Talk:Eric Lerner/Archive 3

Treatment of Article Segments
Here are some thoughts and a proposal. It seems like the arguing over this article comes down to classification. If it is a BLP, we have to treat it one way, and if it is an article about a fringe theory, it must be treated differently. Further, if it is a treatment of the book, it has still different requirements. Disputes have arisen over whether to apply certain policies that realistically only apply to certain parts of the article. So here is the proposal. What if we consider the first part of the article as a BLP, then touch on his fringe theories/ideas as such, and finish with the book section. Hopefully that would clarify the distinct nature of each section, which would determine which policies were relevant, and eliminate the bickering over misapplied policies and inclusion/exclusion of certain content. If that is agreeable, we could put a note at the top of the talk page to let future editors know of the compartmentalized nature of the article, and instruct them how to properly edit each one. Sound fair? ABlake (talk) 14:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not clear ot me exactly what you're proposing. But I would support moving this article to The Big Bang Never Happened since I don't see any credible evidence of notability independent of that, and what information we do have about Lerner's professional career does not look to me to have much purpose other than to try to add credibility to the book. Had he not written the book, I doubt we'd have an article. Guy (Help!) 15:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * I don't think he has many notable professional activities. If it were not for the book, I do not think we'd have an article. Guy (Help!) 10:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Martin is right. The current article has been gutted of any indications of notable activities other than the book. That is the continuing problem here. ScienceApologist keeps eliminating large sections of information that passes all of the policy tests, and the article as it stands is a completely biased shell of what it should be. When challenged to provide an explanation for his unsupportable hacking and reverts, he evades and drags his feet, as he did again above. When reverts are made, ScienceApologist or other editors revert to the limit, again without valid explanation. This has happened time and time and time again. Did I not mention the rudeness that accompanied all of this? The facts of Lerner's notability in other areas, in cosmology beyond the book and in nuclear fusion research, should be included on this page. The argument has been made that this information inflates or promotes him somehow, but describing activities generally is the very purpose of an encyclopedia! Promotion and inflation must surely be avoided, I agree, but not at the cost of elimination of the facts! ABlake (talk) 11:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * So you are making the claim that he's notable outside of his book. Could you provide some details to substantiate that, rather than just bitching about SA? Jefffire (talk) 12:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Eric Lerner is also notable as the president of Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, his efforts to use the dense plasma focus to produce aneutronic fusion via a hydrogen-boron reaction, his technical writing, and the awards he has received from the Aviation Space Writers Association, as described even in the current version of the article.  Furthermore, even ScienceApologist admits that "The notability of Eric is not in question." John254 13:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Lawrenceville Plasma Physics scores 142 unique Ghits and all mentions on Google Scholar seem to be papers co-authored by Lerner or citations of Lerner - in other words, Lawrenceville Plasma Physics appears to be Lerner, for all intents and purposes. Guy (Help!) 14:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, as described above, Lerner's notability apart from the book does not rely solely upon Lawrenceville Plasma Physics. It's interesting, of course, that Lerner has papers published and is being cited in papers appearing in the peer-reviewed journals indexed by Google Scholar -- perhaps he isn't so fringe after all. John254 14:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Description of Eric Lerner's research
Nearly one month ago ScienceApologist removed the description of Eric Lerner's research concerning plasma cosmology from the article on the basis of the claim that " the details of Eric's peculiar beliefs are not able to be independently sourced", then later clarified that he disputed the reliability of the journals in which the research appeared. ScienceApologist particularly claimed that although the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science is a peer-reviewed journal published by prestigious Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, it nonetheless deserves to be described by means of crude scatological language:. Which journals does ScienceApologist deem to be reliable sources for cosmology? Consider the following comment:"In tightly-knit communities like astronomy and cosmology there are only a handful of journals that really get notice. MNRAS, ApJ, ARAA, AJ. Then there are the journals that are the journals that are ignored. These are the journals the fringe-promoters want to see used, even though we have journal citations from the more credible journals. It's not like this article is hurting for sources. It looks to me like someone is shilling for discredited crackpots like Paul Marmet. I have made this argument, but it falls on deaf ears. No one wants to hear that their favorite crackpot is really a crackpot and so shouldn't be included at Wikipedia. So here we are. How do I convince people that these sources are no good? ScienceApologist (talk) 15:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)"Well, it turns out that "ApJ" is an abbreviation for The Astrophysical Journal. Would you believe that the description of research ScienceApologist removed cites a paper appearing in The Astrophysical Journal:"He claims that the intergalactic medium is a strong absorber of the cosmic microwave background radiation with the absorption occurring in a fog of narrow filaments."Thus, it appears that at least some of Eric Lerner's research concerning plasma cosmology has appeared in a journal whose reliability ScienceApologist acknowledges. This finding casts serious doubt upon ScienceApologist's contention that Lerner's research is so fringe and so widely ignored that we can't even describe it in the article. Instead, it appears that while Lerner's theories lack majority acceptance, they nonetheless qualify as "Alternative theoretical formulations", as described in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience:"Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process."As such, Lerner's research is suitable for inclusion in our article about him. John254 15:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Eric's ideas are described to the extent that we need to describe them. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that such an unsupported conclusory assertion holds any merit, especially as one of your key claims, that Lerner's work hasn't been published in reliable sources and is widely ignored, has been shown to be false. A review of your version shows that it describes very little of Eric Lerner's research. John254 16:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * All academics publish papers, it's what they do. What defines the importance of the academic is how often they are cited, and what other papers take up thier work and build on it.  Plasma cosmology is a fringe field, and Lerner is one of very few people to work on it.  He came to Wikipedia to try to boost it, see Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience.  Guy (Help!) 16:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no doubt that plasma cosmology lacks mainstream acceptance. The issue here, however, is whether we can describe Lerner's work in the field, in our article about him. Since some of Eric Lerner's research in this area has appeared in a clearly reliable source, I claim that we can. John254 17:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be a reason for discussing it in plasma cosmology, I think. Guy (Help!) 19:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't believe I'm saying it, but that actually makes sense to me. ABlake (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Which doesn't imply that we can't briefly discuss the research here too; our article on Hannes Alfvén, for instance, provides a short treatment of his work in plasma cosmology -- please see Hannes_Alfv%C3%A9n. John254 20:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Van Allen review
According to a conversation I had with the publisher, this statement was the entirety of the review solicited by the published to James Van Allen. I believe Van Allen was paid for the use of his name and was perhaps prompted on how to word his single statement. He has made no further mention of Eric Lerner's work anywhere else that I've been able to find. ScienceApologist (talk) 11:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like we don't need it. A rent-a-quote job. Guy (Help!) 13:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ScienceApologist's belief that "Van Allen was paid for the use of his name and was perhaps prompted on how to word his single statement." is mere conjecture. If we're going to start excluding reviews on the basis of speculative interpretations of the motives of their authors or the circumstances under which they were made, then we would need to exclude every review by supporters of the Big Bang who have excellent reasons to criticize a book which challenges their theory.  However, if we're not going to employ conjectural rationales to exclude reviews, and if a blog post is a sufficiently reliable source for criticism of the book, then surely the quotation can be included, noting, if deemed necessary, that it appeared on the book cover.  The reader can certainly determine that the quotation was a paid endorsement based on the forum in which the quotation appeared, but we aren't going to draw that conclusion for them. Now, let's consider some remaining problems with this article: it quotes Lerner as stating that "enormous ribbons of matter... refute a basic premise of the Big Bang", a quotation which is meaningless when abstracted from the context in which it appears, and incorrectly claims that this was Lerner's "major problem with the Big Bang", when, in fact, it is only one of his objections to the theory.  The description of Lerner's theories that I wrote  provides a far more coherent account of his claims, and is necessary to provide balance per BLP, and context for quotations of criticism -- for instance, it's silly to include a quotation which asserts "It seems to me that the theory proposed by Mr. Lerner has serious problems in relation to thermodynamics." without providing at least a brief description of the very theory of thermodynamics that's the subject of criticism. John254 14:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not mere conjecture: it was confirmed by the publisher. In any case, I don't care one way or another but defer to JzG's judgement on the matter. As for what you wrote here, it's trash. Awful. I don't think you're good at this. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your statement "I believe Van Allen was paid for the use of his name and was perhaps prompted on how to word his single statement." is self-evidently conjecture, and does not even purport to describe information confirmed by the publisher. In any event, a coherent explanation of your disagreement with my description of the claims made in Lerner's book would be far more constructive than throwing insults at me. John254 15:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In other words, the quote is uncritical so you want it in. But it is an uncritical, solicited quotation from a book jacket, and does not even come close tpo representing the mainstream reaction to the book, otherwise they'd not have used it.  So: no thanks. Guy (Help!) 16:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The exclusion of any material favorable to Lerner, because it is favorable but the "mainstream reaction" isn't, is a massive violation of BLP and turns the article into a coatrack for negative material. Of course, you seem to be admitting at AFD that this article is being edited with the purpose of "we need to rebut this kook", in violation of WP:BLP. John254 16:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope. It is not a reliable independent source, since it is a solicited quote from the publisher. I can't believe you are unaware of the way publishers manipulate book jacket reviews! Guy (Help!) 22:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not claiming that the quotation is the most reliable source on Wikipedia, but only that it is at least as reliable as the blog post we're presently employing for criticism. Wasn't the argument for inclusion of the blog post that, since Sean M. Carroll is a recognized expert in this field, material reasonably believed to be written by him can be used as a source, regardless of where it appeared? If so, then, by the same standard, since James Van Allen is also a recognized authority, his comment, even one printed on a book jacket, is likewise worthy of inclusion, since it's highly probable that he actually did make the statement.  While one can, of course, infer impropriety from a quotation supplied to a book publisher, blog-posts are likewise problematic, since they can serve as a forum for off-the-cuff personal attacks that would never be tolerated in any peer-reviewed publication -- indeed, the blog post that we're using contains largely personal criticism of Eric Lerner. John254 22:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Tit-for-tat editing, to be sure. While Sean Carroll is a respected cosmologist, James Van Allen never dealt with any professional research outside of the solar system. Are you into collaboration or confrontation, John? ScienceApologist (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Book jackets = really bad places to be sourcing things too. At best, they're cherry picked - ever seen a bad review on a book jacket? Not gonna. Shell   babelfish 11:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Going back in time, let me review for you why the book jacket was kept. Basically there were three positive reviews written of Lerner's book that we've been able to find. One was from a librarian who wasn't altogether familiar with cosmology, one was from the Chicago Tribune by an anonymous author, and the third was the Van Allen quote. The first two were removed from the article after much hemming-and-hawing as unreliable sources. Basically, the claims made by both the Chicago Tribune/science librarian were so beyond what could be attributed to their familiarity with the subject, we found that including those sources was basically skewing our recounting of the book's reception toward an improper parity of positive and negative. When PhDs and professionals criticize your work while amateurs and crackpots praise it, it is difficult to characterize such a reception neutrally. The general agreement was that at least James Van Allen was someone who would have familiarity with the physics of the situation, if not a cosmologist himself. Though his quote was obviously cherry-picked (and according to the publisher he was paid for the quote and only provided that quote and nothing more), the thought was we could have a strict standard of PhD astrophysicists commenting on the book and ignore the problems with reliability. Perhaps not the best solution.
 * My feeling is that we might like to give a characterization of the fact that some carefully-selected amateurs and like-minded pathological Big Bang haters (e.g. certain creationists) like the book while a broad-range of professionals actually familiar with the material think it stinks. Whether we include quotes from the amateurs is questionable. After all, shouldn't Wikipedia give more WP:WEIGHT to professional reviewers rather than amateur reviewers?
 * ScienceApologist (talk) 14:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I can’t resist. Do (ScienceApologist) and Guy have any idea how hilarious it looks for them to say that one of the leading scientists of the 20th century wrote a quote about a book because he was paid to do it? Can we compare the likelihood of two things?


 * 1) That James Van Allen would express an opinion about science because he was paid to do it


 * 2) That (ScienceApologist), a graduate student in cosmology, would spend 90% of his waking hours censoring every mention of cosmological heresy (or cosmological heretics) on Wikipedia in order to get major brownie points from his professors.


 * Now, which do folks think is more probable? Elerner (talk) 04:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That van Allen signed the statement without looking at it because he trusted the publisher? That van Allen wrote the statement without reading the book?  Both seem more likely than (2), and somewhat more likely than (1), which is, in turn, more likely than your assertion that he wrote the statement without being paid to do it.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm just going by what the publisher told me. It's not a reliable source, of course. 90% of my waking hours aren't yet spent censoring cosmological heresy. When my grant from the NSF to become Cosmological Grand Inquisitor comes through, then I might up it, though. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no mystery since although Van Allen is dead, I'm not. Van Allen gave me the quote after reading the book because I asked him what he thought of it. I have the letter from him, with his signature. So, that is why he wrote it.Elerner (talk) 23:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is all pointless machinations: we're not planning on writing about whether Van Allen received payment for his book jacket quotation or not. I actually don't care much one way or the other if he did. Eric got paid to write his book, that doesn't mean anything either. I imagine that Davies may have gotten paid by the New York Times to write a review of the book as well. Certainly the librarian and the Chicago Tribune reviewer got paid to write their reviews. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Recall that ScienceApologist's objections to the inclusion of the quotation related largely to the issue of whether "Van Allen was paid for the use of his name", and that JzG described the quotation as "A rent-a-quote job" . Since the question of whether James Van Allen received financial compensation for his review of the book is now "all pointless machinations", I contend that the quotation is suitable for inclusion in the article, as it describes the opinion of a highly respected space scientist concerning Lerner's book, portrays the entirety of James Van Allen's review, and is no longer opposed by any substantive objections. John254 14:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There are substantive objections as to whether Van Allen knew what he was talking about. A single-line quote is hardly indicative of a well-thought out "opinion". I'm inclined to think that this particular quote has more problems than it's worth. At least the other quotes have context. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We're not going to exclude the opinion of a highly respected and notable scientist from this article simply because ScienceApologist asserts "objections as to whether Van Allen knew what he was talking about." As a space scientist, James Van Allen's area of research is sufficiently related to cosmology that he is qualified to give his scientific evaluation of Lerner's work.  Additionally, James Van Allen is far more notable than Sean M. Carroll, whose blog post we are presently employing for the purpose of criticism -- indeed, it appears that Carroll has scarcely achieved sufficiently notability for an article at all, as demonstrated by the fact that our article concerning him relies solely on books and other publications written by Carroll, his curriculum vitae, and his blogs as sources. "A single-line quote" no more reflects a lack of deliberative consideration than writing a blog post filled with personal attacks, as Sean M. Carroll did in his criticism of Eric Lerner. John254 15:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Again with the tit-for-tat editing style. Whining about comparing Carroll to Van Allen is silly. If I wanted to get an opinion on the state of modern cosmology, I would not seance Van Allen, I'd ask Carroll who is just about as good as it gets in terms of expert in cosmology. Van Allen, on the other hand, was just about as good as it gets in terms of space physics (a totally unrelated field). ScienceApologist (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Insisting that sources favorable to Eric Lerner be held to no higher standards of reliability than sources used for criticism isn't "tit-for-tat editing" -- it's essential for neutrality and, thus, compliance with WP:BLP. Furthermore, space physics is fairly obviously related to physical cosmology, to the extent that the universe, or at least the baryonic matter that it contains, is comprised largely of astrophysical plasma. John254 23:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So, who do we trust, you or the publisher? (For that matter, how do we know you're not dead.  L. Ron Hubbard wrote quite a bit after his death.)  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * An unpublished letter by James Van Allen is clearly not a source. However, it can easily be converted into a source: just ask one of Van Allen's associates, who can verify the authenticity of the letter, to publish it.  The manner of publication needn't be anything fancy: since we're presently employing a personal faculty webpage and a blog post as sources of criticism, self-published favorable material would seem likewise acceptable for inclusion. John254 01:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A published, professionally authenticated, letter by James Van Allen would be a source, or if it were published by someone who is an expert historian. If published by a former colleague, even if not the subject of this article, it doesn't seem adequately reliable.  I could be wrong, there.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems like Arthur is calling me a liar. Does this violate Wiki policy? No, cleary not because Joshua has called me a weasel, a kook and many other names, and he is never disciplined for that. Of course there are no rules here--if you know the rule-enforcers. And I guess Columbia's graduate Astronomy department teaches that name-calling is a good substitute for scientific discussion--if you don't have much science on your side.Elerner (talk) 03:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * People should not be calling each other names, obviously. But it should be apparent that your views on cosmology are on the fringes and treated with some derision by mainstream cosmologists. Wikipedia is not a freakshow, I think this should be discussed in articles which are not ostensibly about you.  Guy (Help!) 14:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) No, actually, I'm not calling you a liar in regard your edits. I wrote the statement that I considered it improbable that the Van Allan quote was really what he said before you said you had a letter.  I do intend to imply that the book is not now credible science, and calling it such is a lie, but I'm perfectly willing to believe that you have a letter from Van Allan. It still seems improbable, but stranger things have happpened, and it's still the case that neither an unauthenticated letter nor a book-jacket quote is a WP:RS.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Some comments about time and space
The fact is, Eric was able to weasel his way briefly into the limelight in the early 1990s. Then COBE results came out, Eric lost a couple of debates, the scientific community looked closely at the vacancy of his ideas and that was the end. This page is not a CV for Eric's ideas, it is an encyclopedia that is supposed to provide an account of this minor episode in the story of 1990s cosmology. As such, focusing on every paper and idea Eric ever invented is far too much of a soapbox. Our goal should be to provide a succinct explanation of Eric's proposal to the extent that it was unique in the community and noticed. That's all we should include. John has an axe to grind and a peculiar one at that. We'll just maintain a quorum of editors here to resist his attacks. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your comment is
 * (1) A strawman argument, since no one here seriously proposes the inclusion of "every paper and idea Eric ever invented"
 * (2) Purely unproven conjecture such as "John has an axe to grind and a peculiar one at that" and
 * (3) In your exhortation to "maintain a quorum of editors here to resist his attacks", a violation of WP:NOT. John254 16:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You forgot WP:EDITWAR and WP:CONSENSUS. You also forgot that he just admitted he believes Lerner is notable.  Weird.  —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 21:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That doesn't advance the debate much, from either of you. Guy (Help!) 16:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD rationale
I was concerned about User:John254's advocacy here and was also concerned about a lot of the weird way sourcing was happening for this page. I decided to read the WP:BIO guidelines and found, to my astonishment, that Eric is probably not a notable person for inclusion at Wikipedia anyway. There are no secondary biographical sources about him: he receives only trivial mention in the outside world. I was under the impression that BIO guidelines were more lenient than this. Apparently they are not. I have listed the page for deletion according to the bio guidelines. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

If Lerner doesn’t fit the BIO guidelines then I’m on bored also with deletion.--DavidD4scnrt (talk) 20:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Too late. See Articles for deletion/Eric Lerner. Art LaPella (talk) 21:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move. JPG-GR (talk) 04:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It was suggested by a large number of people at Articles for deletion/Eric Lerner that this article be moved to The Big Bang Never Happened.


