Talk:Laura Mersini-Houghton

Proud to be...
...the first person to post an entry on Ms. Mersini-Houghton's talk page, sort of like being the first to post on Albert Einstein's talk page before he was Albert Einstein. What I wanted to say was that the lede should have more data about her important contributions, imnho. Will do some of that a little later if a more knowledgable science geek doesn't come around and do so. Aleister Wilson 12:43 April 17, 2012 (UTC)

foot note 4
I can't see where the said predictions are made in the referenced paper. Please could we get a more detailed reference or corrected reference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.241.51.77 (talk) 20:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Mersini's alleged predictions
I've copied the following from the Multiverse article's Talk page, as it seeems relevant here too: Can anybody check whether she even claimed in 2007 to have predicted the CMB Cold spot in 2006, let alone whether the 2006 paper contains such a prediction? I can't access the 2007 reference at all, and can only access the summary of the referenced 2006 paper which does indeed predicted possible voids, but it's unclear how well the detailed predictions match what was detected. In any case, due to my limited knowledge of Physics, I probably wouldn't be sure what detailed predictions had been made, even if I could access the full paper. But at least one anonymous contributor to the Mersini Talk page claims he sees no clear predictions in 'the referenced paper', though I don't even know if it's the same paper as the one currently referenced. There's also the problem that I seem to recall a 'great void' having being discovered long before 2006, admittedly by direct observation rather than via CMB data, but it would suggest that a vague prediction of possible voids might not be particularly impressive. This is similar to the problem with 'predictions' about Dark Flow, where a flow towards the so-called Great Attractor had been known about since the 1970s, as pointed out in the Dark Flow article. And I'm unable to even find where to link her third alleged prediction, nor to find any discussion of its significance. But I remember looking at the WMAP article yesterday, and if I understand right, the Mersini article has her 'predicting' in 2006 a fluctuation value below 1, when it was already 0.9 +/- 0.1 before 2006 on the WMAP data. I think it's important (due WP:NPOV) to balance claims that Multiverse theories are untestable, and so on. But I am a bit worried that I may be unwittingly spreading some questionable fantasies of some Mersini fan club (one of whom already implies on her Talk page that she's the next Einstein).Tlhslobus (talk) 14:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I have now had another look at the WMAP article. The fluctuation (sigma_8) picture seems just as unsatisfactory: The Laura Mersini article says: In the same year (2006) WMAP reached agreement with SDSS experiment, that the overall amplitude of fluctuation is less than 1. If these observational findings, predicted in the 2006 papers by Mersini-Houghton et al.[citation needed] are confirmed over the next few years, then they may offer the first evidence of a universe beyond our own. The summary of her referenced December 2006 paper says: We show that the effect of the string corrections is to suppress $\sigma_8$ and the CMB $TT$ spectrum at large angles, thereby bringing WMAP and SDSS data for $\sigma_8$ into agreement. But the WMAP article gives the following sigma_8 data: 1year data (released Feb 2003) Fluctuation amplitude at 8h−1 Mpc (sigma_8) WMAP data only    0.9±0.1                  — data from all sources 0.84±0.04 3 year data (released Mar 2006) Fluctuation amplitude at 8h−1 Mpc (sigma_8) WMAP data only  0.761+0.049 −0.048 — data from all sources not given 5 year data (released Feb 2008) Fluctuation amplitude at 8h−1 Mpc (sigma_8) WMAP data only  0.796±0.036            — data from all sources 0.812±0.026 7 year data (released Feb 2010) Fluctuation amplitude at 8h−1 Mpc (sigma_8) WMAP data only  0.801±0.030            — data from all sources 0.809±0.024 9 year data (released Dec 2012)  Density fluctuations at 8h−1 Mpc (sigma_8) WMAP data only   0.821±0.023            — data from all sources 0.820+0.013 −0.014

