Talk:William G. Tifft/Archive 1


 * He has spent a good part of his career collecting evidence that the universe is not expanding, a position that contradicts that of virtually all others in his field. (ref: http://www.as.arizona.edu/department/faculty/tifft.html Personal Web page] at the U. Arizona)

I removed this statement as I couldn't see anything in the reference that suggested this. His Web site mention that one of his research interests is "Redshift Problems", and although he has papers on Redshift quantization, this does not imply that he collects evidence against an expanding universe.

I found another quote from Discover magazine that suggests that Tifft's view is not anti-Big Bang. --Iantresman 12:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Soba's views are not exactly a reliable source. Why should a popular-level magazine writer be able to characterize Tifft better than himself. I will modify the statement regarding the expanding universe, but I don't think that Soba's article belongs. --ScienceApologist 14:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comments
WP:RfC: Is this an acceptable passage and quote from a third party source on William Tifft, to add?

Support It's (a) informative (b) Not contentious to cause problems with WP:LIVING (c) And from a satisfactory source for a biography. --Iantresman 17:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Object A line from an article published in 1993 gives the reader the false impression that Tifft's ideas have notability when in fact nobody in astrophysics pays attention to these points. The early 1990s was something of a publicity crisis for the Big Bang so to cherry pick quotes from popular-level articles written in that timeframe is very misleading. --ScienceApologist 19:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