 * Oppose. This is getting ridiculous. Haven't you got better things to argue about? I bet you haven't even read Eric's book. Van Allen was a plasma physicist... oh hang it, I can't be arsed explaining why I think ScienceApologist needs to get out more. WP has become a giant troll's nest where the guy with no job/life and the most spare time wins the arguments. Jon (talk) 12:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support this option. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- the proposed move would substantially increase this article's WP:BLP problems, as most of the information concerning Lerner's professional activities would be removed, giving significantly undue weight to the fact that Eric Lerner wrote a book with which most cosmologists disagree while ignoring the fact that Lerner wrote numerous scientific articles printed in mainstream journals and magazines, as described in the comments by Jfire in Articles for deletion/Eric Lerner. John254 14:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Almost everything we could say about Lerner without violating BLP is about the book, and almost everying presently in the article is about the book and the theory presented in it.  Now, if the LaRouche allegations could be substantiated, that might be different.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To claim that our biographies of living persons policy actually supports this move applies the policy in a manner manifestly contrary to its purpose, which is to protect the interests of the subjects of our biographies, not to harm them. Is it seriously contended that removing all information concerning Eric Lerner's numerous scientific articles printed in mainstream journals and magazines, and describing only the fact that Lerner wrote a book which has been the subject of extensive criticism, actually results in a more fair and balanced treatment of Eric Lerner? John254 14:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just FYI Arthur, we can substantiate that Lerner was involved with what was ultimately a LaRouche affiliated group, however he was opposed to the "LaRouche" faction/aspect of it. What is far more notable though (since being involved with a group associated with a known person is not notable) is his recent work with the New Jersey Civil Rights Defense Committee which is mentioned in several secondary sources (brief mentions in newspaper articles basically). There are also other past political activities for which we have sources (though the sources are not so great). If you feel that some small measure of notability beyond the book is worthy of keeping this article (as your comment re: LaRouche suggests), then I think it is the case that we have sources to establish that, even though they have been deleted from the article per a previous discussion.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll support this. Guy (Help!) 14:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think the article is actually looking pretty good now, although I think the Van Allen quote ought to be included also since he was a notable figure. Anyway, Guy's edits to the article have really helped tone down the biased phrasing to make it more neutral. Much improved. Good job. ABlake (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Good idea. As was mentioned in the AfD, Lerner doesn't appear to be very notable outside of his book. Jefffire (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. There's not much to be said about this guy other than what can be said about the book. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Question. I'm not completely opposed to this (though I feel it makes more sense to have the article here), but I do have a question about how this would work. If we move the content to an article on the book, I'm wondering if would we allow for a more general discussion of Lerner's work if that was appropriate (I know there isn't much of that in the current article, which in itself is probably a problem). If we have the sources, it would probably be useful to contextualize the book by describing some of Lerner's work both before and after, and also by describing some of his professional affiliations. I know some folks feel such work is not notable and should not be included, but I'm wondering if SA and others who support the move are open at least in principle to discussing at least to some extent Lerner's overall work in the article on the book. Again, I think it's easier to keep this article and not have one on the book, but if we are going to do the latter I want to make sure it doesn't just end up being "people hated this book" rather than giving some context by describing Lerner's own work, his professional affiliations, etc.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want to know whether ScienceApologist is "open... to discussing at least to some extent Lerner's overall work", I believe that provides a compelling answer. (Note that The Astrophysical Journal is one of the most reliable sources that we have for cosmology.) The whole purpose of this move would be to abandon any pretense of providing a comprehensive biography of Eric Lerner, remove the remaining information concerning Lerner's professional activities, and only describe Lerner's book, or, more precisely, the criticism of his book, since the current version of the article makes little effort to provide any more than a cursory description of the theories presented in the book, and unreasonably excludes the favorable review by James Van Allen.  ScienceApologist's latest argument for the exclusion of the quote is that space physics, in which Van Allen is a recognized, notable expert, is "a totally unrelated field" to physical cosmology, a claim that is completely without merit, since the universe, or at least the baryonic matter that it contains, is comprised largely of astrophysical plasma. John254 00:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, you sure do have a knack for making it personal. Simply parroting your tired and discounted ideas over and over again does not make them more convincing. Your comments are so vacuous and grounded in plasma cosmology fantasies that we really cannot proceed. It's good, at least, that your bias against mainstream cosmology is finally rearing its head. Maybe you can tell us what seminal work of layman's (non)fiction you read that shed the light for you? Was it Lerner's book? Scott's book? Velikovsky? ScienceApologist (talk) 14:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the fact that the baryonic matter in the universe, at least in its present state, is comprised largely of astrophysical plasma is a point conceded by both the Big Bang theory and plasma cosmology. Where the theories differ with respect to this issue is in the mechanisms they propose for phenomena that cannot be explained by gravity and baryonic matter alone -- i.e. how galaxies are held together despite an apparently insufficient quantity of matter to do this through solely through gravitation, etc.  The Big Bang theory posits the existence of dark matter and black holes for this purpose, while plasma cosmology claims that electric currents flowing through astrophysical plasma create the effects observed.  There's no question, however, that astrophysical plasma is at least present in significant quantities in the universe.  Thus, to the extent that space physics "is the study of plasmas as they occur naturally in the universe", it is quite relevant to cosmology.  Consequently, attempts to dismiss and exclude the opinion of James Van Allen from this article on the grounds that he was a space physicist, not a cosmologist, are unjustified.  Furthermore, I find it highly objectionable that you are unwilling to participate in a rational discussion of this issue, but instead insist on responding with unfounded personal attacks. John254 15:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Glad to get your amateur opinion. Now maybe you can go ahead and get yourself a degree or two and I'll be happy to engage in a discussion in another venue. In the meantime, we have an encyclopedia to write without all the posturing from peanut galleries. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that you are unwilling to respond except by means of personal attacks strongly suggests that your position is intellectually bankrupt. John254 17:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You can e-mail me your thoughts on the matter through the Wikipedia e-mail function. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The above exchange does not address the question I asked (John, please refrain from replying here, my question was clearly not directed at you). I'd still like to hear from ScienceApologist or others regarding my initial question above.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I anticipate that any article about a book will provide context. That context, however, will also include reasons why the academic community dismissed Eric's work so heartily and why it continues to this day to marginalize him. I do not anticipate a detailed explanation of all Eric's ideas to be included. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for the reply. Obviously the negative reaction needs to be there front and center. And a detailed explanation of all of Lerner's ideas is clearly not needed as you say, however some discussion of his overall work, professional affiliations, etc. seems warranted in the book article and I gather you agree. Given that, I don't have a strong objection to moving this into an article on the book, though I still think it makes more sense overall to keep it here. So I guess you can chalk me up as a weak oppose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigtimepeace (talk • contribs) 20:21, 20 April 2008


 * Support per my comments at the linked AfD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Relata refero (talk • contribs)
 * Oppose merging [Person] Eric Lerner into [Book] The Big Bang Never Happened. Logically, wouldn't it make more sense to reverse the direction of the merger, if there was consensus? IE, [Book] The Big Bang Never Happened is a subset of [Person] Eric Lerner's life / work. [Person] Eric Lerner is not a subset of a single book or article he has authored. It seems like it would make more sense (if a merger is in fact necessary; not convinced it is) to merge the book into a section of (BLP) Eric Lerner than to merge Eric Lerner into a section of the book's article. In that way, both the book and the person remain covered topics, but it would not exclude discussing other aspects of [Person] Eric Lerner not related to [Book] The Big Bang Never Happened. My 2c. Mgmirkin (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak support of merging the book into a section of the Eric Lerner article (only if it's really and truly necessary), as opposed to merging the person into the book (which would seem to exclude discussing aspects of Eric Lerner not associated with the book, such as his work on focus fusion, other published articles, etc.) Mgmirkin (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, no article currently exists for The Big Bang Never Happened (it's just a redirect to this article). So the proposal here is not about merging this into an existing article. If there was consensus for this proposal (which at this point is iffy), I imagine we would redirect Eric Lerner to an article on the book and simply move much of the content over to that article.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, if consensus for the move were established, we'd move the article from Eric Lerner to The Big Bang Never Happened over the existing redirect, and probably move the talk page and talk page archive, as well. &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose If it's one or the other (a person's article talking about their book vs book's article talking about the author) it makes more sence to me to keep the current article.  I've got no dog in this race as I accidently found this (doing background research for another article), but he definitely seems notable according to wp:prof.  For example, last year he gave a lecture at Google about his research, and he used to write prolifically for the American Institute of Physics magazine .  He seems to have been published quite widely in scientific literature besides that.  His book makes him notable as an author as well (from wp:bio: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, ... which has been the subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews).  NJGW (talk) 01:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Seeing as Lerner seems to fulfil some notability criteria it makes much more sense to contain his book within his page than vice-versa, sheerly by the fact that a short biography would feel out of place on a page about a book. We should ask ourselves: what does wikipedia have to gain by this move?Sillyfolkboy (talk) 16:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, makes sense. Shot info (talk) 23:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Lerner appears to be notable. He may well be wrong but that doesn't make him non-notable. Andrewa (talk) 06:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments on various "oppose" votes
I note that there are a lot of new accounts showing up here to voice their opinion on this matter and the matter below. I find this to be very disturbing because one of the places I'm monitoring is encouraging people to sign up new accounts to vote "oppose" on this move and advocate for the Van Allen quote's inclusion. Very poor form. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I count seven people opposing the move. Of those only one is even remotely a new account, Sillyfolkboy. On the surface at least, that editor does not seem to be a single purpose account set up to prevent this move from happening. Most of their edits relate to Tim and Jeff Buckley. They also claim these contributions as an anon IP going back to last October. So I don't see a problem with any of the accounts who commented in this section at least. It's also worth pointing out that there are 6 support to 7 oppose comments (including my weak oppose) so there does not seem to be consensus for a move at this point.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You missed User:NJGW who is clearly a single-purpose account in support of "energy innovation" if I've ever seen one. One thing that I find disturbing is User:ABlake, User:Jonathanischoice, User:Mgmirkin, User:John254 all coming out to oppose the move. The first three are devoted plasma cosmology adherents or Eric Lerner associates who have fought tooth and nail to get Wikipedia to right the great wrongs of hiding the truth about the plasma universe. The last is, well, also admitted to being a devotee of this religion. So I'm concerned that we're experiencing railroading and povpushing on a rather grand scale. I think what we have is an attempt to circumvent the typical Wikipedia process. This is disturbing. There is enough evidence for vote staking here and outside canvassing that I'm afraid that there is no fair way to determine what the community consensus is. It's as if we had a question about moving a page about an intelligent design theorist to another page and all the creationist's colleagues and devotees showed up to oppose it. Highly suspect. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well that might well be an issue, but your original reference to "new accounts" was all that I was responding to above. Personally I find these kind of problems crop up on most articles. Whenever there is a "poll" of some kind the folks who "vote" generally have a strong interest in (and POV with respect to) the issue at hand. You also have a POV with respect to this article, it's just that your view of Lerner's work is the one held by most of the relevant scientific community (which does not make it any less of a point of view, though obviously the fact that it is the mainstream point of view must be pointed out). I don't think simply because an editor supports plasma cosmology (or any other similar viewpoint) it should be the case that they can't comment on articles relating to the topic (though I don't think you're actually suggesting that). Overall though it's obviously more concerning when POV pushing happens in the article itself. This discussion is just about moving the page to a different title (not incidentally, after a failed AfD). I don't think the fact that some editors who agree with Lerner (apparently, I haven't looked closely at their contributions) are commenting on this particular issue amounts to railroading. I think it makes sense to keep the article here and am not an adherent of plasma cosmology, so obviously it is possible to make such an argument without being completely biased.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is when we get groups who are true believers in a subject try to establish a consensus is artificial. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's paranoid (Re deletion - Fair enough, it's late). I can't speak for anyone else, but I drop in to montior my watchlist from time to time. I've no idea who the other editors are, but I am not part of any religion, fanclub or conspiracy. I concur with SA with regard to pseudoscience and quackery from the likes of Velikovsky, the Cosmic Thunderbolt theories, creationists, flat earthers and so on. I just don't agree with pointless nitpicking and filibustering. Rather than debate the plasma physics involved, his arguments seem to be always about whether things are notable, sources are reliable, people are trustworthy qualified or authoritative, and so on. I tend to randomly gnome these days rather than get dragged into these sorts of pointless debates. Jon (talk) 13:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Paranoids have enemies, too. I'm not convinced that Lerner's (article's) supporters are primarily true believers, but there certainly are articles which are only in their miserable state because of true believers and false consensus.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * While it appears extraordinarily improbable that this pagemove will actually occur, those who contend that Eric Lerner is only notable for his book should note that Lerner's efforts to use the dense plasma focus to produce aneutronic fusion have been the subject of a multi-paragraph description in The New York Times, one of our most reliable sources -- see Kenneth Chang, "Practical Fusion, or Just a Bubble?", New York Times, February 27, 2007. John254 18:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I count about 12 sentences in that article as being about Lerner. The most interesting one describes him as "president and sole employee of Lawrenceville Plasma Physics". I found nothing on the LPP web pages that would contradict the NYT in this point. I find it a fact that helps the reader put this compny in perspective and would like to mention it in the article. --Art Carlson (talk) 19:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * For anyone who cares or is keeping track, the current edition of Discover magazine has a section on his fusion work, pg. 64. ABlake (talk) 00:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems, then, that we have sufficient coverage of Eric Lerner's aneutronic fusion research in third-party reliable sources to describe it more extensively. John254 00:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Van Allen quotation RFC
? !! time= 00:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC) }} There is currently a dispute as to whether the following quotation by James Van Allen, which appeared on the back of Eric Lerners book "The Big Bang Never Happened", can be included in the article:"Eric J. Lerner gives both a provocative critique of the Big Bang and a stimulating account of the insightful and creative, although controversial, cosmology of Nobel Laureate Hannes Alfven."I contend that since James Van Allen is a highly notable space scientist who worked in a field closely related to cosmology, his review of Eric Lerner's book is worthy of inclusion in the article. ScienceApologist initially objected to the quotation on the basis of the forum in which it appeared and speculations that James Van Allen recieved financial compensation for his endorsement of the book, but later declared that his objections on this basis were actually just"all pointless machinations: we're not planning on writing about whether Van Allen received payment for his book jacket quotation or not. I actually don't care much one way or the other if he did."Seeking some other basis on which to justify the exclusion of the quotation, ScienceApologist resorted to the claim that James Van Allen's research was in space physics and an unfounded assertion that this was "a totally unrelated field" to cosmology. I refuted this claim with cogent reasoning, namely, the observation that"space physics is fairly obviously related to physical cosmology, to the extent that the universe, or at least the baryonic matter that it contains, is comprised largely of astrophysical plasma", to which ScienceApologist responded with meaningless personal attacks. John254 00:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't presume to speak for SA, but my objection is that it's a book jacket quote, and almost all of those are taken out of context. Even if Van Allen is considered an appropriate expert, we would need independent evidence of exactly what it is he wrote — in which case it would be unnecessary to quote the book jacket.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, to quote ScienceApologist"According to a conversation I had with the publisher, this statement was the entirety of the review solicited by the published to James Van Allen."If this is correct, then the quotation is obviously not taken out of context. Furthermore, parity of source quality issues are important here: since we're presently employing this blog post as criticism, I claim that, by the same standard of source reliability, we can likewise attribute a favorable review to a book jacket. John254 00:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not a reliable source in this matter. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That statement can be interpreted one of two ways. Either its irrelevant, because your statement regarding your conversation with the publisher wouldn't actually be included in the article, and silly, because you offered the statement as evidence to support your preferred disposition of the quotation, or you're claiming that you're lying to us.  Which is it? John254 01:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * False dichotomy. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I would like to add a comment (If this works [my first on wikipedia, be gentle!]). I have been following this debate about Lerner for a while now, and I really have to wonder what the scientific reasons to dismiss Lerners material are, as so far I have seen very little scientific rebuttals of Lerners work. If one of the editors here has any scientific reasons that invalidate Lerners material, I suggest that you post it, because the the usual array of Ad Antiquitam arguments often deployed here do no-one any favours. I have seen much arguing, accusations, bickering over fine minutia, but from what I have read so far, any specific scientific refutations have not been forthcoming.
 * And I would also like to say that I think that the conduct of some of the editors here is very questionable, often your responses here come across as arrogant, presumptuos and dismissive. On the other hand, the responses written by people supporting Lerners views come across as well reasoned and polite. I originally visited this page to try to find out about Lerners work; only to find that nearly all of his scientific work is banned from his own webpage on wiki, despite Lerners many very valid contributions to science. What is going on here?
 * In my opinion the Van Allen quote should most certainly be added, as it does well to show that there are indeed a number of established scientists that support Plasma Cosmology and Lerners material; a fact that anyone who reads this article would remain ignorant of. This is not the only contribution that Van Allen made to plasma cosmology, for example, his work and observations form the basis for the external magnetic field model for rotating bodies, which is able to explain why the magnetic moments of the planets and stars are proportional to their angular momentum over some 12 orders of magnitude; "The author would like to thank Dr. J. Van Allen for his support, and E. P. Pradeep, one of the author’s graduate students who helped him with the formatting of this publication." [page 3].
 * Also, for instance, see this publication, by Head of Raytheon's space physics group, Dr. Timothy E. Eastman, which cites Lerners work on numerous occasions, and gives a good overview of some of the cosmological models, including a favorable mention of plasma cosmology. So I have a choice; and so does everyone else here. I can either believe all the above scientists I listed (plus many more), all of which prefer the plasma cosmology approach, and who's work is published in reputable peer reviewed journals; or I can believe a group of editors at wikipedia, that never discuss the underlying science of the issue at hand, and seem reluctant to even let the material on wiki in the first place.
 * Please let Lerners scientific material be published here, if its all really so wrong, then, maybe, you could actually refute it, and post both the claim and the refutation (I'm not holding my breath). I look forward to further discussing the scientific veracity of plasma cosmology in the future here, maybe eventually these conversations will eventually progress onto the actual scientific literature underlying this whole fiasco. I certainly hope so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamNailor (talk • contribs) 18:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Adam. Thanks for your comments. As you have probably witnessed, there is a tendency among editors to either be generally inclusive or exclusive of information in an article. Inclusionists tend to create long, comprehensive articles where exclusionists tend to create to-the-point articles. Usually a balance is reached, but sometimes the process is painful, especially when people have strong opinions as they do on this subject. Also, these talk pages are not really the forum for debating the underlying merits of a theory as it tends to make the talk page really long, especially when dealing with a controversial subject. If you want to include a specific piece of information, such as a source document to show the notability of an idea, that is an appropriate thing to discuss on the talk page, but make sure it passes all of the tests of WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:RS. ABlake (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Adam. You may wish to read about meat puppetry. Generally when people tell you to comment on Wikipedia to support their side, it's looked on very unfavorably. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi ScienceApologist. So, my welcome to wikipedia starts with an accusation from one of the wiki staff of me being a meatpuppet. Thankyou for the warm welcome. Do you have any evidence what-so-ever for this assertion? or is this going to be added to the, now very considerable, list of unsubstanciated accusations you make against people here with no supporting evidence? If you refer to the article on meat puppetry, it says "The term meatpuppet is derogatory and should be used only with care." Well, maybe you should learn some manners, and address some of the material you ignored in my above post? And I feel that John has made a perfectly valid point above, in regard to quoting Van Allens endorsement of Lerners work, and I hope that this will be included to help the article remain as factually accurate as possible. Regards AdamNailor (talk) 03:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Adam, I know that you came to this article with the express intention of supporting Eric Lerner at the request of involved editors. That's all. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Then you know something I don't. ABlake was just explaining the rules to a newbie who obviously needed it. Adam's expressed intention was: "I originally visited this page to try to find out about Lerners work...". So did I miss a quote? Art LaPella (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know if ScienceApologist has good evidence for his accusation, but I will address one detail: he isn't the "wiki staff". There is no wiki staff unless you mean Administrators, and ScienceApologist isn't that. He is a very experienced, very controversial Wikipedian with a long list of friends and enemies. Art LaPella (talk) 04:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