Far from the Mersini article's assertion that WMAP reached agreement with SDSS in 2006 that fluctuation was less than 1, the fluctuation was seemingly always less than 1 (or just possibly equal to 1 at the upper end of the 2003 range of possible WMAP-data-only values), so this was hardly something 'predicted' by Mersini et al.in 2006 as claimed in the article. But the WMAP value dropped dramatically in March 2006, suggesting that WMAP and SDSS no longer agreed (though this is not actually stated), and that in December 2006 Mersini et al are offering an explanation for why they are different and how they can be brought back into agreement. But any such disagreement doesn't persist, as the 2008 to 2012 data shows. So quite likely the data shows that Mersini et al are wrong. Quite likely this means that their theory was a testable and falsifiable theory which has been tested and falsified - which, if correct, would actually be a rather important answer to the criticism that Multiverse theories are unscientific because they make no falsifiable predictions. And a similar conclusion may also be available from some of her other predictions. But I don't know enough to say whether any such conclusion is actually warranted. Does anybody else know enough to say so? Tlhslobus (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Structural POV error
Section Research, paragraph two claims:
 * Soon after the discovery of the landscape,

sounds like some natural phenomenon was discovered. Instead, what was discovered was that one in string theory can find 10500 levels of false vacua. From my sceptical POV, this means that what was discovered, was that the string theory lost one other prediction value, rather than that it described a multitude of universes. The multiverse hypothesis used to detect the existence of foreign universes? Even though the article actually describes testable theories that have some prediction values, a reader may get the impression that the text provides some kind of circular reasoning covered up behind some reification fallacy. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 12:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

This article needs serious work
It seems to me that the tone of the article is problematic. The description of her areas of interest also seems poorly organised.

Also, why is her education written in bullet form when most other wikipedia articles do it in standard prose? (unsigned by User:24.44.0.54.

COI, sources
Agree with sentiment of last few comments here - this article needs a WP:NPOV / WP:OR / WP:SYN / WP:V check, and rebasing on secondary sources. I tagged as such. Widefox ; talk 09:24, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Move for article deletion
This article is irrelevant. Not every educator can get their article on Wikipedia, see Notability (academics). This individual doesn't meet the notability criteria (associate professor instead of distinguished/full professor; no noted awards and so on). The contents such as claims of prediction lack any credibility. Also, appearance in an episode of some leisure popular sci TV series is not notable regardless if the episode was nominated for an award. Besides, the article has been suffering from numerous problems for too long to be ignored any further; the tags make it look like a Christmas tree. The bragging is prevalent, namely the way "achievements" are blown out of proportion w/o reliable references to support the claimed "prediction genius" of this individual, and so on. Their main contribution seems to be co-authorship in developing of a sci theory, which is not notable either. It all points to turbo POV, bordering on delusional even. So I move for deletion. You can discuss here. Holybeef (talk) 03:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Quotes within the citations
These are to make it easy for others to check the sources; if the article is kept, I will trim these quotes substantially as per rules to safeguard copyrights.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Material from previous incarnation of article
Here is material from a previous version of the article, kept here in case sources can be found, and also to help future contributors to this article, since it is probably correct even though it is written at a level probably too academic for Wikipedia ...--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Soon after the discovery of the landscape, Mersini-Houghton proposed a theory in 2004–2005 for the birth of the universe from the landscape multiverse. The main idea is based on placing the wavefunction of the universe on the landscape in order to calculate the most probable wavefunction of the universe. This theory takes into account the out of equilibrium dynamics in the initial states and it includes decoherence among the various wavefunctions. The derived probability distribution results in states of high energy inflation being the most probable initial condition to start a universe. The selection mechanism arises from the out of equilibrium evolution of gravitational versus matter degrees of freedom, as follows: gravity is a "negative heat capacity system" (vacuum energy tends to equilibrium by expanding the initial space to infinity), while matter degrees of freedom are in the class of "positive heat capacity" systems (that tend to equilibrium by collapsing the system to a point). Any realistic cosmology contains both contributions massive fluctuations, and, vacuum energy. Therefore, the evolution of the opposing tendencies of the degrees of freedom in the initial states drives the state out of equilibrium and selects only high energy initial states as "survivor" universes from the back reaction of massive fluctuations since only high energy states can grow. Initial states that contain large vacuum energies give rise to expanding physical universes. Low energy initial states cannot survive the back reaction of massive fluctuations, cannot grow and thus result in "terminal" universes.


 * In 2006 in two papers named Cosmological Avatars of the Landscape, and, Mersini-Houghton predicted that the CMB cold spot, which was later observed by WMAP and Planck, was "the unmistakable imprint of another universe beyond the edge of our own",. Planck data has confirmed that the Cold Spot is an underdense region in the southern hemisphere, of about 200 Mpc and z~1, in perfect agreement with what she and her collaborators had predicted in their 'Cosmological Avatars of the Landscape' papers 'I: Bracketing the SUSY Breaking Scale', and 'II: CMB and LSS Signatures' published in 2006.