From RFC on the WikiProject Biography page - Halton Arp, who also has a biography on wikipedia, so far as I understand endorses similar theories regarding anomalyous red shift, so I cannot conclude that it is intrinsically non-notable, as it is included on his page. I would however like newer or more extensive sources for this inclusion if they were available. Badbilltucker 17:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Third party sources that are newer (say from 2001 on) would be fine, in my opinion. --ScienceApologist 18:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * My reason for including the quote is to counter the misconception that Tifft is trying to "get rid of the Big Bang", or is anti-Big Bang.
 * The notability of the subject is evidenced by the papers provided in the footnotes in the Wiki article on Redshift quantization, which includes eight papers on the subject published since 2000 (not all peer reviewed), and a search of the NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS) for peer reviewed articles on "Redshift quantization" or "Redshift periodicity" (synonymous) provide additional papers. --Iantresman 18:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Considering how very little information is available on Tifft, why not just merge his bio into redshift quantization, which already has a section titled with his name which is longer than the main article here. The only argument against this approach that I can see is if he is notable for something other than redshift quantization: as far as I can see this is not the case. HEL 19:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I envisage his biography growing in due course, and think that his biography in Redshift quantization might get lost, as it too gets bigger. --Iantresman 19:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Tifft is a notable person among alternative cosmology people. He deserves a biography, even if the biography is a short one.  For some additional information on Tifft and his research, I suggest looking at an ADS Abstract Service author search on "Tifft".  Dr. Submillimeter 20:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * And the passage above? --Iantresman 22:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Support This reader would like to see the quotation in the article, since it adds context. ScienceApologist's opinions are nice, but they don't trump even an old article. How do we know that "nobody pays attention?" Iantresman's opinions make good sense to me. Lou Sander 22:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What makes you think an article from 1993 provides context for the present reception of a person? Would including a single quote from 1993 on an article about George W. Bush from 1993 give an accurate context? One knows that nobody pays attention because nobody cares to talk about the person any longer, you see. --ScienceApologist 22:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, heck! I'm trying to get away from this discussion, but it was still on my screen when I got back from dinner. If the guy's big contribution was in 1993, we don't need anything from the 21st century to support his notability. Think Bill Mazeroski, or George McGovern, or Charles Lindbergh, or I Love Lucy. Lou Sander 23:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but those people aren't still living. --ScienceApologist 15:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Because there is nothing in the extract that is outdated. The contents is valid in 1993, and would be equally valid in 2093. --Iantresman 22:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There is something outdated about the level of acceptance of redshift quantization ideas. I included part of the Discover magazine quote in the article about redshift quantization which is where the discussion probably belongs anyway. --ScienceApologist 22:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't have a dog in this fight, and I don't care much about redshift or Tifft. It seems to me that Tifft's scientific ideas belong in the redshift article, but that biographical stuff about him belongs in a Tifft article. That article's pretty light right now, but it won't be getting much heavier if people don't let stuff into it. And if the guy's notable enough to be the main scientist mentioned in the redshift article, how can he be non-notable? Lou Sander 22:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well Tifft's ideas definitely are in the redshift quantization article. I'm not objecting to letting stuff come into this article. I'm objecting to overly focusing on redshift quantization (in a less-than-summative fashion) and therefore creating two articles instead of one article on the quantization POV. Cruft spreading is something I want to avoid. --ScienceApologist 15:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * And the quote says, or implies nothing, about he level of acceptance. --Iantresman 23:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Support I think the Sobel quote can be included, and I wouldn't challenge this article on notability grounds, but I do hope somebody will be able to dig up a list of Tifft's relevant publications to include in the article. He doesn't seem to provide a list on his own website. At least the four Tifft references from the Redshift quantization page should be copied over here. EdJohnston 04:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Your last comments make sense, but I believe that the Sobel quote is objected to for reasons that go beyond simple biographical considerations. --ScienceApologist 15:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Rather than rely on second-hand information, someone should try to find the article and its warning with the ADS Abstract Service. Dr. Submillimeter 10:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The quote is inaccurate. Tifft's first refereed paper on the subject may be this one, which contains no such warning.  The second paper in the series, published in 1977, does contain an editor's note.  Given the problems with Discover magazine's quote, it should not be used.  (This is unrelated to the quote, but I would like to ask an innocent question: If Tifft changes the bin size in his histograms, does he still get the same result?) Dr. Submillimeter 21:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If I remember my discrete Fourier analysis properly, changing bin sizes doesn't normally remove periodic features unless you dip below the Nyquist frequency or your bins have so few counts as to be unable to statistically resolve the distribution. --ScienceApologist 21:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the quote is poorly worded, rather than inaccurate. His first paper in the series mentioned was indeed in 1976, and the disclaimer appears in the second paper in 1977 (I reckon the description omits an "and then"). I think we can qualify the quote with a reference to the original ApJ article. --Iantresman 21:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Why use a secondary reference when you have a primary reference, especially when the secondary reference garbles some of its information? Dr. Submillimeter 21:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. Let's use the primary source. --ScienceApologist 21:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that we should use the primary quote for the first part of the source. However, I am interested in retaining the second part of the quote, which notes that Tifft is not anti Big Bang, contrary to the view of some editors. --Iantresman 22:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Consensus appears to be 3-1 in favour of including the quote, which I have added. I've also added two statements that (1) Tifft's views are not shared by most other astronomers, and (2) found a quote noting that they are considered controversial. I've also added the ApJ quote in full. I think this fulfills all the concerns. --Iantresman 14:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Note: I opposed using Sobol as a source. The revision does not represent my viewpoint. Dr. Submillimeter 14:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Editors are not allowed to express their viewpoint in articles. I included the viewpoints of Sobel and Napier, both of which are verifiable and accurate. If you want to provide an alternative view, dig out a source and by all means include it. Recall that WP:POV tells that "points of view (POV) are often essential to articles which treat controversial subjects." --Iantresman 14:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I also noted that I didn't think the Sobel quote was a problem. I believe that the first clause did indeed refer to the first paper, as your rightly pointed out, but the second clause concerning the disclaimer, refers to the second paper, but doesn't mention this specifically. I don't think the quote misleads, and inclusion of the original full quote will let readers decide for themselves. --Iantresman 14:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Reversion
Since I don't believe consensus has been acheived, I reverted his additions. --ScienceApologist 14:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I actually like the version that User:Iantresman posted at 08:57 on December 7. It included the cautionary note from the editors of the Astrophysical Journal, so it had resolved what I had thought were the issues that made people question the Sobel quote. If you think that Ian's version was against consensus, can you be more specific? I also think your removal of the new material people had found is peculiar. It looked like good material, and I actally don't see how we can continue to improve this article without it's being there. EdJohnston 16:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The cautionary note was included without context: it came seemingly out of nowhere and didn't reference what it was regarding. I think the problem with including the Sobel quote is that Sobel isn't a reliable source in commenting on what Tifft is doing. I would prefer evaluations by scientists. --ScienceApologist 16:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I count 3 x Support and 1 x Object. One comment was indifferent; the other against I had answered, without complaint. There had been no further comments in almost a week. How did you decide that consensus was not met?
 * Dr. Submm pointed out that he objected to Sobel. --ScienceApologist 16:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Dava Sobel is more than an adequate source for comment, sufficiently notable to have her own Wiki page, and a good selection of books. Discover magazine is a reliable source for a biography. The quote to which Sobel referred to, appeared in Astrophysics magazine, and was included for context.
 * The problems with Sobel's analysis is that they don't reflect current understanding of the idea, nor are they presented as a historical record. --ScienceApologist 16:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I consider your description of Soble as "unreliable" to be unfounded, and an example of deprecation, contrary to the decision of the recent arbitration case.
 * I disagree that declaring this particular Sobel reference to be unreliable is deprecation.