So back to the original topic, Van Allen was a notable person, qualified to give his opinion regarding a book on plasma cosmology. The claimed downside was that the quote was on the book jacket, which is a suspect location, even though it is verifiable, and the quote was apparently taken in its entirety, so it couldn't be misconstrued (as was brought up as a reason against using it). Based on that rationale, it is still my opinion that it should be included. Is there a good reason not to that hasn't been answered? ABlake (talk) 18:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Why is Van Allen qualified? I can find no evidence that Van Allen ever published a thing about cosmology in his lifetime. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether Van Allen is qualified (personally I see no reason not to include a quote from an extremely well-respected scientist, even if this is not exactly his field) we simply cannot use blurbs on the back of books as sources. That should basically go without saying. I don't doubt that Van Allen provided the quote in good faith and that that's how he felt about the book. Nonetheless, quotes that publishers stick on the back of a book should never be considered a reliable source on any article for obvious reasons already articulated. Lerner himself said somewhere above that he actually had a letter from Van Allen from which the quote was drawn. I have no reason to doubt that either, and if that letter were placed online somewhere where it was viewable and if it was somehow verified that it was indeed from Van Allen then I think it would be fine to use the quote. That might seem like a lot of hoops to jump throw over what is really a small issue, but we simply cannot use the book blurb and primary sources (such as personal letters) need to be used very carefully. In this case the content of the letter and the authorship would need to be verified, though again we have no reason at all to doubt Lerner's characterization of the letter in an earlier post. I'm sure Van Allen said what he supposedly said and I think it's worth including it in the article, we just need a proper source and a book jacket blurb is simply not up to snuff in that respect.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That was a well-reasoned and articulated response. If Lerner were to post the contents of the letter on the BBNH website, would that qualify as a WP:RS since this is a BLP? ABlake (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Lerner isn't a reliable publisher. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Posting it to Lerner's site would be the first step. Again, while I fully believe that Lerner is not misrepresenting the content of the letter, for the purposes of reliable sourcing there should be some means of authenticating that the letter is from Van Allen. I don't know exactly how this would happen or if it would be easy or difficult to do, but we need some form of verification of a primary source like this since it would be published on a web site of the subject of this article. If that verification is provided, the letter combined with the fact that the Van Allen comment was ultimately published on the back of the book is, I think, sufficient sourcing to include this in the article. It would be clear at that point that Van Allen did compliment the book, and I think such a compliment from an esteemed scientist is relevant. I think it would be critical though to point out (briefly) that this is not really Van Allen's field (assuming that is really the case, I don't know either way) and that his positive view of the book was very much in the minority. As it stands now there are no positive comments about the book at all. So long as it is sourced well enough, and so long as we explain the mainstream reaction to the book as we already do, I don't see a problem with including one short comment that said something good about the book.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I understood this meant that we could use it if it was published on a website by him. I haven't heard of anyone going to such lengths to verify sources on other web sites before, especially if there is no reason to doubt the authenticity. I don't understand why this would be different. ABlake (talk) 10:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see why a raw statement by Lerner that Van Allan approved of his (Lerner's) book could be allowable, and I don't see how Lerner's publishing Van Allan's letter is any different. Can you explain either one?  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * After thinking about it a bit more, since the comment is about the book and not the person, the application of WP:BLP rules for inclusion probably don't apply. In this case, it would revert back to regular WP:RS guidelines, so it wouldn't be appropriate to include it. Comments about Lerner himself would still fall under BLP rules. Is that a correct interpretation and application? ABlake (talk) 14:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously suggesting that Lerner and/or his publisher could make up a quote, attribute it to a famous scientist, publish it on a book jacket, and get away with it? I can understand (though not accept) the objection that van Allen was not professionally qualified to judge the book, but even publisher's blurge should be reliable prima facie evidence that van Allen did indeed say such a (stupid) thing. --Art Carlson (talk) 14:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As for me, I'm suggesting that book jacket quotes are frequently taken out of context, enough so that they cannot be considered reliable by our standards, and that Lerner, himself, is not a reliable source for Van Allan's letter. I'm not sure whether Van Allan qualifies as a "plasma physicist" by modern standards, although he certainly was considered an expert as generally understood then.  On the other hand, I'm not sure Lerner qualifies as a "plasma physicist", either, so my opinions on that issue are probably not worth very much.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would just add that Van Allen wasn't endorsing the views in the book. He just said the book was a "provocative critique of the Big Bang and a stimulating account of the insightful and creative, although controversial, cosmology of Nobel Laureate Hannes Alfven." I would be qualified to say that. If he had offered his evaluation of the scientific arguments within the book, then his expertise would be needed. However, that wasn't the case. He just said it was an interesting book. ABlake (talk) 15:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) I suppose that's possible. Maybe he really said, "Eric J. Lerner gives both a provocative critique of the Big Bang and a stimulating account of the insightful and creative, although controversial, cosmology of Nobel Laureate Hannes Alfven. Although both provocative and stimulating, Lerner unfortunately doesn't comprehend the mass of evidence supporting the Big Bang, and even Alfven's respectable cosmological hypotheses have had to yield to subsequent research." If we only had the first sentence without the context, we would be misrepresenting Van Allens true opinion. But really, I don't believe the quote could have been published without Van Allen's approval, and he would see to it that his opinion was not too badly mangled. (If you read it closely, he doesn't say that Lerner is right, or even that he has any interesting ideas.) --Art Carlson (talk) 15:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * How about including the quote but discreetely pointing out that Van Allen doesn't actually say what he thinks of the scientific value of Lerner's arguments and evidence? --Art Carlson (talk) 15:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * How about something like, "Van Allen reviewed the book and provided the following comment, without evaluating its scientific merits:." That seems factual and unbiased to me. ABlake (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, if the source is just the book jacket, I don't think we should use it no matter how we phrase it. If the original source (i.e. the letter) is reproduced and verified somehow then I think we should. Book jacket quotes are not reliable sources. If we know where the quote originally came from then we can use it.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Everyone might want to look at Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 5 for a similar case - also a controversial fringe author with one or two positive academic quotes on the book cover. Relata refero (disp.) 22:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It would be nice to have that rolled into a policy so we wouldn't have to debate it so much. So, are we going to go with the logic of that conclusion? Makes sense to me. ABlake (talk) 22:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks to me, discounting the opinion of Jossi who I've never trusted, that the conclusion is not to trust book jacket quotes. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ScienceApologist, it would be helpful if you would justify the positions you take on some more substantial basis than ad hoc personal attacks against anyone who happens to disagree with you. Jossi is a respected contributor, and has been an administrator in good standing for two and a half years -- please see Requests for adminship/Jossi.   Are you are prepared to offer some more substantive objection to Jossi's comments than the bare fact that he takes a position which you oppose? John254 02:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The point, I'm sure, isn't that Jossi is right or wrong, it's that the rest of the participants in that discussion appeared to agree that statements on book covers need to be treated carefully. They are, after all, a method of advertising and don't have the same editorial oversight as statements within a book. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, Lobojo concurred with the inclusion of quotations from book jackets, attributed as such, while A. B. stated that such quotations might be included under certain circumstances, when "considering them on a case-by-case basis" . Furthermore, since we're presently employing a blog post as a source of criticism, and in consideration of the fact that editorial oversight is essentially nonexistent in such self-published sources, the principle of parity of source quality suggests that sources which are subject to deficient editorial oversight, such as quotations from book jackets, may nonetheless be suitable for inclusion. John254 03:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Put down the stick and back away from the deceased equine. The van Allen quote is promotional puff, book jacket quotes are not even pretended to be neutral or balanced, and the blog has been discussed to death: self-published sources are not forbidden, theya re to be used with care and discretion; in this case the mainstream scientific community does not discuss Lerner's fringe views in peer-reviewed publications because they are too fringe, but a reputable professional in the field has commented on his own site, and that gives necessary balance to something which would otherwise fail WP:NPOV by putting only the fringe side. Guy (Help!) 19:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Your claim that we need to use a blog post as a critical source since "the mainstream scientific community does not discuss Lerner's fringe views in peer-reviewed publications because they are too fringe" is outrageously false, as Lerner's book has been the subject of extensive criticism in The New York Times and the Skeptical Inquirer, both of which are peer-reviewed reliable sources, as clearly described in Eric_Lerner. Furthermore, some of Eric Lerner's cosmology research has been published in the Astrophysical Journal, which even ScienceApologist acknowledges  is a peer-reviewed reliable source for cosmology -- see "Radio Absorption by the Intergalactic Medium," The Astro­physical Journal, Vol. 361, Sept. 20, 1990, pp. 63-68.  "The Big Bang Never Happened" itself was initially published by Random House, which our article describes as "the world's largest English-language general trade book publisher." John254 20:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll let others address the rest of your comments, but I find it "outrageously false" to call either the New York Times and the Skeptical Inquirer "peer-reviewed". --Art Carlson (talk) 05:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

OUTSIDE OPINION I agree with the point that Bigtimepeace made above- the back cover of the book isn't a reliable source. If this was quoted from another source, and that can be reliably cited, I'd say to go with it, seeing Van Allen's status. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * RfC response It's not a RS. --Faith (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Sources still needed?
The tag requesting sources is still on the Personal History section. Is it still necessary? Seems pretty well sourced to me. Any objection to removing it, or is there a line that needs better sourcing? ABlake (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It's poorly sourced since there aren't any third party sources. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm all for good sourcing. It's the Wiki way! Just for fun, let's compare Lerner's current page (with extensive references, as well as now-excised list of papers and itemized Professional Activities) with Victor Stenger and Edward L. Wright's pages. Maybe someone ought to put up source tags there and apply the same standards that have gone into this page. Oh, and did Vstenger add self-promoting stuff to his own article and not get beat up over it? Perhaps someone should mention it to him. How about we head over to those articles and help bring them up to snuff! I'm sure we could get them up to the same quality as this article in no time at all. Equal standards for everybody! Yeah! Just kidding. I'll look for some third-party sources for Lerner. Thanks for clarifying. ABlake (talk) 18:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If you have problems with other pages, go over there and talk about them. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Google TechTalks listing
I added Eric Lerner to the list of notable speakers at Google TechTalks, only to be quickly reverted by SA with the claim that he isn't notable. Lerner is notable according to WP:NOTE, and it is a fact that he was invited to speak, and indeed did speak, at Google TechTalks. I bring it up here because this is Lerner's page, where all reference to the presentation has been removed, except in the caption of the picture. Before I revert him, and in so doing spread the edit war that has been waged here to another page, I'll ask for others' opinions. Thanks. ABlake (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course Eric Lerner is notable -- that's why we have an article on him, why ScienceApologist's disruptive effort to have the article deleted failed, and why ScienceApologist's disruptive attempt to have the article moved to the title of Lerner's book will fail. Furthermore, Eric Lerner's research concerning the use of the dense plasma focus device to produce aneutronic fusion, the subject of the Google TechTalk in question, is notable itself, being the subject of substantial coverage both by The New York Times and Discover magazine -- please see Kenneth Chang, "Practical Fusion, or Just a Bubble?", New York Times, February 27, 2007, and the current edition of Discover magazine, page 64. John254 00:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree that Lerner should be regarded as notable, on the grounds of the failed AfD if nothing else. Agree that a case can be made that this requested move is disruptive, but I think it's a borderline one. It would help if the article on Google TechTalks could be expanded. See talk:Google TechTalks. Andrewa (talk) 06:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you forgotten the WP:BLP1E discussion on the AfD. If that were consensus, then moving the article would be quite appropriate.  As it stands, the only notability I see is his book and the removed LaRouche connection.  Now that it's removed.... As for the subject of this header, I suspect Google TechTalks should be deleted as being clearly not notable.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You suspect that it's clearly not notable? Hmmm... Andrewa (talk) 09:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, Arthur suspects that it should be deleted. He doesn't debate its clear lack of notability. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My point was that I suspect that his suspicion is suspect, because this suspect would clearly qualify for deletion if it is clearly not notable. But I also suspect that an AfD on it would be a(nother) complete waste of time. Andrewa (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have restored the reference to Lerner. I notice that the ARBCOM case (see Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience) in its findings of fact seems to imply that Lerner does have notability, and in its decisions issued the following caution: ScienceApologist is cautioned to respect all policies and guidelines, in spirit as well as letter, when editing articles concerning some alternative to conventional science. This applies in particular to matters of good faith and civility. ISTM that removing Lerner from a list of notable speakers may violate that caution. Andrewa (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * How did you establish that he was notable? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * At the risk of repeating myself, the ARBCOM case (to which you were a party) under findings of fact stated One involved party is also a leading developer and proponent of one of the topics in question, and has a biography on Wikipedia (Eric Lerner), which is also involved. We can go through it all again, but why? Isn't this enough? Andrewa (talk) 19:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * He didn't give his talk about that idea. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * So? The section heading isn't Notable Talks. It's Notable Speakers (and the capital should be corrected to conform to WP:MOS but that can wait). The content of the talk is irrelevant. Andrewa (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The content of the talks on a page about talks is irrelevant? I think you just dug your own grave with that one. Get an outside opinion. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * (sigh) The content of the particular talk is irrelevant when it comes to deciding whether or not a speaker (not a talk) is notable. I note that none of your replies actually address the points raised. For example you question whether the speaker is notable, then when evidence for is given and evidence against is invited you shift to questioning whether the talk is notable. Andrewa (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The question of whether the "speaker is notable" for inclusion on a pages of talks given by various speakers means we should pay close attention to what the speaker is talking about. If a marginally significant figure who wrote a book 20 years ago about spices came to give a talk about ecology, it would be questionable as to whether that speaker would be notable enough for inclusion in a list of notable talks. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * But, again at the risk of repeating myself, this isn't a list of notable talks. It's a list of speakers. Andrewa (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Those are standard debate tactics for ScienceApologist. Deflect and revert. Welcome to the Matrix! :) ABlake (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If I were Lerner, and there was a foundation supporting ScienceApologist and his cronies, I'd probably secretly support it financially! Their tactics only serve to blur the distinction between real science and pseudoscience. It's very sad. But I believe truth will prevail. We seem to have won Time Cube, for the moment at least. Andrewa (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The Time Cube point eludes me, probably because I haven't followed it. After looking over the article, it seems like weird ranting, and is only notable because people make fun of it and not because it is related to science at all. If you care to clue me in on your Time Cube point, just email me so we don't have to fill up this page with it. Thanks. ABlake (talk) 22:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * (And ScienceApologist immediately undid my edit, including the clarification that some talks include pseudoscience. Andrewa (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC))

I've added him back again, along with the slight expansion of the article (which is still a stub) which was also reverted before. See Talk:Google TechTalks for my reasons. Andrewa (talk) 10:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

How to deal with pseudoscience
Let's assume for the moment that we are dealing with a living person whose only notable contribution to human knowledge is in the realm of pseudoscience, and that humanity would be better off without it. I don't want to claim that Lerner is in that category, just to observe that some other editors do seem to be of this view.

Question: How should Wikipedia deal with this?

My feeling is that, even given the above suppositions, it is counterproductive to excise all mention of the person and their work from Wikipedia. Much of the attraction of pseudoscience lies in its claims that it is being unfairly dismissed. We do nobody any favours by giving these claims credibility.

And even by failing to report notable pseudoscience theories and personalities, we give these claims credibility. But if in our rejection of this material, we ourselves argue illogically and passionately from our own strongly held dogmatic beliefs, then we appear no different to the advocates of pseudoscience, which is far, far worse.

A far better way is to report as objectively and completely as we can. It's not the easy way, but it's the encyclopedic way, and it's the way endorsed by Wikipedia policy at every level. Andrewa (talk) 10:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Under what circumstances do appearances to pseudoscience promoters have any bearing outside that group? If they are heavily involved in pseudoscience, science and logic will not appeal to them anyway, only the authorities within their own group would.


 * Under many circumstances... unbiased people doing research into cults and the like will come here, potential supporters wanting to know the details of alternative theories will come here, people wanting to crusade against them will come here, people who want to set up their own pseudoscience will come here. Our role is not to judge their motives for wanting this information, it's just to provide it as best we can. Andrewa (talk) 13:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have read much of what you have written in response to SA here, you commonly switch the topic of your sentence in a response. Here we went from "pseudoscience promoters" to "unbiased people".  Unbiased people are looking for science and logic and reasoning, maybe not in that order. Jok2000 (talk)


 * I certainly don't mean to be evasive. But yes, I've failed to answer the question as asked here, just as it failed to address my remarks above. Appearances to pseudoscience promoters aren't my main concern, obviously from my answer; Most of the readers of this article will be here for other reasons. But even then, many, although certainly not all, pseudoscience promoters are well intentioned, and are looking for science and logic and reasoning. That's part of the challenge! And some pseudoscience opponents, sadly, are not; They have decided that their cause is so important that they don't need to question it any more, and in so doing have of course abandonned the scientific approach in favour of dogma. That's another challenge. Does that help? Andrewa (talk) 03:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, a complete report of unscientific things is usually replete with unreliable testimony. To be encyclopedic, unreliable stuff, or mistakes, if you will, once shown to be so, should just be left out of articles. Jok2000 (talk) 11:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm... if by replete with unreliable testimony you mean that we can't write a good article on it, I disagree. It's a challenge, but one we can and should take up. Andrewa (talk) 13:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I simply mean that if the Bill Meier UFO hoax of the 70's was offered as proof of UFOs that look like saucers, it would have to be moved from the proof-of-ufo's section on the ufo page, to the "junk I've forgotten about and don't care to revisit" part of the page, if consensus had it that there should be such a section.  So similarly, you will find in many pseudoscience topics, as well as non-conventional scientific theories (which I categorize separately), that people have simply made a mistake, or the claim is simply uninvestigated. Jok2000 (talk) 15:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm... the answer is to cite and source. Claims made by fringe theories of whatever categories need particularly to be sourced; Provided they are so sourced, there's no problem in including the claims. Where other authorities dismiss these claims, this should also be included of course, and similarly sourced, avoiding undue emphasis. The balance is the tricky bit. Andrewa (talk) 03:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with you (Andrewa), that notable pseudoscientists should be reported on, and I don't think anyone here will differ. The question is whether Lerner is notable. If he is not, which several editors believe, then the rules say he should not have an article. I think that rule also makes sense under your argumentation about making the world a better place. The line between notable and non-notable is roughly the same line as that between giving people (a sort of) credibility by "suppressing" their ideas and making martyrs of them, and giving them credibility by advertising their ideas for them. --Art Carlson (talk) 11:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree... except that I think that some do differ. But the question should be, as you say, whether Lerner is notable. Certainly, there is a danger of giving them credibility by advertising their ideas for them, and there have been and will continue to be attempts to use Wikipedia in this way, and Lerner has even been one of the culprits, hence the ARBCOM ban on his editing his own article. The Time Cube and Quasiturbine and many other articles have had similar problems. But there is also a danger that we react to these attempts by removing material from Wikipedia which is encyclopedic. Just because people want it in for the wrong reasons doesn't mean that there are no right reasons. There now seems little doubt that, quite apart from Wikipedia, the proposer of the Time Cube has made a name for himself. With Lerner perhaps it's not as clear.


