alliance with Lerner. They're not in the mainstream. But the mainstream Big Bang Hypothesis is in crisis. Cosmologists are writing op-ed opinion pieces in the NYTimes about it. (Which I quoted) That's the context readers needs to know about.
 * Where critics exist I'll report that. But even in cosmology few rebuttal papers have been published that repudiate Lerner. And remember, anyone can add comments to a wiki page themselves.
 * So please help me out here. Writing a Wiki article shouldn't be root canal. Posa51 (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Puffery would be things like "influential", "significant social activism", "distinct contributions", "strongly challenge" etc. All of these are words you might wish to write in a CV or a journalistic biography or such like, but Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, so the tone must be encyclopaedic. Again, see MOS:PEACOCK. Take a look at this article . It has: But even this is not encyclopaedic. "Good repute" is editorialising. It might be okay, because the source says it, but it would be better to rewrite that as: Do you see how this takes the factual kernel, and removes all editorialising? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You wrote:
 * "Lerner is a writer and scientist, who has co-authored peer reviewed papers on plasma research."
 * Ok, I can see that. Thanks for the guidance. Posa51 (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, back to the example you mentioned:
 * To claim it "set a milestone" you need to provide secondary sources, such as review articles, that recognize this. See: Identifying reliable sources (science) Alternatively, if you only have primary sources, such as a peer-reviewed article published by Lerner himself (subject of the page), you might state: Broc (talk) 09:10, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Whoa. Broc- you deleted a lot of foot-noted text that was published on Wiki in Nov-Dec. I'll rewrite the intro which was deleted before footnotes could be added and was too-long and did not conform to Wiki style guidelines. ( I agree)
 * BUT You need to republish the footnoted text which you deleted which was published in Nov-Dec 2023... everything I wrote there is FULLY in COMPLIANCE to Wiki guidelines on sources. According to WIKI's policy publications scientific journals is considered to be IDEAL SOURCES. Every statement that was in the foot-noted text that was published in Wiki during November- December 2023 was an IDEAL source.
 * That took a lot of work. Please restore the text that was fully in compliance.
 * Furthermore, you're TOTALLY WRONG to say that SECONDARY resources are more important than IDEAL sources ie scientific journals. Anyway I did provide a secondary source in the earlier text from Asia Times. Posa51 (talk) 20:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Sidebar on PRIMARY and SECONDARY
For the purposes of writing an article at Wikipedia, Broc is correct that reliable, WP:SECONDARY sources are ideal. (To that I would add, independent.) Primary sources are far from ideal, and indeed may only be used with a great deal of restrictions. If you believe there is a guideline to the contrary, please quote it and link it. Since secondary sources are ideal, if you can only find primary sources and there there are insufficient reliable, independent, secondary sources with significant coverage of Eric Lerner, that may cast doubt on the WP:Notability of the topic "Eric Lerner" as suitable for a standalone article about Lerner apart from the existing article about Plasma cosmology, and a separate article may be unwarranted. In that case, the content here should be merged into a section at Plasma cosmology, and this article turned into a redirect. Mathglot (talk) 05:59, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * What part of this don't you understand?
 * "Scientific information should be based on reliable published sources and should accurately reflect the current state of knowledge. Ideal sources for these articles include comprehensive reviews in independent, reliable published sources, such as reputable scientific journals, statements and reports from reputable expert bodies.."
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(science)
 * According to Wiki standards listed above, the Journal of Plasma Physics, is an Ideal source. Posa51 (talk) 06:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Having worked with these policies and guidelines for over fifteen years I understand them pretty well. Did you see the words, comprehensive reviews? Those and meta-analyses that accurately reflect the current state of knowledge are secondary, and are the gold standard; however the great majority of articles, often 100% of the articles in that journal (or any peer-reviewed scientific journal) are not secondary and not ideal. Please do not use primary sources in this article, except as defined in the list of restrictions; you may use them for bare statements of fact (author, date, location of laboratory, research sponsors, affiliations, etc.) but not for the meat and potatoes of the article, other than brief quotations without comment, summary, or interpretation which *must* come from secondary sources, not from you or any editor.