 * In November 2008, a NASA team led by Alexander Kashlinsky observed the dark flow of galaxy clusters in the universe at exactly the velocity and alignment predicted by her earlier in the 'Cosmological Avatars of the Landscape I, II' papers in 2006.


 * In the same year (2006) WMAP reached agreement with SDSS experiment, that the overall amplitude of fluctuation is less than 1. If these observational findings, predicted in the 2006 papers by Mersini-Houghton et al. are confirmed over the next few years, then they may offer the first evidence of a universe beyond our own. Such confirmation would tie the standard model of cosmology into a more coherent picture where our universe is not at the center of the world, but part of it.. These predictions were just confirmed by Planck data released in March 2013.


 * After the observational confirmation of the five predictions (CMB cold spot, power suppression at low l's, alignment of quadrupole with octupole, dark flow, and Sigma8~0.8) her work continues to attract international media attention, GCHEP/UNC, in the New Scientist, Bild der Wissenschaft, Scientific American, and Discover magazine.


 * A team of astrophysicists reported between November 2008 and February 2009 that they had found evidence of the northern hemisphere CMB cold spot in analysis of WMAP data. However, apart from the southern CMB cold spot, the varied statistical methods in general fail to confirm each other regarding a northern CMB cold spot. Since Mersini's Theory on the Origins of the Universe from the Landscape Multiverse, several other possible causes have been suggested for the CMB cold spot. The main issue with the alternative explanations offered since Mersini's theory is that they can not produce an explanation for all observed anomalies having the same origin. Precision measurements in cosmology therefore highly constrain these phenomenological models.


 * Dark flow remains controversial. Its existence and velocity are "likely to stay unsettled until" the new accurate cosmic microwave background radiation data by the European Space Agency's Planck satellite are available in 2013.


 * The Planck results for anomalies observed in the CMB were published in March 2013 The anomalies discovered and confirmed by Planck in the CMB are: 1. Power suppression at large distances (low I's); 2. Cold Spot; 3. Alignment of Quadrupole and Octupole in the CMB leading to a Preferred Direction; and, 4. The Overall Amplitude of Sigma_8. All of these anomalies were derived in the 2006 paper: "Why the Universe Started from a Low Entropy State", well before (and independent of) any experimental detections.


 * Before her work on the Theory of the Origins of the Universe from the Landscape Multiverse, she investigating the problem of dark energy and developed a program with her collaborator M.Bastero-Gil, where dark energy is produced by short distance (transplanckian) modes. With other collaborators she analyzed wMAP data for the equation of state of dark energy and showed that it can be of a phantom form.

I indented your discussion under the deletion nomination section; please don't try to obfuscate the nomination by creating seemingly divorced sections after the deletion nomination section. In the same sense, I reversed your attempt to revamp the article per edit comments, main objections: academic notability is not established by proposing a theory; there are tens of thousands of theories but not each proponent of a theory gets own Wikipedia article. For example, the refs you offer to substantiate your daring claim that she's a "chief proponent" do not say this; instead, one ref does say that she is "one proponent". And so on. Please either discuss this seriously or don't discuss at all. Holybeef (talk) 12:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Reverting substantial improvements during a deletion discussion can lead to a block.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reminder. Just to let you know that your plea to closing admin on deletion page is redundant as they always do what you insist they do. Note also I didn't state half of the reasons why I reverted your "edit": for instance, one of your May, 2014, refs said she was the first one who had claimed there are no black holes, however Stephen Hawking said that back in January, 2014. So just to make it clear, not only that you tried to edit wording (though the problem is lack of academic notability), but you also used bogus references. Then you insisted she's a notable scientist of Brian Greene caliber, which is nonsense (she's not even a full professor), and so on. Please stop trying to save an article which has had so many problems for years by a last-minute rephrasing and using bogus refs without adding anything of substance to prove actual academic notability. Quantity doesn't make up for quality. Holybeef (talk) 18:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The references (below) you just added to your discourse are mostly primary. Note however that, when establishing whether someone is or isn't notable, Wikipedia uses secondary sources only. On the other hand, reliable secondary sources do report on this person's failures, like when a 175-people collaboration recently found no evidence of dark flow that this person talks about, and even explicitly stated so: "There is no detection of bulk flow" Holybeef (talk) 02:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Move for article deletion relisting
Please note that this article is under relist revision ("to be re-listed") for deletion discussion. Closing seemed premature given that the article had numerous issues as seen by countless tags for years. This means numerous editors had seen this article as problematic to say the least. Not enough time has passed for even a fraction of those editors to get familiar with the ongoing delete nomination. Note also that the article has a rather nervous proponent of keeping the article, who immediately after the delete nomination attempted to forge a major overhaul without any discussion whatsoever. He repeated this suspicious deed immediately after the closing too. His edit is biased at best since it tries to portray the person the article is about as notable despite the fact that this person does not meet any academic notability criteria, as noted by several editors during delete discussion. If you read his proposed intro paragraph you'll see that the person's claimed notability is in "proposing a controversial theory" which however is nonsense: there are thousands of theories and all are controversial until proven correct. Do not edit the article until the revision is completed. Thanks. Holybeef (talk) 03:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. Clearly user has a POV-pushing agenda of removing any article on Laura Mersini-Houghton. When the article was revamped to a much improved version with numerous references, Holybeef reverted it here and again here, back to the same problematic poorly referenced version that Holybeef wanted to delete. Further, then Holybeef writes above that s/he doesn't want anybody else to edit the problematic version while he tries to get the closure decision reversed by writing Do not edit the article until the revision is completed. Holybeef refuses to accept the community's decision not to delete this article and is essentially committing WP:VANDALISM.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:19, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: Delete nomination discussion was closed with No Consensus, not because a community's decision was reached as user Tomwsulcer misinterprets. The rest of his insinuations are addressed above in the relisting reasons. Holybeef (talk) 14:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