 * There seems a rough consensus that his book is notable, but I did say rough, see Articles for deletion/Eric Lerner which although quite long makes very interesting reading. Amazon.com lists [ http://www.amazon.com/Big-Bang-Never-Happened-Refutation/dp/book-citations/067974049X/ref=sid_dp_av?ie=UTF8&citeType=cited#cited 52 other books that cite it], including books by Martin Gardner and Paul Davies among others. I don't see any need to defend the scholarship of those two; Just the fact that they both cite it would satisfy minimum requirements of notability for the book IMO. This essay even implies that its sales are comparable to Hawking's A Brief History of Time, which I find very difficult to believe and the essay gives no figures.


 * So, the claim has now become, it's a notable book by a non-notable author. But that's a bit of a stretch, isn't it? Andrewa (talk) 13:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a big difference between promotion and description. An encyclopedia should describe a subject objectively and neutrally. If it promotes an idea, it becomes an advertising tool, which Wikipedia shouldn't be. Describing consists of recounting facts. Promoting involves making subjective judgements about the facts and encouraging behavior. To include facts is not promotion, although doing so while leaving out other contradictory facts is biased, and can be considered promotional. So, the correct way to deal with pseudoscience (or any other article for that matter) is to describe the relevant, verifiable facts about the subject, whether positive or negative.
 * WP:NOT --Art Carlson (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm... That link leads to a section which lists a general principle and five more specific principles. None of the six seem applicable here. Andrewa (talk) 15:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe you didn't mean it that way, but some of your comment sounds like any fact is eligible for inclusion as long as it is objective, neutral, relevant, and verifiable. I just wanted to throw out the reminder that "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia" (the general principle). Even objective description can have a promotional character if the subject is not notable. --Art Carlson (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As for Lerner being notable, he could be considered notable on two separate subjects, his cosmology work and his fusion work. His cosmology work received more attention in the 90s, but he is still active in it today, and has received some media attention. His fusion work is more recent, and has received some media attention as listed in the references. ABlake (talk) 15:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree. Andrewa (talk) 15:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree on the difference between promotion and discription, and that notable pseudoscientists, such as Erich von Däniken and Immanuel Velikovsky, should have articles.  Disagree as to notability.  See WP:BLP1E, although it doesn't specifically mention authors of a single book.  There are situations in which we have a notable book by a non-notable (by Wikipedia standards) author, if that's all he's known for.  If the LaRouche comments were allowed in the article, that would provide a second reason for notability.  I doubt the notability of the fusion work (even if also pseudoscience), but that might provide a second reason for notability, making the article appropriate.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the requested move has been closed, like the AfD, on the basis of no consensus, which I think was predictable. Wikipedia seems to deem him again as borderline notable. So, how do we now move forward with a minimum waste of time? Andrewa (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Arthur you keep bringing up the LaRouche issue even then it has been explained repeatedly why this was not included. If you want to discuss Lerner's political activities, his current work with the NJ Civil Rights Coalition is more notable and covered in a couple of reliable sources. We also had some material on past political activities which were more notable than a tangential association with a LaRouche group. I fail to understand why the LaRouche-group association is the only political activity you seem to be interested in mentioning, and the only one which (in your opinion) confers some measure of notability.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Because LaRouche is a notable crank and Lerner is reported as the person who stood up to LaRouche's organizations' strong-arm tactics. If properly sourced, it adds positive, notable information about Lerner.  The NJ Civil Rights Coalition is not, itself, notable, even though Lerner's association with them might be noted.  Lerner's work in civil rights doesn't seem to rise to the level of something which would be independently notable; i.e., if someone's only claim to notability were what Lerner has done in civil rights, that person would not have a Wikipedia article.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I find the premise of this section highly ambigous. What basis do you have for calling Lerners material pseudoscience? None at all that I can see. Is this material ignored by conventioanl astronomers? Yes. But scientific popularity does not imply scientific veracity, by any means what-so-ever. There are no peer reviewed articles in any journal that I have read that dispute any of the material in Lerners work. In public, yes, scientists are critical of it, in magazines and newspapers (the only sources on this page that purport to "debunk" his material), but there is not one shred of peer reviewed evidence that refutes his work, which is very odd considering that it has been published in very reputable journals that any scientist could falsify if it was really so bad. This alone indicates that it is definately NOT pseudoscience. Whether the number of citations to an article means that;
 * (a) it is factually wrong
 * (b) ignored
 * (c) not understood
 * (d) uncontested
 * (e) unknown
 * (f) politically unpopular,

is open to speculation. Citations certainly don't imply veracity or disproof of the published science, though it may give an indication of popularity, which is hardly a scientific comment. I note that Alfvén's original 1942 paper predicting hydromagnetic waves in Nature journal received only 1 citation in the first 10 years, and only 3 more in the next decade, and 3 more in the 10 years after that. And Alfvén's article on the same subject in Arkiv f. Mat published in 1943, has received one citation to the article, ever. Despite this, his hydromagnetic wave theory is used by nearly every astronomer in the world today.


 * His material is published in reputable peer reviewed journals, some publications in the highly respected Astrophysics and Space science, The Astrophysical Journal , and various publications in IEEE Journals   , which is another reputable journal. The first two journals are beyond reproach by any standard, and the IEEE is the world's largest technical professional organization with more than 360,000 members in around 175 countries. Their IEEE Nuclear and Plasma Sciences Society who publishes the Transactions on Plasma Science, has about 3000 professional engineers and scientist, which is hardly an obscure number in comparison to, say, the American Astronomical Society has about 6,500 members that includes physicists, mathematicians, geologists, engineers; they definately do NOT publish pseudoscience. The burden of proof does not rest on Lerner to prove his work is not pseudoscience, it rests on the people here trying to label it as such, despite the ample evidence that it is indeed scientifically valid material published in respected journals. Maybe SciencAppologist, and his companions, should contact the Journal of Astrophsycis and Space Science, The Astrophysical Journal and the IEEE Nuclear and Plasma Sciences Society and inform them of their terrible mistake in readily publishing his material. Not one person has come up with ANY scientific reason why his material can be treated as pseudoscience, other than making the truly ridiculous claim that any science material that is not popular, or largely ignored, is wrong. As Timothy Eastman, Director of Plasmas international and Head of Raytheon astrophysics groups points out while reviewing one of Lerners more recent publications "No responce to Lerners recent publication has yet been put forward"


 * I say again, I came originally to wikipedia to assess Lerners work after seeing various references to his work in modern publications, only to find that his work is banned from his very own page. That alone tells me that something is very suspect is going on here. I suppose that all the scientists that have cited his work over the last few years should also be banned from wikipedia for not adhering to ScienceAppologist, and others, personal scientific preferences? You see what a ridiculous situation this is?


 * Considering this, his material published in these journals should most certainly be allowed for inclusion, including a small section about the details behind his scientific views, which can reflect both sides of the story. If any of the esteemed admins here want to assess his material (because I get the distict impression from this article that they have not even read any of it), and come up with one single scientific reason why his work should be classed as pseudoscience (which i'm quite sure you cant, or it would have been done already), some of his publications are available to see in full here. I await your reply with great anticipation. Adam. AdamNailor (talk) 00:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Adam, the title of this section was added by Andrewa, who incorrectly assumed that Lerner's work was considered pseudoscience. However, it is considered fringe science rather than pseudoscience, since it adheres to the scientific method but is not generally accepted by the mainstream. Simple mistake. So, no need to get too spun up about the pseudoscience reference. Also, for Wikipedia purposes, it is better to use sources that reference Lerner's work and articles than to use things that have been written by him, even if they are in the IEEE. Having something published in IEEE may be reliable, but not really notable unless someone comments on it. Does that make sense? However, the article in Discover magazine (June issue) is both reliable and notable, so it would be good to reference. Hopefully you see the difference. ABlake (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, fair enough, I was a bit hasty with my responce there, but I still feel that my points stand. References to Lerners material in the reuptable journals I listed should be included, unless valid scientific rebuttals can be put forward by someone here. Generally fringe science is not published in the respected journals I listed, they usually have their own journals, which indicates that this work is more than merely fringe. I'm sure that the journals would not like being accused of publishing fringe science. Largely Ignored, yes, Incorrect or scientifically invalid like most fringe science, definately not, it is based on well established plasma physics that the scientific community has yet to apply to most of their cosmological models. At the top of the fringe science page it says "It has been suggested that this article or section be merged into Pseudoscience" so there seems little distinction between the two. AdamNailor (talk) 00:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Since no one has offered any sources that indicate that Lerner's aging body of published scientific papers have received any attention at all, they do not belong in this article as a soapbox. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The above publications in established journals I cited can be categorized as soapbox? You are seriously suggesting the the publications in the Journal of Astrophysics and Space Science are merely (from the soapbox page you linked to) 1) Propaganda 2) Opinion pieces 3) Self-promotion or 4) Advertising? Do you know something that these journals dont? If this is the case, I suggest you contact the journal and inform them that their publication of Lerners material is merely propaganda, and you request they remove it from their archive.
 * Did you read my above points? "Is this material ignored by conventioanl astronomers? Yes. But scientific popularity does not imply scientific veracity, by any means what-so-ever. There are no peer reviewed articles in any journal that I have read that dispute any of the material in Lerners work." I take this responce to mean that you have no reason at all to categorize Lerners material as pseudoscience, and infact you are the one that has your own pseudoscientific view, as you are disregarding this work published in esteemed scientific journals, with no scientific reasons put forward. I take this also to mean that all the publications that cite Lerners work, themselves published in established journals, to be faulty too. My simple request was: "If any of the esteemed admins here want to assess his material (because I get the distict impression from this article that they have not even read any of it), and come up with one single scientific reason why his work should be classed as pseudoscience". Refusal to answer this very simple question noted.
 * See my comment above. That should straighten this out. ABlake (talk) 15:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If you want, you can e-mail me and I can explain to you why I think that Eric's ideas are high grade baloney. But that's not the point of the talk page. If you want to see material in the article, you have to first familiarize yourself with the following: WP:V, WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:FRINGE. That should get you started on figuring out how to write a Wikipedia article on someone who basically lacks a cross-section in the community and the outside world he seemingly desperately wants to have notice him. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "If you want, you can e-mail me and I can explain to you why I think that Eric's ideas are high grade baloney." This I cant wait to hear. My e-mail is adamnailor8421@hotmail.co.uk Adam. AdamNailor (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Will I be allowed to post some of your scientific reasons here under a new heading? such as "The scientific reasons for the fringe science accusation", so we could discuss some of it? AdamNailor (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Earlier versions of Plasma cosmology contained criticism of Lerner's work in much more detail. You might like to look there. But to answer your question, no, you should not start discussions here on the rightness or wrongness of Lerner's ideas. It's not our job to decide that. We only need to decide which ideas to mention here. To do that, we mostly need to examine the extent to which his ideas have attracted interest in the scientific community, especially in secondary sources like reviews and text books. To decide whether the ideas we mention should be classified as fringe science, we probably also have to examine whether the interest was positive or negative. It may be fun to discuss physics, but the purpose of this forum is to discuss an encyclopedia article. --Art Carlson (talk) 16:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * What happened to that page then? At least when people read that page they would actually know what plasma cosmology is, as opposed to the ancient version represented on the current page. AdamNailor (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The difference is that the "ancient" version of plasma cosmology was advocated by a Nobel Prize winner and verifiably played a modest but notable role in the development of cosmology. The Lerner/Peratt version has not attracted much attention. I personally have a weakness for the old version of the page (to which I made significant contributions), but I understand the arguments against it. The change was pushed primarily by ScienceApologist, so he might have more to say about that. --Art Carlson (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. If you add four tildes ( ~ ) after your comments, they will be automatically signed and dated, which helps others to make sense of the discussion.

ScienceAppologist, I take your lack of any E-mail containing any scientific reasons at all to refute any of Lerners work as meaning that you have none? Surely, if Lerners material was "high grade baloney", you could write a quick e-mail explaining the scientific reasons why you have arrived at this conclusion? Your reasons to dismiss it are science based, are they not? Or does it have more to do with faith? In case you missed it, heres my e-mail again; adamnailor8421@hotmail.co.uk AdamNailor (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm putting you on notice. As a disruptive single purpose account, you need to clean up your act or be shown the door.  Wikipedia is not the place to fix the real-world "problem" that Lerner's theories are rejected by the relevant scientific community. Guy (Help!) 07:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Way to go Guy! ScienceApologist offers email discussion above, and you shake your Admin tools at newbie AdamNailor for going along with it, adding the old single purpose account double whammy. Threatened to be blocked for offering to take a discussion off-Wikipedia, you couldn't make it up. Straight from the Mafia school of rhetoric and diplomacy! 66.232.106.84 (talk) 16:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think AdamNailor is a newbie. Guy (Help!) 21:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * ??? Are you making an accusation here? If so, please clarify your position and explain why you have arrived at this conclusion. AdamNailor (talk) 00:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Guy. Maybe you could e-mail me these reasons for dismissing Lerners material instead, since SA seems reluctant to do so, and we're not allowed to discuss it here. I really want to know how you have arrived at these conclusions about Lerners work, and cant find any reasons on wikipedia, on the plasma cosmology page, or in any scientific literature, or anywhere else. Just curious. AdamNailor (talk) 11:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Above point retracted, SA has now mailed me, so I now know his E-mail, which is an encouraging sign. Hopefully some sort of consensus can be reached on some things, but i'll save it for E-mails for now, i'm not going to provide a running commentary here. AdamNailor (talk) 00:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Lyndon LaRouche
From the discussion above: If the LaRouche comments were allowed in the article, that would provide a second reason for notability. See


 * Talk:Eric Lerner/Archive 1
 * Talk:Eric Lerner/Archive 2

for more on this. Andrewa (talk) 01:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Focus Fusion recieves $10 million in funding
''Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, Inc. (LPP) has announced the signing of its first licensing agreement for the manufacture, distribution and marketing of focus fusion reactors. The reactors, which could produce energy safely and for far less than current costs, are under development by LPP, which expects them to be ready by 2012. The agreement gives Center for Miljo-och Energiforskning (CMEF), a Swedish firm, a license to manufacture, market and distribute focus fusion reactors in the European Union and Norway in return for phased payments to LPP of $10 million, with an option to extend the license to Russia for an additional amount. Payments past the initial year’s $600,000 will be conditional on proof of the scientific feasibility of focus fusion. CMEF is a start-up clean energy firm, with interests in new technologies, including focus fusion. Leif Arnold, the company’s founder, is excited about the potential of focus fusion and the positive impact for Europe’s energy security and environment.''


 * http://photoman.bizland.com/lpp/index.htm

Kevin Baastalk 15:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 *  Payments past the initial year’s $600,000    will be conditional on proof of the scientific feasibility of focus fusion. That's the key, isn't it? ScienceApologist (talk) 15:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This is an ancient archive of the lpp website and CMEF has reportedly been unable to raise its own funds for that funding deal http://focusfusion.org/log/index.php/forums/viewthread/201/ TristanDC (talk) 09:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Citation question
Several of the references came from the Opinion section of the NYT, and according to WP:RS,
 * "However, great care must be taken to distinguish news reporting from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact. When citing opinion pieces from newspapers or other mainstream news sources, in-text attribution should be given."

So, I think we somehow need to add that they were opinion pieces. Since it may appear as a COI violation if I do it, I'll let someone else do it if they agree with the argument. ABlake (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any reader who would mistake our sourcing of opinion pieces in this article as statements of fact. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Observable universe vs. Universe
Professional cosmologist may find this man's work lacking, but after a short examination of current cosmologist's writings, it is very evident that the term universe is often used with two distinct meanings. On the one hand the word universe is often used to mean the Universe that includes everything. On the other hand, the word universe is often used to mean what we can detect. By mis-using one word to mean two distinctly different things, cosmologists greatly de-value their work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.94.176.22 (talk) 00:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Personal Opnions
Lerner has published his theory/hypotheses in very reputable peer reviewed scientific journals. As far as I know, all criticism of his work has never been done in scientific papers but only as merely personal opnions. Personal opnions does not matter in science, even if it comes from a Nobel prize winner, or Paul Davies, or whoever. Merely personal opnions are not what the majority of people would like to find in a encyclopedia. The best approach would be to list and briefly comment the most important material and contributions to science made by Eric Lerner, include substantial criticism, published in peer reviewed scientific articles and let the people judge by themselves. They will have all references to do a deeper research on the subject if they want. What I think wikipedia can not do is to bias the judgment of people by simply saying "Nobel Prize winner does not agree with his book", etc. This does not add anything in terms of information content. [EPLeite 12:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Epleite (talk • contribs)
 * Actually, all of that is clearly false. He has not published peer reviewed scientific articles.  Oh, he has published in a journal (Progress in Physics), but it's not peer-reviewed.  Perhaps we have too much criticism, but we clearly have too much support for the assertion that his scientific articles are accurate, so balancing is needed, per WP:FRINGE.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 13:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Why do the following (and I see about a dozen more) not count as peer-reviewed?
 * 2007: Scarpa, R.; Falomo, R.; Lerner, E., Do Local Analogs of Lyman Break Galaxies Exist?, The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 668, Issue 1, pp. 74-80
 * 2003: Two world systems revisited: a comparison of plasma cosmology and the big bang, IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, vol. 31, issue 6, pp. 1268-1275
 * 1995: On the Problem of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 227, Issue 1-2, pp. 145-149
 * 1986: Magnetic self-compression in laboratory plasmas, quasars and radio galaxies., Laser Part. Beams, Vol. 4, Part 2, p. 193 - 213
 * --John294 (talk) 16:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not strive for an article about every peer-reviewed idea. In fact, if there is no response to Lerner's articles in the peer-reviewed literature, then we should seriously consider not mentioning them at all, since they are not notable and/or we are unable to report what reliable, secondary sources say about them. --Art Carlson (talk) 13:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You want to suppress his published ideas, or responses to them, for lack of notice in a certain class of publications? That's absurd.  It's well known that scientists ignore stuff that doesn't fit their paradigm.  That doesn't make it less notable.  What's wrong with presenting Lerner's ideas as his ideas, along with any published commentary on them?  There's lots in books. Dicklyon (talk) 15:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I assume your comment is addressed to Epleite, since he is the one who proposed that only criticisms of Lerner's scientific contributions that have been "published in peer reviewed scientific articles" should be included. I merely called attention to one of the relevant Wikipedia policies. --Art Carlson (talk) 16:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Doesn't that apply to mainstream articles on the subject, rather than an article about a living person? If Lerner claims that aliens built the pyramids, then his papers are adequate sources per WP:Living. It is incontrovertible that Lerner has peer-reviewed papers, and only if we misrepresent their contents, or claim they are proven, do we need the extra sources? --John294 (talk) 16:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Per WP:FRINGE, if his papers are "peer-reviewed" (although many of those sources aren't), we shouldn't includes those which are fringe views if there's no commentary in "peer-reviewed" papers. Representing them as being "peer-reviewed", under the circumstances, gives them WP:UNDUE weight.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If his papers are "peer-reviewed"? This is checkable. Which of the papers I mentioned are not peer-reviewed? --John294 (talk) 21:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Arthur, I'm unclear on what in WP:FRINGE you are referring to, or what you're suggesting. Can you clarify? Dicklyon (talk) 21:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Lerner has peer-reviewed papers in fringe journals. WP:FRINGE suggests we should only mention them if we can find references to them "in the real world" (outside of that fringe community).  I think John wants to include more of his papers, even though there's no indication that anyone outside the fringe community has seen them.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you mean that the journals are fringe (I can't find any sources that say so... can you help?), or the subject of Lerner's papers are fringe? --John294 (talk) 22:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Arthur, WP:FRINGE is a long page; I wanted to know what part you're referring to (section link or a quote). Dicklyon (talk) 04:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Getting back to the content issue, Epleite, what specific piece of info did you want to add or take away? ABlake (talk) 13:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The following passages are biased and adds nothing to understading: "The response of professional cosmologists to Lerner's ideas set out in the book has been negative; Paul Davies reviewed the book for the New York Times and found it to be unsatisfactory. The newspaper published a rebuttal by Lerner which was itself criticized by Arno A. Penzias, winner of the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics:

"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."[4] Subsequent to this, Davies himself responded to Lerner's criticism[5] of his review:""

Paul Davies found it to be unsatisfactory. So what? What does it matter? There is no information content on this. Then, it says that Lerner wrote a rebuttal, but no further comment on it is added. But then there is an exert from the criticism made by Arno A. Penzias! This IS bias.