 * I consider your "liar" statement to be an ad hominem, and like your calling me a "bean counter", to be uncivil, in defiance of your recent arbitration case, --Iantresman 16:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I consider your statement that consensus was acheived to be untrue. I think you are continuing to push your POV in articles in contravention of the arbcom case. --ScienceApologist 16:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for calling you a "liar", Ian. I am going to try to assume good faith. --ScienceApologist 16:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sobel's analysis does not reflect current understanding of the idea, because she was discussing the publication of Tiff's paper back in 1973. Regardless of the current understanding, the publication is a matter of historic record, and is verifiable.
 * Anyone wishing to find out more about Redshift quantization just has to click on the link for more information, or would not from Napier's quote, that the subject is controversial. --Iantresman 17:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * How do you count the votes in this RfC?
 * I do not push my POV, because it is not verifiable. I describe other people's POV, which is. --Iantresman 17:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You are very selective in which POVs you describe. And, voting is evil. --ScienceApologist 18:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Biography of Tifft
I have no objection to writing a verifiable biography of this person, but focusing solely on quotes about his redshift quantization ideas seem to me to be carefully examining a single tree in a forest. I encourage the other editors to come up with a summary of his work and make sure to characterize the fringe nature of his redshift quantization attempts with an eye to applicable policies and guidelines. --ScienceApologist 15:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I would take the above with a large grain of salt. ScienceApologist has recently been cautioned about activities similar to what he is doing here. As said before, I don't know or care about Tifft. I do object to what seems to be improper behavior in editing this article. Lou Sander 15:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you'd like to sprinkle some of those grains on Ian while you're at it? --ScienceApologist 15:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No evidence was put forward showing that I had edited any article inappropriately. --Iantresman 16:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The biographic material provided emphasized the controversial nature, and views of most astronomers. For a relatively short biography, this is ample.
 * Tiff is most well known for his controversial views. It is no surprise that this features in his biography.
 * If you have no objection to writing a verifiable biography, rather than asking other editors to do so, why not do so yourself.
 * I stand by the material I provide as accurate and verifiable.
 * Again, you have not provided any verifiable sources backing up your viewpoint. --Iantresman 16:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Verifiable sources
Here are some sources that I found concerning William Tifft:
 * William Tifft Home Page U. Arizona
 * "Seyfert galaxies, quasars and redshifts" (1976) Weedman, D. W, Royal Astronomical Society, Quarterly Journal
 * "Jumps in Star Speeds Perplex Astronomers" (1992) New York Times $$$ (Search extract)
 * "Man Stops Universe, Maybe", Discover, Dava Sobel, April 1993
 * "The Tifft Effect" in The Universe at Large (1997) Cambridge University Pres
 * "Is time quantized?", Scientific American, October 21, 1999
 * "Discovery of Voids and their Relationship to Superclusters" by Laird A. Thompson, University of Illinois
 * "Voids & their Relationship to Superclusters" by Laird A. Thompson, University of Illinois
 * "Alternate Approaches and the Redshift Controversy", Bill Keel, Department of Physics & Astronomy, U. Alabama (WWW Course Notes)
 * "Statistics of Redshift Periodicities" by William Napier in Current Issues in Cosmology (2006) by Pecker and Narliker (Editors) --Iantresman 18:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Ian, how about helping to find sources about Tifft that aren't just about redshift quantization? --ScienceApologist 18:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion needed: please give us a consensus for how to improve this article
I thought the Talk page was getting too heated, so I proposed a deal. User:Iantresman and User:ScienceApologist have voluntarily agreed to not edit the Tifft article for *a week*. (My assumption was they won't join the Talk page either, but that wasn't specified). In return I volunteered to try to get a Talk page consensus for the next move. Editors would try to agree on which of the recently added (or reverted) items to keep. If you have partipated in this at all, up till now, or have been following the debate, please add your brief summary below, with these answers:


 * 1) The Dava Sobel quote (Discover Magazine) should be included? Yes or No
 * 2) The disclaimer by the Astrophysical Journal editors should be included? Yes or No.
 * 3) It is OK to add new material? Yes or No (I'm assuming that User:ScienceApologist wanted to keep the article short because of fringe science concerns).
 * 4) The whole article is unnecessary, and should be folded into Redshift quantization? Yes or No

If you think this set of questions is bogus, please suggest another way to structure the discussion. I just want it to be clear what the consensus is to do, so that people who have ideas for improvement can know how to proceed without getting reverted. I realize that we could do a formal AfD debate on this article, but I personally don't want to contest Tifft's notability, and I think those of us who want to do more editing could come up with something neutral and interesting, that doesn't glorify fringe science. EdJohnston 19:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ed, this isn't quite what I agreed to. I would like the editors to consider other points:


 * 1) Equal coverage of all Tifft's work should be attempted, and focus on redshift quantization should not be the primary aim of this article Yes or No.
 * 2) Recent discussion of material relevant to redshift quantization should be emphasized since Tifft continues to research, and new discoveries which challenge old assumptions continue to be made Yes or No'''.
 * 3) Articles from more than 10-years ago should be qualified as historical and not current evaluations and may, as such, deserve marginalization: Yes or No.
 * 4) POVs of scientists on Tifft's scientific ideas should be emphasized over the POVs of journalists: Yes or No.
 * 5) Evaluation (or lack thereof) of Tifft's work should be made clear per WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV and Notability (science) Yes or No.
 * 6) Controversy surrounding Tifft's work should be described neutrally which may entail describing a lack of receptiveness on the part of the scientific community.


 * --ScienceApologist 19:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, if you're not willling to abstain from the Talk page as well as the article I don't think the deal will have any value. Other editors are free to address questions like those you just mentioned in addition to the answers I specifically asked for. EdJohnston 20:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Trying to help
Somebody asked me for comments. I don't know Tifft, and I don't care about red shift (or whatever it is), and I don't mind if Wikipedia covers scientific work that was subsequently rejected (see Piltdown man or Phlogiston theory, for example). It seems to me that this guy should have a biographical article. The article should mention his red shift stuff, and could/should include references to and quotes from the articles that discussed it. If his theories are no longer considered credible (by people other than the anonymous and unscreened folks that edit this encyclopedia), that should be mentioned. Try something like:


 * "Tifft is a professor at X. [Other biographical stuff goes here, if it is available. But apparently he's some sort of a hermit.] Back in 1915, he published some stuff that made a bit of a splash. Journal A and popular magazine B covered it, and people said things like "Tifft really knows his stuff," and "maybe Tifft has found the key to the universe." Over time, his stuff fell from grace, and nowadays most people don't believe it. The End."