-Old discussion refs: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holybeef (talk • contribs) 03:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Other people proposed gravitational tug by another universe earlier than Mersini-Houghton
When I read this article I remembered reading similar claim a few years back. After recovering that claim from my disc I compared dates, and bingo. Just as I suspected, it turns out that Mersini-Houghton was not first one who proposed that another universe might be exerting gravitational tug on our universe. References in the article point that she made her claim in 2007, but I found out about a scientist who claimed the same thing back in 2006. So I added the below sentence but some editor is having problems I don't know why. I believe that credit must be given where credit's due! So here is my addition for all that's worth:
 * However, some of the above references incorrectly credit Mersini-Houghton as the first who proposed such tug might be at work. For instance Mensur Omerbashich has proposed it earlier: "In case of our Universe, it is to it neighboring (about it orbiting) Universe that largely masks the tidal influences of the rest of the Hyperverse onto our Universe".

I note that, unlike what this editor said, arxiv is not considered primary source in a negative sense. Besides, WP:PRIMARY says primary sources can be used, it's just that an article shouldn't be based entirely on them. Only highly regarded scientists can publish on arxiv and they must be endorsed by their peers, so that by now Wikipedia has more than 15000 references to arxiv papers. So my addition passes all tests I can think of. But I'm sure more references can be found about other people proposing this earlier as well. So this article has it incorrectly, again she was not the first one contrary to what the introductory few references incorrectly suggest. 87.244.231.29 (talk) 02:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Let me assume that both of the IP editor comments, above, have no relation to despite the remarkable similarity; Holybeef, not long ago, put the article up for deletion, then after I improved it, reverted the article back to the one that Holybeef wanted to delete. So my sense is Holybeef is a POV-pusher with an agenda of discrediting Laura Mersini-Houghton. Now, the recent IP additions, in which "references" are added on the spurious basis that there are mistakes in previous references -- these additions bear remarkable similarity to the approach of Holybeef, by making the same kind of arguments -- (Note: administrators can do sockpuppet investigations) -- have really nothing to do with the subject of the article, which is Laura Mersini-Houghton. The subject of the article is NOT Mersini-Houghton's theories, not whether they're right or not, NOT about scientific debates about the validity of her theories. These issues are not the province of Wikipedia because this encyclopedia is not a place for scientific debate; clearly Wikipedia is not qualified for this. Using primary sources like arxiv which do not even mention Laura Mersini-Houghton's name, is clearly a violation of neutrality. The Wikipedia article, in its present incarnation, does not state the LMH was the first to propose the multiverse theory, but it only says that she is a proponent of it, which is the case, backed by reliable secondary sources. Keep scientific battling OUT of Wikipedia. That belongs in journals, lecture halls, laboratories.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 04:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for mentioning me, I almost forgot about you and this preposterous article. I won't comment on your insinuations since they seem to be your style of communication. I can see that you overhauled the article. It's good that you made it brief, in accordance with this individual's notability. It would be better if it was deleted altogether since that would most faithfully convey her (lack of) notability, but this will do for now. Keep up the good work! Holybeef (talk) 16:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but I don't know who is Holybeef. If subject is "only her" then don't write about science, write about size of her shoes. But your reference from December 3, 2007 The Great Nothing may be something… saying "...Mersini-Houghton has put forward a theory that has stunned the wider community...", so for neutrality I put other references showing she is not first so nobody should be stunned. And I already said to you that there is more than 15000 arxiv references on Wikipedia. 95.103.164.141 (talk) 12:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't sweat it over his insinuations. You should concentrate on demonstrating this lady's obvious lack of notability. The references you've found are a good first step. Thanks for contributing in the right direction, and keep up the good work! Holybeef (talk) 16:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for support! 92.245.5.44 (talk) 22:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Simple way to handle this is simply to remove the "stunned" claim from within the citation, which I've done; the current Wikipedia article does not (and should not) go into issues whether LMH was the first with this theory -- that is essentially irrelevant unless it can be backed up with reliable secondary sources. While arxiv sources have been used in Wikipedia, the ones added to this article were primary sources which did not mention LMH's name, so including them here, to make a point, is original research. About primary sources, here is the guideline:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Ridiculous. It's not handling it's sweeping under carpet! You behave like you own wikipedia. I changed that reference to how it was before you "handled" it. Reference calls her claim stunning in December 2007 because author is surprised, which means she claimed tug in 2007. Omebashich made it in 2006, which means she isn't notable at all as Holybeef says. 92.245.5.44 (talk) 22:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * "Unless restricted by another policy, reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."