The, we have the following: '"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."[5] "

Again, it is merely an opnion. I don't see HOW can this be encyclopedic in ANY way.

The, we have: "Victor J. Stenger, Professor Emeritus of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Hawaii, criticized Lerner's book in a 1992 edition of the popular magazine, Skeptical Inquirer.[6] Professor Edward L. Wright of UCLA says that there are several errors of fact in the book,[3] a position which Lerner attacked on his website."

Dr. Wright say that are "several errors" in the book, then the sentence ends with "a position which Lerner attacked on his website". This is a biased way to write the sentence. A better and balanced way to write this would be:

"Professor Edward L. Wright of UCLA says that there are several errors of fact in the book,[3] but Lerner has responded in his website to every point raised by Wright, and says that the errors are actually in Wright's assertions".

(EPLeite 16:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)).


 * There's no inherent problem in reporting the published critical opinions of experts in related fields; sometimes even self-published opinions of experts may be OK (see WP:SPS). There may be a problem with balance, or with clarity in the presentation, to clearly attribute the criticisms as the opinions of individuals.  If there are published supportive comments, those should be mentioned, too.  Feel free to improve it. Dicklyon (talk) 03:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed fringe journals?
Arthur, we were trying to ascertain whether Lerner's peer-reviewed papers mentioned above, were published in fringe journals, including the The Astrophysical Journal, the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, in Astrophysics and Space Science, Laser and Particle Beams. Do you have any sources that suggest this as I can't find any myself? --John294 (talk) 08:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ApJ and IEEE Journals are hardly "fringe" Jon (talk) 13:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Wright vs. Lerner diction
Professor Edward L. Wright of UCLA says that there are several errors of fact in the book, a position which Lerner attacked/refuted/complained about/contradicted on his website. My choice is "disputed", but I hesitate to make the change with all that fur flying. --Art Carlson (talk) 09:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Disputed is a neutral term that is acceptable to me. ABlake (talk) 13:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I have no objection to refuted as a neutral term, as Lerner claims (sorry) that he's discredited Wright's claims. (Sorry, we can't say claims in the article, but we should be able to use the word to discuss the issue, without violating BLP or WEASEL.)  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Arthur, "refuted" was my first choice, but "disputed" is fine with me too. However, an even deeper question that Epleite brought up involved the appropriateness of the whole Wright/Lerner exchange. Does Wright's personal page constitute a RS? According to WP:SPS...
 * "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. For example, a reliable self-published source on a given subject is likely to have been cited on that subject as authoritative by a reliable source. 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."
 * Frankly, I think we could and should eliminate a lot of the book section, as there is too much detail in explaining Lerner's position as well as his critics'. I don't know of any other article that discusses and quotes various banter from opinion pieces in the NYT regarding a semi-obscure book. In any event, I think we should stick to the relevant and notable facts about the book and dwell less on the subsequent opinions of, reactions to, and arguments over its propositions. Really, who cares? ABlake (talk) 19:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you think that there should be an article at all, ABlake? If we remove that section, what's left? Perhaps Lerner is a WP:ONEEVENT candidate for deletion. ScienceApologist (talk) 10:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, there should be an article, but probably much shorter. As much as my COI and POV would like to use Wikipedia as a soapbox, I understand and respect the Wikipedia project too much to do that. Looking over the article, a lot of info comes from primary sources, like personal/corporate web pages, etc. There are a few RSs that make him notable, but if I honestly had to apply my understanding of all the policies, I'd have to remove a lot of stuff, both "positive" and "negative". In the past, a lot of the flare-ups and arguing have been over including marginal material (criticisms from blogs, the LaRouche stuff, the Van Allen quote, etc.). Can we set up a working page where I can hack and slash and see what I can come up with? I don't know how to do that, although I could probably figure it out. ABlake (talk) 11:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

A shorter article? I'm not so sure an article that is this short really belongs in the encyclopedia at all and one that is even shorter seems to me to be rife for deletion. Anyway, if you want to give it a shot, just make a page in user space like: User:ABlake/Eric Lerner draft. Just make sure you don't put it in any mainspace categories. ScienceApologist (talk) 11:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. It is set up now. I boiled it down to the verifiable, notable facts, without any spin (as far as I can tell) using reliable sources. Anyone is invited to comment on the talk page, but please leave the actual editing to me. ABlake (talk) 14:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not a fan of this approach. I think the article is not so bad as it is, going into the controversy around his views a bit.  But I agree it's a bit unbalanced in favor of the critics, e.g. by putting them into the lead paragraph.  I think we can get to a good article by more selective edits. Dicklyon (talk) 15:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that the article, if anything, is too unbalanced in favor of the subject. The critics are far more notable and their criticisms are far more relevant to the grand-scheme than Eric Lerner's protestations and nipping at the heals of the scientific community. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, the scientific mainsteam guys are more notable, and, at least within the current paradigm, more relevant to the "grand-scheme". But this article is about Eric Lerner, and it shouldn't threaten those guys to have his views presented here, without overwhelming the article by viewpoints of those that he criticizes.  Keep it encyclopedic, meaning focus on the topic first, and then a fair mention of the criticisms. Dicklyon (talk) 06:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * His views are presented here. Nor is the article "overwhelmed" by viewpoints of those that he criticizes. I believe the article has done exactly what you propose in its present state. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, if we're going to keep working with this version, I think we might as well put in something about his activism too. He's been quoted on a couple of occasions in newspapers on immigration topics as a leader and spokesman for the New Jersey something something something, so I think that's notable too, and helps serve to round out the article. ABlake (talk) 02:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think his break with LaRouche which is referenced by a third party would also be relevant too. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It could be relevant. What's the reference? ABlake (talk) 13:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * See below. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Big Bang "theory" vs. "model"
An anonymous editor changed "Big Bang theory" to "Big Bang model" at one point in the article with the summary "Big Bang is a model not a "theory" as it is too ambiguous." I was about to revert because the current scientific understanding of the Big Bang is anything but ambiguous. But then I looked at the Big Bang articles. It starts, "The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the universe that is ..." (my emphasis). On the other hand, that article uses both phrases, "Big Bang theory" and Big Bang model", repeatedly and apparently interchangeably. Before this edit, this article used the phrase "Big Bang theory" three times. "Big Bang model" only appeared in a quote from Penzias. I started writing this comment thinking I was going to plea for consistency, one way or the other, but as I look closely at the usage in Wikipedia and in my own experience as a scientist, I think the distinction the anonymous editor wants to make between theory and model doesn't exist. In other words, I don't think it really matters (so let's not start an edit war). --Art Carlson (talk) 10:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

If anybody is interested in this topic (anyway), Theory goes into considerable detail on the muddy relationship between the terms. Scientific modeling (to which Model (abstract) redirects) is not very helpful. (And the disambiguation page Model is worthless in this regard.) --Art Carlson (talk) 10:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I always thought that a model was a combinational result of theoretical arguments and simplifying assumptions that describes nature. The theory is what the model is based on. The Big Bang is a "model" in the sense that it describes nature using various theories (general relativity, thermodynamics, nuclear physics, etc.) with a few reasonable assumptions (Big Bang). In another sense, it is a "theory" because it provides a framework for understanding certain physical processes by direct appeal. In other words, when people refer to an even being "due to the Big Bang", they are referring to the Big Bang as a theory. When they refer to some aspect of the Big Bang, they are referring to the Big Bang as a model. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that Eric Lerner himself refers to the Big Bang as a theory. (Not that he's an RS on this issue, but he might bear some weight with that anonymous editor with an ax to grind.) The full title of his book is "The Big Bang Never Happened: A Startling Refutation of the Dominant Theory of the Origin of the Universe". Anyway, since we are not using these words in any strict technical sense, I don't think the wikilink to "model" (or "theory") is helpful. I'm removing it. --Art Carlson (talk) 17:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Big bang section -- what happened?
The section with the reviews of the book seemed terribly slanted, for example in pointing out that Penzias had a Nobel prize in Physics, but not mentioning that so does Alfvén. And in not saying anything that Lerner said in his rebuttal, and nothing that was said good about the book. I presume this must have been something like ScienceApologist's "scientific point of view" dominating over "neutral point of view." I've tried to restore some balance. Comments welcome. Dicklyon (talk) 06:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The anon edit moving the ref was me, too; looks like I got auto logged off when the ball dropped. Dicklyon (talk) 06:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Your edits were mostly fine, but there were some problems with some non-NPOV wording and a bit of mischaracterization of the science. I fixed them. Also, we agreed in the archives not to include statements from people who weren't reliable sources for reviewing Lerner's book. That includes librarians. If you would like to restart that discussion, please read it first and then begin the discussion here. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I reverted your "fixes" as being mostly very clear POV spin. What the heck?  As to not being able to quote any review not by an insider in the standard mainstream POV, that's just absurd.  I'll look for the prior discussion, but I can't imagine that I'll find a consensus there. Dicklyon (talk) 07:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm going to have to revert your entire contribution then per WP:BRD. Please form a consensus around your argument for why your version is better. This version has stood as consensus for a while, and though consensus can change, you must demonstrate that this has occurred. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not about "my version", but about your changes. Let me detail some of them here:
 * Your first edit took out the only positive review quote, from Library Journal; it wasn't pretending to be a technical assessment.
 * This was discussed in the archives. No quotes form non-experts were considered worthy of inclusion here and were explicitly excluded. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Then you changed "stated that there are several errors of fact" to "described several errors of fact". This presumes that the facts are not in dispute; obviously, that's only true within your universe, not the universe whose origin is controversial, the one being discussed here.  And changing "Lerner disputed the claims of this review" (claims referring back to the previous sentence, namely errors) to "Lerner disputed some of Wright's statements", leaving the impression that he agreed with some of the findings of error; I don't read it that way.
 * There is only one universe. They are plainly errors of fact similar to someone saying that "2+2=7". Lerner did not dispute all of Wright's statements, he only disputed some of them. I'm not sure whether he agreed with the other errors that Wright pointed out or whether he didn't understand them, but it is untrue to claim that he disputed the claims of the review since he didn't dispute all of them.
 * Next you changed "focused on Davies's misattribution of the theory to Lerner instead of to Alfvén" to "who focused on Davies's failure to attribute the ideas in his book to Alfvén". This gives me the impression that you didn't read the rebuttal, or have forgotten the gist of it.
 * Lerner believes that Davies "misattributed" the theory to Alfven. However, it's actually only Lerner's belief that it is a misattribution. Alfven wasn't available for comment as to whether Lerner represented him properly.
 * Then you removed the characterization of Davies as "a leading proponent and popularizer of the big bang theory;" this is right out of cited source, and entirely relevant; are you thinking it's not true, not relevant, not well cited, or just not what you want to see there? It was actually in the text of Lerner's rebuttal, and we can attribute it that way if that helps.
 * The cited source does not indicate that it is a fact that Davies is a "leading proponent and popularizer of the big bang theory". What's more, the sources is dated. What's relevant is that he is an academic, not the editorializing of a controversy-stirring media hound.
 * Then, on the CMB, you took out "generally regarded as". Isn't this an adequate way to state that it's the mainstream view?  It wouldn't make sense to treat the mainstream view as fact in the context of a discussion on an alternative view, would it?
 * It's not a view, it's a fact. See WP:ASF.
 * So, in summary, I didn't find much that you changed that wasn't done for SPOV spin. What little I did find, I incorporated.  It would be useful to get input from editors not dedicated to smearing Lerner and his work as crank and pseudoscience, but rather are willing to treat fringe alternatives more neutrally, but you dismantle it again.  But please do feel free to explain your reasoning on these edits. Dicklyon (talk) 07:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * So in summary, you essentially inserted a lot of misinformation, asserted facts that were actually opinions and asserted opinions that were actually facts. Very problematic. Per WP:BRD you should form consensus around your version, but instead you chose to edit war. There can be no compromising with this kind of problematic editorial bent: especially one that seems so intent on ignoring attempts at collaborative editing. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I find your views too biased to respond to further, so I'll let others. As to "ignoring attempts at collaborative editing", I don't find much evidence for collaboration in the talk archives; it appears that you fight every attempt to make a balanced presentation of the ideas, reviews, etc.  And as to that so-called consensus that "No quotes form non-experts were considered worthy of inclusion," I've looked for it in the archives, and can't find it.  Maybe you can point it out more specifically.

The person who writes for the Chicago tribune is not an expert. The head librarian is not an expert. Why are we quoting non-experts here? That smacks of a violation of WP:RS. The reliable sources are the astronomers, the mathematicians, the physicists, and the people who have actually studied the material. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * They may very well be expert book reviewers; the article already makes clear that they are not cosmologists or domain experts, and the attribution makes clear who they are. These sources are reliable for the attributed opinions of the reviewers, and nothing more is implied. Dicklyon (talk) 09:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The opinions of people who know nothing about the subject which they are reviewing are not germane to the encyclopedia. Why should they be? We should not be attributing the opinions of people who don't understand. We don't quote the local newspaper's stock book reviewer for their opinion on David Irving but instead quote researchers who are in the know. Same thing applies here. ScienceApologist (talk) 09:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Violation of the BRD process
Per WP:BRD I reverted Dicklyon's edits as being factually incorrect, erroneous, and POV-insertions into this article. Instead of trying to form a consensus around his changes, he simply reverted me back. Rather than engage in an edit war, I'm simply going to point out that his behavior is bald edit warring. I would encourage him to self-revert. I may also appeal this move to an arbitrator who is equipped to deal with pseudoscience promotion per the pseudoscience arbitration. I have placed the totally disputed tag on the page to indicate my extreme objections to the actions of this particular user.

ScienceApologist (talk) 07:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I have filed a report at Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Good idea. Maybe those tags and the attention you can get from arb enforcement will bring some less polarized editors to come have a look at the basis for your discomfort.  I'm actually quite perplexed, myself; see my comments on your changes in the section above. Dicklyon (talk) 07:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * And see my responses. I don't know why you've become a strident fringe-theory proponent, but that's what's happened now and we're going to have to come to terms with the matter. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know why you think I'm a proponent of this fringe theory; I find it interesting and worth presenting neutrally is all. By the way, what facts are in dispute in the book section?  Or is that tag not what you intended? Dicklyon (talk) 08:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Your edits make you a de facto fringe theory proponent. You may like his interesting pseudoscience, but to try to present it "neutrally" in the way you are doing is misleading. Eric's ideas are soundly rejected by everyone in the know, and that needs to be made clear. He is not on a level-playing field. The facts that he tries to dispute are still facts even though he disputes them. However, you seem to be content to teach the controversy. The facts that are in dispute are things such as the fact that Eric Lerner didn't refute all of Wright's discussed errors or the fact that the CMB is relic radiation from the big bang (and not just generally considered so). ScienceApologist (talk) 08:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

"Dr. Wright is Wrong"
Could someone else take a look at this source, and try to tell me how we can represent it better? SA keeps wanting to say that it supports the idea that Lerner only disagreed with "some" of Wrights assertions, but it plainly reads differently to me. Dicklyon (talk) 23:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Very problematic quote
Just as the medieval astronomers added epicycle after epicycle to Ptolemy's spheres in order to match his geocentric theories with observed planetary movement, so today cosmologists add dark matter to cosmic strings to inflation, papering over the yawning crevices in their theory.

So there are number of factual issues with this quote:


 * 1) There wasn't "epicycle upon epicycle" added to Ptolemaic theory. There was only one epicycle. Granted we're quoting an opinion of Lerner, but unfortunately, this "opinion" is actually asserting a lie.
 * 2) Cosmic strings are not a part of modern cosmology -- and never really were. There are some weird "beyond the big bang" theories that involve cosmic stringe, but this is a misnomer.
 * 3) Cosmologists didn't add dark matter to their theories to get them to agree with "yawning crevices". They used the observational evidence from observers and found that dark matter explained other cosmological observations. It is not vital to the Big Bang.

So what do we do? We are singling out a quote that includes a number of verifiable inaccurate points and we kinda leave it at that. There are two possibilities:


 * 1) Remove the quote due to the inaccuracies.
 * 2) Keep the quote, but point out the inaccuracies.

I am not convinced that this particular quote is prominent enough in the context of Lerner's book which is essentially dismissed out-of-hand and not point-by-point by those who disagree with him. Unlike Apollo moon landing hoax conspiracy theories which do have reliable third-party sources paying attention to the specific claims, no one has bothered to go point-by-point through Eric's book of nonsense because no one thinks it's that important.

So what do we do? I'm inclined right now to lean toward option #1. What do others think?

ScienceApologist (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Your alternatives 1 and 2 neatly omit the obvious choice. This is a quote from a controversial book, and succinctly illustrates the author's viewpoint.  He doesn't "lie" when he adopts the traditional notion of Deferent_and_epicycle as a metaphor for a theory being stretched past its useful limits.  You don't have to agree with it.  Cosmic strings were one more idea flying around cosmology when he wrote the book.  And he didn't say anything about agreeing with yawning crevices.  By the way, have you read the book?  And why do you say "They used the observational evidence from observers and found that dark matter explained other cosmological observations"?  What do you mean by observations explained observations?  It's all a set of theories and interpretations; he has different interpretations.  They don't have to be correct or agreeable for us to report that he wrote a book about them.  Dicklyon (talk) 05:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Um, you said there was an "obvious choice" but didn't say what it was. Should we point-out that he is using "slang" and not really discussing history here? I think so.


 * That cosmic strings were "flying around" is fine, but the statement makes implications that will easily mislead most readers into thinking they're part of cosmology.


 * The story of dark matter is: observations --> dark matter hypothesis --> integration into cosmology --> explanation for other observations. Lerner is implying dark matter was invented out of whole cloth to fix some problem. There are no other interpretations that work in this regard. MOND has not been successfully integrated into cosmology for example. One can try to be extremely revolutionary like Arp or Lerner (as a colleague of mine put it, it's not like they are "thinking outside the box", they're "stomping on the box and trying to destroy it") but that's not an interpretation as much as it is a vague skepticism.


 * So I agree that Lerner has interpretations, but the interpretations have consequences which are not currently addressed in our text. They probably need to be if we are going to keep this.


 * Yes, I have read the book. It's really quite bad from a scientific standpoint, though it's obvious that Eric's experience as a science writer made him able to concoct slick prose to fool the credulous.