All editors should spare us their deep concern about Wikipedia's possibly publishing something that isn't considered valid today. Many people discredit Wikipedia anyway, and much of what's in it is biased or questionable or both, and including or not including some minor scientific theory from the past won't make much difference. And who knows, Tifft might just be astronomy's Semmelweiss. Lou Sander 00:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Viewpoint
Here is my viewpoint on how the article should be written: Dr. Submillimeter 08:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Tifft did perform some notable research into an alternative cosmology model.  The article should be written to note this work.
 * 2) Tifft's theory is used as evidence against standard (Big Bang) cosmological models.  This needs to be clearly stated in the article.
 * 3) Tifft's model is largely disregarded as invalid (or ignored) by the majority of the astronomical community at this time.  This needs to be clearly stated in the article.
 * 4) On specific points broght forward by EdJohnston:
 * 5) The quote from Sobel is not completely accurate and should not be used.
 * 6) The disclaimer from the Astrophysical Journal is worth mentioning. However, it probably should not be quoted in full (which seems to be overpromotional of Tifft).
 * 7) Material should be added, but it should be focused on the subject. For example, a discussion of observations by Burbidge and Burbidge that discredit the Big Bang theory does not belong in this article.  Moreover, to represent scientific viewpoints accurately, 50% or more of the article's information should be on mainstream scientific viewpoints.
 * 8) The article should be kept, but it should be focused on Tifft's work. Research by other people on redshift quantization is worth mentioning in a single sentence but is not worth describing in detail.
 * 9) On specific points brought forward by ScienceApologist:
 * 10) The coverage of Tifft's work should be proportional to the degree to which people cite those works. If redshift quantization is the most frequently cited work by Tifft, then that should be covered the most.
 * 11) Recent material on redshift quantization should only be mentioned briefly. An extended discussion on other people's research in this article is inappropriate.
 * 12) Ten-year-old articles may not be considered historic. However, 30-year-old articles are historic and should be regarded as such.
 * 13) Scientists' POV should be regarded more highly than popular journalists' POV. Scientists generally give more weight to theories which are more viable descriptions of nature.  Journalists will give equal weight to fringe and mainstream science in their articles or will simply promote their single fringe viewpoints.
 * 14) The lack of recent citations to Tifft's research may be mentioned in this article. This can be studied using the ADS Abstract Service.
 * 15) The lack of study into this subject (such as the failure of this subject to be cited in journals or mentioned in standard advanced-astronomy textbooks) is worth including in this article.

My answers to the questions
Thanks to those who responded to my request for a consensus, and thanks to User:Iantresman and User:ScienceApologist for giving us some space. Here are my own comments: I notice that some editors have boldly reverted whenever they feel that the article is out of balance, or seems to advance fringe science too much. I would argue that no-one should delete *any* material that is backed by a printed source until they first propose the change on the Talk page.
 * 1) Sobel quote: Yes, making the comment that the ApJ disclaimer was issued for his 1977 article, not the 1976.
 * 2) Astrophysical Journal editors' disclaimer: Yes
 * 3) OK to add new material: Yes
 * 4) Fold entire article into Redshift quantization?: No, Tifft's biographical details need to go somewhere and they don't conveniently fit into Redshift quantization.

The result of this policy might (temporarily) be more additions than removals. I could live with that, if everything was correctly sourced.

I agree with what User:Lou Sander said above, that we are already providing enough disclaimers for Tifft's fringe status. I don't agree with User:Dr. Submillimeter's argument that using the full ApJ quote would be 'overpromotional of Tifft'. We should provide the facts and let the chips fall where they may. If other editors aren't free to add correctly-sourced material then group editing is all but ruled out. If some journal said something about Tifft 10 years ago that the same journal wouldn't say today, let the dates of the articles speak for themselves. If general opinion is different today, provide a separate reliable source to support that. So, if you think balance isn't there, add your own new material, don't delete properly-sourced material that is already there. EdJohnston 15:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Rather than using straight quotes, can we simply cite the sources and restate the information in this article? Including direct quotations in this article seems to be a sensationalist way to present the material.  I would rather present the material in a more straightforward tone.  Dr. Submillimeter 18:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Responses so far
Lou Sander, Dr. Submillimeter  and I are the only ones who responded so far. If no-one else appears in the next day or two, I propose that the three of us try to negotiate a compromise version of the article. We already know something about the views of ScienceApologist  and  Iantresman so we can probably try to anticipate what they would say as well. The idea would be to find a common draft that at least the three of us will sign off on. EdJohnston 02:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As of 15 December, the group draft is still in progress.(See more discussion at my talk page). At present I'm the one holding things up. Will try to produce something for my two colleagues to approve real soon now. EdJohnston 03:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

New version produced by the committee (Lou Sander, Dr. Submm and EdJohnston)
The version I just checked in was the contents of User_talk:EdJohnston/Tifft_draft. It is more important to keep the edit history of the original article, I think, so I'll be proposing the draft article for deletion. For the copyright record the only people who edited the draft were: User:Dr. Submillimeter, User:Lou Sander and User:EdJohnston. Edits took place between 16 Dec '06 and 18 Dec '06.