- Wikipedia guideline


 * That is my problem with the previous additions, that the arxiv primary sources are being misused in a debate about the truthfulness of a claim about science, when a secondary source is needed for that, and that Wikipedia should not get entangled in debates between primary sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Primary sources are fine, especially arxive ones as you were just told that 15000+ refs on Wikipedia come from arxiv. First remove those 15k+ and then you can remove this one or call it POV. Holybeef (talk) 16:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a ridiculous assertion, obviously. If someone were to cite a reputable article about the making of artisinal cheese from the New York Times for the statement, "Steve Buscemi is the best actor ever.", you wouldn't get some sort of pass because the article you misused to support your dubious statement comes from a reputable publisher. You wouldn't need to remove every citation to The New York Times just because you remove that one. Just because using a primary source doesn't necessarily mean that you are doing original research doesn't mean that you can't use a primary source to do original research. 0x0077BE  [talk/contrib] 20:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Bunch of nonsense. I'm not native speaker of English but I can tell when somebody is bullshiting. 92.245.5.44 (talk) 22:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I was trying to explain why you and apparently have a fundamental understanding of why your arguments don't apply. Just because arXiv articles can be used in some situations doesn't mean they are always appropriate. The reason your references are invalid is because they are original research. You're finding another paper about inter-universe "tug" or whatever, looking at the date on it, and saying, "It's before this other one, therefore this guy was first." That's inappropriate on Wikipedia. For something like this, you need to cite a secondary source (basically, find a reliable source that says "some people think that Mersini-Houghton was first, but this other guy says he was"). That's not to say it would immediately get included, mind you. The weight of the claim/controversy needs to be considered.  0x0077BE  [talk/contrib] 23:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 15000 means arxiv is pretty much OK for everything and anything on wikipedia. You don't need to "explain" Mr. Attitude: you're not professor we're not your students. This arxiv reference is obviously OK as source of exact quote copy-pasted without comment so there can't be POV. Except if you have problems with logic. Besides the old reference by Hill says M-H claim is from 2007 (that's why you keep changing that reference to sweep her date under carpet) and arxiv papers are dated automatically so you don't have to make POV about this paper's date which is from 2006. Except if you're blind. 78.99.27.35 (talk) 05:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Once again you seem to be missing the point here. The problem isn't that the link is from arXiv, the problem is that you are drawing conclusions independent of the text in the citation. If you were trying to cite the date of the paper, the arXiv citation would be fine, but you're using the date of the paper to draw conclusions about who is the first person to propose this statement. That's original research, because you are drawing conclusions directly from primary sources. As for the quote in the reference, it's completely inappropriate stylistically, has nothing to do with what the citation is being purported to support, and is a clear violation of WP:SYNTH. 0x0077BE  [talk/contrib] 07:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, I am assuming you are all the same person (hard to tell, your IP is constantly fluctuating between edits), but even if what you were adding to the lede weren't WP:OR, they completely violate Wikipedia's editorial tone, and they are grammatically incorrect. I don't want to get into an edit war over this, but I've put notices about this page on the relevant Wikiprojects to attempt to establish a clear consensus. I'm guessing the next editor to see this page will revert your changes as inappropriate. If you'd like to include somewhere in the article that there's some controversy about Mersini-Houghton's status as originator of this "tug" claim (note that the article doesn't even mention anything about her priority, your additions are literally your personal response to something said in one of the sources), you should find a reliable, secondary source that establishes that such a controversy exists. Otherwise you're giving undue weight to your own original research (seriously, read those pipelinks, in your native language if need be), which is inappropriate on Wikipedia. 0x0077BE  [talk/contrib] 07:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I see no synthetic, or any other POV for that matter. Comparing verifiable dates of references doesn't qualify as POV by any stretch of imagination. In your weird logic, no author box should have the automated age computing code either, as that's "POV" according to you. I do see however your attempts to sweep under the rug references which could be crucial in deciding whether to keep or delete the article altogether. See my below reply to you for more. Thanks. Holybeef (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Who are these people???????? They come as herd, all of the sudden. Is this some personal issue? I try to help you as I have time. 92.245.5.44 (talk) 23:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The reason that it is original research / synthesis is that the comparison of dates on these two citations is being used to draw a conclusion about idea priority. Finding someone with the same idea from earlier and then drawing conclusions that she wasn't first (which, by the way, is not even something we need to address in the lede anyway, as there are no other claims to priority actually being made in the article) is doing your own research. If you read WP:SYNTH, the example is very clear. (Paraphrasing) "The UN's goal is to ensure peace, but since its creation there have been 160 wars in the world". Both the UN's stated goals and the number of wars is straightforward to extract from the relevant sources, but the juxtaposition makes a case about the UN's ineffectiveness at achieving its goals. The same goes here. Even if you were to make the case that one of these sources is saying that Mersini-Houghton has some sort of priority claim on the idea (not something we're even addressing in the article, mind you), saying "she claims priority, there is another paper by this other guy from a year before her first paper" is exactly the same as the UN example. It's textbook WP:SYNTH.