 * ScienceApologist (talk) 06:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Here are 75 books you can consult about the connection between "cosmic strings" and the "big bang" in the time period that we're talking about. Do you think it was unfair of Lerner to mention that as part of modern cosmology that he was repudiating?  Do you actually know anything about cosmology, or are you just an astronomy student? Dicklyon (talk) 05:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It wasn't any more a part of cosmology than DGP theory is today. It's not that it's unfair of Lerner, he's just wrong. Read the references if you don't believe. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Source escalation
We had something of an uneasy truce at this page, but now with the insertion of all these new quotations from Lerner's book essentially looking like a soapbox, I think it fair in the spirit of WP:WEIGHT to reintroduce the professional critiques of Lerner's work that were removed in the past in the interest of WP:SUMMARY. I'd prefer the previous version, but there you go.

ScienceApologist (talk) 03:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Why would any wikipedia editor want to settle for the uneasy truce between two such conflicts guys? I started editing when I saw the sorry state of this article and how you kept picking at it.  I didn't realize how ABlake was a Lerner employee and thus not in a position to do anything but settle for it.  This is what you call a truce? Dicklyon (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Um, it was hardly "two guys". You really haven't read the archives, have you? ScienceApologist (talk) 06:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Some. It was pretty much you and ABlake stalemated recently, as far as I could tell.  Nobody else seems to be caring much nowadays; one wonders where they all go when input would be useful. Dicklyon (talk) 07:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Believe me, I have wondered this question many, many times. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Lots of quotes
Now we have 3 Lerner quotes, 6 negative review quotes, and 1 positive review quote. Can anyone think which way we ought to go with this to make it more balanced? Dicklyon (talk) 05:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Why don't we do a quick literature review of the relevant astronomical and physics journals to see how we should properly WP:WEIGHT this article? Looks to me like we may need a few more quotes from a few more legitimate scientists. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Or we could look at the hundreds of books] that talk about Lerner's book, and try to treat it more as they do. Most of them don't agree with it, but they write about it in  a way that pretty fairly represents the alternative ideas that he presents.  These are of course not written by cosmologists, because no cosmologist is going to want to dignify such a radical alternative with any attention.  That's just the way scientific paradigms operate.  But wikipedia isn't run by cosmologists.  Nobody here needs to feel awkward about discussing alternative cosmologies. Dicklyon (talk) 05:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I encourage you to read those books (many of which mention Lerner so incidentally as to be ridiculous) and come back to us. You will find that the preponderance of reliable sources is verifying what I'm saying here. Of course, you should be careful to look at who wrote them. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, most of them reveal his ideas. All you're saying here is that people should see the reviewers' debunkings more than the ideas that are central to the topic of this article. Dicklyon (talk) 06:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No, most of them do not reveal them as much as we do here or at plasma cosmology. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * But look at the balance; many don't say much, it's true, but do any of them spend more space trashing it than telling what it says? I doubt it.  Here's a really interesting discussion of the big bang debates around that time (not all pages are there, sadly).  Lerner gets a bit of coverage, but not a lot. Dicklyon (talk) 07:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * We aren't spending any time "trashing it", we're just trying to contextualize is, as far as I can tell. The issue is one of reliablity, verifiability, and the responsiblity of a mainstream encyclopedia to give readers the most accurate information possible. My editorial opinion is that the sources now quoted provide the necessary counterweight to the credulity oozing from Lerner's prose and the annonymous reviewer from the Chicago Tribune.


 * As for the book you mention, it's not a particularly reliable source in this area. Helge Kragh wrote a better account of the situation than that one. In particular, the authors think that Ostriker and Steinhardt were saying something other than what they actually said. In other words, not a reliable source on the history, though I admit they do paint a picture that is a vague characture of what happened. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Activism / LaRouche
I propose the following bit about his political activism. I believe it meets all of the criteria for inclusion. ABlake (talk) 14:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Lerner has also been involved in political activism. He has sought civil rights protection for immigrants as a member and spokesman for the New Jersey Civil Rights Defense Committee.

I think that's fine, but I think that this also meets all of the criteria for its inclusion. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * He was a former follower of Lyndon LaRouche who left the movement after being pressured to funnel money from a desalination company he started into the US Labor Party.


 * I can't speak for how reliable the source is, but assuming it is fine, how about this verbiage, which puts it into a little better context:
 * "Lerner's activism led to his involvement for a time with the National Caucus of Labor Committees and the US Labor Party, led by Lyndon LaRouche. A company had been formed to promote Lerner's water desalinization invention. When Lerner was allegedly pressured to funnel the profits to the US Labor Party, he quit the movement and sued."
 * This captures the situation and hopefully avoids the negative association that was argued over before, if you remember. ABlake (talk) 00:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks okay to me except for the bit about "allegedly pressured". I think we should say something like "Lerner testified that he was pressured to funnel the profits to the US Labor Party causing him to quit the movement and sue."


 * How about that?


 * ScienceApologist (talk) 01:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I added the LaRouche stuff to my proposed page here. Comments? ABlake (talk) 02:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, your draft is quite problematic from my perspective. It doesn't detail at all how marginalized Lerner is from the academic communities. The current version does a much better job of this. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to look at any source you might have that details that marginalization. If you can find a good source, I'll include it. Otherwise, I think I've done a pretty good job of getting the meat and cutting the fat. ABlake (talk) 02:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You eliminated more than half of the sources that are currently being used in this article that indicate just that. Take your pick. They're all reliable (many moreso than most of Lerner's ramblings). Otherwise, I'm afraid consensus for your revision is something you do not currently have. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Some notable people don't agree with him. OK, noted and documented. Beleaguering the point smacks of target fixation. See WP:UNDUE, Impartial Tone. ABlake (talk) 16:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the issue is that Lerner's point is totally dismissed. It's not just that the notable people don't agree with him, it's that everybody disagrees with him for very straightforward and easy to explain reasons. Reasons that we refer to in this article but not in your version. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So Lerner doesn't agree with them for very straightforward and easy to explain reasons. So what? As WP:UNDUE, Impartial tone discusses (did you even look at it?), this is not the place to bring the arguments. In my version, I appropriately say that there was some controversy over it, give citations, and leave it at that. I believe that is the appropriate weight to give to some opinion-page banter. I understand that it is your desire and intention (AGF) to ensure that the world knows just what a kook Lerner is. Might I suggest that WP is not the correct venue? It's an encyclopedia. ABlake (talk) 02:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Your version is dishonest. There isn't any controversy over it. It is simply an intellectually bankrupt backwater. We have the verifiable sources of Nobel Prize winning physicists explaining why Lerner's ideas are not worth the paper upon which they're written, and it is the job of verifiable, reliable encyclopedias to let readers know this so that they can really understand the context of this particular person. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You certainly have a flair for hyperbole. There was a controversy, and it is referenced appropriately. Controversy=discussion of opposing viewsABlake (talk) 14:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The controversy existed only as invented by Lerner. Nobody really took him all that seriously in the community and although he may have gotten some level of popular support judging by the discussion of his book, this is not a controversy happening within the scientific community. Lerner is shut-out. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * SA, I think you're right. Lerner is marginalized, but the current sources were poor examples of that. They only argued about scientific points, without specifically saying, "Hey, Lerner and his cohorts are marginalized." However, as I was thinking about it more, I had an idea. Lerner himself talks about that marginalization in the open letter in New Scientist. So, hey, problem solved! ABlake (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the New Scientist letter does indicate that they themselves admit to marginalization. Unfortunately, it doesn't explain why he's marginalized. For that we need the sources you want to excise. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Which sources are you referring to? The only one that hints of those reasons for marginalization is the personal blog of Sean Carroll. The others merely point out perceived discrepancies in Lerner's arguments. I "excised" Carroll's because it violates WP:SPS, "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." Seems pretty clear to me. I "excised" the Stenger citation because it was also self published and didn't add anything to the article. I suppose I could add it to my version, but then I would be obligated to put in Lerner's self-published rebuttal. Either way, I don't care, as long as it's balanced (without undue weight either way). I'd prefer to leave them out unless they really, truly add some sort of value, which I doubt. At least the Stenger quote comes from a RS that we can actually use. I propose deleting the Carroll link for reasons I just cited. I think the correct and RS way to show that marginalization is through the New Scientist letter. ABlake (talk) 02:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * These aren't just "perceived" discrepancies. They are really big problems with Lerner's intellectual integrity, understanding, and capability. You are also misapplying SPS. Carroll is criticizing Lerner's entire pathos, not just him personally. In fact, he doesn't single Lerner out at all. But that's important because Lerner's attempts to critique the Big Bang need to be properly contextualized as marginal and as intellectually bankrupt as the relevant community thinks they are. The problem is that you are trying to "balance" an elephant and a mouse: Lerner's ideas simply do not hold a candle to those who criticize him and it is Wikipedia's repsonsibility to get that across. Unfortunately, it is becoming clear to me that you haven't quite grasped this yet. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not misapplying SPS. You're ignoring it. This is a BLP. If you want to argue the merits (or lack thereof) of plasma cosmology, Carroll's commentary may be appropriate on that page. Your straw man arguments aren't helping. I'm working the content issue, which is that the Carroll line is not up to snuff according to policy. It is becoming abundantly clear to me that you are failing to distinguish between a BLP and a fringe science article. I believe that is the root cause of this discussion. ABlake (talk) 13:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You are misapplying it, and you're becoming very shrill in this discussion. This has nothing to do with plasma cosmology (which is not discussed by Carroll in any case): it has to do with the idiosyncratic beliefs of the subject of this article: beliefs for which he has received a moderate amount of notability that is the only reason this article exists. Carroll's critique of Lerner's (and others of his ilk) position vis-a-vis the establishment of academia is vital for readers who are not familiar the situation. I'm afraid we aren't going to make any progress. I hope that Eric isn't telling you to advocate this way. I'm not sure that someone who is as emotionally and financially involved with his madcap endeavors as you are should be consulting on this article. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Nobody is pushing me to advocate for this. I also think we're not going to make any progress on this, so we'll just agree to disagree. Cheers. ABlake (talk) 13:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I referenced the critical material that we've been discussing, and I updated the Carroll link, which didn't include a subsequent blog entry. So, did we come to an agreement on the activism stuff? ABlake (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I have added the material concerning Eric Lerner's civil rights activism to the article. However, Dennis King's political attack book "Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism" is not even close to a sufficiently reliable source to make a certain controversial claim: it is unacceptable to use political extremist sources to make controversial claims relating to third parties. To describe Dennis King's anti-LaRouche diatribe as extremist is quite an understatement -- Godwin's Law, anyone? John254 03:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * King's book was issued by a major publisher, and well-reviewed in the mainstream media. If you have any reliable sources that impeach its accuracy then please cite them. Otherwise, the book qualifies as a reliable source on Wikipedia. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Erik Lerner's own book "The Big Bang Never Happened" was published by Times Books, a division of Random House -- but it's hardly a reliable source for anything except its own contents as described in this article. We're certainly not going to use "The Big Bang Never Happened" as a source for mainstream cosmology articles such as Physical Cosmology or Big Bang.  Mere printing of a book "by a major publisher" does not conclusively indicate its reliability when there are otherwise very good reasons to doubt it.  Do you have any sources to support the claim that "Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism" was "well-reviewed in the mainstream media"?  In any event, the remedies and enforcement in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche strongly council against any mention of Lyndon LaRouche in what is, at best, a tangentially related article. Let's avoid importing the Lyndon LaRouche conflict into this biography. John254 05:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have any sources to support your views on the King book? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If we're going to claim that "Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism" is a reliable source because clearly reliable sources attest to its reliability, then we very much need to see the sources that support Dennis King's book. However, we do not, as a general matter, require that source reliability be proven by references to additional sources, nor can we, because of a problem of infinite recursion.  Suppose that we wish to show that source A is reliable.  Let us further assume that the only means by which we can establish source A's reliability is by citation to a source B which claims that source A is reliable.  But now we need a source C to establish source B's reliability, and so on, so we cannot establish the reliability of anything.  Source reliability is therefore, at a very fundamental level, a subjectively evaluated quality of the source itself.  We need to cite further sources for claims of source reliability or unreliability only where such claims expressly assert the existence of such sources. John254 05:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

If you have an issue with this, take it to WP:RSN. But don't try to push content that hasn't been agreed to. There is consensus above for inclusion of all of it. Please include all of it or none of it. Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The "[inclusion of] all of it or none of it" isn't a consensus, it's your own ultimatum. There are good reasons to believe that respected newspapers are reliable sources for uncontroversial claims concerning Eric Lerner's civil rights activism, but a political attack book comparing Lyndon LaRouche to Adolph Hitler isn't a reliable source for establishing your highly controversial claim that Eric Lerner "was a former follower of Lyndon LaRouche". John254 05:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If I understnad correctly, the book is proposed as a source for this sentence:
 * He was a former follower of Lyndon LaRouche who left the movement after being pressured to funnel money from a desalination company he started into the US Labor Party.[3]
 * Which part of that is contested? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The entire sentence is contested. Any mention of Lyndon LaRouche in this substantially unrelated article is contested as inconsistent with the remedies and enforcement in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche, while the use of a political attack book is contested as being an unreliable source for making a controversial claim concerning a living person. John254 05:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * According to whom is it a "political attack book"? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * According to a reasonable reader, who would view the comparison between Lyndon LaRouche and Adolph Hitler as a nasty political attack on LaRouche. John254 05:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not adequate. You haven't shown that any part of the book is inaccurate, and you're just giving your personal opinion. As for Lerner, the same assertions are also in a Wall Street Journal piece co-written by King and Patricia Lynch, an NBC news producer. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * An article co-written by the author of the political attack book may not be a reliable source. John254 05:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The bit that ScienceApologist just removed doesn't appear to be related to that, and as far as I can tell from the discussion above, there was no question as to whether it was acceptable, so I don't understand his remarks here. I'm going to put it back. Dicklyon (talk) 05:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It also appears that the LaRouche relationship appeared in the WSJ, which would be a better source (still written by King, but presumbly got past an editor at least). Dicklyon (talk) 05:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * While I wouldn't use this as a direct source, this page of contemporary history indicates that Lerner wrote a paper on the LaRouche Campaigns views of science. Lerner is also mentioned in this LaRouche essay. If John254 is asserting that there was no relationship between LaRouche and Lerner then I don't think that's supported by the evidence. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Has he asserted anything like that? Not that I've noticed. Dicklyon (talk) 05:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That’s correct: I haven't claimed that there was no connection between Eric Lerner and Lyndon LaRouche. What I have asserted is that the alleged connection cannot be established via reliable sources.  Per Verifiability, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". John254 06:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * i still haven't seen any substantial reason why the King book and article should be excluded, beyond John254's opinion. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I certainly don't think the pages that Will Beback links above would be confused with reliable sources, and I agree that the King stuff looks pretty wild, but he did get an article in the WSJ, it appears; assuming that article is verified to exist, is that not a sufficiently reliable source to say something about the connection? Dicklyon (talk) 06:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing the LaRouche paragraph, I have to agree with John254 that the web site is not a reliable source. Therefore, I'm withdrawing my agreement to have it in the article, and I'm removing it from my proposed Lerner page. I suggest that it also be removed from the article unless and until there is broader support for its inclusion. ABlake (talk) 04:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not just a website, it's a published book. Do you not think that the book is a reliabe source? If so, why? I don't think that Lerner's civil rights activities are any more reliably covered than this particular activity which, to me, seems just as relevant to the reader as anything else we propose here. Did you talk to Lerner about this? ScienceApologist (talk) 05:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The web site is based on the book. The book was published by a real publisher, but John254 suggested that it was a political attack book. I looked up the ISBN number in the reference section, which led to the Book Sources page, where I clicked on Find this book at Google Book Search, which led me to this description: "Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism‎, by Dennis King - Biography & Autobiography - 1989 - 415 pages, This is a searing portrait of the man, his ideology, and the cult that surrounds him." This description (as well as a simple reading of the book) indicate to me that this is a political attack book. John254 suggested that "it is unacceptable to use political extremist sources to make controversial claims relating to third parties." The lines in the article make a serious and controversial claim, which Eric has already energetically challenged as being untrue and libelous. This is the fundamental difference between the LaRouche information and the other civil rights activities. I'm not challenging whether there was an association, or whether it is relevant to the reader. The nature of the source as well as the untrue nature of the claims make these lines unacceptable. As this article is a BLP, editors must be very cautious about what information to include, and how it is included. In this case, untrue and potentially damaging information should be speedily removed. ABlake (talk) 17:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting link. I hadn't realized that User:ScienceApologist has such a clear WP:COI.  I recommend that he stop trying to smear Lerner, and refrain from editing controversial material in which he has a professional interest, given his strongly declared bias. Dicklyon (talk) 17:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If Lerner has disputed the assertions in a reliable or self-published source then we should certainly report that. However the King book meets the requirements for WP:RS and WP:V. We shouldn't delete material just because we disagree with it. If the material is untrue and libelous then the subject has full recourse against the publisher and author. So far as I'm aware, he's never taken any action against them. User:Elerner confirms that he was a member of the LaRouche organization.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that's a very backward interpretation of WP:BLP; see especially where it says, "Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability." This is a clear case of wanting to smear Lerner by association, using a source that is clearly biased and not even about him, and obviously has no role in Lerner's notability.  Dicklyon (talk) 20:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Dick posted in his response before I could, but just happened to say the same thing. Here is what I posted and moved here. "Will, in addition to WP:RS and WP:V, we have to consider WP:BLP in this case. As an admin, I assumed you would be familiar with this idea from BLP: "(Removed quote to save space.)" In the case of this reference, was the book about Eric Lerner specifically? No. Is there any guilt by association implied? Yes (LaRouche). Is there biased or malicious content (as Lerner pointed out in the link above)? Yes. Is there a clear relevance to Lerner's notability? No. To me, this reference fails on all four accounts, and should be removed. Since I have a COI, I'm abstaining from doing it myself. Otherwise, I would. ABlake (talk) 20:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)"


 * I've reverted the outright deletion, but removed the part about the business and lawsuit. This material is based on a reliable, third party sources. No one disputes that Lerner was a member of the NCLC, and user:Elerner has confirmed it. There is nothing biased about including this basic, biographical information. The subject is notable because of his scholarship and advocacy of what we describe as a "non-standard cosmology". The LaRouche movement is also associated with non-standard theories on a variety of topics, including astrophysics. So the subject's association with that groups is relevant to his notability. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The article contains several other references to political activism by the subject. I'd like to hear why editors think some of these are appropriate while others are not.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Will. I agree with your analysis of the situation. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Will, I took out the U. S. Labor Party bit, as I didn't see any support for that in the King chapter. And I took out the mention of LaRouche, which didn't seem to have any relevance.  The mention of his involvement in the NCLC itself is not derogatory, so doesn't require particularly reliable sourcing, so it's OK. Dicklyon (talk) 03:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The US Labor Party is in the King Book and the connection to LaRouche is extremely important as there is likely a philosophical connection. LaRouche himself advocates an infinite universe and whether he was influenced by Lerner or the other way around, the reader should be aware of the connection which is made clear from the source. Therefore, I reverted per WP:BRD. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If there's a scientific relevance to the connection with LaRouche, you should say so and source it. I saw where King mentioned U. S. Labor Party in the same sentence of Lerner, but it didn't say he was associated with it in any way.  So it's out. Dicklyon (talk) 04:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In order to quell the edit warring which has and probably will take place over the activism stuff, I'm removing all activism-related info from the article. I think this is an appropriate measure until it can be sorted out on the talk page. This is a reasonable step because Lerner isn't known for his activism anyway, and SA has already proposed having the LaRouche quote or none of it. That's probably a wise compromise for now in order to turn down the heat. ABlake (talk) 04:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This was the agreement we had before. I'm fine with it. If it is really a BLP-related issue to discuss Lerner's political history, we should leave it out entirely. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Why can't we just work on getting well sourced material consistent with BLP? It's clear that SA's agenda is to remove as much positive stuff, and add as much negative stuff, as he can get away with, since that helps in his campaign to discredit Eric Lerner and frame his controversial ideas as "pseudoscience."  Aren't their any editors around who are willing to call him on it and try for a more neutral article in the spirit of wikipedia policy and guidelines?  Why should we agree to having his political activism work removed just because we don't let SA say things not supported even by the flaky source he cites?  Why should we let SA talk about LaRouche in the Lerner article on the flimsiest of sources?  Neither makes any sense.  I'm putting it back... Dicklyon (talk) 04:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