Now the committee is done with our work, we encourage anyone else interested in the article to look it over. Try to make changes with consensus! Thanks. EdJohnston 20:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Congratulations. I note just one point. The article says "Tifft’s redshift quantization, as well as other intrinsic redshift theories, are rarely cited,", however, I note from the Smithsonian/NASA ADS Astronomy Abstract Service, these paper by Tifft:
 * "Discrete states of redshift and galaxy dynamics. I - Internal motions in single galaxies" (1976), and Part II and Part III, cited 89 times, (16 times since 2000).
 * "Periodicity in the redshift intervals for double galaxies" (1980) cited 35 times
 * "Properties of the redshift-magnitude bands in the Coma cluster" (1973) 35 citations.
 * "Redshift-magnitude bands and the evolution of galaxies. I - New observations" (1978) 40 citations


 * I compared this with the number of citations from a well-known astronomer, Martin Rees, from the same era:
 * "The inhomogeneity and entropy of the universe - Some puzzles" (1980) 5 citations
 * "The X-ray background - Origin and implications" (1980) 4 citations
 * "Quasars" (1978) 24 citations
 * "Relativistic jets and beams in radio galaxies" (1978) 129 citations


 * I think the description "rarely cited", is somewhat subjective, and give the wrong impression. Tifft is clearly cited, less than some astronomers' papers, more than others. --Iantresman 22:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's surely still correct to say that Tifft's papers are not valued highly by mainstream astronomy. In a relatively short article, we can't say much more than that. Of course, the main stream might be unjustly neglecting him, but that is not a problem Wikipedia can easily solve. I've looked in the indexes of multiple post-1990 textbooks on physical cosmology, and his name is never in the index, unless the book is from somebody related to the steady-state school (like Narlikar). Although I've not studied the question carefully, it seems his views may have been more popular in the 1980s when there was not nearly so much data and the Big Bang was having trouble explaining what was known.
 * If you feel that the topic of redshift quantization needs more attention, or references, I'd encourage you to suggest it over at Talk:Redshift quantization. It seems that the Tifft article is already heavily-referenced for such a short article, and it has received much labor. EdJohnston 21:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know whether they are unvalued, I have no source. They could just as easily be ignored. But they certainly don't appear to be "rarely cited". That seems somewhat subjective.
 * Fred Hoyle, Geoff Burbidge and Jayant Narlikar say that Tifft has been "totally ignored", and Pecker says that "most astronomers have ignored the results"
 * I don't think Peebles comments on Tifft's results. --Iantresman 23:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Last paragraph

 * I also have problem with the last paragraph:
 * The comment by Peebles is also presented as fact, and is not relevant to Redshift quantization. It is written "Peebles[8] suggests that redshifts are indeed related to the expansion of the universe and are not intrinsic". The suggestion is that redshift quantization and intrinsic redshifts are mutually exclusive. Says who? And is it "suggested", or is it "indeed"?


 * The paper by Salpeter,, is presented as fact: "A review of the subject shows". This is the view of one individual.


 * And the paragraph conveniently ignores any paper on the subject that is positive about Redshift quantization. The tone of the paragraph is misleading. --Iantresman 09:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Revert war begins again?
Hello, Ian and SA! There has never been a better time to seek consensus before changing the main article. This page now has a squad of editors who are highly-trained in redshift quantization, as well as in NPOV, who are eager to discuss any changes you may want to propose. EdJohnston 03:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think that it is "objective" to try to mitigate the marginalization of Tifft's proposal. What do others think? --ScienceApologist 04:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The onus is on you to provide sources that demonstrate this.
 * The phrase "rarely cited" is both subjective, and a weasel word phrase
 * To say that he he "still cited" is both objective, does not use weasel words, and verifiably accurate.
 * It's not about one other editors "think". It's about what is verifiably accurate. --Iantresman 09:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "Still cited" is POV. It indicates some superlative relevance of Tifft's work. I included a citation showing that it is indeed rarely cited. --ScienceApologist 15:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've pointed out twice now, that "rarely cited" fails Wikipedia's weasel word phrase guidelines. Twice you have reverted to information that is subjective. My 12-year-old son understood this concept first time around.
 * I wonder why you are insisting on subjective wording, and providing a subjective reference that cherry-picks just one of Tiffts numerous papers? --Iantresman 18:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