 * I grant that you have a different interpretation of how a primary source may be used at Wikipedia than I or do, but the purpose of this talk page is exclusively to discuss how to improve the article, not to debate  how primary sources may be used. There is such a place, though, and it is at Wikipedia talk:No original research. NOR (for short) is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies, the others being Neutral point of view (NPOV) and Verifiability (V); jointly they determine the type and quality of material acceptable in articles. You are welcome to start a discussion at WT:NOR about your view of PRIMARY sources and their role here. Not only that, but since all policies at Wikipedia are developed by the community itself—they are not handed down on high from the Wikimedia Foundation—if your view disagrees with the accepted policy, you are free to attempt to change the policy. (Spoiler: imho, that would be a gigantic waste of your time, but it is a path theoretically open to you.)
 * Now, can we please devote further conversation on this page to how to improve the article? Any further discussion about the value of a primary source on this page are both off-topic, and futile. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * A Self-serving reply from you. You're making up your own rules. This has to be appealed. There was never any intent to make my article "better"... the entire published piece was summarily taken down.
 * You can't find the comment I referring to because my publication was entirely deleted by BROC.
 * If you're serious about making my piece "better", then revert to what I published and we can go through it line by line. I can make changes to the text so it reads as unadorned, declarative sentences.
 * Obviously scientific findings published in a recognized, peer-reviewed journal are, as Wiki (science) clearly states, IDEAL sources.
 * You're being argumentative and irrational... you seem quite eager to prevent Eric Lerner's findings, published in peer-reviewed scientific journals of the highest professional stature, to be suppressed. So what are your motives? Posa51 (talk) 08:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As for NOR, you're being entirely disingenuous.The NOR policy states:
 * "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources."
 * The Physics of Plasmas qualifies as "reliable, published source" ... basically you're banning any reports in the scientific literature, since presumably ALL scientific research is ORIGINAL. Jeez. Posa51 (talk) 08:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Posa51 First of all, note that your edits are all visible in the article's history, nothing was deleted.
 * Now to answer your doubts, hopefully once and for all as I think we are all repeating the same point. As you mentioned earlier: Ideal sources for these articles include comprehensive reviews in independent, reliable published sources, such as reputable scientific journals yet you have failed to provide a mention of Lerner's work in any comprehensive meta-review. Not all peer-reviewed published papers have pages on Wikipedia, an for a reason: they are primary sources, and they do not represent the scientific consensus on a topic. Meta-reviews, collecting all previous research on a topic, are usually good secondary sources that could (and perhaps should) be used in a Wikipedia article. Please provide such publication and I will be supporting its inclusion in the page.
 * @Mathglot I don't think the page should be redirected to Plasma cosmology, as the subject is notable as author of The Big Bang Never Happened, in addition to his work on nuclear fusion. I think a good place to gather consensus on this would be an AfD. Broc (talk) 09:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posa51, I've responded to behavioral issues that aren't germane here at your Talk page.
 * Broc, I wasn't advocating a redirect, just pointing out general features of Notability and sourcing. Also, I'm new to the topic and still learning about it; having read some more sources just since I got here, I'm persuaded about Notability already (a lot of it due to negative attention, but that counts just as much). If you're curious, some of my earlier questions about notability were due to the extraordinary number of primary or non-independent sources in the references, but the others are probably sufficient, and I've found even more in the searches I've been able to perform myself. Having said that, simply being a book author wouldn't be enough for WP:NAUTHOR, or every author in the world would be notable; clearly not the case. Neverthless, we've already established notability, so that doesn't matter. Mathglot (talk) 10:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You rolled back the article... ie deleted what viewers see.
 * This will be appealed. You're making up your own Wiki rules. Posa51 (talk) 15:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, the reverted version of the Lerner article is filled with errors, misleading info and vast omissions. Yet you're not at all concerned about the quality and integrity of the publication.