While the rhetoric is flying fast and thick, I have one question, why is Eric Lerner's political activities of any interest to an enyclopedia reader? Isn't it mostly a private affair? He is notable for his pseudoscientific ideas, not for his politics. Furthermore, if anyone has any problems with the book that was published by a reliable publisher and looks to me to be well-regarded, simply take it up on WP:RSN. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT seems to be a pretty perennial problem here. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know about rhetoric, but I have a very different view of the problem here. It seems to me, reading the article and the sources, that Eric Lerner's activism is a big part of who he is.  And further that your anti-Lerner campaign is based on a particular conflict of interest of yours, as Eric himself pointed out here (if this has been discussed before, sorry, I've missed it; let me know if you've either declared this conflict of interest, or denied it). Dicklyon (talk) 06:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, Lerner has an extreme persecution complex. He believes that I'm being paid by my academic advisers to dig up all the sources that criticized him because we mainstream cosmologists are so threatened by his exposition of The Truth. Yeah, I've denied it before and I'll deny it again, my interest in Lerner is no different than my interest in any other fringe/pseudo-science topic/persona. You could try reading the archives here, at Talk:Plasma cosmology and at Talk:Big Bang for more. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Per your suggestions, I'm seeking comments on the source as it applies to the "guilt-by-association" statements here: Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Dicklyon (talk) 07:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Coming from BLP/N, my personal view is I'm not seeing compelling evidence either way re: the political activism in immigration section. The WP refs only seem mentions Eric as a spokesperson. I can't read the full version of The Record one but I presume its similar. In that case, it's not that great a ref since it's incidental to Eric. One the otherhand, being spokesperson for a group is generally a prominent and highly public role so it's not something we should definitely exclude especially with a ref from a prominent newspaper (WP). If we could get a another ref or two particularly from prominent sources I would lean to include. Even better though would be if the activism is mentioned in an aritcle about Eric or an interview with Eric. In terms of the LaRouche thing I have to say exclude based on what I've seen. I haven't read the ref but I'm presuming it simply mentions Eric briefly. In that case and given he was simply a member I would definitely have to say exclude even more so since the book while perhaps an RS doesn't seem that notable. If the book mentions Eric's involvement in detail (say 10 paragraphs or more long) then I may reconsider. Nil Einne (talk) 15:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The book mentions Lerner only in one four-sentence paragraph, and it's not really even about him: Dicklyon (talk) 06:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.

(Following this here from the note on BLP/N, and copying this comment from RSN). Will Beback says above that Lerner's political activism is a constant and important part of his life. If this is the case, and can be demonstrated by more than the brief mentions in the King book and piece in the WSJ (which is, I'm guessing, an op-ed?) then it makes sense to include a political activism section in the article. As to whether Lerner can be described as a "follower of LaRouche" or "LaRouchian" (or a formerly either) -- my opinion is that the sources don't support that. King's identification of Lerner as a LaRouchian seems off-hand, and he hasn't given details that would support that description. An association with an organization led or founded by LaRouche, or subordinate to another organization that is, doesn't make Lerner a "follower" any more than being a Democrat or Republican makes one a "follower" of Obama or Bush.

I'm not sure its established that inclusion of the political activism material is necessary for this article, but if that is agreed then here is the version of the sentence above that I suggest:


 * "In the 1970s, Lerner became involved in the National Caucus of Labor Committees, an offshoot of the Columbia University Students for a Democratic Society. Lerner left the National Caucus in 1978, and later argued in a lawsuit that he had been pressured to (but did not) illegaly channel profits of an engineering firm to the US Labor Party, an organization led by Lyndon LaRouche."

Is that an improvement? It doesn't represent him as a LaRouche follower, or inaccurately claim a connection to the US Labor Party, but it does note his connection to the NCLC and the lawsuit that followed his disassociation with that group. Avruch  T 15:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's an improvement over any of the versions that SA wrote, but is it really necessary to go into why he left the NCLC, when all we know about it is the offhand comment by King in his LaRouche attack book? I don't see how it helps the article, and I don't see why the King source would be judge reliable enough to include such a thing as fact.  I think it still fails the bit I quoted from BLP. Dicklyon (talk) 06:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I just came across this Op-Ed piece, written by a researcher at the Heritage Foundation. While it doesn't mentioon Lerner by name, it seems relevant to our discussions here: Since it doesn't mention Lerner we can't use it as a source for this article but it's useful background.  Will Beback   talk    10:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * During the last several years, the Fusion Energy Foundation has succeeded in gaining the confidence, albeit for short periods of time, of a variety of respected scientists. By sponsoring conferences on nuclear energy, they are able to dupe some of these individuals into lending their organization a patina of undeserved credibility. Worse, there is the danger of potentially damaging the reputations of those involved since LaRouche and his followers have never hesitated to drop names at every opportunity.
 * Radicals Ride on Legitimate Issues By MILT COPULOS Heritage Features Syndicate— PAGE FOUR—THE TITUSVILLE HERALD, Titutville, Pa., Thursday, April 14, 1983

COI proposal
I propose that User:ABlake and User:ScienceApologist agree to not edit this article, since each of them has a too-strong conflict of interest and POV. Of course, both are welcome to mention errors and to propose corrections and improvements here on the talk page. I think the remaining editors, if not quite neutral, are at least not so conflicted that they can't work together to improve the article. OK? Dicklyon (talk) 08:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not OK. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This isn't best place to decide something like this proposal, but I support it. I think the named editors have a hard time editing this article with the neutral point of view. Solutions like this have their own problems that also need to be discussed. Would either a WP:AN thread or a WP:RFAR motion under the 2006 case be most appropriate? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Since it's not OK with SA, we'll have to pursue other methods. There's an RFAR case ongoing already about him at .  I recommend people post relevant evidence there  (at, that is). Dicklyon (talk) 10:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you outline what you think their conflicts of interest are? They have an opinion, that is clear enough, but they don't appear to be alone in that. Having a COI, by the way, isn't an automatic bar to contributing to a particular topic. Avruch  T 14:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * SA is running near the edge of what's allowable in Wikipedia in other areas, and should probably cool down here, but it's not a COI issue. ABlake almost certainly does have a COI, but he hasn't made improper edits in the article lately.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think ABlake knows that he has indeed made an inappropriate edit recently, and think that when an editor like SA has a bit of a COI and is running close to the edge of what's acceptable, that's unacceptable. But I understand we may assess things differently. Dicklyon (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "Running close to the edge of what's acceptable" is "unacceptable"? Don't follow. Unless you know something I don't know, SA does not have a COI in the sense of WP:COI. Period. --Art Carlson (talk) 18:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * My point was that behaviors "close to the edge" are less acceptable in a conflicted editor than in a neutral editor. You don't need to agree, just an opinion of mine. Dicklyon (talk) 18:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think the golden standard of COI is the question: is there a legitimate concern that the editor's edits are being done in a way to improve their financial gain? So for example, I have real concerns when people who run startup companies that promote pseudoscience edit Wikipedia, or when people who run alternative medicine clinics edit articles about the alternative medicine to make it seem more effective. It's easy to imagine an investor or a patient looking up information on the internet and taking the top Google hit at face value.

Could one argue that by spending my time making sure the general understanding of Lerner's marginalization is described on Wikipedia, I might be able to win an NSF grant that he and I both apply for? The cost-benefit analysis in this regard defies rationality, but rarely are COIs rational, I guess. However, such a COI, if it did exist would assume two things: 1) the reviewers of grant proposals were consulting Wikipedia articles to determine whether they should award the grant, 2) that Lerner was a serious competitor in the field in which I'm applying for grants. I think both of these assumptions are unreasonable.

ScienceApologist (talk) 07:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * So you're saying that you don't have a COI because your interest isn't monetary? How quaint. Dicklyon (talk) 07:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What standard do you use? ScienceApologist (talk) 07:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The first two paragraphs of WP:COI are about all that is needed to understand the concept. Putting an objective standard on it is harder, and I haven't attempted to do so. Dicklyon (talk) 07:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * To be more specific, I see two conflicts: (1) your commitment to debunking, scientific and mainstream POV, etc., prevent you from advancing WP's NPOV agenda; (2) your "closeness" to the astrophysics stuff is a problem that makes you particularly biased in this article, it seems (and as Eric Lerner told you a long time ago); see where it says:


 * Any situation where strong relationships can develop may trigger a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest can be personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal. It is not determined by area, but is created by relationships that involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon, a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization.


 * Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you towards some bias. Be guided by the advice of other editors. If editors on a talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, try to identify and minimize your biases, and consider withdrawing from editing the article. As a rule of thumb, the more involvement you have with a topic in real life, the more careful you should be with our core content policies — Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Verifiability — when editing in that area.

What "commitment do I have to debunking"? I actively acknowledge and promote the idea that it is not Wikipedia's job to debunk. I also actively acknowledge and promote the idea that when a subject has been debunked credibly, it is the job of this encyclopedia to let the reader know. I'm interested to know what "strong relationships" you think are triggering the conflict of interest. I don't know Lerner personally, I believe we have similar religious and perhaps even political views, Lerner is wholly outside the academic community so I have no conflict with him over that, financial we've already covered and legal... well... let's just say I'm not the one who has threatened lawsuits on Wikipedia. As to whether I have a "bias", I firmly believe that everyone has a bias and it is the job of us as Wikipedia editors to put that bias aside and try to write as well as we can. Obviously, not everyone is successful at performing this task. There are many who think I'm famously unsuccessful at performing this task, but I believe they are in error and I think that there are many who agree with me. I have almost zero involvement with Eric Lerner or plasma cosmology in real life. The only interactions I've had with this occurred years ago when someone mentioned plasma cosmology in a research class I was taking and I recounted the history of the subject as I learned it in doing research for Wikipedia. But that's it. So what, I ask you, is my conflict of interest? ScienceApologist (talk) 07:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Tags
I am removing the disruptive the tags placed by SA. After reviewing the changes, I can not se how the additions made User:Dicklyon can make the article totally-disputed. Also, I do not think Lyndon LaRouche needs to be mentioned twice to make the article less disputed. --Petri Krohn (talk) 08:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

- P.S. - Why can't you ScienceApologist use your skills to attack something really pesudo-scientific, like the Baltic occupation myth. It might relieve your stress - and help you find new friends :-) -- Petri Krohn (talk) 08:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This has nothing to do with LaRouche. Please do not remove the tags that are in the section. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This isn't pseudoscientific enough for you? ScienceApologist (talk) 08:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay. In deference to specificity, I tagged all the statements I find problematic with the appropriate tags. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought those were pretty silly at first, but they've actually been quite helpful. I've taken a whack at fixing a few of the problems.  See if you agree. Dicklyon (talk) 09:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This change is fabulous. ScienceApologist (talk) 09:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The explication of some of Eric's claims are fine, except we must let the reader know the outstanding issues with them. Superclusters and voids are the products of an inflationary initial condition. Lerner's claims about dark matter are somewhat more difficult to parse. The phrasing puts the cart before the horse. Dark matter is not an integral part of the Big Bang: if Dark Matter did not exist, that wouldn not mean the Big Bang couldn't occur. ScienceApologist (talk) 09:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * SA, if I understand you correctly, you agree that Lerner claimed that dark matter is essential to the Big Bang model, but you dispute the accuracy of the claim itself. Problem is that if we write detailed rebuttals of each one of Lerner's claims, then that is OR. Pointing to sources that discuss and refute Lerner's claims is fine; pointing out that Lerner's claims are at odds with mainstream scientific opinion is fine; writing detailed explanations of why we may personally disagree with his claims is, I think, not fine. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, that's not what I was saying. I was saying that the argument as presented does not align with the way Lerner argues. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that inserted rebuttal in the parenthetical after forcing us to specify the claims was just too ridiculous. If you feel a need to debunk the claims, let's talk about a structure for doing so.  Seems to me that quoting experts who disagree with him is already pretty much done and enough.


 * I've been nibbling away at the tags. There are a few "specify" tags that SA is probably addressing to himself, as they will help to support the POV of the critics of theory, so I'll leave those to him.  Let me know if there are any remaining issues where I have removed tags. Dicklyon (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There's still a "reliable source?" tag for the Chicago Tribune book review quote. I'll repeat my request here: if someone can point me at the alleged previous consensus about quoting only cosmology experts about the book, I'll take a look at it and try to understand what's the issue here.  Seems to me absurd to mention that there are positive reviews and then not quote any just because someone with SPOV thinks that only the scientists whose work is being criticized are allowed to have their opinions represented here. Dicklyon (talk) 22:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Start reading here and continue till you get bored. Essentially, the involved parties agreed to Mangojuice's judgment which was why sourced quotations were limited. Of course, WP:CCC. So we discuss again. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, quite fascinating, actually; I had no idea you had been disgusting people on this page for so long! But I don't find the consensus you're talking about, so I guess we have to try again.  I do agree with MangoJuice's expressed opinion that too many quoted reactions is a bad thing, and that's where we are again. Dicklyon (talk) 06:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * For now, I've added tags questioning the source reliability for the various blogs and the Penzias opinion; Arno is a cool guy, but he's been away from Cosmology for a long time, so it's not clear why he would be expected to have any relevant expertise at this point. Dicklyon (talk) 06:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You need to state your objections explicitly, or it will be removed for being tendentious. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I just did. Two blogs and a non-expert. Dicklyon (talk) 06:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Blogs are reliable when they are written by experts. See WP:SPS. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Non-scientists commenting on Eric Lerner
Let's have the conversation again, since I was informed that the conversation took place on a noticeboard rather than at the article talk page. The fact is that the Chicago Tribune's writers who do not have science degrees are not on parity with the other scientists reviewing the book. Since the Chicago Tribune makes scientific judgments in their review, their review is rejected as being an unreliable source. Only experts should be commenting on the quality of scientific argumentation, not anonymous newspaper writers. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Why does it require a science degree to be on parity with book reviewers on a topic of pseudoscience, as you call it? And why can't you point me at the previous discussion?  And why does "parity" trump "balance"? Dicklyon (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Since well-known experts commented on the book, it is not a good idea to include the opinions of non-experts as a false means of "balance". It's like writing an article on creationism and quoting biologists who dispute creationists and then a journalist who supports it. See the problem? Science owns this subject, not journalism. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree. Once science (and the Wikipedia science project) has disowned a subject, by categorizing it as "pseudoscience" or "fringe science", it no longer owns it - no more than articles on fictional characters - like the Pokémon. Pseudosciense can be written as writing about fiction, as long as it is categorized as such. Besides, this article is about a person, not a sciencific theory. If his books get favorable reviews in the press and it helps him sell more books, then the reviews are notable. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Science can no more "disown" a subject that is purview to its gaze than can arithmetic omit certain numbers on the number line. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I can point you to a previous discussion, but it's not entirely worth it because it has been vandalized by people who came to the discussion months after it concluded. What I need to do is cull through the history of the diffs, which I do not have time to do right now. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

SPOV seal of approval?
Maybe real science articles should have some kind of WikiProject Science seal of approval to indicate that they present a scientific point-of-view. Content would then be decided not by WP:NPOV but the more restictive rules enforced by SA. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It is an unfortunate choice of words to say that science "owns" this subject, even more so because we are at Eric Lerner, not at Plasma cosmology. It is true that Lerner packages his ideas as science and wants them to be considered science, so it is unavoidable to report how science evaluates those ideas. Even if Lerner didn't care what mainstream science thinks, he is making falsifiable statements about the physical world, so we owe it to the reader to show how those statements do or don't fit in with everything else we know about the physical world. I'm not sure exactly what to do with the book reviews here, but at a minimum we need to clearly distinguish between the reaction of the scientific establishment to the content of the book and the reaction of journalists to the style (a la, "right or wrong, a fascinating tale and a good read"). --Art Carlson (talk) 12:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Obviously the proposal is totally sarcastic, but it does sound like SA's approach. The trouble is that you can't really do an encyclopedic job of describing the ideas of fringe or marginalized or pseudo science from the science point of view.  The ideas need to be communicated first for what they are; then it's fine to say that they're rejected by mainstream science.  Nobody has objected to reporting "how science evaluates those ideas," which seems to be Art's worry above.  As to the attitude that "he is making falsifiable statements about the physical world, so we owe it to the reader to show how those statements do or don't fit in with everything else we know about the physical world," I couldn't disagree more.  We owe it to the world to report reactions in reliable sources; especially falsifications or claims of falsifications.  But it's not our job to debunk the ideas.  Furthermore, the whole problem with the scientific point of view, which has been elaborated in many books, is that the scientific establishment gets hung up on their paradigmatic interpretations of experimental evidence, to point of being blinded to the possible value of fringe ideas; I'm not saying we should push fringe ideas, but our balance should be based on the historical recognition that every now and then one of these fringe ideas turns out to be right.  There's no need to argue over that in every fringe or pseudoscience article; just report what's out there, focusing on the topic, with a reasonable weight given to reactions against it.  You can't have a sensible article on Eric Lerner written from the point of view of the scientists that he says are full of it, but certainly do need to include their reactions in the article about Lerner and his ideas. Dicklyon (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no problem reporting Lerner's ideas. There is an issue when he makes dubious assertions that are misleading enough to be of questionable encyclopedic value. In other words, Lerner's book is reliable source for the fact that he has opinions, but the point of this section is that he goes beyond his opinion and begins asserting facts that are false and certainly not verifiable. I guess what I'm saying is, find a better quote that doesn't delve into factual inaccuracies. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

"Refuses to accept"
SA, your recent wording "refusing to accept" seems appropriate more to you. Can you not accept that a person can have their own opinions? I don't think that the book can be taken as verification that he "refuses to accept" any particular aspect of modern science. Sure, he doesn't accept them, but why call that a refusal? Can't he have his own viewpoint based on Alfvén's plasma physics studies? Dicklyon (talk) 23:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't follow your argument. Are you saying he does accept those aspects of modern science? ScienceApologist (talk) 02:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course not; he explicitly rejects those. But "refuses to accept" makes it sound like someone has been petitioning him and that it has been decided that he's just stubborn, as opposed to being a serious personal with an alternative theory.  I know that's what you'd like to to sound like, but if you don't have reliable sources that put it that way, why do you think wikipedia should be spinning it that way? Dicklyon (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I see what you're saying now. I didn't intend for Wikipedia to spin it that Lerner was stubborn. He is stubborn, but that's not the reason he doesn't accept evidence for dark matter. He is simply not familiar enough with the literature and the data to understand it. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That's false. Jon (talk) 13:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Anxiously awaiting an explanation
Looks like tit-for-tat editing to me in response to my questioning of the reliability of sources who are not experts in the subject providing reviews. I await Dick's rationale. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by "tit-for-tat"? Dicklyon (talk) 06:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Your tagging with very little in the way of explanation looks to me like it's in response to my tagging of the two non-experts as unreliable. What, praytell, makes New Wright unreliable? I anxiously await your response (Actually, I'll be I know what you're going to say because we've had these discussions on this page for a very long time and there's nothing new that you're doing that hasn't been tried before by supporters of Lerner.) ScienceApologist (talk) 06:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Beginning again
Let's try to frame this discussion in terms of context. What do we want the reader to get away from when reading about Eric's book? I propose the following:


 * 1) Describe the context in which the book was written. We can use Helge Kragh's book as a source.
 * 2) Describe the tone of Eric's book and the public/expert dichotomy in reactions (a classic example of hucksterism, according to Stenger)
 * 3) Describe the essential features of the arguments Eric makes (carefully -- without pandering to any POV. Trying to assert facts rather than opinions).
 * 4) Describe the current state of the book.
 * 5) Avoid direct quotations. They're too acrimonious.