RfC: "Rarely citated"
Would another editor like to confirm how many "rarely" is? --Iantresman 18:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Once again, I do NOT have a dog in this fight. I don't like the use of the words "rarely cited," unless some source has used them. They seem to me like original research. It's not up to editors to decide on rareness, especially where controversy is present. Lou Sander 19:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Lou, can you give an alternative suggestion? --ScienceApologist 04:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe an alteration of the previous version: "Tifft’s redshift quantization, as well as other intrinsic redshift theories, are still occasionally cited, though other cosmologists note that Tifft and his results have been nearly totally ignored.[8][9]." (I'm assuming that the citations really DO say that this stuff has been "nearly totally ignored.") I must say that when I now look at "rarely cited," it doesn't bother me as much as it formerly did. Maybe "still occasionally cited" would be better, especially if the "nearly totally ignored" isn't supported by the citations. Lou Sander 14:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC) -- Still trying to help, but eager to move on to other topics ;-)


 * Now, to me, your suggestion reads as original research because Tifft's research is not "still occasionally" cited. The point is that in the community, his work is basically dismissed out-of-hand. The majority of people who work on problems related to redshift distributions out-and-out ignore Tifft's ideas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienceApologist (talk • contribs) 21 December, 2006.
 * Please sign your posts. If what you claim about Tifft's work is so, you need to provide some citations that say those things. Without the citations, encyclopedia editors will dismiss your claims. Lou Sander 22:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "still occasionally cited," is fine by me.
 * You can check the other sources regarding Tifft and his results being ignored, here and here --Iantresman 14:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * A quick, non-expert, scan of the above two citations gives the impression that Tifft's work, though rejected by many, still has some intriguing aspects that people see fit to mention. Maybe the guy is some sort of astronomical Semmelweiss. If there's a dispute over whether or how much his work is cited, or whether to call it "rare" or "occasional" or whatever, some numbers would help. "Tifft's work was cited X times from 2000-2006 in Y compendium of astronomical citations," or something like that. (NOT ''"Tifft's wholly discredited work was cited... astronomical citations, proving once again that his ideas are rejected by the mainstream cosmology community, who are the guys that REALLY know this stuff.") Lou Sander 15:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid, Lou, that Ian is misleading you with non-mainstream references. To take a different tack: try to find an introductory or advanced cosmology text that talks about what Tifft does. --ScienceApologist 17:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know mainstream from non-mainstream, and I don't see that it matters much. The references I looked at don't seem to be kook stuff, though. I'm not motivated to look for any references on a subject I don't know about, or care about very much. I AM motivated to see fair, properly cited, POV-free coverage in articles, though. Somehow there seems to be trouble in fairly describing the status of this guy's work, which seems to me to be not widely accepted, but not totally discredited, either, and still occasionally referenced by people in the field. Lou Sander 17:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Since you aren't familiar with the state of research in this area, it might be best for you not to weigh in on the status of Tifft's research. I am particularly concerned that you think "rarely cited" has POV problems but "still occasionally cited" doesn't. --ScienceApologist 17:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Your concern is noted, but not understood. 1) I'm not weighing in on the status of Tifft's research, but on Wikipedia's biography of Tifft. I try to make that clear. Basically, I read the article, briefly check the citations, and draw informed conclusions based on what I've seen. 2) "Rarely cited" is an editor's opinion, unsupported by having been mentioned in citable sources (unless they have been left out of the article). "Still occasionally cited" is a statement of fact, supported by the citations provided by other editors (assuming they are not bogus). If "occasionally" is objectionable, one could quantify the citations and give readers a basis on which to judge the numbers, though I don't see why anybody would bother. Lou Sander 22:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "Ian is misleading you" is an ad hominem that falls under WP:NPA, and could be considered Uncivil. What I think you meant was the my sources could be considered to be misleading for the reasons you gave.
 * If you have a view that you wish to include in the article, provide the sources for other editors to check; it's as simple as that.  --Iantresman 18:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no problems in principle with giving exact numbers, except that the dates are arbitrary, as newer papers tend to take time to go through peer review. I note that the current text is happy to cite a paper going back to 1993 (which doesn't even mention Tifft's work). For example, I made a start above which showed some of Tifft's papers having being cited over 200 times (though I suspect some by Tifft himself).
 * Perhaps it's not useful to note the number of citations at all?
 * Perhaps we should take some science text books, published in the last six years, and see what their view in the subject is. At least we should be able to get a flavour on whether he is utter dismissed, or just researched by a small number of scientists? --Iantresman 16:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I will agree to a neutral (random) selection of science texts. --ScienceApologist 19:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * So let's designate Lou Sander as our independent selector.
 * And send him off to Google Books (tertiary source), to search for "tifft redshift" (no quotes), and select the top X science textbooks that mention the subject critically?
 * And then to takes some extracts for use as references, and to word the results appropriately. --Iantresman 19:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope, that's not a random sample. What we should do is go off to Google Books, FIRST pick the top ten,twenty, or hundred astronomy/physics texts and then see how many of them mention Tifft. That would be fair. --ScienceApologist 21:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, and what do you infer from those books that don't mention Tifft or Redshift quantization, and how do we verify that inference? --Iantresman 22:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I am NOT available to count citations from highly respected emeritus professors whose 25-year-old work is still occasionally mentioned in the literature of their field. I AM available to critique encyclopedia articles. Lou Sander 22:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. --Iantresman 22:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