 * Not to mention, even if it weren't original research and synthesis, it would still be 1. poorly written, 2. a dramatic violation of WP:UNDUE, since there are no citations at all discussing any sort of priority claims or controversy, and yet two sentences are devoted to it in the lede. 0x0077BE  [talk/contrib] 17:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see that the IP user has drawn any conclusions in the article; he/she simply stacked references by dates. This isn't POV. Pay attention. It would have been a synthesis had someone taken words from various references and mixed those up in order to produce an entirely novel text containing some claims/ideas. I don't see any creative writing in what IP user added, or science-related claims for that matter. Perhaps in the talk you can find indications of that, but that's the appropriate place to discuss anyway. Holybeef (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes exactly! I will write more about it tomorrow, no time now. 92.245.5.44 (talk) 23:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems that the IP editor above is mainly concerned with adding these sentences about Mersini-Houghton not being the originator of the "tug theory" because they are interpreting a specific line in this Canada Free Press article to be a claim that Mersini-Houghton came up with the idea. I think it's a bit of a stretch to interpret it that way anyway, and it's definitely inappropriate to respond to a primary/secondary source with original research published on Wikipedia, but it occurs to me that since that reference is redundant anyway, and from what I can tell Canada Free Press is some sort of fringe political news source, how about we just cut that reference entirely. Hopefully this solves the issue. I'm going to implement this solution now. Any objection, IP editor? 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 07:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Please stop with sinister attempts to sweep under the rug a most crucial reference, by Hill. This reference is essential for the article because it's most helpful in establishing (no) notability for the person this article is about. The said reference could become crucial when deciding whether to keep or delete the article. Note the last vote was inconclusive and that's pretty much the only reason this person still has an article on Wikipedia. Which doesn't mean they will squeeze by in the next round, so references essential for that ongoing process must be left in. Thanks. Holybeef (talk) 17:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The reference is not serving any purpose here, it's not clear that it's reliable (Canada Free Press is some sort of fringe newspaper), and if you look at where it is positioned, there are 8 other citations for the same sentence. Given that it's causing there to be a dispute - the IP editor seems to feel that they need to respond to this source directly in the citation - it seems clear that the whole problem can be solved by removing the citation. I'm not deleting the citation from existence. If this article comes up for deletion again and you need it to make a point, you can just grab it from the history. I'm not interested in an edit war over this (though if this really has something to do with priority claims, I imagine an exception to 3RR could be made since this is a WP:BLP), but the current version of this page is not acceptable as is. It is blatant original research, which is a policy that both you and the IP editor seem to completely fail to understand. The statements that you've added to the lede are original research, if you want to include them you must use a reliable secondary source.  0x0077BE  [talk/contrib] 17:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "Some sort of fringe newspaper" is your POV if it reflects on an article. Also, you keep misusing Wikipedia rules, such as WP:BLP: lengthy rules cannot be used as a whole, you must specify exact bullet(s) in a rule or else you could be reported for disruptive behavior and overuse of rules causing chilling effect. I didn't add any statements, I want(ed) the article to be deleted since this person doesn't meet academic notability criteria, she is an average researcher. Holybeef (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That is not what a chilling effect is. Also, I've explained in excruciating detail why this is original research. Others on this page and elsewhere have expanded on this. It's very, very easy to understand why this is the case. Also, given that you are fresh off a block from edit warring on Alan Guth over basically the same thing - original research and reference synthesis regarding priority claims by cosmologists - you may want to stop reverting and start discussing. It's not "BRDRDRDRD". Feel free to try and report me for disruptive behavior, I feel like I've been more than fair here, so I'm not worried about scrutiny. 