 * Sounds as though there's a faction at Wiki with their own agenda and are suppressing/ censoring under some cover of legitimacy. Posa51 (talk) 16:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As mentioned earlier: we are here to reach consensus as clearly some editors (including me) disagree with the content you added to the page. If you want to make an addition to the page, propose it here and let's discuss it. Broc (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * We can't discuss content, Broc, if you an a colleague decide to make your own rules about sourcing and disregard WIKI's clear policies on the subject. This has to be settled with appeal, since people are making up their own self-serving rules.
 * Definitions on Primary Sources (science) state:
 * "A primary source in science is one where the authors directly participated in the research. They filled the test tubes, analyzed the data, or designed the particle accelerator, or at least supervised those who did. Many, but not all, journal articles are primary sources—particularly original research articles. An appropriate primary source is one that was peer reviewed and published by a reputable publisher."
 * This exactly describes Eric Lerner and his research. There are no qualifiers about "meta-research" or some such invented criteria. Posa51 (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If we can't discuss content then this is not the right place, as an article talk's page is uniquely devoted to discussing the content of the article. Repeating your point over and over will not change anything. Perhaps bring the topic to WP:FTN.
 * Ping me if you ever want to discuss actual content instead of repeating the same complaint. Broc (talk) 07:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "First of all, note that your edits are all visible in the article's history, nothing was deleted."
 * People don't go to Wiki to read deleted material archived in History. You're censoring well established research and findings published in high end, peer-reviewed science journal.
 * I'm more than happy to add a Criticism section to the Lerner article. That was always my intention but BROC deleted everything while I was upgrading the whole article.
 * So How about you restore the text I published between Nov 23- Jan 24 and I add the Criticism?
 * But note: Wiki guidelines understand that publication in a peer-reviewed journal by definition means that a scientific observation or experiment has been scrutinized by a reviewer or a committee of reviewers. Errors are caught in this phase. Upon publication other scientists can respond with their own research or by published letters or even demands for retraction.
 * Lerner's articles have elicited no such response within the profession. Here and there a blog might launch a diatribe. You seem to place great weight on such documents. One article in Wired threw a lot of mud basically saying that the Big Bang Hypothesis (BBH) was beyond scientific criticism and anyone who presents evidence that shows failed predictions or paradoxes arising from the theory must be a crank or religious nut. In fact Wired claims that it's dangerous to even criticize the BBH because their author claims it opens the door to religious explanations of cosmology... Lerner, of course, presents an alternative SCIENTIFIC explanation of cosmology, which the NYTimes noted in an interviewed statement from Lerner back in the early 90s.
 * Meanwhile, last Summer the NYTimes published an op-ed: "Is there a crisis in the Big Bang" (spoiler- the authors conclude the answer is "yes"..). That op-ed was written a few weeks after a Canadian scientist Rajendra Gupta from the University of Ottawa in Canada already has found that the universe probably is twice as old as predicted by the BBH ... a finding which upends much of the BBH.
 * https://www.sciencealert.com/the-entire-universe-could-be-twice-as-old-as-we-thought
 * And note, Gupta has appeared with Lerner to exchange views on the latest data, much of it gathered from the James Webb Space Telescope. Wiki administrators seem to think these discussions need to be suppressed and deleted. Posa51 (talk) 23:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Notice: as of this edit, user Posa51 had been indefinitely blocked. Discussion should continue based on the guidelines for Talk pages and for improving the article. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Criticism
I added a new section heading, "Criticism", over existing content in the article; haven't added any new content yet. I debated using a stronger word than criticism, as even Einstein had criticism, pretty much any serious scientist does. But the opposition to Lerner seems a lot stronger than just "criticism", and I wonder if we should use controversy as a possibly better descriptor? Also, the content does include some criticism, but as I've started to look around and inform myself about this topic, some of the first things I've found, such as "[Explained: The Deal With Eric Lerner Saying the Big Bang Didn’t Happen]", or "[The James Webb Space Telescope never disproved the Big Bang. Here's how that falsehood spread]" use terms like falsehood and pseudoscientific (both of them). (This was from the results of a non-cherrypicked search for "The Big Bang Never Happened".) The article doesn't mention this word, and if there are sufficient reliable voices that use this term when describing his theories, then we might include it in this section, bearing in mind WP:DUEWEIGHT. Mathglot (talk) 08:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks Mathglot. The criticism section brings some very necessary balance. I think I would oppose "controversy" because controversy sections are themselves controversial. Criticism will do as long as the facts of the criticism are unvarnished and reflective of what is in the sources. If we have sources saying "pseudoscientific" that would be validly used within that section. Above, you question Lerner's notability at all. I think that he probably is notable, although your comments w.r.t secondary sourcing are, of course, spot on. There are secondary sources about him, but those sources are, as a rule, rather critical (as you would expect). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mathglot I am not a fan of "Criticism" sections as mentioned in WP:CRITS. It seems warranted in this case, though, as the page is placing undue weight on theories not supported by scientific consensus. Broc (talk) 09:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I'm not a fan of the *word* "Criticism" as a section header, because it's suffered a negative taint here at Wikipedia a section heading for the reasons you state. Likewise, I agree it seems warranted here, and it was that tension between taint and desirability that made me muse a bit on possible other words for it, and I'm still open to another heading name, if you can find one. Mathglot (talk) 10:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sirfurboy, I hope it brings balance, but if so, I can't take credit for any of it, other than the section header itself! But maybe that's enough to call attention to that part of the content (that, and the ToC entry at the top) so maybe even that is a slight improvement in itself. That was certainly part of my motivation for that edit (as well as a place to hang additional expansion, if it happens). Mathglot (talk) 10:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I haven't even gotten to the Criticism section though I did mention Lerner was "polarizing" ... you guys deleted everything and then complain that you can't find it. Sounds like Bad Faith Posa51 (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Have you ever written a Wiki article? When the subject matter is vast and technical, the first thing that's needed is to provide a clear statement of a scientist's views. You do that first and document it. You've prevented me from doing that.
 * Once the science is presented and explained, a Reception and Criticism section is written.
 * You deleted my whole publication before I even got yo that section. Then you complain it's not there. That sounds like bad faith to me. Posa51 (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

How much attention is there to a description as "pseudoscientific" in the sources? I was struck that it came up twice in the top ten results for a non-cherrypicked query; a 20% result population would easily fit the "minority view" threshold of WP:DUEWEIGHT, and if a typical percentage of all sources would merit some kind of mention in the section. Otoh, if that was a fluke, and there's only those two, then maybe it's more like "tiny minority", and doesn't warrant a mention. What have you all seen, wrt this? Mathglot (talk) 10:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @Mathglot I'm not sure if you have seen this old discussion: Talk:Eric Lerner/Archive 2 Broc (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I hadn't; thanks for adding that link. Mathglot (talk) 02:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You need to send your deep concerns about Eric Lerner's psuedo-science to the Astrophysical Journal, The British Royal Society, the Physics of Plasmas etc. Ask them why they're all printing Eric Lerner's psuedo-science. Tell them that you read some anonymous blogger or YouTube influencer slinging mud about Eric Lerner, so the editors at these journals really have to pay close attention. Posa51 (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Responded to behavioral issues at your Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 03:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Pseudoscience should go in the lead. The reason he has a wiki article is because he pushes the widely rejected pseudoscience of "plasma cosmology", and its pov not to mention this. 66.41.165.13 (talk) 06:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Here's Lerner's scientific bibliography
 * https://www.lppfusion.com/peer-reviewed-papers/. I count 30 publications.
 * I haven't seen any demands in these journals for retractions or any articles repudiating Lerner's scientific findings and observations. Have you? I'd like to see them. I'd also like to see your bona fides that entitles you to be making these judgments about an accomplished scientist and inventor.
 * Of course nothing is stopping you from demanding retractions. Write the Astrophysical Journal, The British Royal Society, the Physics of Plasmas etc. Ask them why they're all printing Eric Lerner's psuedo-science. Tell them that you read some anonymous blogger or YouTube influencer slinging mud about Eric Lerner; this will make the editors at these journals really pay close attention.
 * I posed the same challenge to the grandiose editors at Wikipedia months ago. Never heard back from them. 74.221.178.245 (talk) 14:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)