To say that "today Tifft's theories are rarely cited" seems to me to be unnecessarily derogatory. His hypothesis about redshift may have been wrong, but at least he tried to think outside the box. A fair proportion of scientists - like other academics - seem to be happy just to ride the bus and write papers which do little more than support each other's standpoint. Big Bang may well explain redshift correctly, but 'knocking' a guy who happened to disagree won't make it so. Davy p 04:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Vague innuendo is no reason to make decisions in an encyclopedia. Either he is rarely cited or he isn't. --ScienceApologist 05:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * IMHO, "rarely cited" is a form of vague innuendo, and is agreed with rarely, or possibly not at all, as an appropriate phrase in this case. Either he is cited or he isn't. Lou Sander 10:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * And as I have pointed out on numerous occasions, "rarely" is both subjective, and a Wiki Weasel word. That ScienceApologist continues to ignore this, tells us he has no interest in writing an object article. --Iantresman 12:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I offered citation to its rarity, so this is not an ad populum argument and therefore not covered by WP:WEASEL. --ScienceApologist 13:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You did no such thing. You subjectively selected a number of citations, and subjectively claimed that this number supported your argument. Now you're subjectively deciding which Wiki policies apply to your argument.
 * I also presented numerous citations above, and yet subjectively and unanimously, you have decided that your subjective interpretation is the only interpretation of the results. --Iantresman 13:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "Rare" is in the eyes of the beholder. That is NOT a difficult concept to understand. Lou Sander 20:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, that you argue the point over TWO sections, override several editors, and Wiki guidelines, for the sake of a word, is disruptive, uncooperative and comes across as bloody-minded.--Iantresman 20:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So Davy p says that ".. 'rarely cited' seems to me to be unnecessarily derogatory.
 * I noted that "rarely" is subjective, on several occasions.
 * I noted that "My 12-year-old son understood this concept first time around."
 * I noted that Wikipedia considers "rarely" to be a Weasel word
 * Lou Sander notes that "Rare" is in the eyes of the beholder. That is NOT a difficult concept to understand.

Revert
I reverted this to the form that EdJohnson used back in December. It does not include the "low citations" comment, which caused a lot of problems and which was, as most people pointed out, somewhat subjective. Dr. Submillimeter 23:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)