0x0077BE  [talk/contrib] 17:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * So you follow Holybeef from some other page where you had edit war with him? So it must be personal issues for you. I also see bringing of your buddies to help you. That is so sad to fix " consensus " like this. 92.245.5.44 (talk) 23:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sad, but you seem to be right. I think you should calm down though. Thanks. Holybeef (talk) 01:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Given that you've now reverted twice the compromise removal of the source that is causing the problem, can you please explain what is crucial about it, why Canada Free Press should be considered a reliable source, and why this particular reference - which seems to be causing the problem - is so necessary given that there are seven other citations covering the same sentence? 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 17:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * My man explained to you above. How many times you need repeated? I don't know if you're stupid or something but know you're evil: you tried bullshiting me above and I see you don't stop. If my English isn't so good (especially when I'm tired after hiking in last few days) that doesn't mean I'm retard. And Holybeef is definitely smarter then you. You just full of shit, bubble talk as they say. 92.245.5.44 (talk) 23:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I can't figure out how to add to what has explained about original research. At this point the editors reverting seem to be focusing specifically on introducing a particular assertion (that she was "first" to assert something) only to shoot it down with a direct quote from a primary source. Why not keep the shorter lede and avoid the whole mess entirely? I don't see any clear explanation, and it's hard to see anything productive to do but some combination of reverts and asking for more eyes if you won't explain! -- SCZenz (talk) 18:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree totally with . Let's keep it short to avoid the mess.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh heres another. I think " all of you " are actually one same frustrated guy with many accounts. It explains so many of you showing so suddenly. 92.245.5.44 (talk) 23:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Citations in lede
There are currently a huge number of citations in the lede, most heaped on the claim that she's a "proponent of the multiverse theory". They mostly more or less support that, I suppose, but it's a bit overkill. I moved the one that actually uses the word "proponent" to the front. I think they will probably be able to support other statements, potentially in the "Research" section, so hopefully that section can be expanded and we can spread some of them around instead of having them all clustered in one place. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 00:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Incident being discussed at the adminstrator's noticeboard.
Given this is fast becoming an edit war, and the IP editor's demeanor has become decidedly uncivil, I thought it was appropriate to escalate this to WP:AN/I, as it seems likely that we're not going to see an end to the disruptive editing without some administrative action. Anyone who wants to participate in the discussion, the thread is here. Obviously this is independent of the content dispute. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 00:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's you and your Masonic bros who invade pages like grasshoppers to massacre those pages beyond belief and totally against the rules (ironically: while excessively quoting rules but only general ones, never bullet-by-bullet.) So knock the bs, time to call a spade a spade: you're just a gang of manipulators who at any cost try to portray Guth as originator of inflation though its clear he stole it, that Mersini has notability though many editors pointed out she has none, being an average researcher, and so on. In doing so, you disregard previous consensuses, proclaim "forbidden references", "banned words", remove neutrality from intro and overall, report me falsely to admins, etc. Holybeef (talk) 01:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I would also like to notify the editors here that because it seems to me that and the IP editor seem to be attempting to create a false sense that there is a legitimate content dispute going on in this article, and so I've also taken the issue of Holybeef's behavior to AN/I, as it's clearly disruptive. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 16:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Again you with your conspiracy theories. As explained in my response to your new insinuation: the reason why I had only covered 2 articles that interest me so far is simple - I joined recently, and unlike you I'm not a professional 24/7 editor (but still made a significant contribution to those few at least.) But I did warn you about your resorting to conspiracy theories as you did in Alan Guth Talk page. You're just making a fool of yourself and misleading/jeopardizing other editors. Holybeef (talk) 21:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with entirely.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No one cares, actually. Busted. Holybeef (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Precision on the black hole research claims [UPDATED]
Wondering if the current description of her latest research claims could use a little more precision. Right now it is worded as:

''In September of 2014, she claimed to demonstrate mathematically that black holes cannot exist. She claimed that Hawking radiation causes the star to shed mass at a rate such that it no longer has the density sufficient to create a black hole.''

I believe more accurate description of the current research is a "claim to demonstrate mathematically that black hole singularity cannot form in the process of a massive star collapsing, due to the effects of Hawking radiation."

This by itself doesn't exclude singularities from existing -- such singularities could have formed by other yet-to-be-understood means. However, should her claims prove correct or get support from her scientific peers, it would exclude a popular idea that a massive star could collapse into a singularity. She also does not exclude black holes per se, if understood as objects massive enough to prevent light from escaping from their gravity wells, but the idea of singularity at the center of such an object. The wording is a little problematic since the definition on Wikipedia for a black hole does not directly equate it to a singularity. She's talking about singularities in particular.

Some more detail can also be viewed in her "Out of the Darkness" talk at this URL: http://iai.tv/video/out-of-darkness#

''Is our understanding of black holes fundementally wrong? Presenting ground breaking new research, Laura Mersini-Houghton explains why event horizons and singularities might simply be a myth.''

Have not made edits since followed the recent edit-war and deletion discussion and am coming from a new unverified account.

Tunkki-1970 (talk) 14:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Another editor has made changes (Oct 16th) to the black hole research section that now gives a more accurate description of the work. My comment no longer applies. Tunkki-1970 (talk) 11:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Re: What universe are we in
Hello, I just saw television show What Universe Are We In, I believe we share identical opinions/theories. I was also astounded, reading your article with regard to your theories about black holes. I absolutely agree with you I am so excited, someone else thinks along the same lines. Gregory J — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.208.10.31 (talk) 10:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Laura Mersini-Houghton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714220221/http://cosmosmagazine.com/news/something-big-found-beyond-edge-universe/ to http://cosmosmagazine.com/news/something-big-found-beyond-edge-universe/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Laura Mersini-Houghton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140816162029/http://www.nationalheadlines.co.uk/could-big-bang-ripples-prove-the-existence-of-a-parallel-universe-gravitational-wave-discovery-paves-the-way-for-the-multiverse/231161/ to http://www.nationalheadlines.co.uk/could-big-bang-ripples-prove-the-existence-of-a-parallel-universe-gravitational-wave-discovery-paves-the-way-for-the-multiverse/231161/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141021024434/http://www.wncn.com/story/26606303/unc-professor-says-black-holes-cant-exist to http://www.wncn.com/story/26606303/unc-professor-says-black-holes-cant-exist

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion
I have proposed this article for deletion, as it is poorly written and the subject lacks notoriety. There are several thousands of theoretical physicists with more impressive scientific track records that do not have wikipedia pages, and she has not published any notable peer-reviewed articles since 2004: http://inspirehep.net/author/profile/L.Mersini.Houghton.1 Her recent papers on black holes are also not nearly as well received in the science community as this page purports, as demonstrated by their lack of citations. Gluonic (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Laura-Mersini-Houghton.jpg

Birth date
Why do we have no birth date for this person? This seems like a fundamental piece of data to include for any notable individual. If she has authored anything her birth date is probably out there. JettaMann (talk) 16:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)