Does this sound good?

ScienceApologist (talk) 05:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * On your final point ("Avoid direct quotations"), not sure whether you mean quotations from Lerner and/or from other sources, but I don't see why quotations are "acrimonious" and I don't think they have to be avoided completely. Having said that, I agree there are too many quotations in the article at present, and its style would be improved if there were fewer. I agree with your other points, which are basically NPOV. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * They don't have to be avoided completely, but per WP:ASF if we can avoid quotations it may be better. ScienceApologist (talk) 09:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * SA, thanks for the outline of intentions. My reactions:  our reader is not typically going to read the book; what do we want the reader to come away with when reading the article?  On your points:


 * 1) Which Helge Kragh book?  Conceptions of Cosmos: From Myths to the Accelerating Universe: A History of Cosmology?  I find no mention of Eric Lerner in it.  Probably you mean some other book?  Maybe Cosmology and Controversy?  Where he says "In Eric Lerner's attempt to revive interest in Alfvén's plasma cosmology, there are many features resembling the earlier, pre-1948 steady-state theory.  Thus Lerner emphasizes the reusing and recycling of energy in processes with no time limits.  On the methodological level, he (following Alfvén) stresses the need to keep to empirically confirmed processes and to avoid grand theoretical schemes."  That sounds like it would be OK to include.  There's more about Alfvén before that, which would also be OK.  Or in Matter And Spirit In The Universe: Scientific And Religious Preludes To Modern Cosmology, there's a brief mention of Alfvén's ideas with footnote to Lerner.  I haven't checked all his other books.
 * 2) Decribe the dichotomy in the reactions?  What source does that?  Are you proposing a WP:SYNTH?
 * 3) Yes of course; facts about his opinions, since that's what the book is about.
 * 4) Current state of the book?  If it has evolved or has a current new edition, for sure.  What sources are you thinking of.
 * 5) Avoid direct quotation?  Most don't seem that acrimonious to me.  Quotes are useful to convey the true opinions and feelings of the principles better than anything we're likely to write, in many cases.  Which quotations are you concerned about?  The reviews?

Your opening question is an excellent one we should try to answer.


 * 1) Yeah, Cosmology and Controversy is the one I'm referring to.
 * No, I'm proposing to do a on the one hand, on the other hand comparison. No synthesis.
 * 1) No comment.
 * 2) The sources for the current state of the book would have to be the later commentary that we source from the critics including Carroll etc.
 * 3) I think the problem with direct quotation is that it cannot be properly characterized and it is somewhat arbitrary at the present time. Quotes are useful for a newspaper article, but not for a general encyclopedia article in my opinion. I'm concerned about nearly every quote: quotes from the book and quotes from the reviews. I just don't think including a quote mine is encyclopedic.

ScienceApologist (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

RSN thread
Regarding Alex Macandrew and talkorigins archive: WP:RSN.

ScienceApologist (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy with text, now on to sources
I am happy with the text, now on to the sources.

Two sources have been removed:

Alec Macandrew's Evolution Pages critique and the TalkOrigins Archive critique. Both of these sources would be valuable for the reader to have available and I do not see them as being unduly weighted since we are not mentioning them specifically. We can handle this in a number of ways: we can use them as references or we can include them as external links.

ScienceApologist (talk) 16:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have a problem with ref#30 to Sean Carroll's blog. (1) It does not refer to Lerner's book. (2) It hardly refers to Lerner's theories (3) It appears to criticize (a) just one statement of Lerner's, and (b) a joint statement from several other scientists.


 * Hence the statement "the book [..] continues to receive unfavorable reviews" also seems inaccurate. All the other sources are from 1991/1992, and there were no unfavourable reviews after then. --213.122.59.214 (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, the two reviews by Macandrew and from TalkOrigins are more recent and they're certainly unfavorable. Plus, Wright's critique is updated as well. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

SA, you took the sources to RS/N trying to get some support for them, but actually got a fair amount of pushback. As I mentioned before, it doesn't really improve the article to "pile on" two self-published blogs from the creation/evolution fights in a list of otherwise reliable published reactions by cosmologists. Why do you want them in there? Why do you put them back after failing to find support for doing so? Dicklyon (talk) 21:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all, stop mischaracterizing these sources. They aren't blogs. They are good sources on the subject. I got support for them being reliable from Blueboar and the other two commentators dropped out of the conversation after Blueboar made his determination. The issue is one of weight now, as you put it. If you really think using the two sources as one of dozens of references, you're going to have to explain. They both are excellent essays on the obvious problems with Lerner's work. If you want a reason for keeping them, read the discussion happening just before you jumped in. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I meant self-published web pages. I agree as I said it's more of a weight issue, which is what my reference to piling on was about.  Dicklyon (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, only one is self-published. If you think there is an issue, I encourage you to take it to WP:FTN or WP:NPOVN. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, it is manifestly not a violation of WP:SYNTH to state that there "continue to be negative reviews" when reviews that have happened after 1992 or so are clearly available that are negative. If you disagree, WP:NORN is thataway. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

"Adopting an eternal universe, Lerner's explanation of observed cosmological evolution relied on a proposed a model of thermodynamics attributed in part to the work of Ilya Prigogine under which the universe has no definite age[19] but continually increases in order in defiance of the second law of thermodynamics.[20]" What proposed model is this? Reading about Ilya didn't make me smarter. --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 01:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * He attributes the model to Prigogine, but essentially it is a proposal relating to pattern evolution and order from chaos: rather old-saw pre-chaos theory stuff. He chose Prigogine probably because the guy was famous for self-organizing systems studies and occasionally Prigogine made vague comments about the nature of the universe being such a system -- though I cannot find any reliable sources which verify this. Self-organizing systems must have a source of free-energy upon which to draw. The universe as essentially a closed system does not have such a reservoir according to most scientists, but Lerner instead insists that the universe behaves as a Prigogine self-organizing system in defiance of most cosmologists' thermodynamics. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't realize you were discussing the edit I just did. But you can't say "continues" unless there's a continous stream reviews on the book coming out. Perhaps comments, but the time of reviews is over. --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 01:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a fair point. Perhaps we should say repudiations? ScienceApologist (talk) 06:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Why physicists?
SA, what's the point of adding physicists to cosmologists? Which of the cited individuals are you referring to? And if they're not cosmologists, why are they particularly relevant? Dicklyon (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As you are probably aware, there is a fine line that discriminates between "physicist" and "cosmologist". Some people with degrees in physics are active cosmologists and some aren't. Just covering all the bases. But if you want to get rid of the word, not an issue for me. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, looks like Penzias is the guy, and L0b0t is who cares. Arno is a friend of mine, and I know he has a Nobel prize in physics, but he's actually a venture capitalist these days, not a physicist.  But I suppose I better let it go, or you guys will see me as too disruptive.  Dicklyon (talk) 03:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Book review section
I think this is a bit unbalanced. A biography page probably shouldn’t double up as a book critique.

I'd suggest we refer the book section to Editorial Assistance, to deem whether it’s even acceptable, for academic biographies to double up as critiques of their work (bearing in mind there is no community support being promoted, to counter). In it’s current state it could be left open to “conflict of interest” claims or an attempt to promote one cosmology theory over another.

A second suggestion, if it is acceptable,to simply balance the book section. Lines like:

“""physical cosmologists who have commented on the book have generally criticized it."

Are only supported by links to 2 rival theorists web blogs, an Amazon page, and a letter in a newspaper. Considering the cosmology community is one of several thousands – all with differing levels of support for big bang theory – I’d say the statement is far to heavily weighted. It should be changed to:

“Some physical cosmologists who have commented on the book have criticized it."

As that is what the sourcing supports. Nothing more. What’s more for balance purposes you’d also have to include the fact that some have also supported it.

I'd also suggest much of the review focuses on the criticism of Ned Wright. A noted EU critic. With differing theories of his own. It's not for us to pass judgement on which theorist is right. Both have support and critics.

What's more Wright's criticism, and counter (as far as I'm aware)is not peer reviewed, and hasn't been accepted by the community. Putting so much focus on one critic, without including either Lerner's retort to him, or counter-criticism of Wright's position by other academics, or counter support for Lerner's position, is straying into the realms of a personalised book "critique" of Lerner by Wright. As I stated, I think it needs to be balanced.

I'll try to balance it. I do also suggest Editor Assitance, and wider input, to decide whether a detailed book critique should even be included in a personal biography. Debates on the rights and wrongs of cosmology research should possibly be elsewhere. As far as I'm aware, a biography on a person should detail what that someone has done. Not cast opinion on whether it was right.

Cjmooney9 (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not too happy with your changes.
 * I think the historical context of astronomy at the time of publication and subsequent developments is interesting and important (although somewhat problematical to present in an NPOV / RS way).
 * I think "there was favorable reaction from non-experts" is better sourced / more accurate than "received a favorable reception from the general public".
 * I have my doubts that "divided the scientific community" is an accurate characterization.
 * Your quote from the open letter makes it sound like that is commonly accepted fact ("they note that"), whereas the opposite is more nearly true.
 * --Art Carlson (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I will revert the changes back. It needs to be discussed more, and my move was possibly a tad rash.I also suggest requesting Editorial Assitance, to get a 3rd party opinion in regards to the tone of the book review. And whether a detailed book review like that even has any place on a biography.

My main issue is the possibility that a biography is swiftly turning into an attempted rebuttal of the work, via an unessarily long, one sided, unbalanced, overly complexed book section.

A biography should detail what a person has done. Not attempt to pass, or influence judgement on whether it was right or wrong. Reading the book section I felt it was attempting to promote traditional cosmology POV, over Lerner's own. Not the job of a biography.

I suggest it's simply not accpetable to make claims to the affect that "most comologists critized his work" with the only source the opinions of 3 scientists. Let's remember, Lerner has his fair share of backers in the field as well. As stated, 250 prominent cosmologists signed his 2004 New Scientist letter, criticising big bang theory.

I fully understand the ongoing dispute between traditional cosmology and Big Bang denialists. My main fear being that this is moving on to biographies of individual figures involved in the dispute. And potential conflict of interest issues that could arise from this in the future. The book review as it stands is little more than an attempted rebuttal of the work in my opinion.

Cjmooney9 (talk) 16:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand your reservations, I just can't figure out what to do about it. It does seem unusual to have this level of technical detail in a biography. Normally I would expect a brief summary and referral to the Plasma cosmology article, but Lerner is hardly even mentioned there. (Earlier versions of that article where very different.) I believe that there is no longer any serious opposition to the Big Bang among professional astronomers, but how can I prove such a statement? This is a common problem with fringe theories. Wikipedia policy basically says if a topic has not been widely discussed, especially in secondary and tertiary sources, it should not have an article. I think most of us would agree that this rule should not be applied too rigorously, but doing anything else is frought with difficulties. --Art Carlson (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. Stephen Hawkins wrote the most famous popular science book of all time in 1988. This is how his wikipedia biography approaches his writing:

"Hawking's belief that the lay person should have access to his work led him to write a series of popular science books in addition to his academic work. The first of these, A Brief History of Time, was published on 1 April 1988 by Hawking, his family and friends, and some leading physicists. It surprisingly became a best-seller".

That's quite literally all that is written on the biography, about one of the most famous books in the world. It makes no attempt to pass judgement on it's merits. Or it's success. Or it's failings. Or even discuss it's themes for that matter.

I'd suggest that debunking/reviewing a popular science title, and at the same time discuss/promote alternative scientific POV, maybe has a place on wikipedia. But it certainly isn't on personal biographies.

I think that the only mention of books on biographies should be acknowledgement that it was written, and possibly a very brief summary about the topic - casting no opinion or aspersions on the content. On the principle that this is POV. And a personal biography is not a platform to debate/discuss/debunk/criticise theory.

Personally, I'd suggest that the book section shouldn't even exist. Like on most academic pages. Making a big deal about a book on a biography in my opinion is little more than trying to set it up for a critique. I'd suggest that the book is just mentioned, as part of the general biography - as in the Hawkins biography.

I think I should request Editor Assitance to discuss the section, and whether it's acceptable for a personal biography. To get a 3rd party opinion on the page as it stands, and it's history. And then make the changes, if the consensus opinion supports this.

Or we could just go on the basis of this open discussion, once there is a bit more feedback. I think a 3rd party is still useful however. So I may get the ball rolling on that.

cheers for the reply. Agreed with a lot of what you said. Think the principle point is opinions, POV, aspersions, incinuations on the merits of theory don't belong on personal biographies. Personally, like most academics, I have no idea why this biography is longer than about 10 lines. He's not really done that much academically. You have guys like Roger Penrose, who've published 10x as much, who have less detailed pages!

Cjmooney9 (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Lerner's biography is so long because he has followers (outside of academia) that created and expanded it. If you are interested in Lerner for other reasons, you might like to learn about his education or civil rights activities, but none of those are things that would get you an article in Wikipedia. His only claim to fame is his book (and possibly his fusion work), so it makes some sense that it takes up a good portion of the biography. (Stephen Hawking is different for a million reasons, but the most important in this context is that his book has its own page: A Brief History of Time. BTW, Roger Penrose is not "less detailed", but is - Thank God! - roughly twice as long. And there are separate articles on 3 of his books.) Where does that leave us? Still don't know, but if you can get a 3rd party interested in helping us, that would be great. --Art Carlson (talk) 10:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

SPS rebuttal
I removed this SPS rebuttal because it gives the impression of a false balance between the two viewpoints, contrary to NPOV. Can you please explain why you have restored it. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about this change you made? Likely so, but if so I don't know what an "SPS rebuttal" is, so I have no idea what you are talking about. Aarghdvaark (talk) 14:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * A rebuttal from an WP:SPS. In this case it's a self-published fringe rebuttal to a mainstream comment, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) Lerner wrote a book: "The Big Bang Never Happened". 2) Edward L. Wright wrote a rebuttal: "Errors in the 'The Big Bang Never Happened' " - a self published source (SPS). 3) Lerner wrote a rebuttal to Wright's rebuttal: "The Big Bang Never Happened: Dr Wright is Wrong" (as you point out, also a self published source). A nice sequence where the interested reader can read the arguments for and against for themselves. Deleting Lerner's rebuttal (your "SPS rebuttal") on the grounds that "it gives the impression of a false balance between the two viewpoints, contrary to NPOV" is clearly bonkers wikilawyering. And the wikilawyering about SPS is clearly also bonkers since Wright's rebuttal is also a SPS. How to win every argument - not allow your opponent an opportunity to reply. This is censorship and seriously erodes the standing, utility and value of Wikipedia. Aarghdvaark (talk) 15:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Criticism section
I came to look at Eric Lerner's theories after seeing him mentioned in slashdot. However, the criticism section does neither point to a good refutation or reasoning why each of the critics dislike his theory. Unless each of them have done a longer treatise it is not so interesting to the reader to get listed numerous subjective opinions of scientists. I am agnostic to whether Lerner is on the right track here, but the criticism section is totally non-informative to me. --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As his theories have no scientific support, it would be a violation of the proposed WP:FRINGE not to include refutations. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see where that proposed guideline mentions "scientific support", or what source you're using to say that it has none; nonetheless, I agree that it would be improper to not include those refutations that are published in reliable sources. Arther, I hope you recall that I'm often on your side in preventing the inclusion of unsourced nonsense in math and science topics.  But this Lerner stuff is sourced; whether he's totally wrong or not, he's trying to be scientific here in representing the ideas of a Nobel-prize-winning plasma physicist.  It is not really appropriate to just call it pseudoscience as an excuse to mistreat it, as ScienceApologist does, and as in the policies he proposes.  Let's fairly represent the ideas, and the reactions against them, and let it be. Dicklyon (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Benjaminbruheim. What I think needs to happen is a rewrite of the criticism section with an eye on context. I began workshopping some ideas, but got sidelined for a time. I would like to move away from direct quotation and try to write actual prose about the book, the controversy surrounding it, the critical reaction, and the dwindling impact that it has (not) enjoyed. I would like to have everyone here help in this regard. What say ye?

By the way, the BRD revert of Dicklyon was just a concern about WP:WEIGHT and nothing more. I actually don't like the section, but would prefer to keep it properly weighted before the overhaul happens.

I'll wait for other users to comment and then begin a workshop on Talk:Eric Lerner/BBNH section.

ScienceApologist (talk) 17:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the weight problem is pretty much in the other direction. There are already plenty of well-sourced negative reviews; there's no need to also include and quote the poorly-sourced (self-published) ones.  I believe it's a violation of WP:BLP to leave such a pile of criticism there.
 * As for rewriting without quotes, I don't disagree that the approach could work. But it would have to be done by someone with a balanced view.  If you attempt it yourself, it seems unlikely that it could come out as acceptable. Dicklyon (talk) 04:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you mind not poisoning the well? It's in incredibly bad taste. Weren't you just banned from this article for behavior exactly like that? Hipocrite (talk) 12:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * While hoping for collaboration, due to the seemingly endless desire for debate indicated on this page, I decided to make a bold first pass at the rewrite. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's bold. Actually, not too bad, I confess, except for the big aside about Wrights repudiations that interrupt the description of the book.  So I took that out.  A brief mention later might be OK.  Dicklyon (talk) 07:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not just Wright's repudiations, please don't fall into the particular attribution trap. In particular, though we use Wright as an excellent source for the repudiation, all the other critiques of Lerner proceed along the same lines. I'm fine with rearrangement, but outright removal is NOT okay. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I tried to make it clear that it's not just Wright's repudiations using the citations and taking Wright's unique critique (basic errors) and moving it to Wright's section. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Good work. The linked topics are great for understanding the context and are educational in that they are thematic instead of technical. The arguments instead of judgment makes it easier to understand both the points of Lerner and his critics. I'm almost surprised! Good job again. --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 21:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

SA, since you wouldn't help with the problem, I went ahead and moved the paragraph and some of the excess less-reliable sources of criticism. I did it in separate small edits so that it will be easy to address them independently. It still seems that you have a strong focus on debunking in the middle of the section on the book; this is not really necessary; cite a few criticisms instead of trying to teach cosmology. Dicklyon (talk) 23:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, the statement you just put back, "Professional cosmologists and physicists who have commented on Lerner's Big Bang critique have universally repudiated it," is inherently not sourceable. If someone says that you can link them and attribute it as a opinion or a finding. I took the whole paragraph out as inappropriate teaching in an attempt to debunk; there's no need for such essays when the criticisms are plain on their own. Dicklyon (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

If the criticisms made by Dr. Wrigth are explicit, Lerner's dispute should also be explicit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.106.88.165 (talk) 13:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)